OUG 50 and Consumer Protection

by Steven van Groningen on 16 September, 2010

For some time I have refrained from commenting on the Romanian implementation of EU Directive 2008/48 on Consumer Credit, Emergency Government Ordinance 50/2010 (OUG 50). The issues was being discussed between ANPC and ARB and the banks thought is was better not to comment publicly on this while this process was going on. In the meantime it has become clear that ANPC, press and some politicians have succeeded in creating a situation that is the exact opposite of the transparency of the EU directive aims to achieve.

First let me point out that I have nothing against consumer protection, especially when the purpose is to create transparency. This doesn’t mean that all efforts to protect consumers turn out to be good for consumers or that this cause justifies any expense or measure. There should be a balance between the benefits and the costs (for consumers) of this sort of measures, like with any other measures.

After a long process the EU has come up with a balanced (but not undisputed) EU Directive 2008/48, that deals with credit agreements for consumers. Aspects like fees a bank may charge for early repayment of a loan, transparency of pricing and the content of credit agreements are regulated. The whole idea is that consumers face a more transparent situation when they take out a loan and can better compare offers on the market. This is of course a good thing. Implementing such a Directive will also have its costs, but these are justified.

This directive needed to be implemented in all EU countries by 19 May 2010 and if Emergency Government Ordinance 50 (OUG50) would have limited itself to this, we would have had an EU standard consumer protection in Romania with a careful balance between costs and benefits. No bank would have had any problem with this.

Romanian Government “Improved” EU Directive

The Romanian government decided however  to  “improve” the EU directive. This Romanization took place without proper consultation of the stake holders. For instance, three letters from the Romanian Banking Association on the draft text were not even answered and no analysis of impact was conducted. I am not aware of proper consultation with consumer representative groups either. This is not only bad practice but can lead to undesired side effects as I will describe below.  Besides, the text of the ordinance is unclear and prone to misinterpretation as is clearly illustrated by all the agitation about the topic.

For now I’ll stick to two major “improvements” made in the Romanian version, OUG 50, and their combined toxic effect for consumers.

The EU directive states:

2. This Directive shall not apply to the following:

a) credit agreements which are secured either by a mortgage or by another comparable security commonly used in a Member State on immovable property or secured by a right related to immovable property;

(b) credit agreements the purpose of which is to acquire or retain property rights in land or in an existing or projected building;

(c) credit agreements involving a total amount of credit less than EUR 200 or more than EUR 75 000;

……

In the preamble at point 14, the Directive explains “Credit agreements covering the granting of credit secured by real estate should be excluded from the scope of this Directive. That type of credit is of a very specific nature…..

Nevertheless, OUG 50 includes these credit agreements as well, apparently of the opinion that taking a 30 year mortgage loan is the same as buying a vacuum cleaner on credit. The second major deviation from the Directive is that it also applies to the existing stock of credits. Although there are some countries that have decided to apply the Directive also to amounts above 75.000 EUR, no country has decided to apply this also the existing stock of credits. The combined effect of this is that virtually all existing credit agreement with private persons must be changed in order to meet the requirements of OUG 50.

Is This Good For Consumers ? No !

That must be a good thing for these consumers isn’t it ? More transparency about the pricing of their existing loans is surely good ? No, not necessarily if we take a look at what needs to be changed for these loans. (I’ll only look at the interest related part; the so called early repayment fees that are also part of this are a different story)

The main issue is that in order to create a more transparent situation for consumers, basically banks may only charge interest based on a reference rate and a margin. Since about 70% of loans are in EUR, I”ll use EUR as an example. Where until now most banks would use internal reference rates (“prime rate” etc) plus a margin, in the future this has to be EURIBOR, a rate that can be looked up by anybody in a newspaper or on the internet. Of course this will not create full transparency because there are many EURIBOR rates ( day, week, month, 2,3,6 months, 1 year) , besides, different banks may choose to use different dates as reference (“first day of the month” or “average of previous quarter”) but that is, again, another story.

EURIBOR Is Not The Cost Of Funding In Romania

EURIBOR is a reference rate at which prime banks offer interbank deposits to each other within the European Monetary Union, or EMU zone. The problem now is that Romania is not part of the EMU and that Romanian banks have no access to funding at EURIBOR levels. So, where in most EMU countries one can argue that EURIBOR has a reasonable link to the cost of funding, in Romania this is not the case and a so called Country Risk Premium is charged to whoever borrows EUR in Romanian from abroad. This is the case for the Romanian State, the Romanian banks, but also Romanian companies that borrow abroad. There are even EMU countries where a significant Country Risk Premium is applied, Greece is an example.

Variable Country Risk Cost Now Fixed At Current Level For Consumers

Until now, this -variable – cost was included in the internal rates (“prime rate”) that  customers were charged by banks or shown as a separate cost. The effect of OUG 50 is now that banks may only charge EURIBOR + a fixed margin. This means that the banks are obliged to move the – variable-  Country Risk Premium component into their -by OUG 50 – fixed margin. Since OUG 50 will be implemented in such a way that the overall interest rate (“DAE”) remains the same, the Country Risk Premium will be frozen for all loans at the current level.

