Betting Transaction on Bank Statement

witchgirl26

theronca wrote: »

In both cases, there would be other account balances furnished to the Bank from the brokerage accounts or savings accounts where the savings is kept and showing total accrual over time of the different sums ($250 vs $1000).  So, again, all the Bank really needs is the numbers.

But if one of those individuals is spending in a risky manner which puts chance of repayment at risk - i.e. betting and losing a large amount of what is going from their salary each month, then it's something the bank needs to know. I work in the area of risk and you want as many facts as possible to ascertain the level of risk before committing to it. Otherwise you're not making an informed decision.

Would you buy a car or a house solely on the numbers without doing some due diligence on it?

theronca

It doesn't matter if the money is going on betting or on shoes/designer clothes or fine wine.  Either the prospective borrower is over spending or they are not.  Irish banks are making a subjective call saying that spending $50 a week at the track is riskier than, say, buying a new $200 pair of shoes every month, or spending $200 at the local pub monthly.  Some forms of spending are not riskier than others. Either the borrower can control their spending and has a history of meeting their financial obligations, or they do not..     

All I can say is that, in the US, you are simply judged on your bank balances, your debt, and your history of repaying debt that you've held in the past.  The specifics of where your spending has gone doesn't matter.  But neither the Irish banks nor the US banks can really boast of how well they have managed "risk", can they?

Captain Flaps

theronca wrote: »

Some forms of spending are not riskier than others. Either the borrower can control their spending and has a history of meeting their financial obligations, or they do not.. 

Except that some forms of spending are objectively riskier than others.

I'm not sure why you're still here tbh. OP asked if the bank would judge him for having betting transactions on his statements. He's been advised that it's possible they won't care but the smart thing to do would be wait until they're gone.

You can sit here all day long and argue that banks shouldn't need info, banks are too invasive, banks are acting like the Gestappo etc, but the facts have been laid out above and you're just disrupting the otherwise reasonable and informative conversation..

theronca

Yes, his question has been answered.  The larger issue his question raised is interesting to me, which is why I am still here.
Given your penchant for personal attacks ("I'm not sure why you are still here tbh") I can see why you are.

Captain Flaps

If that's what you class as a personal attack I'm not sure what else to say to you.

theronca

Excellent.

robbiezero

keane2097 wrote: »

All of them initially, down to none bar exchanges over time. If you are spreading your bets across various sites and in shops it can take a bit longer to get closed down. It depends how well you run with particular bookies.

For instance in my case I can still get decent bets on most things with B365 and to a lesser extent PP but haven't been able to have a bet with Ladbrokes, Hills, SJ, Bet Victor and probably several more for years.

Ya, I'm similar. I'm blocked from horse racing on bet365 but can still get a decent wedge on GAA especially in the in-running markets.
Have about 3 restricted PP accounts which allows me to get a reasonable amount on (Horse racing completely restricted again).
Rest of them are a waste of time especially Boyles.
I wonder how will betting firms work with GDPR if a customer was to request that they delete all data connected to them from their systems.

paulieeye

EdgeCase wrote: »

It has serious implications for any organisation gathering information for one purpose, in this case managing your account then using it for another, in this case using metadata about who transactions were with to assess spending patterns.

I dont think you know what is involved in applying for a mortgage or what metadata is.

Robbo

robbiezero wrote: »

I wonder how will betting firms work with GDPR if a customer was to request that they delete all data connected to them from their systems.

Your right to erasure under Article 17 isn't absolute so your odds of having your data deleted on a whim are poor. I'd imagine the bookies will instantly seek to rely on their anti money laundering obligations to hang onto the data, especially if the punter is shifting large amounts of cash and is as profitable as they'd like to imagine themselves.

LuckyLloyd

keane2097 wrote: »

Mentioned elsewhere also, had well in excess of six figures through my AIB accounts in and out of various sports betting sites in the year or two prior to applying for mortgage and wasn't even asked about it. We are due to draw down in the next couple of weeks.

The bet on the Grand National preventing an otherwise in order application from being accepted just has to be nonsense, it's not credible.

And yet people persist with scare mongering on this topic further in the thread.

Captain Flaps

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And yet people persist with scare mongering on this topic further in the thread.

Conventional wisdom, broker feedback and direct conversation with bank staff have suggested it could hurt your chances. If the people with 6 figure totals through gambling sites have had experiences that differ there are probably other factors coming in to play there.

It's not scaremongering, it's something that is blatantly obviously a potential red flag to be avoided WHERE POSSIBLE. It might not snooker you but it definitely won't help, so why take the risk if you can avoid it?

keane2097

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And yet people persist with scare mongering on this topic further in the thread.

YMMV I suppose but for the most part I think it's bull****, practically a meme.

Interestingly I seem to almost never ('almost' probably unnecessary qualifier here) see anyone saying they were actually told a €20 deposit to Paddy Power cost them mortgage approval. It's invariably people with no skin in the game solemnly warning one another, and second hand info from brokers who have their own interests.

awec

This topic is like one of those "I know a guy who told me..." things that has spiralled into the mythical status it has today. I am sure someone, somewhere has been told they have been rejected because of gambling, and that's what they told their mates, but they forgot to mention it was because they were gambling on a low income with a poor record of savings and were doing so on a very regular basis.

I don't think the banks look at betting transactions in isolation. It's not a case of them searching for the words paddy power on your statements and then getting out the big rejection stamp.