Do you feel sorry for the banks?

1 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
We have all read the latest Building society/bank to go to the wall. The Bradford and Bingley being the latest victim.
Over the pond they are trying to bail out the banks with a massive $700 billion.
Over here everyone is running scared, especially the banks. Are they now getting " what goes around comes around " ?
For years the banks have lent money to people and places that could be said were, less likely to get a good return on their money...sorry your money.
So does anyone feel sorry for the banks at the moment, and the money they are losing, or do you feel that the banks are not responsible at all?
I think the banks have got themselves into this mess,and the taxpayer should not bail them out. Who would bail anyone of us out if we had been as irresponsible as they have with money.
So many people are now in debt but if we went to our banks or lenders to look for a way out, am sure they would bend over backwards to help....not! They would say that we had got ourselves into that situation, and it would be up to us, to get ourselves out. Are the banks not following the same rules as they would dish out?

its time to wake up Banks is a scapegoat,actually the banks were doing there best,i feel sorry for all of us lossing both businesses and employments....this has nothing to do with the banks its the bloody cost of 5year meaningless war,in short a couple of my mates receive £1000 per day doing bodygaurd work in Iraq
what would they do with the $700billion bail out anyways,they might as well give everyone $1m each ,it still wont help,thats what we get when we let a war mongering fool be the head of a powerful state!idiot

1 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
They weren't worried about us when we were being stung for charges at the rate of per transaction!
So no, I don't feel sorry for the banks. I do however feel sorry for all of us caught up in this mess and the staff who are probably stressed to death.

True Mar.
I remember getting £35 charges for them bouncing a cheque, then they charged me another £25 for sending me a letter, telling me they had bounced my cheque. Lets see....£60 worth of charges for going overdrawn by 11 quid.
No wonder they became so rich. They are getting what they deserve in my opinion.
It makes me sick to think they will get bailed out, if they get into trouble. Maybe the next time I cannot pay my credit card payment, I should ask the bank to help me out a bit. The only help they would be willing to offer, is to take me to court if I do not pay.
Maybe this limp wristed Government should have the guts and not come to their aid. But we all know, its not what you know but who you know. They are all in the same trough. Self serving pigs of Westminster, and self serving pigs at the banks.
By the way niceguysdoexist, I found your post fascinating, and obviously a guy with a good head on his shoulders. lol

Sorry Kent I am going to have to disagree with you, it would be a shame to lose our banking system, I do agree it needs a good wake up call.
This reasons I am saying this is for the points below.
1. In the 90's when interest rates when 15% we got hit hard, all the banks that we had debt with were very helpful and accepted a payment in the pound. Not one bank took us to court. The abbey are a different kettle of fish, they would not bend at all, and they took us to court, that is how we got black listed.
2. When I have got bank charges I have phoned the banks and they are pretty good at refunding charges if you haven’t gone overdrawn more than twice in a year.
3. As for credit cards we don't have any now, but courts do not always look favourably at credit card companies in our knowledge
4. As for mortgages some banks have been given high risk mortgages. Some would say this is wrong, but look at this way, there is a shortage of propety as someone said there are people that own a portfolio of properties, that they rent out, the rent on these are as high as the morgage repayment.
The people that rent these can't get a mortgage because of earning but can pay rent of the same value. Banks were giving these people the chance to buy the property. These people and the banks all knew the risks.
I believe all that is going to happen now is the fat cats property owners are going to be picking up the fall out of this, because when reprocesses start where are these people going to be living?
It is these people that have driven property prices up.
I would also say, this is a have now pay later nation, we need to question our own spending.
We learnt our lesson in the 90’s just more might be learning it this time around.
Banks don’t give money unless asked to give you can’t just blame the banks.
Banks don’t charge fees unless you over spend!

1 Oct 2008

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Banks don’t charge fees unless you over spend!

have to disagree Minxy... while I was a student over the past 2 years, there have been the odd occasion when waiting for my grant that the bank wouldn't help me with an overdraft and when a direct debit was due on one occasion I was 99p short for my BT bill! yep 99p!!
The debit was returned, I was charged for the cost of the letter which then had a knock on affect for the direct debit for the same bill when it was represented, I had to find another to ensure the whole debit cleared.
And I hadn't overspent at all.
I wouldn't want to lose our banking system either, I think also a charge system is fair BUT not at A more realistic amount would be fairer.