Consumers Will Suffer When EURIBOR Goes Up, But Not Benefit When Country Risk Goes Down.

It is not difficult to see that consumers will suffer higher rates when EURIBOR, now at a historical low, will go up, but will not benefit when the Country Risk Premium will come down, as it hopefully will.

I am sure there are voices that will say that banks will anyway not pass on decreases in Country Risk Premium. This is not true, there are banks that are definitely more concerned about their customers well-being than that they are being portayed these days. Even if you don’t agree on this, it will still be more difficult for a bank to pass on decreases of lower country risk premium if increases may not be passed on. This especially in a country where the factors that influence Country Risk Premium are rather unpredictable.

ANPC, instead of analyzing this effect and understanding the specifics of the local market, is making matters worse by applying OUG 50 also to all existing contracts, including the ones over 75.000 EUR and housing loans. Since these are long term loans – some of them up to 30 years – it is very likely that we will see over this period both an increase of EURIBOR and a decrease of Country Risk Premium. I have personally explained this to both ANPC and a number of politicians.

OUG 50 Should Never Have Been Applied To Stock Of Existing Loans

I am not at all against consumer protection, it is part of a civilized market and good for the better players.  What I am against is populist measures that cost a lot of money and will have a negative impact on top of that. I also don’t think it is very wise to mislead consumers by creating expectations that the directive will make (existing) credit cheaper. The purpose of EU Directive is to improve transparency for consumers that need to decided about taking a new loan. Anyone who is unhappy about their existing loan can take a new loan from another bank to repay their old loan. Banks are no longer allowed to charge early reimbursement fees in the vast majority of cases in which interest rates are variable. Let competition do the job and don’t apply OUG 50 to the existing stock of credits.

{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }

Marianne September 17, 2010 at 15:11

Ought to think before you steal customers from Romania that will eventually discover the truth as you get huge amounts of Romanian subsidiary banks although the country is in crisis for some time. Why did not align to the standards they provide in other countries? Or are we a country risks and must take all of us to not miss you at all. Eccuse my english but I hope you got what I wanted to write

Reply

SvG September 20, 2010 at 16:20

Marianne, thank you for your comment. Please don’t hesititate to write in Romanian if that is easier for you. I am not sure I get the whole message, but if you imply that banks are stealing from their customers I can only tell you that we are interested in a long term relationship with our clients and you cannot have a long term relationship if you steal from your clients. As you say, they will find out. About the huge amounts, BNR recently said that banks over the last 10 years have paid out 13% of their profits, 87 % was reinvested in Romanian. 13% over 10 years is very low.
And last, my point is exactly to apply international standards.

Reply

Edy September 17, 2010 at 16:35

While I agree with Mr. Groeningen’s opinion, the way that Romanian banks chose to align the existing contracts to OUG 50 is very, very questionable.
This attitude will not have a positive influence on the future development of the banking sector. Somebody said, that, after surviving the great depression, his grandfather always kept food stocks in his basement.
The loss of image and trust will not be replaced too soon.

And I think the main focus of the media in these days is not customer protection, but customer treatment.

Reply

SvG September 24, 2010 at 00:16

What is very, very questionable is to wait for 2 years with implementing an EU directive and then do it by OUG because there was not time left, without any consultation or impact analysis. Also very, very questionable is to apply this to existing loans, no EU country has done this and all it does is to create confusion. Even more questionable is to create the unrealistic expectations that OUG 50 will make existing credits cheaper, knowing very well that this in not the case. Questionable is also to give written explanations and interpretations to ARB, but refuse to include these clarification in the text of the law.
I am not saying we don’t need legislation for Consumer Credit Contracts, we do. If the media would be doing its job they would expose bad and unethical practices when they were taking place.

Reply

Edy September 24, 2010 at 12:29

You are right, there should have been a deep analysis given the fact that you have to apply it to existing contracts. And the fact that the EU directive was ‘extended’ maybe is not well known by the public.

My personal opinion is that now there is a difficult situation (for the Govt.) because:
– maybe the government realizes that there should be an adaptation;
– if they choose to restrict the applicability there could (or better-said will) be an impact on the social level. The government has taken many unpopular decisions (wage cuts in the administration etc) this year, so this would go on top of those. Also, on the financial level, the banks could chose to complain about the costs involved — and maybe request that the state support these losses (through a trial).

As I read in the media, the government said in the letter to FMI that it would adapt it. On the other hand, the same day I read an article citing a government source that the OUG will be ‘discussed’, and not necessarily changed.
Back to the directive.
As you cited in the post, there are two interesting references in the directive. The first one is “.. should be excluded” – in the preamble.
The second one is “..shall not apply” – in the bodya.
Frankly, I see a problem even in the EU directive. Is there ‘should’ or ‘shall not’?

