Bankers May Not Be Nice People

seamus

server down wrote: »

And given the fact that you thanked a post that was clearly wrong about money creation, its possible you are wrong about this too.

Double-entry accounting does not create money.

You've either grossly misunderstood something or been grossly misinformed.

Anyway, I think you'll find that contract law runs deeper than "if it's not written down, it doesn't exist". If you give John a loan, but there's no contract, there's still a loan. If John doesn't pay you back, there's an enforceable loan that a court will rule in your favour on.

Not everything has to be written in the T's & C's.

server down

seamus wrote: »

Double-entry accounting does not create money.

You've either grossly misunderstood something or been grossly misinformed.

So certain and yet so wrong.

server down

seamus wrote: »

Anyway, I think you'll find that contract law runs deeper than "if it's not written down, it doesn't exist". If you give John a loan, but there's no contract, there's still a loan. If John doesn't pay you back, there's an enforceable loan that a court will rule in your favour on.

Not everything has to be written in the T's & C's.

I really didnt say anything about not writing down. To be honest I dont know the Irish law on this but you on the other hand tend to pontificate about stuff you think you know, probably based on business studies 101 with Father O'Grady in 1986.

Unlike you I am looking for the actual answer, it looks like the American FSC does regulate where you can use small print and wher you must be conspicuous, but the law in Ireland is unclear.

server down

server down wrote: »

What if it is in invisible ink?

It's hard to find the Irish law but other countries have laws on how conspicious the text needs to be.

from wiki

US FTC regulations state that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful. (15 USC § 45 (a))[6] In relevant part, they state that contingent conditions and obligations of an offer must be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer, and that disclosure of the terms of the offer set forth in a footnote of an advertisement to which reference is made by an asterisk or other symbol placed next to the offer, is not regarded as making disclosure at the outset. (16 CFR 251.1)[5]

Nothing remotely unfair or deceptive in giving a facility and then stopping it when the recipient decides to renege on other obligations.

Unless...unless you are actually making the case that a person has to give a facility and continue conferring it notwithstanding that the recipient has welshed on his obligations? And not to do so is deception?

But you...can't be...can you?

maryishere

turbbo wrote: »

Yeah title of this thread - Bankers May Not Be Nice People -

I've met a few of them in my time and I would concur.
Think about it - these are people who work with money - of course they change overtime when they see money and greed in everything they do.
To find one that is sound would be like finding a drug dealer that doesn't do any drugs.

What annoys me about the bankers is that there is no regulation - for example I know of one banker in the tiger years who cold called people trying to sell them pensions. Most people could resist his polished sales patter and answers for everything, but he was a financial expert and very persuasive. I know one vulnerable person who was successfully able to argue a pension was something he could neither justify or afford, but unfortunately the banker was able to sell an interest only mortgage instead, which was completely unsuitable for his needs as he could not afford it. He was never told what the repayments inc capital would be once the interest only period expired. Instead he was told the mortgage would be his pension and he needed a pension, trust him. Bankers, especially those who cold-called their victims offering free advice, the lowest of the low. Jail would be too good for them.

Dohnjoe

maryishere wrote: »

What annoys me about the bankers is that there is no regulation - for example I know of one banker in the tiger years who cold called people trying to sell them pensions. Most people could resist his polished sales patter and answers for everything, but he was a financial expert and very persuasive. I know one vulnerable person who was successfully able to argue a pension was something he could neither justify or afford, but unfortunately the banker was able to sell an interest only mortgage instead, which was completely unsuitable for his needs as he could not afford it. He was never told what the repayments inc capital would be once the interest only period expired. Instead he was told the mortgage would be his pension and he needed a pension, trust him. Bankers, especially those who cold-called their victims offering free advice, the lowest of the low. Jail would be too good for them.