1 Oct 2008

Quote by Theladyisaminx
They weren't worried about us when we were being stung for charges at the rate of per transaction!
So no, I don't feel sorry for the banks. I do however feel sorry for all of us caught up in this mess and the staff who are probably stressed to death.

True Mar.
I remember getting £35 charges for them bouncing a cheque, then they charged me another £25 for sending me a letter, telling me they had bounced my cheque. Lets see....£60 worth of charges for going overdrawn by 11 quid.
No wonder they became so rich. They are getting what they deserve in my opinion.
It makes me sick to think they will get bailed out, if they get into trouble. Maybe the next time I cannot pay my credit card payment, I should ask the bank to help me out a bit. The only help they would be willing to offer, is to take me to court if I do not pay.
Maybe this limp wristed Government should have the guts and not come to their aid. But we all know, its not what you know but who you know. They are all in the same trough. Self serving pigs of Westminster, and self serving pigs at the banks.
By the way niceguysdoexist, I found your post fascinating, and obviously a guy with a good head on his shoulders. lol

Sorry Kent I am going to have to disagree with you, it would be a shame to lose our banking system, I do agree it needs a good wake up call.
This reasons I am saying this is for the points below.
1. In the 90's when interest rates when 15% we got hit hard, all the banks that we had debt with were very helpful and accepted a payment in the pound. Not one bank took us to court. The abbey are a different kettle of fish, they would not bend at all, and they took us to court, that is how we got black listed.
2. When I have got bank charges I have phoned the banks and they are pretty good at refunding charges if you haven’t gone overdrawn more than twice in a year.
3. As for credit cards we don't have any now, but courts do not always look favourably at credit card companies in our knowledge
4. As for mortgages some banks have been given high risk mortgages. Some would say this is wrong, but look at this way, there is a shortage of propety as someone said there are people that own a portfolio of properties, that they rent out, the rent on these are as high as the morgage repayment.
The people that rent these can't get a mortgage because of earning but can pay rent of the same value. Banks were giving these people the chance to buy the property. These people and the banks all knew the risks.
I believe all that is going to happen now is the fat cats property owners are going to be picking up the fall out of this, because when reprocesses start where are these people going to be living?
It is these people that have driven property prices up.
I would also say, this is a have now pay later nation, we need to question our own spending.
We learnt our lesson in the 90’s just more might be learning it this time around.
Banks don’t give money unless asked to give you can’t just blame the banks.
Banks don’t charge fees unless you over spend!
Yes 100% mortgages over 40 years! That obviously helps someone get on the ladder but, the banks done that for their own agendas. Don't run away with the idea that the banks lent over that period of time, cos they were being nice.
Credit has been far to easy to achieve, over many years. I have two credit cards with my bank and they set the limits at 15 grand a card. Plus they gave me a ten grand overdraft that I did not ask for. Now thats 40 grands worth of credit, for someone that does not even earn that a year. If I was iresponsible I could have a field day, or is that what they were hoping for? dunno

Bottom line Minxy is yes credit is only given to people who ask for it, the banks over the last ten years have almost said yes everytime, even to people that on paper would struggle to pay it back...hence the 100% mortgages over 40 years.
Peoples budgets are now so tight that a rise like we have had on our energy prices, are enough to put thousands in serious trouble. People have learnt buy today and pay tommorow syndrome, which is fine until it goes wrong, and blimey it has.
The banks have a lot to answer for, as you really need to check why the USA are having problems. They borrowed too much money to people that would struggle, based on the high house prices. Now they have fallen hugely the banks will never get their money back. Had they of been more prudent in their lending, the same as our banks, things would no doubt not be as bad as they are at the moment.

1 Oct 2008

Quote by jaymar
Banks don’t charge fees unless you over spend!

have to disagree Minxy... while I was a student over the past 2 years, there have been the odd occasion when waiting for my grant that the bank wouldn't help me with an overdraft and when a direct debit was due on one occasion I was 99p short for my BT bill! yep 99p!!
The debit was returned, I was charged for the cost of the letter which then had a knock on affect for the direct debit for the same bill when it was represented, I had to find another to ensure the whole debit cleared.
And I hadn't overspent at all.
I wouldn't want to lose our banking system either, I think also a charge system is fair BUT not at A more realistic amount would be fairer.
I do agree the fees need to be looked into, that has happened to me, I phoned the bank and spoke to someone and explained the situation they looked back over the year and as I kept a clean record I had all the fees reversed. If it is the odd mistake I have found them pretty good at listening. If it happens often then I can understand why the fees would stick. They do let us know what will be charged if we go overdrawn, and I for one have been hit badly with charges in the past, but to be honest I knew the rules.