Reply

jhuitz September 19, 2010 at 09:17

You as usual raise good points. One question, a dumb one at that it may seem, but why lend in EUR in Romania? I realize that this is what customers want to get lower interest rates. But they don’t earn EUR. EURIBOR shouldn’t even be relevant. The Czech Republic and for the most part Poland stayed away from this practice, and it served them well. Sometimes the customer isn’t right.

I once worked for a global bank and had the chance to review customer banking practices in Romania. I was appalled. The justification was that practices were consistent with the market. I thus awaited this new directive as a major step forward, but it is a pity that the NBR opted to apply retroactively. I’ve heard that this is creating confusion among existing customers and some may contest agreements now and consequently defer or refuse payment. Impaired loans hence could rise and banks may reduce lending activities. That wouldn’t be good for anyone.

Reply

SvG September 20, 2010 at 16:08

Thanks for your comments jhuitz, EUR lending has become a practice in Romania, because of the indirect effect of the lower interest rates. Simply put, someone could borrow a larger sum in EUR than in RON for a similar monthly installment. SInce because of debt to income restrictions, EUR was considered more attractive. Other factors are that the real estate market is 100% EUR, all prices are expressed in EUR and the stable exchange rate. Poland had a very fluctuating exchange rate and I am sure this makes people think twice before they take out a loan in EUR. THe discussion on EUR lending is still ongoing but the general feeling is that without EUR lending very little lending would take place at all.
On the consumer protection directive, it is not the BNR that applied this retroactively. They are totally against it. In Romania consumer protection in the financial sector is not with the regulators, like it is in many other countries, but with a separate government agency, the ANPC. Maybe that also explains part of the problems we are facing now. Indeed the confusion created by ANPC is likely to have an impact on risk costs and would therefor increase the cost of credit product for consumers for the future.

Reply

Edy September 19, 2010 at 11:59

I would like to comment on two aspects:
1. “I am sure there are voices that will say that banks will anyway not pass on decreases in Country Risk Premium”.
If a bank must take into consideration the country risk premium, and we understand, from the post, that the existing loans include (to some extent) this cost, then how can the banks offer new loans without this? As I see, now, many (if not all) Romanian banks are willing to offer loans with rate calculated as EURIBOR+fixed margin (and I am not reffering to Prima Casa). So actually, where is the country risk premium included for the new offers? If it is not included, or included as a fixed value, then we come to the same issue for new loans. On the other hand, having existing credits with a discretionary rate, established unilaterally by the banks, could, in theory, help the bank to compensate a rise in country risk premium for the new loans. This is just a possibility, not an accusation. Also, not being a banker, I don’t know how country risk premium is actually applied in the current operations, but, I assume the financing from the ‘mother’ bank would carry a different cost as the CDS.

2. “Anyone who is unhappy about their existing loan can take a new loan from another bank to repay their old loan”
Unfortunately not. Let us remember that until end of 2008, financing conditions were very relaxed. LTV – up to 90%. The total of credit rates – up to 70% of the net income. With such a credit you could buy also land.
Now, the situation is totally different: LTV up to 75%, the value of the collateral decreased, there are not any offers for credits in CHF (and EURCHF changed from a max of ~1.6 to a historical low of ~1.3) etc.
So the real possibility to refinance a credit contracted in 2007-2008 looks limited.

Reply

Stefan September 21, 2010 at 14:48

A lot can be said about OUG 50/2010, but in all fairness, banks generally speaking at times abused their position and in many cases have blatantly infringed excisting consumer rights.

Could I , or the average consumer have changed this ourselves during the last years ? No. So it took the government to implement this OUG (as well as OUG 174/2008)

I assume you are aware that there have been banks mostly in 2008-2009 that have been introducing illegally new fees and costs during (!) the loan term, or have illegally increased the interest rate of loans without any clear or solid motivation and are evading to be transparent. Or even illegally introduced clauses which state the bank can enter your property at any time ( being in contradiction with art 27 of the Romanian Constitution), or introduced extremely high early reimbursement commissions (up to 10%) locking in the customer unfairly, or introduced a “BNR” risk commission which was prolonged unilaterally causing a huge scandal in the press…or applied forced selling (“You take our mortgage and ONLY OUR internal life insurance, or we will increase your mortgage rate with 3,25% regardless if you already have life insurance somewhere else which could be put in favour of our bank”) … and so on

When not even speaking about OUG 50/2010 , many banks are and have been fined by ANPC based on OG 21/1992 (republished) or judged by the court system due to introducing abusive clauzes (Legea 193/2000 and Legea 363/2007). Do I welcome this? Yes, 200%, as indeed as some abuses in the banking system should be halted.

