B(W)ankers: Nationwide

marylogic

Whilst I agree that there are some people who are simply irresponsible, there are also vulnerable members of society who will find APRs of 2758% difficult to grasp.

If it means that the poor bankers can't squeeze an extra few pounds out of them then I think we should legislate, and I'm really sorry if that means that the bankers will struggle to afford a new set of tyres for their Porsche Cayenne/Private school fees/5th holiday abroad this year.

W@nkers

drlodge

marylogic wrote:

Whilst I agree that there are some people who are simply irresponsible, there are also vulnerable members of society who will find APRs of 2758% difficult to grasp.

Vulnerable, or stupid? If people don't understand what an APR is, why not ask a friend for advice, have someone explain it to them in simple terms? People shouldn't to agree to things (including buying financial products) that they don't understand. Simples.

marylogic

The problem is that if you have an IQ of 80 then you may not realise that you don't fully understand the implications. Your friends may not be much better off in terms of intellect.

daviesee

Legislate these reprehensible loan companies out of business and you will just be left with the even more reprehensible loan sharks who don't even pretend to obey the law.
Not an ideal situation I agree.

The first step to a solution is education.

Pross

hipshot wrote:

Pross wrote:

hipshot wrote:

Did you not read my last one?

Yes, I have no sympathy for that argument. The interest figures are there on all their adverts and the company are there to make money. If used as a short term, 'payday' loan as intended the interest rate is high but in actual terms it isn't a lot of money. There's been enough bad press over those companies that even someone financially naive should realise they are not a good long term option.

They are financially inexperienced, that's the whole point they are unlikely to read small print or make complaints to financial ombudsmen, the banks and other lenders know this . It's nothing to do with personal financial responsibility when the playing field is so skewed.

It seems you don't have much sympathy full stop.

The 'small print' on Wonga etc. adverts is f***ing huge type face telling people the APR and how much they could expect to repay in various scenarios. This is hardly a few words of legalese tucked away in the middle of a 20 page terms and conditions booklet. It is also nothing like loan sharks who will operate illegally with no set terms and conditions but just up the payment rate and often resort to physical threats and violence when the person is unable to pay. I'd also disagree on the people who opt for them being financially inexperienced - they are often very experienced having used up every other form of (cheaper) credit available to them.

hipshot

If financially experienced means desperate and up to your neck in debt then you may be right. Its not the definition I'd use.

I must say I'm blown away that people defend scumbag outfits like Wonga. Just like Brighthouse and all the others they have a veneer of normality and respectability and operate on the idea that their customers know what they are letting themselves in for, when it's absolutely self evident that they don't.

daviesee

hipshot wrote:

If financially experienced means desperate and up to your neck in debt then you may be right. Its not the definition I'd use.

I must say I'm blown away that people defend scumbag outfits like Wonga. Just like Brighthouse and all the others they have a veneer of normality and respectability and operate on the idea that their customers know what they are letting themselves in for, when it's absolutely self evident that they don't.

I am not defending these companies, only highlighting that the solution is not legislation, it is education.
Do you have a solution that doesn't leave the market open to loan sharks?

hipshot

How about a massive expansion and government encouragement of credit unions.



Unlikely though..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... sters.html

smidsy

But APR is not always the full story is it.

There are various ways the lenders can structure their loans that could mean you pay more or less comparative to another lender with the same advertised APR.

OK a loan with 5000% APR is not going to be cheaper than one with 50% APR but the comparision is not always that obvious.

daviesee

hipshot wrote:

How about a massive expansion and government encouragement of credit unions.

Good in theory which I would agree with.
But....
Government encouragement?

You would still be left with the issue that people who use Wonga etc are high risk so the interest rates would have to cover those who default.

Probably better than we have now though.

Wirral_paul

RideOnTime wrote:

The Nationwide very kindly didn't tell me my kids bond had lapsed and that they had been earning 0.2% interest for the last 11 months.