1 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
We have all read the latest Building society/bank to go to the wall. The Bradford and Bingley being the latest victim.
Over the pond they are trying to bail out the banks with a massive $700 billion.
Over here everyone is running scared, especially the banks. Are they now getting " what goes around comes around " ?
For years the banks have lent money to people and places that could be said were, less likely to get a good return on their money...sorry your money.
So does anyone feel sorry for the banks at the moment, and the money they are losing, or do you feel that the banks are not responsible at all?
I think the banks have got themselves into this mess,and the taxpayer should not bail them out. Who would bail anyone of us out if we had been as irresponsible as they have with money.
So many people are now in debt but if we went to our banks or lenders to look for a way out, am sure they would bend over backwards to help....not! They would say that we had got ourselves into that situation, and it would be up to us, to get ourselves out. Are the banks not following the same rules as they would dish out?

its time to wake up Banks is a scapegoat,actually the banks were doing there best,i feel sorry for all of us lossing both businesses and employments....this has nothing to do with the banks its the bloody cost of 5year meaningless war,in short a couple of my mates receive £1000 per day doing bodygaurd work in Iraq
what would they do with the $700billion bail out anyways,they might as well give everyone $1m each ,it still wont help,thats what we get when we let a war mongering fool be the head of a powerful state!idiot
Your opinion! What has the war cost got to do with the banks lending too much money, to people who would struggle to pay it back? :dunno:
I do not want to get into a war debate, but you say some silly things sometimes. lol

:lol: But I like ya. cool

1 Oct 2008

Quote by jaymar
Banks don’t charge fees unless you over spend!

have to disagree Minxy... while I was a student over the past 2 years, there have been the odd occasion when waiting for my grant that the bank wouldn't help me with an overdraft and when a direct debit was due on one occasion I was 99p short for my BT bill! yep 99p!!
The debit was returned, I was charged for the cost of the letter which then had a knock on affect for the direct debit for the same bill when it was represented, I had to find another to ensure the whole debit cleared.
And I hadn't overspent at all.
I wouldn't want to lose our banking system either, I think also a charge system is fair BUT not at A more realistic amount would be fairer.
This is my main bugbear with my bank. They recently bounced a debit that went through the day before my wages cleared. As I went overdrawn for a matter of minutes, they charged me £20 for the unauthorised o/d and then £30 for the unpaid DD. It's the snowball effect that does the damage.

1 Oct 2008

Grrrrrrr @ all banks - make money off the poorest!

1 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
They weren't worried about us when we were being stung for charges at the rate of per transaction!
So no, I don't feel sorry for the banks. I do however feel sorry for all of us caught up in this mess and the staff who are probably stressed to death.

True Mar.
I remember getting £35 charges for them bouncing a cheque, then they charged me another £25 for sending me a letter, telling me they had bounced my cheque. Lets see....£60 worth of charges for going overdrawn by 11 quid.
No wonder they became so rich. They are getting what they deserve in my opinion.
It makes me sick to think they will get bailed out, if they get into trouble. Maybe the next time I cannot pay my credit card payment, I should ask the bank to help me out a bit. The only help they would be willing to offer, is to take me to court if I do not pay.
Maybe this limp wristed Government should have the guts and not come to their aid. But we all know, its not what you know but who you know. They are all in the same trough. Self serving pigs of Westminster, and self serving pigs at the banks.
By the way niceguysdoexist, I found your post fascinating, and obviously a guy with a good head on his shoulders. lol

