Think I've upset the bank manager LOL
Discussion
You are right, it's not funny, it's disgraceful! Charges of fraud should be brought to bare upon those crooks that were involved.
Not got a very good record the finance industry has it?
Rate fixing
PPI missold
Endowment Mortgages missold
SERPS missold
Funny thing is, in 28 years of business, it always seem to be those operating in the sector that like to have a list of initials on their business cards....
Mmmm
Not got a very good record the finance industry has it?
Rate fixing
PPI missold
Endowment Mortgages missold
SERPS missold
Funny thing is, in 28 years of business, it always seem to be those operating in the sector that like to have a list of initials on their business cards....
Mmmm
kiethton said:
What people don't realise is that whilst banks do receive funds in (through savings, repayments as well as other means) they are currently being forced under incoming regulation (Basel 3) to hold a far higher proportion of capital reserves, thus new funds can't be lent until the capital reserve provision for the bank has been met, if they could lend they would.
However banks have learned from previous events, they won't lend without adequate security or to the wrong people, every loan is stress tested and analysed in far more detail in comparison to before the crash. In addition the skills and track record of the borrowers are judged more stringently, if they fail they won't lend or of they do it will be at a far higher cost, again due to the new regulations the costs associated with lending are far higher now than they used to be, in my field (comm property) where margins were c. 3% they are now c.5%+ LIBOR
Hedging (SWAPS) was often a condition of any loan to minimise risk on the bank's part...rates can go down as well as up, everybody complains when it's not in the customers favor though...bet there wouldn't be an issue of it was the other way around. If people didn't want to take these SWAPS with the loan they could have sought finance elsewhere although this would have been at increased costs due to the higher risks associated with an un-hedged loan...
They're a bunch of buffoons that wouldn't last ten minutes in the real world of business! Oohh sorry, they couldn't even survive in the protected world of banking...However banks have learned from previous events, they won't lend without adequate security or to the wrong people, every loan is stress tested and analysed in far more detail in comparison to before the crash. In addition the skills and track record of the borrowers are judged more stringently, if they fail they won't lend or of they do it will be at a far higher cost, again due to the new regulations the costs associated with lending are far higher now than they used to be, in my field (comm property) where margins were c. 3% they are now c.5%+ LIBOR
Hedging (SWAPS) was often a condition of any loan to minimise risk on the bank's part...rates can go down as well as up, everybody complains when it's not in the customers favor though...bet there wouldn't be an issue of it was the other way around. If people didn't want to take these SWAPS with the loan they could have sought finance elsewhere although this would have been at increased costs due to the higher risks associated with an un-hedged loan...
Edited by kiethton on Saturday 14th July 14:13
More fraud.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18839293
Edited by mrloudly on Saturday 14th July 17:33
It would appear they can't even count... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18829551
Simpo Two said:
grumbledoak said:
Simpo Two said:
Why do HM Govt simply not pass a law forcing banks to lend
Er, because the US doing that was what caused the banking crisis in the first place?They stitched each other up, and in the end nobody knew what was good and what was bad debt...
ETA The Ratings agencies in the "pay" of the banks didn't help either... Crap debt rated "AAA" by somebody you're paying to rate it errr....
Edited by mrloudly on Saturday 14th July 17:51
AM04ARO said:
mrloudly said:
Simpo Two said:
grumbledoak said:
Simpo Two said:
Why do HM Govt simply not pass a law forcing banks to lend
Er, because the US doing that was what caused the banking crisis in the first place?They stitched each other up, and in the end nobody knew what was good and what was bad debt...
Surely banks should lend responsibly to avoid another crisis?