What has bothered me is that some banks in Romania offered loans with a debt/income ratio of 70% (!) based on a promotional one-year fixed rate, knowing that the variable rate would take the debt/income ratio over 90% in the 2nd year (BCR is a good example) and getting clients in trouble (not knowing what the variable rate would be in the 2nd year as it was not specified in the contract!)

There is one word in Dutch that we both know which should have much more emphasis in Romania: “zorgplicht” (simply translated: “the duty to care for your customer”)

But it is really time for banks to still keep understanding that their total business revenues still depends on its customers. If you treat your customers badly (or don’t communicate correctly), you will loose them and wont win them back easily whatever your marketing efforts will be.

I welcome (and would like to help) any bank in Romania to apply a more Western European approach and to break loose from the “Romanian system” that has infringed a lot consumer rights over the years (again: there are exceptions) and to be more pro-active, more customer orientated and consider the client an “asset” that you want to hang on to in good times and bad times. At the moment the customer is still not being the centre of attention for Romanian banks, how ever hard banks are trying …

Regarding the EURIBOR and the margin issue, I do understand your point of view that the this is a sensitive one for many banks, especially for those banks who have used an “internal” rate for years on end …

Regarding OUG 50/2010 … the government (through ANPC) has introduced an emergency ordinance based on the provisions of the EU Directive. But does this completely prohibit adding more favourable consumer rights ? I sincerely don’t think so.

It’s a sensitive subject mainly regarding the “interest” provisions in the OUG which perhaps, for those banks using internal rates, should more be linked to the indices AND the country risk rate which could be verified and could go up and down (instead of only the Euribor rate) , but all other provisions are indeed to protect consumers which I think is a very good thing, on which I assume you do agree.

Reply

SvG September 22, 2010 at 23:00

Stefan, thank you for your comment. Indeed some banks have shown unethical behavior in the past. One practice I described in one of my earlier posts. OUG 50 will help somewhat in this respect. As said before, I have nothing against consumer protection, I expect to benefit from it.
The benefits from being an ethical bank are more long term. The practices you describe do attract customers, just as they would like to have 6 or 12 months overdrafts, clearly not good for them. If you didn’t do the same (we didn’t) you did lose some business. I think now is the time that customers start to see that there are bigger differences between banks than they may have thought originally. Competition will clean this up even more than regulations. By the way, what would have been the benefit for consumers it ANPC would have implemented the EU Directive, that already came into force in early 2008, much sooner ? They waited until the very last moment and then implemented it by Emergency Ordinance because the deadline had already passed.

Reply

mihaela September 21, 2010 at 19:53

Stefan – you are Stefan Willems, I assume. If that is the case, you just wrote a hugely hypocritical comment.
Do you remember putting pressure on your partner banks (in the name of your company, the loans broker) in order for them to accept loans with 70% DTI ratios or loans that had all kinds of unusual, non-sustainable reimbursement sources? BCR has been a preferred partner of yours – is it nice to comment like this now?

Mr. Van Groningen, excellent article. Wish more people would understand the message.

Reply

Stefan September 22, 2010 at 18:17

@mihaela

I think this could turn into a longer discussion if I would comment on your remarks (which I do not intend on this blog of SvG). If needed I can try to explain it to you (by email) and to share my opinion to be seen in a more wider context regarding my DTI comment.

Reply

Bogdan September 22, 2010 at 21:19

Mr. van Groningen, I don’t believe that the source of financing is relevant to Romanian customers, so I don’t think that the country ranking should be used in computing the interest rates. It should only be decided by the market forces.

If we look at the average interest rates for a 20/30-year mortgages across Europe, we see that some riskier countries have rather lower interest rates. Greece, a high-risk country, doesn’t have the huge interest rates we have in Romania, and Italy, surprisingly, has smaller interest rates than Germany. It’s all about the local conditions.

The lack of reimbursement fees helps stirring up the competition between banks (making refinancing cheaper), so when we’ll have a better country risk, the market forces would, hopefully, fix the problem of high interest rates.

Reply

SvG September 23, 2010 at 08:31

Thank you for your comment Bogdan, I don’t disagree. Local conditions play an important role, savings culture, ease of executing collateral are important factors. Most of the money that banks use to fund loans doesn’t come from the money market but from deposits. But if a bank independent rate is imposed like in OUG 50, there are no alternatives to EURIBOR for EUR loans The anomaly in Romania is that close to 70% of lending is done in EUR, but savings are mainly in RON. In this case banks do need to tap into the international markets to access EUR and the CDS (Country Risk Premium) becomes quite important. If consumers don’t want to be exposed to the country risk premium, they should borrow in the currency of their home country, RON.

Reply

Lavinia September 28, 2010 at 00:22

Plz, Mr. Banker, allow me to understand. These guyz, the romanian government and the romanian consumers (I never had a credit and I don’t yet plan such a move), want to take off your right to recover the risk premium yourself pay for borrowing euro from outside, or what is all this war about? I don’t have a credit yet, but I hear people talking about a commission for risk that they want off. To what commission do they refer? Is there a strange commission or is about the risk premium for the country and maybe for the country and for the bank also if it is lower viewed than the country itself? (A god reason why we should see separately the risk premium of every bank :))) Because, really, I can’t understand the essence of this war, and Mr Ghetea says in the press that some banks risk bankruptcy => it could be about not allowing them to recover this risk premium?! :) .

Can’t it be something like: euribor (var) +risk premium (var) + a fixed commission which to include the other costs and the profit? It’s prohibited by the OUG this formulation, or what? I really don;t have the mood to read the OUG as I’m not directly interested in the subject, sorry, but I’d like to understand why this war appeared. I just heard the new project for the ppl on BVB to pay taxes quarterly and it’s enough to know somebody is crazy in this country. I’d like to see to what extent the guyz are totally crazy, because if they indeed force you to make something fixed from something variable by nature … I think for the first time in their life banks are right. If you indeed pay that cost you should be allowed to recover it, and in the form you pay for it.

Reply

SvG September 28, 2010 at 19:46

Dear Lavina, thank you for your comment. Indeed the discussions can become a bit confusing at times. Basically there are two types of cost to a credit. Commissions and interest. Some banks (not us) charge a “comision de risk”. This is a commission and different from the Country Risk Premium I refer to that is part of the interest.
OUG 50 limits the number of types of commissions a bank may charge. That is fine but it cannot mean that a bank that was charging this in the past, based on a contract, may not convert this into the “new” commissions that are allowed. That would mean a big difference between the ways banks are affected by OUG 50, just because one bank used different words to describe a commission.
In my post I refer to the country risk premium as part of the interest. The whole idea about variable interest loans is that the interest rates fluctuates in function of the market. OUG allows banks to charge only a reference rate (EURIBOR) and a fixed margin for variable rate loans. OUG 50 did not take into account that most lending to consumers is done in another currency than the local RON, namely in EUR. SInce banks need to access the international markets to get EUR (local savings are mostly in RON and in no way sufficient to cover the lending activity) they have to pay for their funding EURIBOR + CDS (Country Risk Premium). Both are subject to market movements and out of the will of the individual banks. OUG 50 now allows banks only to charges EURIBOR as the variable part. This means that the much larger variable part, CDS has to be put in the – fixed by OUG 50- margin. This means that consumers will face higher rates when EURIBOR, now at a historical minimum, goes up as it certainly will, but will not benefit from a reduction of CDS. CDS is 3,5 % against EURIBOR 1%, so by far the largest part of the variable component. The fact that also mortgage loans are included (excluded in the EU Directive) only makes thing worse.
The EU Directive on which OUG 50 is based has existed fro more than 2 years, still ANPC didn’t manage to do an impact analysis or to consult with stakeholders. Only at the last moment an OUG was needed in order to comply. As said before, I am not against consumer protection and we should of course implement EU directives, but not in this way.

Reply

Bogdan Radu October 19, 2010 at 06:50

Dear Sir,

I found very interresant your blog and, especially, this article… However, I found out that even your bank is not using the “comision de risc” you agree with the ones using this comission, even renamed.

I have such a credit from another bank with such a comission. At the time being they told me that this risk is because they don’t have a (good) history with me. That works fine for me, but after 2 years and half with every money payed to centime at time I still payed 30% this comission. More than that I covered my risk to the bank with a house (even now is more expensive than the market price) and with an assurance. So where is the risk now? Stil… the said in my contract 0.22% and they are charging me with 0.22% per month!!!!!!… As I know the interrests, if not otherwise specified, are per year, not per month…

Do you think I am right, Sir?

On the other hand I am deeply concerning if the relationship between me and my bank (not every bank – not to be misunderstanding) is not a relaible and honest one, not based necessarly on the OUG 50.
I agree that the Romanian Govt didn’t do a public discussion on it, and this is how our Govt is doing business. I agree that I have to discuss my bank in order to minimize the cost loss by the both parts.
But how can I trust my bank when they told me that I have a flat interrest (3.99%) and now they are tolding me that this is variable…

You must agree with me, Sir, that are some misleading tactcs to approach the customer from a few banks… And it is not my intention to accuse all the banks. I have many acounts and I work with many banks… And as I saw in market only a couple of them are in trouble. Why? because they were from beginning in a long run for extracharging the customers in a hurry for gain bigger market slice. Unfortunately two of the are Austrian… Good for Raiffeisen that is not one of them ;-)

Sorry for my english

Bogdan

Reply

SvG October 19, 2010 at 10:00

Thank you for your comments Bogdan. I think this clearly illustrates that individual banks will be forced to change their bad behavior more because their clients are unhappy and feel cheated than because of administrative measures. ( I am not saying we don’t need consumer protection laws, we need this too, but at the end of the day the customer will judge). The client and bank should have a relationship in which -like in any other relationship -aspects like respect and reputation play an important role. In many cases taking a loan has been treated like a transaction, a one of deal. Often banks or their staff cared only about booking the loan, the customers picked the bank based on what he considered the best offer (in many cases the banks that offered the highest amount). This will change as your experience shows, the relationship will matter more. I agree with you there were and probably still are misleading practices. Let’s hope that customers with experiences like yourself will change this by making their future choices based on their personal experience.

Reply

Bogdan Radu October 21, 2010 at 19:52

Thank you for your reply… I am deeply agree with you with just one think I want totell… In a society where the good manners and good behaviour are the rule themselves the law is no need, but only when the things go wrong (lose of equilibrium). In a sosciety based by misled actions and bad behaviour (You know how we drive in Romania…and my driving teacher told me that a person will throw out the worst from within when he/she drives) the law is a must.

Therefore I truly hope that in …let’s say 10 years… in Romania we’ll have exactly what you said about banks and persons. Until then…

Thank you again for your blog and your time spending answering to comments. That makes you one of a kind!

Stephen September 28, 2010 at 16:24

Stephen,
I am assuming that the vote rating goes from 1 = poor and 10 = fantastic
Can you confirm please.
Otherwise superb blog and I enjoy reading your objective and well explained comments.
Were you to run for president, I would vote for you.
We need more staight talking and less ambiguity.

Reply

SvG September 28, 2010 at 19:50

Stephen,
Indeed that is the scale, the passing grade is 6. Thank you for your kind words.

Reply

Lavinia September 29, 2010 at 22:07

I understood. You know what? I think that the government is totally idiot because this euribor+smt fixed is complitley unfair for the romanian consumer, mostly in the ong run. Look why :).

Let’s say me after 2 years will have a credit for a house, 25 years, eur. The bank will be forced to make from something variable by nature, the credit default swap, something fixed for the next 25 years. So how will the bank do this? They will stay and think about a fixed estimate which should reflect some medium point for the 25 years, but we all know that estimating correctly a variable issue for 25 years is impossible. So the bank will come out with the maximum possibe affordable fixed estimate for 25 years for my credit. No bank would ever risk, if it thinks it can put 3% extra, they will do it, for them is a question of risk management, they will try to cover them at the maximum limit possbile. The most advantageous way is for the consumer is to have euribor+cds+mixed margin. In this way the banks are not forced to make a fixed estimate for 20 years for something by nature variabile, we will pay corectly every month, exactly what this risk is, higher or lower, we will be sure we don’t pay more than we were supposed to. Sorry, personally I can’t trust a fixed estimate from the part of a bank for such a long time, it’s for sure they won’t do this estimate in the consumer interest, they will ask themselves: what is the maximum level we can go to, and they will choose exactly that one, even if otherwise, under variable rates, that percentage could have been lower, unfortunatley for the consumer. Then, after 10 year, if the bank sufferes a loss becaue of my contract, if the country situation deteriorates dramatically, above that fixed estimate they put in my contract, all this losses will show up in the next new customer credit contracts :)). And so on. I always considered the fixed rates, even for bonds, create the biggest arbitrage opportunity, either for one part either for another, but for a credit contract I don’t consider this moral, not even when the consumer wins. This OUG is completly idiot and against the consumer interest, because banks have instruments by which they can cover or transfer losses. PLZ to explain to the government that for euro credits the correct for the romanian consumer is to have this CDS as a variabable, we can see it over the internet, so that we are sure we don’t pay more or less, but only the correct amount in account for risk, and also in the future the bank don’t need to transfer unwished and unestimated losses in some other new contracts, as those people are not guilty for this, they don’t to suffer. This is my opinion and I’m socked that some people are idiot enough to try to protect the consumer by giving the banks a better instrument to foolish the consumer, actually. A fixed instrument inside which they could just put whatever in account for whatever without us to have the opportunity to know at what percentage they priced our risk in our contract. This is involution and evolution, we should learn that a correct variable rate is better than a more than is the case fixed one.

Reply

Edi September 30, 2010 at 16:07

Dear Lavinia,

(1) The banks are CURRENTLY offering loans without CDS, the form EURIBOR + fixed margin (for example Raiffeisen: EURIBOR 6M + 5.5%). This is true and can be checked on the websites.
(2) You say “because this euribor+smt fixed is complitley unfair for the romanian consumer, mostly in the ong run”
So from (1) and (2) we can deduct the current offer of the banks is “completely unfair” for the Romanian customer?

On the other hand, you say “..because banks have instruments by which they can cover or transfer losses”, where will they cover these possible losses from (for these new loans which do not include the CDS)? Maybe from old contracts (until OUG50 was issued?)