Sorry Kent I am going to have to disagree with you, it would be a shame to lose our banking system, I do agree it needs a good wake up call.
This reasons I am saying this is for the points below.
1. In the 90's when interest rates when 15% we got hit hard, all the banks that we had debt with were very helpful and accepted a payment in the pound. Not one bank took us to court. The abbey are a different kettle of fish, they would not bend at all, and they took us to court, that is how we got black listed.
2. When I have got bank charges I have phoned the banks and they are pretty good at refunding charges if you haven’t gone overdrawn more than twice in a year.
3. As for credit cards we don't have any now, but courts do not always look favourably at credit card companies in our knowledge
4. As for mortgages some banks have been given high risk mortgages. Some would say this is wrong, but look at this way, there is a shortage of propety as someone said there are people that own a portfolio of properties, that they rent out, the rent on these are as high as the morgage repayment.
The people that rent these can't get a mortgage because of earning but can pay rent of the same value. Banks were giving these people the chance to buy the property. These people and the banks all knew the risks.
I believe all that is going to happen now is the fat cats property owners are going to be picking up the fall out of this, because when reprocesses start where are these people going to be living?
It is these people that have driven property prices up.
I would also say, this is a have now pay later nation, we need to question our own spending.
We learnt our lesson in the 90’s just more might be learning it this time around.
Banks don’t give money unless asked to give you can’t just blame the banks.
Banks don’t charge fees unless you over spend!
Yes 100% mortgages over 40 years! That obviously helps someone get on the ladder but, the banks done that for their own agendas. Don't run away with the idea that the banks lent over that period of time, cos they were being nice.
Yes the banks might have had an agenda, but so did the people that took them out to. People are not thatnaive today as to not know the risks involved surely.
Credit has been far to easy to achieve, over many years. I have two credit cards with my bank and they set the limits at 15 grand a card. Plus they gave me a ten grand overdraft that I did not ask for. Now thats 40 grands worth of credit, for someone that does not even earn that a year. If I was iresponsible I could have a field day, or is that what they were hoping for? dunno

People will only spend what they want to spend, the credit card companies or the banks don't make you go out and buy. There is always the opinion of cutting them up.
Bottom line Minxy is yes credit is only given to people who ask for it, the banks over the last ten years have almost said yes everytime, even to people that on paper would struggle to pay it back...hence the 100% mortgages over 40 years.
Yes ok the banks might say yes but you have asked for them to say yes to, surely you cant just blame the banks, people have to be responsible to.
Peoples budgets are now so tight that a rise like we have had on our energy prices, are enough to put thousands in serious trouble. People have learnt buy today and pay tommorow syndrome, which is fine until it goes wrong, and blimey it has.
There lies a big part of the problem buy today and pay tomorrow, well tomorrow has come.
The banks have a lot to answer for, as you really need to check why the USA are having problems. They borrowed too much money to people that would struggle, based on the high house prices. Now they have fallen hugely the banks will never get their money back. Had they of been more prudent in their lending, the same as our banks, things would no doubt not be as bad as they are at the moment./quote]/color]
I believe our banks could to a degree overcome this storm if it wasen't for the media instilling panic into people. But then I blame the media for a lot of things in this country. To many people believe totally what they read without knowing all the facts.
It is the americans that have the problem.

1 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
We have all read the latest Building society/bank to go to the wall. The Bradford and Bingley being the latest victim.
Over the pond they are trying to bail out the banks with a massive $700 billion.
Over here everyone is running scared, especially the banks. Are they now getting " what goes around comes around " ?
For years the banks have lent money to people and places that could be said were, less likely to get a good return on their money...sorry your money.
So does anyone feel sorry for the banks at the moment, and the money they are losing, or do you feel that the banks are not responsible at all?
I think the banks have got themselves into this mess,and the taxpayer should not bail them out. Who would bail anyone of us out if we had been as irresponsible as they have with money.
So many people are now in debt but if we went to our banks or lenders to look for a way out, am sure they would bend over backwards to help....not! They would say that we had got ourselves into that situation, and it would be up to us, to get ourselves out. Are the banks not following the same rules as they would dish out?

its time to wake up Banks is a scapegoat,actually the banks were doing there best,i feel sorry for all of us lossing both businesses and employments....this has nothing to do with the banks its the bloody cost of 5year meaningless war,in short a couple of my mates receive £1000 per day doing bodygaurd work in Iraq
what would they do with the $700billion bail out anyways,they might as well give everyone $1m each ,it still wont help,thats what we get when we let a war mongering fool be the head of a powerful state!idiot
Your opinion! What has the war cost got to do with the banks lending too much money, to people who would struggle to pay it back? :dunno:
I do not want to get into a war debate, but you say some silly things sometimes. lol

:lol: But I like ya. cool

ha ha silly is my middle name ,well the banks has been lending irresponsible over the years but the insuarance has been compensating them, but why do you think its been connected with the high price of food and fuel...whilst the fuel price is coming down but food still going up,but remember just before the credit bite 14months ago they blamed it on china and might have to pull from iraq before the job is done inorder to survive..

