Hi, I was wondering in relation to this latest debacle, does anyone have a copy of the bank's clause setting out the definition of what is the bank's cost of funds are, both the pre 2012 version and the later one. If so can they post it to this thread?
Heard about this from article in the newspaper, this is like the tracker mortgage scandal but for Ulster Bank business customers. Wonder did the same type of behaviour occur in the other banks?
No, it's a bit different. Yes, the loan balances are a lot bigger, but the percentage over charged is smaller, and the term shorter.
In the cases of non performing loans, there's no real cost to the bank, as the amount they expect to get back doesn't change.
UB have already made a provision for it which will give you an idea of the amount involved.
What makes it complicated is a large portion of the impacted loans were sold.
No, it's a bit different. Yes, the loan balances are a lot bigger, but the percentage over charged is smaller, and the term shorter.
In the cases of non performing loans, there's no real cost to the bank, as the amount they expect to get back doesn't change.
UB have already made a provision for it which will give you an idea of the amount involved.
What makes it complicated is a large portion of the impacted loans were sold.
Thanks RED, Commercial Mortgage Holders, Check your EURIBOR RATES now, are they correct, have the banks applied the right term, 1 month, three month etc.