Even more, an article in Ziarul Financiar (30-mar-2009) cited a report issued by Raiffeisen Austria saying that the CDS market “..este dominata de un numar redus de jucatori, fiind lipsita de transparenta si inca nereglementata”. Furthermore, Mr. Ionut Dumitru says “Evolutia CDS tine mai mult de perceptia jucatorilor, nefiind neaparat fundamentata”.
Also, I agree that some form of country risk could/should be included, but not the whole CDS rate (which anyway is not a transparent indicator, being compiled from different sources – the theory is rather long, you can read on the Internet).

Edi

Reply

eRadical October 1, 2010 at 21:13
SvG October 7, 2010 at 07:17

Thank you for posting the link, interesting reading and material for a next post.

Reply

Luminita October 5, 2010 at 16:25

Draga mea! Ca sa te lamuresti ce e cu toata aceasta nebunie declansata de Ordonanta 50 si implicit de detaliile cutremuratoare rezultate din aplicarea comisioanelor “transparente” in contractele de creditare, te invit sa studiezi site-urile ANPC, ANSPDCP si avocatura.net . Si n-ar strica,draga mea,sa-ti intrebi colegii, prietenii, clientii IMM etc, despre cum reusesc sa supravietuiasca dupa ce isi platesc rata la banca si mai ales cu cat le-a crescut rata de la contractarea creditului si pana in prezent? Explicatiile laborioase ale d-lui van Groningen sunt valabile pentru potentialii clienti ai RZB! D-le van Groningen ati incercat sa discutati cu grupul de clienti care s-au hotarat sa actioneze in judecata banca pe care o reprezentati? E adevarat ca va ganditi sa contractati o anumita firma de avocatura pentru a raspunde acestor acuzatii? Daca tot stiati ca exista banci care aplica in mod abuziv niste comisioane cu caracter îndoielnic, de ce nu ati reactionat de la nivelul pozitiei pe care o aveti la ARB? Ce inseamna ARB? E un fel de lider de sindicat care protejeaza doar interesele creditorilor? Ce inseamna pentru dumneavoastra o relatie de parteneriat? Stiati ca exista debitori care acum, dupa reducerea veniturilor bugetarilor au ajuns sa plateasca o rata de 75 la suta din veniturile unei familii intr-un contract ipotecar de CHF? De ce nu ia banca initiativa sa le propuna acestor oameni o restructurare, refinantare etc?

Reply

SvG October 10, 2010 at 00:22

Luminita, bineinteles stim situatiile in care clienti nostri sa afle. Cu fiecare client care are probleme discutam si gasim solutii daca este dispus sa aibe un dialog. Avem si clients care nu platesc, dar nu raspund la telefon sau se dau pierduti. Cu astfel de clients este greu de lucrat. Stim si de cazuri in care clients au ajuns sa plateasca 75% din venit la rata la banca. Nu stiu de ce credeti ca nu oferim solutii de restructurare sau refinantare. Poate ca sint banci care nu fac, nu stiu.
Problema de grupul de clienti care s-au hotarat sa actioneze in instanta este greu de comentat. Daca sint clienti care au probleme, presupun ca au avut deja discutii individuale cu banca. Daca nu a avut discutii individuale, nu inteleg de ce au hotarat sa actioneze in instanta. Daca sint nemultumiti cu serviciile noastre pot refinanta la o alta banca fara sa plateasca nici-un comision de plata anticipata. Oricum, pana acum sint doar vorbe. Nu cred ca am angajat o firma de avocati.

Reply

Lavinia October 5, 2010 at 18:10

@ Luminita

Sa-ti zic unul dintre motivele pentru care oamenii astia platesc mai mult acum la ratele creditelor in CHF, au ajuns sa-si dea 75% din salariu cum zici tu. Cu riscul sa dezamagesc toti clientii bancilor :))

Daca o sa te uiti o sa vezi ca CHF a crescut de prin toamna lui 2007 si pana acum destul de mult fata de euro, de exemplu, deci implicit a crescut si fata de leu. Din moment ce valoarea francului s-a apreciat fata de valoarea leului normal ca tu azi ai nevoie de mai multi lei ca sa cumperi 100 de franci decat aveai nevoie in octombrie 2007. De fapt, in toata perioada asta ati avut nevoie de din ce in ce mai multi lei ca sa cumparati 1 franc. Nu stiu exact care e rata chf/ron, nu tranzactionez nimic pe romania, care sa implice leul, dar azi ai nevoie de in jur de vreo 20% mai multi euro ca sa cumperi 1 de franc, raportat la octombrie 2007. Si asa se face ca ratele lor in mod cert le-au cerut din ce in ce mai multi lei din salariul lor. Nu spun ca bancile alea n-or fi aplicat si comisioane ciudate, habar nu am, eu nu am avut credit niciodata, n-am intrat in banci decat sa platesc facturi si sa depun sau sa retrag bani, nu stiu ce comisione au toate cele 40 si ceva de banci din sistem si pentru ce le percep, stiu doar logic vorbind ce comisioane ar trebui sa aiba si cum ar trebui sa fie fiecare dintre ele: fixe sau variabile, si alea pe care voi le vreti fixe tre sa ramana variabile, ca sunt asa prin natura lor chiar daca voi refuzati sa intelegeti. Eu spun doar ca si cu 0 comisioane tot plateati mult mai mult astazi din lei in chf pentru o rata in CHF. Deci da, sunt convinsa ca cei cu credit in CHF au o din ce in ce mai mare problema sa schimbe lei in CHF dar asa evolueaza piata forex internationala. Asta e viata, welcome on Earth :). Repet, or fi si comisioane ciudate, nu zic nu, dar in mod cert cea mai mare parte din cresterea ratei la CHF se datoreaza intaririi foarte mult a francului elvetian pe perioada asta si cresterii CDS-urilor pe Romania, si bancile nu au cum sa va protejeze pe voi de asa ceva ca absolut toata lumea de pe planeta este afectata de evolutia pietelor valutare, inclusiv ele :).