1 Oct 2008

Quote by Phuckers
We have all read the latest Building society/bank to go to the wall. The Bradford and Bingley being the latest victim.
Over the pond they are trying to bail out the banks with a massive $700 billion.
Over here everyone is running scared, especially the banks. Are they now getting " what goes around comes around " ?
For years the banks have lent money to people and places that could be said were, less likely to get a good return on their money...sorry your money.
So does anyone feel sorry for the banks at the moment, and the money they are losing, or do you feel that the banks are not responsible at all?
I think the banks have got themselves into this mess,and the taxpayer should not bail them out. Who would bail anyone of us out if we had been as irresponsible as they have with money.
So many people are now in debt but if we went to our banks or lenders to look for a way out, am sure they would bend over backwards to help....not! They would say that we had got ourselves into that situation, and it would be up to us, to get ourselves out. Are the banks not following the same rules as they would dish out?

its time to wake up Banks is a scapegoat,actually the banks were doing there best,i feel sorry for all of us lossing both businesses and employments....this has nothing to do with the banks its the bloody cost of 5year meaningless war,in short a couple of my mates receive £1000 per day doing bodygaurd work in Iraq
what would they do with the $700billion bail out anyways,they might as well give everyone $1m each ,it still wont help,thats what we get when we let a war mongering fool be the head of a powerful state!idiot
Your opinion! What has the war cost got to do with the banks lending too much money, to people who would struggle to pay it back? :dunno:
I do not want to get into a war debate, but you say some silly things sometimes. lol

:lol: But I like ya. cool

ha ha silly is my middle name ,well the banks has been lending irresponsible over the years but the insuarance has been compensating them, but why do you think its been connected with the high price of food and fuel...whilst the fuel price is coming down but food still going up,but remember just before the credit bite 14months ago they blamed it on china and India.we might have to pull from iraq before the job is done inorder to survive..
Why would they do that? :dunno:
If they looked into the benefit system and saw the millions that was being stolen, yes stolen, it would be enough to pay for the war and bail the banks out. But too many people conning the benfit system and too many bankers running to their big houses abroad. :lol:
But of course I take your valid points on board Phuckers.

1 Oct 2008

Do you know what really pisses me off is that listening to some finance news today it seems that the mood is changing now to one of optimism and a turn in fiscal fortunes. Ok so there is still a reasonable chance that Joe Publics house prices will still see a drop of another 10% or so but then in the grand scheme of things that shouldn't effect the top 2% of finaciers and business elite anyway so thats good ain't it (b*stards).
It seems to me that by the U.S govt giving out 700 billion dollars is it? that the banks are rubbing their hands with glee going good, game good game. I just think this is all a shame because the only people who are going to lose out are the average working man and woman. Oh thats ermm lose out again and again and again!
There is a real need to re-think how banks operate purely for the benefit of themselves. Maybe its time to nationalise banks :shock:

1 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
We have all read the latest Building society/bank to go to the wall. The Bradford and Bingley being the latest victim.
Over the pond they are trying to bail out the banks with a massive $700 billion.
Over here everyone is running scared, especially the banks. Are they now getting " what goes around comes around " ?
For years the banks have lent money to people and places that could be said were, less likely to get a good return on their money...sorry your money.
So does anyone feel sorry for the banks at the moment, and the money they are losing, or do you feel that the banks are not responsible at all?
I think the banks have got themselves into this mess,and the taxpayer should not bail them out. Who would bail anyone of us out if we had been as irresponsible as they have with money.
So many people are now in debt but if we went to our banks or lenders to look for a way out, am sure they would bend over backwards to help....not! They would say that we had got ourselves into that situation, and it would be up to us, to get ourselves out. Are the banks not following the same rules as they would dish out?

its time to wake up Banks is a scapegoat,actually the banks were doing there best,i feel sorry for all of us lossing both businesses and employments....this has nothing to do with the banks its the bloody cost of 5year meaningless war,in short a couple of my mates receive £1000 per day doing bodygaurd work in Iraq
what would they do with the $700billion bail out anyways,they might as well give everyone $1m each ,it still wont help,thats what we get when we let a war mongering fool be the head of a powerful state!idiot
Your opinion! What has the war cost got to do with the banks lending too much money, to people who would struggle to pay it back? :dunno:
I do not want to get into a war debate, but you say some silly things sometimes. lol

:lol: But I like ya. cool

ha ha silly is my middle name ,well the banks has been lending irresponsible over the years but the insuarance has been compensating them, but why do you think its been connected with the high price of food and fuel...whilst the fuel price is coming down but food still going up,but remember just before the credit bite 14months ago they blamed it on china and India.we might have to pull from iraq before the job is done inorder to survive..
Why would they do that? :dunno:
If they looked into the benefit system and saw the millions that was being stolen, yes stolen, it would be enough to pay for the war and bail the banks out. But too many people conning the benfit system and too many bankers running to their big houses abroad. :lol:
But of course I take your valid points on board Phuckers.
Could somebody explain what we (Europe) are doing in Afghanistan ffs?
Will it be Pakistan next?
:dunno:
Oppps.. sorry for the hijack! wink

1 Oct 2008

Quote by GnV
We have all read the latest Building society/bank to go to the wall. The Bradford and Bingley being the latest victim.
Over the pond they are trying to bail out the banks with a massive $700 billion.
Over here everyone is running scared, especially the banks. Are they now getting " what goes around comes around " ?
For years the banks have lent money to people and places that could be said were, less likely to get a good return on their money...sorry your money.
So does anyone feel sorry for the banks at the moment, and the money they are losing, or do you feel that the banks are not responsible at all?
I think the banks have got themselves into this mess,and the taxpayer should not bail them out. Who would bail anyone of us out if we had been as irresponsible as they have with money.
So many people are now in debt but if we went to our banks or lenders to look for a way out, am sure they would bend over backwards to help....not! They would say that we had got ourselves into that situation, and it would be up to us, to get ourselves out. Are the banks not following the same rules as they would dish out?

its time to wake up Banks is a scapegoat,actually the banks were doing there best,i feel sorry for all of us lossing both businesses and employments....this has nothing to do with the banks its the bloody cost of 5year meaningless war,in short a couple of my mates receive £1000 per day doing bodygaurd work in Iraq
what would they do with the $700billion bail out anyways,they might as well give everyone $1m each ,it still wont help,thats what we get when we let a war mongering fool be the head of a powerful state!idiot
Your opinion! What has the war cost got to do with the banks lending too much money, to people who would struggle to pay it back? :dunno:
I do not want to get into a war debate, but you say some silly things sometimes. lol

:lol: But I like ya. cool

ha ha silly is my middle name ,well the banks has been lending irresponsible over the years but the insuarance has been compensating them, but why do you think its been connected with the high price of food and fuel...whilst the fuel price is coming down but food still going up,but remember just before the credit bite 14months ago they blamed it on china and India.we might have to pull from iraq before the job is done inorder to survive..
Why would they do that? :dunno:
If they looked into the benefit system and saw the millions that was being stolen, yes stolen, it would be enough to pay for the war and bail the banks out. But too many people conning the benfit system and too many bankers running to their big houses abroad. :lol:
But of course I take your valid points on board Phuckers.
Could somebody explain what we (Europe) are doing in Afghanistan ffs?
Will it be Pakistan next?
:dunno:
Oppps.. sorry for the hijack! wink

Blame the bankers! :wink:

1 Oct 2008

Early on in the thread Building Societies were mentioned along with Banks.
I haven't heard of a single Building Society being involved with any of this.
I asked a friend at work who worked in mortgages briefly. He said it was because B Soc's have to (?) maintain a much closer balance of debt to credit. And that a large proportion of their lending money is supplied directly from their day-to-day customers.
I recently swapped my mortgage to a B Soc so I'm hoping it will be more stable than Northern Rock were.
Are there any financial bods out there who can clarify the B Soc vs Bank thing in this situation?

1 Oct 2008

Quote by foxylady2209
Early on in the thread Building Societies were mentioned along with Banks.
I haven't heard of a single Building Society being involved with any of this.
I asked a friend at work who worked in mortgages briefly. He said it was because B Soc's have to (?) maintain a much closer balance of debt to credit. And that a large proportion of their lending money is supplied directly from their day-to-day customers.
I recently swapped my mortgage to a B Soc so I'm hoping it will be more stable than Northern Rock were.
Are there any financial bods out there who can clarify the B Soc vs Bank thing in this situation?

Chalk and cheese? dunno

Aren't they up each other's arses so to speak :shock:

1 Oct 2008

Quote by foxylady2209
Early on in the thread Building Societies were mentioned along with Banks.
I haven't heard of a single Building Society being involved with any of this.
I asked a friend at work who worked in mortgages briefly. He said it was because B Soc's have to (?) maintain a much closer balance of debt to credit. And that a large proportion of their lending money is supplied directly from their day-to-day customers.
I recently swapped my mortgage to a B Soc so I'm hoping it will be more stable than Northern Rock were.
Are there any financial bods out there who can clarify the B Soc vs Bank thing in this situation?

One of the differences between a bank and building society is that building societies only invest in mortgages, whereby the banks invest in a wide range of investments. If the property market collapses the building society would be hit harder. Look at the Bradford and Bingley and northern rock only invested in property.

1 Oct 2008

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Early on in the thread Building Societies were mentioned along with Banks.
I haven't heard of a single Building Society being involved with any of this.
I asked a friend at work who worked in mortgages briefly. He said it was because B Soc's have to (?) maintain a much closer balance of debt to credit. And that a large proportion of their lending money is supplied directly from their day-to-day customers.
I recently swapped my mortgage to a B Soc so I'm hoping it will be more stable than Northern Rock were.
Are there any financial bods out there who can clarify the B Soc vs Bank thing in this situation?

One of the differences between a bank and building society is that building societies only invest in mortgages, whereby the banks invest in a wide range of investments. If the property market collapses the building society would be hit harder. Look at the Bradford and Bingley and northern rock only invested in property.
I was under the impression they operated under a different set of rules. More restrictive so less profitable under the best times, but more stable under the bad times.

1 Oct 2008

Quote by foxylady2209
Early on in the thread Building Societies were mentioned along with Banks.
I haven't heard of a single Building Society being involved with any of this.
I asked a friend at work who worked in mortgages briefly. He said it was because B Soc's have to (?) maintain a much closer balance of debt to credit. And that a large proportion of their lending money is supplied directly from their day-to-day customers.
I recently swapped my mortgage to a B Soc so I'm hoping it will be more stable than Northern Rock were.
Are there any financial bods out there who can clarify the B Soc vs Bank thing in this situation?

One of the differences between a bank and building society is that building societies only invest in mortgages, whereby the banks invest in a wide range of investments. If the property market collapses the building society would be hit harder. Look at the Bradford and Bingley and northern rock only invested in property.
I was under the impression they operated under a different set of rules. More restrictive so less profitable under the best times, but more stable under the bad times.
In theory yes, but they only have one loan book and that property. Banks invest in whole range of investments ie: Mining, hotels, resturants, retail,to name a few. Banks in practice should have a capital adequacy requirement (roughly 8%) Look at all the banks that hold a mostly propery portfolio of loans these are the ones in trouble now.

1 Oct 2008

Are there any building societys left? lol

1 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Are there any building societys left?

Some - Nationwide for instance. They are identified by having 'membership' rather than 'shareholders'.
Bit like this place biggrin

:D:D:D:D
Edit : If you are interested - this website lists a lot of UK Building Soc's.

1 Oct 2008

Banks V Building societies traditionally I think they qere quite different and had differing financial constraints and controls over how they raised capital. Then along came demutualisation and opened the door for building socities to convert to banks ....much to the delight of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley no doubt rolleyes

2 Oct 2008

If you consider that building societies are safer than banks, you may not like an in-depth read of website.
It is by no means a sure-thing that the US house of reps will back the 700 billion US$ bail-out, at at least not with the conditions as they were last time they threw it out.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -Thomas Jefferson 1802

Maybe they should pay attention to the things wiser men said some two centuries ago ?

2 Oct 2008

Quote by foxylady2209
Early on in the thread Building Societies were mentioned along with Banks.
I haven't heard of a single Building Society being involved with any of this.
I asked a friend at work who worked in mortgages briefly. He said it was because B Soc's have to (?) maintain a much closer balance of debt to credit. And that a large proportion of their lending money is supplied directly from their day-to-day customers.
I recently swapped my mortgage to a B Soc so I'm hoping it will be more stable than Northern Rock were.
Are there any financial bods out there who can clarify the B Soc vs Bank thing in this situation?

It is simple, Building Societies were for just that, building house. Groups came together, pulled their money to build houses. The society was owned by the members of the group. The rules were made by the members, but normally involved paying interest on the deposits and collecting interest from loans made. All building societies now except new members. Sometimes the members contributed labour to the house building, but not now.
Banks are there to build fortunes.

2 Oct 2008

90% of the world's wealth is controlled by less than 10% of the world's population.
Says it all really.
Saltire