How is this the banks fault? Trusts...
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162422/Do...
Farepak take money off people, go under for whatever reason.
HBOS refused to give them money/loans to secure an obviously bad business, in addition not putting Farepak money in trust.
They are main creditors of the now failed business so get their money back first.
Why would the bank not put the money in a trust is the first query?
However the only way I can see a trust working is if the bank is the creditor and securing its assets against something dodgy Farepak did by using the monies given to it from HBOS in an non-appropriate manner (not business related). So how would it secure the monies given to Farepak by Joe public as that to me would mean the risk is no longer with Joe Public and they expect the bank to pick up the risk?
Why are the banks being blamed this time? (Other than the inappropriate comment of calling it Doris money)
Farepak take money off people, go under for whatever reason.
HBOS refused to give them money/loans to secure an obviously bad business, in addition not putting Farepak money in trust.
They are main creditors of the now failed business so get their money back first.
Why would the bank not put the money in a trust is the first query?
However the only way I can see a trust working is if the bank is the creditor and securing its assets against something dodgy Farepak did by using the monies given to it from HBOS in an non-appropriate manner (not business related). So how would it secure the monies given to Farepak by Joe public as that to me would mean the risk is no longer with Joe Public and they expect the bank to pick up the risk?
Why are the banks being blamed this time? (Other than the inappropriate comment of calling it Doris money)
Du1point8 said:
Why are the banks being blamed this time? (Other than the inappropriate comment of calling it Doris money)
Because after the bank decided that Farepak was too much of a risk to loan to, it decided it didn't want to set up a trust which meant that it would suffer an additional £4m loss when the business went under? That's probably the only decent decision that HBOS have made in the last ten years, frankly.
Funny how the then gubberment lent billions to rescue banks yet wouldn't put in a minuscule fraction of that to help those ripped a new one by the collapse of Farepak. Says it all.
If there's a role for government intervention, I think it's here. Shut down unregulated savings such as the Farepak scheme, while making it easier for those who banks and building societies don't want as customers to save small amounts of cash.
I thought you could still open a Post Office savings account with £1 - if you can find a Post Office that is - but no. These days it's £500. I can appreciate that the Post Office now operates along commercial lines, however I think there is a broader social need being served if access to a secure method of saving is available to everyone.
If there's a role for government intervention, I think it's here. Shut down unregulated savings such as the Farepak scheme, while making it easier for those who banks and building societies don't want as customers to save small amounts of cash.
I thought you could still open a Post Office savings account with £1 - if you can find a Post Office that is - but no. These days it's £500. I can appreciate that the Post Office now operates along commercial lines, however I think there is a broader social need being served if access to a secure method of saving is available to everyone.
Mobile Chicane said:
Funny how the then gubberment lent billions to rescue banks yet wouldn't put in a minuscule fraction of that to help those ripped a new one by the collapse of Farepak. Says it all.
You need to use real money to bail out Farepak and other companies that make and sell things; not the fake invented money that they use to bail out a bank. Mobile Chicane said:
Funny how the then gubberment lent billions to rescue banks yet wouldn't put in a minuscule fraction of that to help those ripped a new one by the collapse of Farepak. Says it all.
You're not seeing the big picture. What impact did Farepak's collapse have on the UK economy? Answer: none. There's no economic reason for the government to bail out Farepak or its customers, but it should have protected them better in the first place.It seems the banks got the worst deal out of it.
The clients of Farepack got 15p in the pound, yet the banks seem to have got less than 13p in the pound.
Why is it when comparing like with like they choose to use apples to explain one side and oranges to explain the other. That's one part of the Brit press that grates on me, too much spin.
The clients of Farepack got 15p in the pound, yet the banks seem to have got less than 13p in the pound.
Why is it when comparing like with like they choose to use apples to explain one side and oranges to explain the other. That's one part of the Brit press that grates on me, too much spin.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The same? What, all of them? Good heavens, there's a coincidence.Perhaps there should have been some sort of mechanism that warned them that the financial system was on its uppers, so best just to bung it under the mattress instead of giving it to Farepak. Or HBOS.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff