First I heard. Hopefully.
Yeah - caught a snippet on the radio last week… Forget the name of the bank but they are entering the Irish market and An Post have been mooting mortgages through a partner for a while now … think at 1% lower
We literally own half the banking market. All it would take is the Government to knock on the CEO’s door and say you either cut the rates, or I find someone who will.
I’ll show him. I’ll give him the frowning of a lifetime.
I have completely changed my mind about Michael Noonan, he was a tremendous Minister for Finance, and this will recognised in the fullness of time
That’s a fairly simplistic SF type argument that’s beneath you.
As has been pointed out, higher charges helps recapitalise the banks increasing the value of state assets and also strengthening a banking system which is systemically important whether we like it or not. Also could attract foreign competitors although that hasn’t happened much yet.
So ultimately they’re caught in a bit of a Catch-22 on that.
Another reason that rates are so high here is that we don’t enforce mortgage contracts very well. Everyone’s knicker gets in a twist whenever its suggested that those who don’t pay their loans have the underlying asset repossessed. Hey presto - higher rates.
This entire country, politicians and electorate, is built on the principle of having your cake and eating it.
There is a pretty competitive car insurance market so you’d have to imagine that they really do have high costs.
The Government could introduce a couple of simple measures though that would immediately cause insurance to fall.
A Government run car insurance comparison website, where all insurers must quote their best price. It would be illegal to not participate, and illegal to offer a better price off the website.
Make it illegal to rollover insurance and illegal to send a renewal letter for anything other than your best price.
If for some reason people still want to use brokers, set a clearly defined fee for their services. I’d outlaw the useless parasites altogether.
We should also help insurers by tackling the high awards levels, removing solicitors from the process entirely and capping insurance payouts. Repeat claimants should be limited in what they can get also.
The insurers would howl but fuck em. Threaten to nationalise insurance if they scream too loudly.
Now that makes sense
Id vote for you
I agree to an extent, but banks charge wildly differing interest rates, introductory offers etc. They can afford to and do lend for cheaper. Something as simple as making it illegal to have more than one variable rate would reduce prices dramatically. Also the process for switching a mortgage should be simplified and the costs reduced so that those on higher rates can easily switch to a lower rate if it’s offered elsewhere.
The banks have put themselves back together fairly well at this stage, the idea that we should continually fuck over the people of the country for the sake of the banks is bizarre.
I’m half way to a manifesto.
I would suggest that brokers have a place in the market for commercial non boilerplate stuff. Not car renewals
But surely the point here is that the banks comprise other non-State shareholders, who similar to the vulture funds bought up scores of shares to make a quick buck. And once again their shareholders seem to get the good side of the draw. It’s not equitable - and that should be the primary role of a government.
Also maybe for older people who aren’t e-literate they could provide them a service. But the cunts are only getting in the way of a transaction for a fee for most people.
Just for the record I was being sarcastic about that utter cunt of a man that is Noonan.
A rather simplistic FG type argument that’s beneath you. As soon as the banks are recapitalised and profitable they will be sold on to foreigners at very poor value for the taxpayer.
Well without getting into a rather deep debate on whether its ever possible for a government comprised of representatives of a coalition of vested interests to be truly equitable - the argument about mortgages rates is clearly not one of societal equality as it only affects the subsection of society with mortgages, or particularly old variable mortgages.
So just to paraphrase your point you think that the higher rates (which you object to), but which would allow the banks to be sold on recapitalised and profitable, will cause “poor value” (which you presumably will also object to), when they are inherently part of how the bank is valued.
Your corporate finance genius is wasted in this environment
Why dont we just hand the running of the country over to banks altogether?