Bonds dont lapse - they mature at the end of their fixed term which will have been clearly stated at the outset. Why is it that everyone always wants to look to blame a company when they cant take any responsibility for their own failure to read the terms!!

pinno

If you owe the bank £1000, they have you by the balls. If you owe tham £1m, they'll look after you.

Pross

hipshot wrote:

How about a massive expansion and government encouragement of credit unions.



Unlikely though..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... sters.html

I actually agree with you completely but the original claim was that in some way Wonga hide the true cost of borrowing but a quick visit to their website homepage shows they are completely up front. If you are now saying they prey on those who have got themselves into financial trouble I would agree. I now nothing of Brighthouse so can't comment on them.

Pross

Should have added though if credit unions start lending more to Wonga type high risk customers the cost will go up for all (as someone else pointed out).

Mikey23

Reminds me that the 'introductory rate' on our nationwide savings accounts has lapsed and we are now on a rubbish rate. So we've got to go in and open new accounts to take account of the next 'introductory rate' until that expires... And then we've got to open new accounts to take advantage of that introductory rate...

verylonglegs

daviesee wrote:

Two simple rules for finance.

1. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.
2. Read the contract. If you don't understand the contract, don't sign it.

They are not hard to teach.

Following number 2 would probably rule out over 90% of the population taking out a private pension scheme, a company one or otherwise.

Frank the tank

hipshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

no one is marched at gunpoint into Brighthous to buy a TV that they can't afford at an extortionate APR. It is their choice to pay over the odds rather than save until they can afford to buy one at a reputable source.

Keep Right indeed :roll:

That was my thoughts also.

A bit of an over simplification by Ballysmate I feel.

daviesee

verylonglegs wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Two simple rules for finance.

1. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.
2. Read the contract. If you don't understand the contract, don't sign it.

They are not hard to teach.

Following number 2 would probably rule out over 90% of the population taking out a private pension scheme, a company one or otherwise.

Then no one taking out pensions on this basis would lead to the contracts being simplified.

It is because I read the contracts that I refused 2 company pensions.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

hipshot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

no one is marched at gunpoint into Brighthous to buy a TV that they can't afford at an extortionate APR. It is their choice to pay over the odds rather than save until they can afford to buy one at a reputable source.

Keep Right indeed :roll:

That was my thoughts also.

A bit of an over simplification by Ballysmate I feel.

I was replying to Hipshot who wrote

What about Brighthouse and Wonga and all the other ursurers who only exist to take advantage of the most financially inexperienced people who can afford it least?

I replied thus, not the edited version that Hipshot and Frank picked out.

Agree that these two companies are despicable for the reasons you state. But on the other hand, no one is marched at gunpoint into Brighthous to buy a TV that they can't afford at an extortionate APR. It is their choice to pay over the odds rather than save until they can afford to buy one at a reputable source.

How is that right wing? How is it an oversimplification? Brighthouse sell electrical items and furnishings at a premium price and an extortionate APR. People are not forced to shop there and must take responsibility for their own actions. I agreed that the companies were 'despicable' but their customers exercise free will.
It is always seen to be someone else's fault for whatever befalls people, but all I am saying is people should look to themselves more and shoulder their share of the responsibility. If that makes me right wing, then so be it, I can certainly live with the label.

Frank the tank

The over simplification I'm refering to is the on"free will" to make their own choices; how free is that free will given all the social and ecconomic pressures put on people to provide such items.

That is an entirely different debate. And the being "right" politically comes from the dismisiveness of people in such a situation as in, it's up to them. It is like most things not so simple as that.

I'm not saying Ballysmate is dismisive of people but when you think a bit deeper about the whole it is not so simple.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

The over simplification I'm refering to is the on"free will" to make their own choices; how free is that free will given all the social and ecconomic pressures put on people to provide such items.

That is an entirely different debate. And the being "right" politically comes from the dismisiveness of people in such a situation as in, it's up to them. It is like most things not so simple as that.

I'm not saying Ballysmate is dismisive of people but when you think a bit deeper about the whole it is not so simple.

It is apparent that my politics are right of centre, both from my posts in other threads and actually having stated as much in the thread about choice of avatar. I have gleaned that you lean to the left, but would not regard either of us as having posted extremist views.
Hipshot highlighted 2 companies, Wonga and Brighthouse, both of which I agreed were despicable.
I pointed out that people have a realistic choice, whether to use Brighthouse specifically. It is surely not dismissive to say that people who buy from Brighthouse have to take some responsibility for their actions. It is not as if Brighthouse sell staples, like bread and milk, they sell electrical goods.
Regardless of politics, I can't agree that if someone emerges from Brighthouse, carrying a 42 inch flat screen, albeit at a hefty financial cost, they bear no responsibility for their actions.
As regards being dismissive, I have argued that people have free will, weighed up their options, made their choice and therefore should be accountable.
The counter argument on here is that a whole stratum of society is unable to think for themselves or are not strong enough to resist social pressures.
Which argument is dismissive of people?

MountainMonster

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

The over simplification I'm refering to is the on"free will" to make their own choices; how free is that free will given all the social and ecconomic pressures put on people to provide such items.

That is an entirely different debate. And the being "right" politically comes from the dismisiveness of people in such a situation as in, it's up to them. It is like most things not so simple as that.

I'm not saying Ballysmate is dismisive of people but when you think a bit deeper about the whole it is not so simple.

It is apparent that my politics are right of centre, both from my posts in other threads and actually having stated as much in the thread about choice of avatar. I have gleaned that you lean to the left, but would not regard either of us as having posted extremist views.
Hipshot highlighted 2 companies, Wonga and Brighthouse, both of which I agreed were despicable.
I pointed out that people have a realistic choice, whether to use Brighthouse specifically. It is surely not dismissive to say that people who buy from Brighthouse have to take some responsibility for their actions. It is not as if Brighthouse sell staples, like bread and milk, they sell electrical goods.
Regardless of politics, I can't agree that if someone emerges from Brighthouse, carrying a 42 inch flat screen, albeit at a hefty financial cost, they bear no responsibility for their actions.
As regards being dismissive, I have argued that people have free will, weighed up their options, made their choice and therefore should be accountable.
The counter argument on here is that a whole stratum of society is unable to think for themselves or are not strong enough to resist social pressures.
Which argument is dismissive of people?

I also see the point the other guy is trying to make a bit insane (please don't take that as an attack, I am merely stating my opinion). What economic pressures for buying large TV's they can't afford are present? I can certainly see social pressures, but the economic ones I just can't comprehend. You also need not forget that the people who use the types of stores are doing so by their own free will, no-one forces them to sign on the dotted line. They are there because they want those items, and sadly, a large portion of the people who use those schemes are already struggling to afford the essentials in life like good quality food, so they think that they get a good deal based solely on the grounds they do not pay at the till. Whether it is right or wrong, these companies are doing nothing wrong because it is people CHOOSING to use them, rather than forcing it upon them.

hipshot

It 's very easy dismiss big social problems like obesity, gambling, alcohol abuse and debt by merely reducing them to question of personal responsibility. You then don't have to think about their real causes like poverty, poor prospects, and unemployment. That thinking goes, "I'm good with money, therefore someone who gets into debt and makes bad financial choices deserves all they get, debate over". It happens to be a right wing fantasy. The Victorians were very prone to it.

The consensus on here seems to be that Brighthouse, Cash Converters, and their ilk are spontaneous forces of nature that just exist and that's that. If you walk in the door you deserve it. But these companies are a relatively new development. They have identified a very specific demographic which they then exploit. They research and target and move into exclusively low income areas where there is high unemployment, low educational achievement and poor health.

Many people in these areas are very influenced by advertising and spend too much of what income they have on new consumer goods and high status items. They don't migrate to these places because theyre feckless; they were born there. They haven't had much contact with people from other social classes or with different social outlooks. Remember, your town centre is Poundland, MacDonalds, Brighthouse, Argos (30%APR) Cash Converters, 6 or 7 bookmakers and pubs and if you're lucky a WHSmith.

Wonga is just the online version, targeting young low income service sector workers who are online and media literate but who don't earn enough to stretch their salaries from one month to the next. Its a very lucrative and well documented business model, not an accident.