Not sure of that specific example, but there is a vast amount of regulation within banking. It also increased further after 2007/2008

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

What annoys me about the bankers is that there is no regulation - for example I know of one banker in the tiger years who cold called people trying to sell them pensions. Most people could resist his polished sales patter and answers for everything, but he was a financial expert and very persuasive. I know one vulnerable person who was successfully able to argue a pension was something he could neither justify or afford, but unfortunately the banker was able to sell an interest only mortgage instead, which was completely unsuitable for his needs as he could not afford it. He was never told what the repayments inc capital would be once the interest only period expired. Instead he was told the mortgage would be his pension and he needed a pension, trust him. Bankers, especially those who cold-called their victims offering free advice, the lowest of the low. Jail would be too good for them.

Then you might aswell include life insurance, assurance, or pretty much anything that might involve binding terms/contract. All of which has been sold through cold calling. I've done it myself. it's just sales. You seek to sell a product or service with recurring charges, talk over the terms, and get your commission. You deal with endless amounts of rude, ignorant, and insulting potential customers, and generally don't really care what you're selling them, because ultimately, the customer just has to read the contract to understand what they're signing up to. No trickery, because that makes the contract invalid. As i said before, most people don't fully read a contract... they just make assumptions.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

Then you might aswell include life insurance, assurance, or pretty much anything that might involve binding terms/contract.

Actually selling a mortgage product was more serious / dangerous for the buyer, because not only can the buyer lose all the money they put in, they can literally lose everything else they own as well.

Deleted User wrote: »

No trickery, because that makes the contract invalid.

Do you think in those instances if the banker was involved in trickery then the contract should be invalid?

turbbo

maryishere wrote: »

What annoys me about the bankers is that there is no regulation - for example I know of one banker in the tiger years who cold called people trying to sell them pensions. Most people could resist his polished sales patter and answers for everything, but he was a financial expert and very persuasive. I know one vulnerable person who was successfully able to argue a pension was something he could neither justify or afford, but unfortunately the banker was able to sell an interest only mortgage instead, which was completely unsuitable for his needs as he could not afford it. He was never told what the repayments inc capital would be once the interest only period expired. Instead he was told the mortgage would be his pension and he needed a pension, trust him. Bankers, especially those who cold-called their victims offering free advice, the lowest of the low. Jail would be too good for them.

Money corrupts almost everyone, only the very stable and strong willed are able to resist the natural temptation for greed and banking is kind of a university of greed.
The ECU and the lending that went on in Ireland here in the celtic tiger was a relatively new phenomena for Ireland. We weren't tightly governed in terms of the central bank and we could argue that the central bank is not able to fill the shoes of a modern day banking regulator for Ireland. I think there needs to be a lot of forced redundancies there and we need an organisation up to the task of dealing with the complicated banking structures of the modern day.
I think this we be high on the list of any Irish Government - higher than homelessness(if we want to prevent more and more of it). And higher than health. However populism prevails and we'll stumble along with the motley crew we have already in the central bank.

retro:electro

I think where the op goes wrong is attempting to sandwich his experience in with words like "tracker mortgages" and "Celtic tiger" in order to give his plight more legitimacy- it doesn't.
At what point do you look inward and recognise that is was you who was at fault here- and accept responsibility for that. Instead of trying to finger wag the blame in every other direction, maybe realise that it was due to your ineptitude that this ever occurred in the first place.

maryishere

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not sure of that specific example, but there is a vast amount of regulation within banking. It also increased further after 2007/2008

There was not enough regulation in 2005 / 2006. People still suffer because of that though. Lives have been lost.

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

Actually selling a mortgage product was more serious / dangerous for the buyer, because not only can the buyer lose all the money they put in, they can literally lose everything else they own as well.

Same as with most things, really. A skilled credit controller/debt collection specialist can usually gain both what was owed and plenty of interest besides through the securing of assets. Generally, the courts don't favor debtors if the company has their facts straight.

Do you think in those instances if the banker was involved in trickery then the contract should be invalid?

Yup. I do. And the contract can be made invalid if trickery is proven. These things leave a paper trail, especially if conversations are recorded.

I'm not seeking to defend banks or businesses. There is a ****load of dodgy behavior going on every day which is not monitored and frankly, government organizations tend to ignore such behavior. Oh, they make laws regarding the more obvious types of behavior and sometimes enforce it for PR purposes, but mostly they're ineffective.

There is a phrase I hated hearing when I was teaching. A coin has two sides. Ugh. Annoys the crap out of me for some reason, but it is applicable here. Reponsibility for any financial related situation rests on both parties.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not sure of that specific example, but there is a vast amount of regulation within banking. It also increased further after 2007/2008

Ask any trained accountant (better yet an auditor) about the sheer amount of loop-holes within corporate or financial law. TBH I've always figured they created these intricately detailed laws and regulations to confuse everyone so much that they can manipulate the law at will.

I taught CFA ethics for three semesters and even at the end I could barely understand the CFA system, simply because of the language used. The ethics themselves were relatively straightforward but the remainder of the CFA system? Horrible. Different language completely.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing remotely unfair or deceptive in giving a facility and then stopping it when the recipient decides to renege on other obligations.

Unless...unless you are actually making the case that a person has to give a facility and continue conferring it notwithstanding that the recipient has welshed on his obligations? And not to do so is deception?

But you...can't be...can you?

I could be but I am not. I’m questioning the notice and how it was given, how conspicuous text needs to be in general in contracts, and also the legality of freezing accounts. So is the op. Nobody is saying that he was right to welsh. I’m not getting much information on those points either. Lots of outrage at the op.

On the thread title I’m questioning the people who think banks are good and wondering why the obsession with contracts works one way.

I’ve also educated people on money creation.

server down

server down wrote: »

On the thread title I’m questioning the people who think banks are good and

banks are neutral. Neither good or bad. It's a business, pure and simple. Bankers are employees working within the rules of their company. So. I'd likely defend bankers, but not banks.

wondering why the obsession with contracts works one way. .

why do you think that?

server down

server down wrote: »

I could be but I am not. I’m questioning the notice and how it was given, how conspicuous text needs to be in general in contracts, and also the legality of freezing accounts. So is the op. Nobody is saying that he was right to welsh. I’m not getting much information on those points either. Lots of outrage at the op.

On the thread title I’m questioning the people who think banks are good and wondering why the obsession with contracts works one way.

I’ve also educated people on money creation.

But the principle that banks can set off one account against another is not in the least bit deceptive or unfair, subject to certain qualifications. In fact it exists in common law here, there is no need to specify it at all. Where they are different types of accounts, any loan agreement or terms and conditions I've seen from banks explicitly extend that general principle to cover other types of accounts.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

banks are neutral. Neither good or bad. It's a business, pure and simple. Bankers are employees working within the rules of their company. So. I'd likely defend bankers, but not banks.

Not all bankers in the 2005 / 2006 period were employees working within the rules of their company. Some broke rules, did not follow rules, done whatever they could to get the sale, get the commission, get the business. Some banks were much better managed than other banks / building societies.

Same as any profession, there were rogues. All foreign banks regarded Ireland as "the wild west" of banking in 04 / 05 / 06. No wonder.

368100

server down wrote: »

You are a poster who tends to be very certain in your views, but that statement would be wrong under American law at least. And given the fact that you thanked a post that was clearly wrong about money creation, its possible you are wrong about this too.

I can't find the equivalent Irish law. However I will continue to look.

Respectfully, seamus' post is very incorrect. I just cant find his post to quote.

Terms and conditions form part of the framework contract in payments services regulations so they are a legal requirement.

Also, a bank has a responsibility to notify a customer of a missed payment if the loan remians in arrears over 10 business days and seek to agree an approach, again this is a legal requirement, section 8 of consumer protection code.

A bank is not required to notify a customer if they source a repayment from another of the customer's account but they need to have outlined this in the terms and conditions which the customer agrees to before drawdown. It's called a right of set off.

bajer101

CruelCoin wrote: »

The main beef that the OP seems to be sitting at now is that the terms were on double sided paper, and that he should therefore be annoyed his account got locked.
Regulate for that. Good grief.

OP here. That is not my main beef at all. My main beef is that they cancelled my account without adequately informing me. It has been established that the only notification that they sent me was in early July stating that my accounts may be cancelled. There were no more notifications, emails, phone calls, texts, or in-app messages letting me know that this actually happened. I discovered it when my card got declined. A card for an account that had adequate funds.

I believe they just messed up. When I initially queried how this happened without more notification, I was told that I was sent a letter in September stating this action was imminent. I never received this letter and when I asked them to investigate, they have admitted it was never sent.

Maybe I could sue them and really send the people on this thread into apoplexy?

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

Maybe I could sue them and really send the people on this thread into apoplexy?

You should. Judges need a laugh too!

Can you imagine the cross exam..."so Mr. Bajer, you reneged on a loan, expected the bank to still extend a facility to you, got the letter, but had you been a vulnerable person, which you are not, you might have missed that they wrote some of it on the back of the sheet you received?".

I don't think McMahon and Binchy will be adding a chapter on the new ground broken in that case!

bajer101

Deleted User wrote: »

You should. Judges need a laugh too!

Can you imagine the cross exam..."so Mr. Bajer, you reneged on a loan, expected the bank to still extend a facility to you, got the letter, but had you been a vulnerable person, which you are not, you might have missed that they wrote some of it on the back of the sheet you received?".

I don't think McMahon and Binchy will be adding a chapter on the new ground broken in that case!

Ha ha, and if I did bother to take a case, my brief would simply point out that you are talking through your hole and have failed to address or defend the accusation that has been made against your client.

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

Ha ha, and if I did bother to take a case, my brief would simply point out that you are talking through your hole and have failed to address or defend the accusation that has been made against your client.

No no, you see...you're allowed to ask more than one question.

The next one would be "And you think your grumble, your whine, about not receiving a letter (which is not admitted by the bank) telling you about all the possible effects of your own admitted breach of contract amounts in turn to a tort or a breach of contract?"

That'd be when the Judge keels over!

I had my credit card declined once. Rang bank in outrage. They pointed out that it was because I hadn't used it in over a year. Didn't recall getting any letters but what they said was essentially correct. I was mildly irritated, a bit like you. Where we differ was I never dreamed of taking a case, because a grumble about not being saved from my ignorance of the terms and conditions is not really the basis for litigation.

bajer101

bajer101 wrote: »

Maybe I could sue them and really send the people on this thread into apoplexy?

or we'd be sent into guffaws as your case is ripped to shreds. Or we wouldn't react in the slightest.

People are generally biased towards themselves, and I'm 95% sure that there are details to this case that you haven't told us which the banks could use for a defense.

bajer101 wrote: »

Ha ha, and if I did bother to take a case, my brief would simply point out that you are talking through your hole and have failed to address or defend the accusation that has been made against your client.

The signed agreement/contract is the core element of the case. You can accuse the bank of whatever you wish, but the judge will ask you if you signed an agreement, whether the terms are binding, and whether you broke any of those terms. The banks will use the contract as a stick to beat you around the court. Simple.

And then he'll kick you out on your ass, and perhaps fine you for wasting the time of the court.

weldoninhio

bajer101 wrote: »

OP here. That is not my main beef at all. My main beef is that they cancelled my account without adequately informing me. It has been established that the only notification that they sent me was in early July stating that my accounts may be cancelled. There were no more notifications, emails, phone calls, texts, or in-app messages letting me know that this actually happened. I discovered it when my card got declined. A card for an account that had adequate funds.

I believe they just messed up. When I initially queried how this happened without more notification, I was told that I was sent a letter in September stating this action was imminent. I never received this letter and when I asked them to investigate, they have admitted it was never sent.

Maybe I could sue them and really send the people on this thread into apoplexy?

You offered to send a scan of the letter received. I’d love to see it

El Tarangu

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, the Nuremberg Defence...

Ah, the Godwin gambit.

STB.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

And let's not forget the huge number of tracker mortgages on their loan books. My fees are paying for boom time tracker mortgage holders. If I want a mortgage today I have to pay over the the odds to compensate for loss making tracker customers. It could take up to 25 years for trackers to wash through the system.

Banks are not screwing the little person with fees. They are relying on fees to stay afloat.

You sound like someone spinning PR for the banking industry.

"Your" fees paying to offset the loss making tracker mortgages and boost the profits of Banking instiutions made me laugh. Its the least of your worries.

It WILL take generations for the irish taxpayer to pay back the 64 BILLION bailout it gave the BANKS.

The same poor banks just trying to make an honest living. Nope. Tell that to the 30,000 people (some are now dead) that were illegaly taken off tracker mortages. That was no mistake. That was simple fraud.

Bankers, silent W.

Dohnjoe

STB. wrote: »

.

It WILL take generations for the irish taxpayer to pay back the 64 BILLION bailout it gave the BANKS.

They are almost repaid. We would have been in a far, far worse situation if the banks had been allowed to sink. It wasn't the best option, it was the least worst option. Also the banks weren't solely responsible for the crisis. The government, regulators, rating agencies, lenders, borrowers, buyers and sellers all had a part to play.

Cantona's Collars

I posted a piece from The Times UK in the soccer forum about a scheme concocted by banks and a movie studio to allow wealthy individuals to "invest" in media productions which was ruled by the supreme court in England to be a tax avoidance scheme.They are now about to be sued by many of these individuals who face financial ruin on the back of this ruling. Guess who one of the 3 banks are? Our very own Bank of Ireland.

server down

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

I posted a piece from The Times UK in the soccer forum about a scheme concocted by banks and a movie studio to allow wealthy individuals to "invest" in media productions which was ruled by the supreme court in England to be a tax avoidance scheme.They are now about to be sued by many of these individuals who face financial ruin on the back of this ruling. Guess who one of the 3 banks are? Our very own Bank of Ireland.

Considered quite shady over there. They also had a tracker scandal over in the UK ( where BOI gave out BTL loans mostly, and interest only at that). A few years back they pushed their customers on trackers onto much higher rates -- as in from 0.5% above BOE to 3%+ above BOE. Turns out they could do that but it was considered a sneaky move.

STB.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They are almost repaid. We would have been in a far, far worse situation if the banks had been allowed to sink. It wasn't the best option, it was the least worst option. Also the banks weren't solely responsible for the crisis. The government, regulators, rating agencies, lenders, borrowers, buyers and sellers all had a part to play.

Repaid by whom. Dont talk nonsense.

The banks had to be bailed out. It set this country back years.

Prestige and power eh. Amirable traits of bankers, until the **** hits the fan and the citizens are left with the remnants. We could have spent those billions on much better things, ya know.

Dohnjoe

STB. wrote: »

Repaid by whom. Dont talk nonsense.

The banks had to be bailed out. It set this country back years.

Prestige and power eh. Amirable traits of bankers, until the **** hits the fan and the citizens are left with the remnants. We could have spent those billions on much better things, ya know.

The bulk of the bailouts we received have been repaid. By us the taxpayer. So your point of it taking generations to pay back is not correct.

If we would have let the banks fail we would have been set back decades. Savings would have been wiped out overnight. Financial infrastructure gone. International credit gone. Catastrophic for business, foreign companies and foreign investment. Iceland was small enough to scrape though, we would have been decimated. Instead we're sitting here with 7% unemployment.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

You offered to send a scan of the letter received. I’d love to see it

Still waiting.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

weldoninhio wrote: »

Still waiting.

He misread or mislaid you earlier post.

server down

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The bulk of the bailouts we received have been repaid. By us the taxpayer. So your point of it taking generations to pay back is not correct.

The taxpayers paid the taxpayers back?

If we would have let the banks fail we would have been set back decades. Savings would have been wiped out overnight. Financial infrastructure gone. International credit gone. Catastrophic for business, foreign companies and foreign investment. Iceland was small enough to scrape though, we would have been decimated. Instead we're sitting here with 7% unemployment.

It could have gone either way, a boom in IT seems to have helped us through. Anyway, its not much of a defence of capitalism there is it?

weldoninhio

Kolton Fluffy Suburb wrote: »

He misread or mislaid you earlier post.

Maybe my post was on the back of the webpage.

Dohnjoe

server down wrote: »

The taxpayers paid the taxpayers back?

?? We covered the cost of the bank bailouts

It could have gone either way, a boom in IT seems to have helped us through. Anyway, its not much of a defence of capitalism there is it?

It wouldn't have happened if we didn't have a banking sector or financial infrastructure. Likewise, in the US, allowing the banks fail would have been far worse than bailing them out.