Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,415
I’ve no debt other than my existing mortgage which will be paid once I trade up, hence my surprise at this level of intrusiveness. Did not anticipate that having a bigger lump sum would be a bad thing!
The intrusiveness is the law under AML and Terrorist funding legislation and the Central Bank Guidelines on these which were originally issued in 2019 and revised last year.I’ve no debt other than my existing mortgage which will be paid once I trade up, hence my surprise at this level of intrusiveness. Did not anticipate that having a bigger lump sum would be a bad thing!
I'm pretty certain there is nothing in these guidelines that requires any institution to demand paper trails going back several years or indeed decades. If they have concerns about the integrity of a customer or prospective customer, they should be filing a suspicious transaction report as mandated in legislation, but one thing they most certainly should not be doing is tipping off the subject of that report either directly or indirectly by eg making unusual demands of them for the production of historic documentation.The intrusiveness is the law under AML and Terrorist funding legislation and the Central Bank Guidelines on these which were originally issued in 2019 and revised last year.
Not the case at all, most are with the original lender. Sometimes the original lender will sell them on to a sub-prime simply because it is exceedingly difficult to recover a family home. Just read about the cases that have been covered in the media.Thats crazy 10 Ive no idea whats taking so long to repossess and persue the borrowers for the difference and interest. Likely what happened there was the loans were sold on several times to vulture funds and each time it complicates the matter.
As above, you're asking a lender to provide you with significant funds, your opinion and attitude to risk doesn't matter. No share is without an element of risk, and stating that you won't sell until you make a return or get your money back is foolish, if the long term prospects of a particular company are not good, you need to know when to cut your losses.Borrowing to invest could be considered high risk but in my opinion if the 70k cash flows which it does it makes no difference as its over 5 6 or 7 years (no idea what) then as the shares are not bought on margin I wont be selling till I get my money back and or a return.
It is crazy but some banks are unwilling to negotiate. As an example my spouse ran into difficulties with a mortgage due to a terminal illness and every offer made to the bank was refused. After years of trying to settle the bank finally recognised that the mortgage was unsustainable and agreed to a voluntary surrender. The condition was vacant possession. There is a tenant refusing to leave. My spouse is very ill and does not have the fight to face the eviction process so it's a stalemate. The bank have even been offered a possession order but they are not interested.Thats crazy 10 Ive no idea whats taking so long to repossess and persue the borrowers for the difference and interest. Likely what happened there was the loans were sold on several times to vulture funds and each time it complicates the matter.
Borrowing to invest could be considered high risk but in my opinion if the 70k cash flows which it does it makes no difference as its over 5 6 or 7 years (no idea what) then as the shares are not bought on margin I wont be selling till I get my money back and or a return.