Should you file a complaint against your bank?

[Christophe]

I ask myself the following question: if people have lost (a lot) money on an over-the-counter savings account (because on the stock exchange the rules are known ... must not complain therefore ...) or that the contract (4.5% style per year) is not respected by your bank, do you think that it is necessary to file a complaint for swindle (or other) against the banks?

[Remundo]

Vast question ...

In my opinion, on a moral level, clients are cheated. Legally, everything is well put together with a bunch of wartime lawyers handsomely paid to defend the indefensible.

Either way, banking products, even "not risky" had become so complex in their operation (partial pawls, guaranteed to X% of such baskets of such indices ...) and restrictive clauses (penalties ...) that all customers, even the most educated, have signed without fully understanding the lines and lines of the contract.

Furthermore, I think that the states do not want to allow the banks to be further destabilized at this time. Jurisprudence, if there is one, will probably tilt towards the financiers.

Finally, this is only modest my point of view.

[Christophe]

1) Well a contract is a contract if it is not respected there is prejudice to one of the 2 parties and no reason to give gifts to the banks! I think they are the first not to worry about it !!

But few people read it ... me the 1st!

2) Have you seen the current market fluctuations? -6% one day, + 6% the next day. There are some who seriously grease the top!
And even when it goes down, I teach you nothing that your banker can play down to "earn money" ...

There are some who complain for much less than that!

[Hydraxon]

No chance. Not risky (in a slogan) means in relation to a general favorable context, and that's for sure that it is defined later in the contract. Legally, the contract is necessarily concrete, any honest lawyer would dismantle you. The crooked lawyer is the one who would have you believe that you have a chance.

Even morally, we cannot blame the banks for being incapable of having good returns in a context of general crisis. Except to show that the bank manipulated the prices or had access to information allowing it to predict the fluctuations. This would result in fines rather than damages to customers. But hey, demonstrate insider trading, there are institutions for that which have 1000 times more means than everyone here to do the necessary research.

[Remundo]

I believe that it is not forbidden to speculate on the downside. And we can lose as much as on the rise (the Squirrel has lost a lot of hazelnuts with that, 600 Million euronoisettes )

File a complaint, why not, but it takes courage, time and money to pay a lawyer without guarantee of results

[Christophe]

Hydraxon your opinion stands except that the 4.5% that you pass on to the bank it's peanuts compared to what it does with your money (coef. reserve from 9 to 1 which allows you to ultimately lend 90 times the money you "give" them with the interest you imagine) and I'm sorry but a contract is a contract! Well, we'll see the slap we're going to take ...

But what does the UFC think? What to choose?

No Remundo, it is not forbidden but it is downright imoral because it contributes to further lower prices and even more enrich those who practice the method !!

No, you can't lose as much as you have, you can lose a lot more ... because the loss limit is not limited by the capital invested, it is when you play upwards!

[Hydraxon]

Hydraxon your opinion stands except that the 4.5% that you pass on to the bank it's peanuts compared to what it does with your money (coef. reserve from 9 to 1 which allows you to ultimately lend 90 times the money you "give" them with the interest you imagine) and I'm sorry but a contract is a contract!

No relation: if the contract guarantees 4,5% even in the event of a cataclysm destroying half of France, yes you can attack. If there is a reservation clause for these cases, no. And if, on the other hand, the contract says that the difference between the planned and achieved performance is for the bank, that does not matter. This difference is due to the fact that outside a crisis period, in exchange the bank takes the risk for you (nobody forbids you to place your money without going through them).

I am not sure that the mechanisms make it possible to actually lower prices when we speculate on the downside. Because they claim that someone is buying higher.

[Christophe]

Obviously Hydraxon, I'm talking about a contract that would not be respected.

In connection with this subject, the fall in bank remuneration.

Announced on the news at 13 p.m. and probably linked to the crisis, the drop in remuneration for Livret A savings accounts from 4% to 3,5% or even 3% on February 1, 2009.

I liked the guy (a banker?) Who said (roughly): passbook A only keeps their purchasing power, if inflation goes down then passbook A will go down.

In short, he admitted in all honesty (rare in banks):

a) that you do not earn money (in the purchasing power sense) by placing your money at 4%

b) that bank rate and inflation are linked: we already knew it on the loan side (financial mechanism of monetary creation therefore devaluation of the currency) but on the savings side it is a new admission ...

A little honesty in the banking world does not hurt !! On the contrary!

[the middle]

Fortis, the latest news ...
A story of a big lie ...
http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/economie ... 5424.shtml
It's just an info, to stir the shit up a bit

[Christophe]

Houlalala it's not over ... these stories of settling accounts ... in the bank! (sorry oops)

Meanwhile + 7% for the coc today ...