To be fair to the banks

AnthonySmith


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 455

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 20:07

Yes, they have acted appallingly, but reading through a number of posts in recent weeks, I think the ire is slightly mis-directed.

What about the developers and landowners who have borrowed, lived the high life and - in some cases - paid not a penny back to the banks?

The banking system needs to be changed. The banks have not been thorough and the actions of at least one bank has been curious, to say the least.

But let's not forget the borrowers who, in some cases, have run away with other people's money.

Tootie


Joined: 28/08/2008
Posts: 2037

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 20:14

I dont think anyone can disagree with what you say, but its easier for the bank to just auction the property(s), than try to find the borrower and bring him to justice, for nothing at the end of the day.....

He ran away for a reason...... No money !

catalkoykid


Joined: 15/02/2009
Posts: 1190

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 20:18

in England you put your money in the bank and get 2%, then you get a car loan or use your credit card and pay 10% to 20%, percentage wise what's the difference you was getting 20% to 25% on money in the bank here, who did you think was borrowing this, or did you think the banks was giving it to you for nothing

AnthonySmith


Joined: 14/05/2009
Posts: 455

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 20:23

Tootie - yes, and I don't agree with the lending policies - obviously gave big wads of cash to people who couldn't/didn't want to pay it back. But the borrower did the wrong thing first.



Catalkoykid - absolutely. The banks were stupid. But they lent money and, strangely enough, expected it to be paid back. I think it is the developers and landowners who borrowed and then didn't pay or fled that really dropped people in the brown stuff. and there's dozens around - Babayigit and Heybetli, for a start.



In Britain the banks would turn this over to a debt collection agency and track people down. Here, no-one seems to care. Builders can go back to Turkey and what efforts are made by the authorities to trace them?

Tootie


Joined: 28/08/2008
Posts: 2037

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 20:32

I think the problem is that the banks that agreed the silly loans are private and its just like borrowing money from a loan shark in the UK. The government wont pick up the mess !



When the going was good, 80 percent interest was ok because you would sell all you property(s) in less than a year. Then the sh1t hit the fan.

I dont think even the (private) banks that loaned the money thought it would happen. Who did ??

The bank and the borrower thought at the time it was a win-win situation.....

melbrandy


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 20:36

All good points above. Also don't forget that too narrow a focus on the auction process can be misleading. In my opinion it lets the real culprits..mainly builders... get away unpunished.

What happens when the holders of memoranda on builders assets are not the nasty, easily identifiable bad boys such as banks?. There are numbers of Brits that have memorandums and judgements against builders. These have been obtained because builders have let buyers down on contracts, paperwork or construction. However the builder then hides away his assets and that just leaves occupied houses where the kocans are still in his name. At that stage you may well have auctions in favour of Brits, which may eject other Brits who are resident in the 'builder's' properties.

Once again the builders ease themselves out of the equation and let the parties fight it out.

catalkoykid


Joined: 15/02/2009
Posts: 1190

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 20:37

if everyone feels that bad about it, why dont the brs or someone start a fund so we can cleanse your Consciences, and put some of out ill gotten gains back to the people who need them lol, any takers when we was getting 20% to 25% for years it was a bomb waiting to go off

spider


Joined: 03/01/2009
Posts: 5527

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 20:47

Please see the tread Demonstrate get your fingers out and start doing something before the banks own 50% off all the properties here and you all have to cough up more cash just to say in your own homes...







Spider.X

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 21:08

There is clear evidence of imprudent lending. That is the banks problem.



wyn

Mandy


Joined: 25/10/2009
Posts: 48

Message Posted:
15/06/2010 22:07

If a bank loaned money KNOWING that there were people who had already bought and paid for the house (remember in some cases the banks actually read the contracts) ...



then the banks are guilty of using the weak laws to steal and the mortgage should be wiped out.

keithcaley



Joined: 13/06/2008
Posts: 2521

Message Posted:
16/06/2010 11:53

Wyn,

"That is the banks problem."

Oh Wyn, if only it was...

As it is, the system actively encourages 'Imprudent Lending' -the banks make a fortune that way - how do you think that they can afford to pay the high interest rates on deposit accounts? - Where else do people think that money comes from?

nareik


Joined: 26/01/2009
Posts: 113

Message Posted:
16/06/2010 13:12

There is a big difference between paying 10 or 12% on deposits and charging 80% on loans.



Most reputable banks (that I am aware of) will go after the cause of the debt, not some innocent 3rd party.



But it is an easy option for these heartless banks, regardless of the human misery and suffering caused.



The banking system worldwide has an obligation to society at large, as well as to shareholders. These differing objectives can be accomodated, side by side. Someone within the TRNC government or banking circles must stand up and say: this is wrong. We cannot let this happen to innocent people.



I only hope it happens soon - and it certainly won't happen without us shouting about it.

eager


Joined: 23/02/2007
Posts: 1272

Message Posted:
16/06/2010 13:27

Banks the world over have only one reason to exist, and that is to make money for themselves and their shareholders.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
16/06/2010 13:28

I think the problem is that no one has clearly told buyers:

NO KOCAN NO MONEY!

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
16/06/2010 21:36

Keithcaley.Msg11.



Imprudent lending is the banks problem , and THEY should be held to account for it.



NOT the Beneficial Owner of the property!



wyn

spider


Joined: 03/01/2009
Posts: 5527

Message Posted:
16/06/2010 22:26

Here here wyn..now who is going to be the first to take the first bank to court. )) Then some might start to see a difference in the approach of things. )





Spider,X

keithcaley



Joined: 13/06/2008
Posts: 2521

Message Posted:
17/06/2010 05:41

Wyn,

'With the greatest respect': -

I don't disagree that imprudent lending SHOULD be the banks' problem, or that they SHOULD be held to account for it, but it is misleading to say that it IS the banks' problem

Unfortunately, IMO, the banks DON'T have a problem, they have legal recourse to resolve any issues arising from 'imprudent lending'-and THAT is the problem, as is currently being demonstrated

Making inaccurate statements, and trying to convince yourself and others that the same state of affairs prevails in TRNC as in UK, is simply 'talking -up' your view of how things OUGHT to be, and ignoring harsh reality

You should know that TRNC Prime Minister Irsen Küçük was reported in Cyprus Today 12/06/2010 as saying that the problems "occurred because of weakness in existing TRNC law"

So please, when making statements, distinguish between those which are demonstrable FACTS, and those which are your opinion of how things OUGHT to be - otherwise you'll just confuse folks

rwilson


Joined: 14/04/2008
Posts: 87

Message Posted:
17/06/2010 12:03

Where it can be proved that a bank KNEW of prior contractal rights and ignored them, then it would be on shaky ground, even in a TRNC in court.



I remember watching GAK TV where the builder said a KOOP bank manager took copies of the contracts (which prohibited mortgages) and then gave the builder a mortgage on the properties.



One of the owners is a friend, and they have signed statements from the staff at the time to say they saw it happening.



If that case went to court, it would probably be referrred to constitutional court and the bank would almost certainly lose.



Banks are saying "we didn't know the homes were sold". Where it can be PROVED they knew, it makes a difference.



"To be fair to the banks?" I dont think so!