Frank the tank

That's the sort of thing I mean, you're just a bit more eloquent than I. At this time in a morning I've not got a lot of time either.

daviesee

hipshot wrote:

A lot of true stuff

Getting rid of those businesses won't get rid of the problem though.

Just saying...

MountainMonster

hipshot wrote:

It 's very easy dismiss big social problems like obesity, gambling, alcohol abuse and debt by merely reducing them to question of personal responsibility. You then don't have to think about their real causes like poverty, poor prospects, and unemployment. That thinking goes, "I'm good with money, therefore someone who gets into debt and makes bad financial choices deserves all they get, debate over". It happens to be a right wing fantasy. The Victorians were very prone to it.

The consensus on here seems to be that Brighthouse, Cash Converters, and their ilk are spontaneous forces of nature that just exist and that's that. If you walk in the door you deserve it. But these companies are a relatively new development. They have identified a very specific demographic which they then exploit. They research and target and move into exclusively low income areas where there is high unemployment, low educational achievement and poor health.

Many people in these areas are very influenced by advertising and spend too much of what income they have on new consumer goods and high status items. They don't migrate to these places because theyre feckless; they were born there. They haven't had much contact with people from other social classes or with different social outlooks. Remember, your town centre is Poundland, MacDonalds, Brighthouse, Argos (30%APR) Cash Converters, 6 or 7 bookmakers and pubs and if you're lucky a WHSmith.

Wonga is just the online version, targeting young low income service sector workers who are online and media literate but who don't earn enough to stretch their salaries from one month to the next. Its a very lucrative and well documented business model, not an accident.

So to clarify,you are saying if I go to grit house, buy a huge TV which I can not afford, have trouble making the payments because they are so high due to the APR, that I am not at fault? It is not my own decision to do that?

Silliest stuff I've ever heard.

ballysmate

MountainMonster wrote:

hipshot wrote:

It 's very easy dismiss big social problems like obesity, gambling, alcohol abuse and debt by merely reducing them to question of personal responsibility. You then don't have to think about their real causes like poverty, poor prospects, and unemployment. That thinking goes, "I'm good with money, therefore someone who gets into debt and makes bad financial choices deserves all they get, debate over". It happens to be a right wing fantasy. The Victorians were very prone to it.

The consensus on here seems to be that Brighthouse, Cash Converters, and their ilk are spontaneous forces of nature that just exist and that's that. If you walk in the door you deserve it. But these companies are a relatively new development. They have identified a very specific demographic which they then exploit. They research and target and move into exclusively low income areas where there is high unemployment, low educational achievement and poor health.

Many people in these areas are very influenced by advertising and spend too much of what income they have on new consumer goods and high status items. They don't migrate to these places because theyre feckless; they were born there. They haven't had much contact with people from other social classes or with different social outlooks. Remember, your town centre is Poundland, MacDonalds, Brighthouse, Argos (30%APR) Cash Converters, 6 or 7 bookmakers and pubs and if you're lucky a WHSmith.

Wonga is just the online version, targeting young low income service sector workers who are online and media literate but who don't earn enough to stretch their salaries from one month to the next. Its a very lucrative and well documented business model, not an accident.

So to clarify,you are saying if I go to grit house, buy a huge TV which I can not afford, have trouble making the payments because they are so high due to the APR, that I am not at fault? It is not my own decision to do that?

Silliest stuff I've ever heard.

I agree with you Monster. But apparently you can sit in front of your new tv, gambling online, get some burgers (or order pizza if you don't want to get your arse off the couch), polishing off a crate of ale. The results are nothing at all to do with you, it is the fault of the nasty advertisers.

MountainMonster

Ballysmate wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

hipshot wrote:

It 's very easy dismiss big social problems like obesity, gambling, alcohol abuse and debt by merely reducing them to question of personal responsibility. You then don't have to think about their real causes like poverty, poor prospects, and unemployment. That thinking goes, "I'm good with money, therefore someone who gets into debt and makes bad financial choices deserves all they get, debate over". It happens to be a right wing fantasy. The Victorians were very prone to it.

The consensus on here seems to be that Brighthouse, Cash Converters, and their ilk are spontaneous forces of nature that just exist and that's that. If you walk in the door you deserve it. But these companies are a relatively new development. They have identified a very specific demographic which they then exploit. They research and target and move into exclusively low income areas where there is high unemployment, low educational achievement and poor health.

Many people in these areas are very influenced by advertising and spend too much of what income they have on new consumer goods and high status items. They don't migrate to these places because theyre feckless; they were born there. They haven't had much contact with people from other social classes or with different social outlooks. Remember, your town centre is Poundland, MacDonalds, Brighthouse, Argos (30%APR) Cash Converters, 6 or 7 bookmakers and pubs and if you're lucky a WHSmith.

Wonga is just the online version, targeting young low income service sector workers who are online and media literate but who don't earn enough to stretch their salaries from one month to the next. Its a very lucrative and well documented business model, not an accident.

So to clarify,you are saying if I go to grit house, buy a huge TV which I can not afford, have trouble making the payments because they are so high due to the APR, that I am not at fault? It is not my own decision to do that?

Silliest stuff I've ever heard.

I agree with you Monster. But apparently you can sit in front of your new tv, gambling online, get some burgers (or order pizza if you don't want to get your ars* off the couch), polishing off a crate of ale. The results are nothing at all to do with you, it is the fault of the nasty advertisers.

Yup, the way some people think about topics like this are pretty appalling to be honest.

Obesity- I can sort of understand the income side of having crap food, but it costs much less to buy all the ingredients yourself and cook the meal yourself. The people who get obese (excluding medical reasons) eat the junk food because they are too lazy to put the effort in to cook a meal.

Gambling- Don't even get me started on this. All the people have to do is not walk into a bookies, and not start their online poker portal. No-one is exactly forcing them to do it, they are there because they believe they can win money because they won it at some point before in their life.

Alcohol abuse- Yet again another self inflicted item. It can be genetic, however, there are MANY treatment programmes to help you become more stable in life. The people CHOOSE not to take advantage of these programmes because they enjoy what they are doing.

People get into debt because they can not afford the items they WANT, not need. No one saysthey have to have the biggest latest 3D TV, but because they have nothing going on worth mentioning in their life they turn to the TV as entertainment. They have nothing going on in their life because they are lazy and do not make something happen. When they take the debt out they know full and well what they are getting themselves into, but choose to do it anyways. How is that societies fault?

While I agree that the Cash converters type places are vile, they only exist because people choose to go there and waste their money, and cause further problems in their life. It has nothing to do with Poverty, because if they were really impoverished they would be worrying about putting food on their table, rather than getting a TV. If they were really worried about their unemployment, they would be saving their money to do a skills course of some sort, rather than buying a huge TV.

I think this also all ties into the mentality that is very present in the UK of "I am never at fault". If I do something stupid someone else is always to blame. Poor little me, I don't do anything wrong so why should I deal with it?

hipshot

MountainMonster wrote:

I think this also all ties into the mentality that is very present in the UK of "I am never at fault". If I do something stupid someone else is always to blame. Poor little me, I don't do anything wrong so why should I deal with it?

I've never ever met anyone who says this. Are you referring to the banks?

Its not the poor wretches that end up in cash converters that have stolen your money, its big financial institutions, who have caused a crippling recession throwing people out of work all over the country and they are laughing at all of us from their yachts. These short term lenders are just the vultures who prey on the vulnerable and the desperate and get them into a spiral of debt. They identify a demographic where people are struggling, make the situation worse and then profit from it.

Strange that you don't seem overly bothered by that. You're very quick to judge these people and get quite zealous on the subject of their failings, but seem to think that companies operate in some sort of moral vaccum where they are free to do as they like as long as there's profit in it. You can't have it both ways.

daviesee

hipshot wrote:

more stuff

Please try reading the posts before replying.
No one has said these are good companies. IIRC everyone has been slating them.