Stevie Mojo said:
mrloudly said:
"So is the NatWest loan rate fixed or will you be discussing it with Barclays later?" I love seeing the b.stards sweat 
Yeah, cos it's the fault of your local branch's manager innit!Pommygranite said:
mrloudly said:
"So is the NatWest loan rate fixed or will you be discussing it with Barclays later?" I love seeing the b.stards sweat
Did he start biting his nails, eyes darting around the room whilst tugging at his collar with beads of nervous sweat streaming from his brow? Or did he simply not give a s
t as he had nothing to do with it but worked at a bank as he has 2 alevels in media and communications and could afford a suit from Burtons and this was the only decently paid unskilled work going?Edited by Pommygranite on Sunday 15th July 15:45
In all seriousness his card titles him a "Business Corporate Director" and he can't make a decision on a poxy property deal into which we're sticking 30% having been established 28 years... Get rid of the lot and apply online direct to the "Backroom Lending Team". Let us deal with the "Organ Grinder" not the monkey...
kiethton said:
mrloudly said:
Pommygranite said:
mrloudly said:
"So is the NatWest loan rate fixed or will you be discussing it with Barclays later?" I love seeing the b.stards sweat
Did he start biting his nails, eyes darting around the room whilst tugging at his collar with beads of nervous sweat streaming from his brow? Or did he simply not give a st as he had nothing to do with it but worked at a bank as he has 2 alevels in media and communications and could afford a suit from Burtons and this was the only decently paid unskilled work going?Edited by Pommygranite on Sunday 15th July 15:45
In all seriousness his card titles him a "Business Corporate Director" and he can't make a decision on a poxy property deal into which we're sticking 30% having been established 28 years... Get rid of the lot and apply online direct to the "Backroom Lending Team". Let us deal with the "Organ Grinder" not the monkey...
Long gone are the days of 90% LTV or even 70% interest only property debt finance, as said above and earlier there is no market available for anything less than 60%, substantially less for tertiary/secondary properties whilst margins have increased substantially to c. 5% + LIBOR.
Of course your not going to be happy with the Bank or the 'Business Corporate Director' if he is refusing to lend you money, choosing to jump on the bandwagon, targeting bankers because the terms your requesting obviously aren't possible and he's told you such....
I admit that this is going to be a problem in the future as 50% of loans expire in the remainder of this year and 2013 whilst 50% of those currently have an LTV of over 70% (c.20% of the 50% are in negative equity), this is a problem when Bank's aren't lending at anything above 60% LTV....
They have agreed the finance, but I have better things to be doing than arguing with a bunch of Gov't sponsored Bollinger suppers!
Hyper10 said:
One thing that comes out of this thread, if Kiethon is correct and I don't doubt what he says. That there is not going to be much activity at the lower end of the Property Development ladder. This is quite frightening for anyone associated with Construction or manufacturing related to construction.
I know form our experience in Scotland, it is likely that there will be no need for a speculative office development for many years due to oversupply. Clearly the lack of finance for both development and business in general.
I suppose the bit I find most insulting is not the criteria they apply, as they are in business but the fact they seem to add very little but still get bonus's. I thought Vince was going to get tough with them
My brother inlaw is a site manager for a long established medium sized building firm. He told me at the weekend Lloyds pulled the finances recently because "they don't want to operate in the sector"... Moved to HSBC so all is now OK, for the moment...I know form our experience in Scotland, it is likely that there will be no need for a speculative office development for many years due to oversupply. Clearly the lack of finance for both development and business in general.
I suppose the bit I find most insulting is not the criteria they apply, as they are in business but the fact they seem to add very little but still get bonus's. I thought Vince was going to get tough with them
Crooks in Saville Row suits... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18854193
Sounds about right... We had been banking with Barclays for around twenty years. When it all got smelly (their end not ours) they were on us like a ton of bricks! Their
reporting demands became so onerous we told them to ps off and moved to HSBC. We've worked our way out of overdraft and now split funds between several independent
banks because HSBC wouldn't give us securities on any holdings above £85k (Not that they offer the security up to that anyhow).
IMHO anybody that exceeds £85k in a bank now wants their heads testing. The industry has proven itself numerous times to be totally inept. Why trust them with your money when they don't trust
you with theirs, sorry the Govts....
reporting demands became so onerous we told them to p
s off and moved to HSBC. We've worked our way out of overdraft and now split funds between several independentbanks because HSBC wouldn't give us securities on any holdings above £85k (Not that they offer the security up to that anyhow).
IMHO anybody that exceeds £85k in a bank now wants their heads testing. The industry has proven itself numerous times to be totally inept. Why trust them with your money when they don't trust
you with theirs, sorry the Govts....
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff