rushyj
Well-Known Member
Um Dumbfounded frankly......
credit card debt wiped out ??? anyone done this ??which companies?
- Thread starter draffin
- Start date
emma69
Well-Known Member
Dumbfounded by what?
BBH
Well-Known Member
Some bank bonus's are based on good performance, not just direct income generation which sounds more like investment banking.
I think it would be hard to argue Fred Goodwin performed well . He and his ilk drove a retail bank to the wire ..... and gained huge bonus's , income and pension. Its not really our ethos to reward poor performance which is what people are aggrieved with here.
I think it would be hard to argue Fred Goodwin performed well . He and his ilk drove a retail bank to the wire ..... and gained huge bonus's , income and pension. Its not really our ethos to reward poor performance which is what people are aggrieved with here.
rushyj
Well-Known Member
That surely pointing out what a fantastic job banks and thier employees are doing while millions of people are having the value of thier homes shredded....Savers are getting no return on thier money due to the interest rates being put through the floor to entice these oh so successful companies to lend again...and thousands of people are facing losing thier jobs as the not so successful companies fold......Due to banks malpractice.......is frankly insulting.
emma69
Well-Known Member
Yes, it does depend on performance as well as income, but I think when people talk about bankers bonuses, they tend to refer to the city guys on the investment side who make 6/7 figure bonuses, rather than the customer service person in your high street branch who won't get anywhere near that amount.
As far as Fred Goodwin goes, yes, the loses by the company in the last year are awful, but in his preceeding 7 years the assets of RBS quadrupled and profit rose dramatically. He was punished by being asked to step down. But why should he and his family suffer by having a pension that was built into his contract taken from him? It was agreed by the board, it was perfectly in line with standard practice. It would be like saying Joe Bloggs works as a baker for 30 years, makes a mistake one day and as a result loses his job - no one would argue his 30-years worth of pension should be taken off him do they? Maybe BOD need to adopt poor performance clauses, but when something is contractually sound, has no such provisos, the government should not wade in and try to save face because of their lack of due dillegence and try to change the law.
As far as Fred Goodwin goes, yes, the loses by the company in the last year are awful, but in his preceeding 7 years the assets of RBS quadrupled and profit rose dramatically. He was punished by being asked to step down. But why should he and his family suffer by having a pension that was built into his contract taken from him? It was agreed by the board, it was perfectly in line with standard practice. It would be like saying Joe Bloggs works as a baker for 30 years, makes a mistake one day and as a result loses his job - no one would argue his 30-years worth of pension should be taken off him do they? Maybe BOD need to adopt poor performance clauses, but when something is contractually sound, has no such provisos, the government should not wade in and try to save face because of their lack of due dillegence and try to change the law.
Onyxia
Well-Known Member
At the risk of being shot I agree with Emma on this one.
The recession is not the fault of English banks,the credit crunch is a global issue and the whole world is suffering right now.
People who have worked hard and made money should not lose their pensions because it's gone u shaped in recent months nor should people who have done their job well for a company(bank or otherwise) thats in profit not get a bonus when its normal to offer one.
As for having CC debt wiped,do people think its not real money?
The bank has allready paid it to the company you bought the goods from,unless you really are up [****] creak and unable to pay anything at all(and if you have a horse and or car you could pay something even if it ment selling them) you should not have debts YOU made wiped.
The recession is not the fault of English banks,the credit crunch is a global issue and the whole world is suffering right now.
People who have worked hard and made money should not lose their pensions because it's gone u shaped in recent months nor should people who have done their job well for a company(bank or otherwise) thats in profit not get a bonus when its normal to offer one.
As for having CC debt wiped,do people think its not real money?
The bank has allready paid it to the company you bought the goods from,unless you really are up [****] creak and unable to pay anything at all(and if you have a horse and or car you could pay something even if it ment selling them) you should not have debts YOU made wiped.
emma69
Well-Known Member
The economic downturn is global, and most argue, led by the US, not the UK. I never said the banks were doing fantastic jobs, I simply pointed out that they are not as terrible as people seem to believe. There are plenty of other factors to consider as well, the price of oil, government deficits, mismanagement of funds by governments, etc.
One major factor in all of this is that had people been sensible about their borrowing, there wouldn't be such issues. Banks used to lend 2-3 times the value of the household income to buy a house. 6 years ago I was offered 6 x my salary to purchase a house (I was single). Fortunately, I knew that this was no responsible borrowing. So again, maybe the banks are to blame - well sort of kinda maybe. The banks were under enormous government pressure to lend money to people to get them houses, because the economy was strong, home values rose considerably, so people just couldn't afford any home (let alone a nice one) on twice their annual salary (2 people, each on 15,000 would only bring in 60,000 - there are not an awful lot of homes out there for that sort of money). So the banks bowed to the pressure and offered 100% mortgages, higher lending ratios, cash back mortgages, 40+ year terms, interest only mortgages etc. Regardless, most people knew their limits and the risks of such schemes.
With regards to savers, did you know that 40% of people have less than 500 pounds in savings in the bank? And likely those that do have more than that may see far greater savings on mortgages and other financing deals. Those who do lose out are those with no borrowing and cash savings - the vast majority of people do not save their money as pure cash as it simply doesn't offer the best ROR. Those of us with shares and index linked investments are wincing at the moment of course, but historically these markets will recover to show a better rate of return than cash over the same period of time.
The value of property has nothing to do with the banks - they are not the ones who set home prices. The housing market goes in cycles, during good economic times, values will rise. The downside is that people will not be able to afford the higher priced homes and the issues described above come into effect. As salaries do not rise in line with house prices, in time, those prices have to come down, and property values decrease, creating negative equity for some. What it does mean, is that people can afford property again, and the cycle starts again. This has been seen decade after decade, the 80s were very hard hit both in terms of property prices, then the huge mortgage rates late 80s early 90s. The market recovered then, and they will again.
It is the governments who want banks to lend money - if they don't then industry grinds to a halt. If a company cannot borrow, then it often cannot operate. The bailouts in the US, the share purchase of bank stock in the UK have all been to try and support companies, not the banks. The banks could rather happily not lend to anyone but AAA rated companies and still make money, but a huge number of companies would fold if that were the case.
One major factor in all of this is that had people been sensible about their borrowing, there wouldn't be such issues. Banks used to lend 2-3 times the value of the household income to buy a house. 6 years ago I was offered 6 x my salary to purchase a house (I was single). Fortunately, I knew that this was no responsible borrowing. So again, maybe the banks are to blame - well sort of kinda maybe. The banks were under enormous government pressure to lend money to people to get them houses, because the economy was strong, home values rose considerably, so people just couldn't afford any home (let alone a nice one) on twice their annual salary (2 people, each on 15,000 would only bring in 60,000 - there are not an awful lot of homes out there for that sort of money). So the banks bowed to the pressure and offered 100% mortgages, higher lending ratios, cash back mortgages, 40+ year terms, interest only mortgages etc. Regardless, most people knew their limits and the risks of such schemes.
With regards to savers, did you know that 40% of people have less than 500 pounds in savings in the bank? And likely those that do have more than that may see far greater savings on mortgages and other financing deals. Those who do lose out are those with no borrowing and cash savings - the vast majority of people do not save their money as pure cash as it simply doesn't offer the best ROR. Those of us with shares and index linked investments are wincing at the moment of course, but historically these markets will recover to show a better rate of return than cash over the same period of time.
The value of property has nothing to do with the banks - they are not the ones who set home prices. The housing market goes in cycles, during good economic times, values will rise. The downside is that people will not be able to afford the higher priced homes and the issues described above come into effect. As salaries do not rise in line with house prices, in time, those prices have to come down, and property values decrease, creating negative equity for some. What it does mean, is that people can afford property again, and the cycle starts again. This has been seen decade after decade, the 80s were very hard hit both in terms of property prices, then the huge mortgage rates late 80s early 90s. The market recovered then, and they will again.
It is the governments who want banks to lend money - if they don't then industry grinds to a halt. If a company cannot borrow, then it often cannot operate. The bailouts in the US, the share purchase of bank stock in the UK have all been to try and support companies, not the banks. The banks could rather happily not lend to anyone but AAA rated companies and still make money, but a huge number of companies would fold if that were the case.
melaniemarks
Well-Known Member
What a load of clap trap. Of course the tax payer has bailed out the banks, whatever way you want to "flower" it up. And as for that RBS pension scam.. If I cocked up that badly at my job I'd be sacked. Certainly wouldn't be furnished with HUGE pension for my misdemeanor. Disgraceful. This country is in economic meltdown .Banks took huge risks and are bloody greedy. Pure and simple.
draffin
Well-Known Member
Everyone has differing Views on this , they are all great .
I posted as I am doing an article in the coming weeks on all Debt, Banks and this latest debt being un enforceable thing , so was Hoping to get soe good and bad stories from people, and they have ceratinly got plenty to say !!!
I can see both sides of the coin as I see some people think why should some get debts wiped out when I pay my tax , etc etc but then the other side is when banks and credit card companies are bleeding the poorest people dry with charges , sky high interest etc .
I do have a bit of CC debt and would love to be able to have it wiped , hopefully I would qualify so will def look into this for my own benefit too . As I feel that I , like many many people have been robbed by the banks for long enough .
And whether some people agree or disagree , why shouldnt people get out of debt that companies tally up and up and up , when they dont have the right paperwork etc .
Thank you ppl
I posted as I am doing an article in the coming weeks on all Debt, Banks and this latest debt being un enforceable thing , so was Hoping to get soe good and bad stories from people, and they have ceratinly got plenty to say !!!
I can see both sides of the coin as I see some people think why should some get debts wiped out when I pay my tax , etc etc but then the other side is when banks and credit card companies are bleeding the poorest people dry with charges , sky high interest etc .
I do have a bit of CC debt and would love to be able to have it wiped , hopefully I would qualify so will def look into this for my own benefit too . As I feel that I , like many many people have been robbed by the banks for long enough .
And whether some people agree or disagree , why shouldnt people get out of debt that companies tally up and up and up , when they dont have the right paperwork etc .
Thank you ppl
nona1
Well-Known Member
OKey dokey - this isn't an attempt at advertising, but the firm of accountants I work for has just started offering this and there is nothing 'dodgy' about it. We are Chartered Accountants and wouldn't expose our clients to anything dubious or iffy in any way. The way it works relates to illegal contracts, as a lot of contracts issued between certain dates are not valid.
It does work.
So if anyone's interested drop me a PM. We can tell you (free of charge) whether your contract is one of the eligible ones or not.
It does work.
So if anyone's interested drop me a PM. We can tell you (free of charge) whether your contract is one of the eligible ones or not.