Ca sa evitati complet acest risc valutar faceti credit strict in moneda in care va primiti salariul. Daca v-au trebuit credite in alta moneda trebuia sa va ganditi la posibilitatea ca acea moneda sa creasca mult fata de moneda voastra de salariu, si deci sa ajungeti sa schimbati din ce in ce mai mult din salariu pe rata.

O alta posibilitate pe care o puteti incerca cu banca este sa va faca un swap valutar, un caps and floor eventual, ceva de genul, banuiesc ca se poate si in romania. Mergeti direct in trezoreria bancii la care aveti creditul si spuneti ca vreti sa va acoperiti cat de cat de riscul valutar, in mod cert si in romania trebuie sa existe in trezorerii astfel de posibilitati. Sau incercati sa schimbati de tot creditul dintr-o moneda in alta, s-ar putea sa se poata face si asa. Trebuie sa incercati sa va educati inainte sa luati in credit, sa va ganditi la toate variabilele care constituie costul creditului vostru si cum ar putea evolua ele in viitor, sau, cel mai bine, sa lasati mirajul unei rate mai mici la un moment dat la un credit in valuta si sa luati un credit in RON daca nu sunteti foarte siguri pe ce faceti si stiti ca sunteti foarte adversi la risc.

In concluzie, eram convinsa ca astia cu CHF platesc mult mai mult si daca nu-mi ziceai tu, ca a crescut valoarea francului si riscul de tara pentru Romania. Nu suntem destul de eficienti si de productivi in tara asta, nu generam destui bani la locul de munca, de asta la sfarsit patim rahaturi din astea. Sa devenim si noi nordici peste noapte, sa muncim si noi cu sporul lor si sa facem afaceri intr-un mod mai pragmatic si mai eficient, cu orientare pe termen lung, nu scurt, si nu vom mai avea rate strigatoare la cer ulterior. Si da, sunt deacord cu tine ca daca exista altceva ciudat pe langa indicepe de piata si CDS-ul pentru Romania tre sa dispara. Dar astea doua trebuie sa ramana, si trebuie sa ramana variabile, spre binele tuturor.

Reply

Luminita October 5, 2010 at 20:12

Lavinia,iti multumesc pt aceste detalii si iti marturisesc ca te invidiez pt experienta ta in domeniu. Din fericire, nici eu nu am la momentul de fata un credit,am luat acel exemplu de pe un site de consultanta,dar in aceasta situatie sunt multi romani! Spui ca e musai sa te informezi inainte sa semnezi un contract de creditare,OK! Hai sa-ti spun un lucru despre mine,sunt economista de formatie si activez in domeniul fiscalitatii,dar, poate e rusinos ceea ce spun, insa informatiile din zona bancara imi sunt complet necunoscute! Contabilitatea bancara functioneaza diferit,nu intru in detalii! Dar,am pretentia ca atunci cand abordez un consilier clienti (asa se numesc cei care iti prezinta produsul bancar) , sa-mi ofere toate informatiile despre care tu ai acceptat sa mi le oferi benevol! Si sa stii un lucru,draga mea,toti acesti salariati bancari sunt instruiti sa-ti prezinte doar avantajele! Nu e ca la doctor,adica sa te duci si sa te cauti pana ai diagnosticul corect. Stiai de grupurile de clienti care se organizeaza impotriva bancilor? oare chiar toti sunt neinformati ca mine?incearca,te rog, la ora actuala sa faci o prospectare a pietei bancare ca pt contractarea unui credit personal si vezi cam ce informatii primesti. Un singur lucru sa nu pierzi din vedere: acum ai posibilitatea sa studiezi contractul acasa,inainte insa nu! Sa nu mai vorbim ca tot de curand ti se ofera si posibilitatea sa renunti in 15 zile,chiar daca ai semnat. Te astept cu impresii si multumesc inca o data pentru raspuns.Cred ca suntem singurele comentatoare de pe acest blog care au reusit sa interactioneze fara interventia d-lui van Groningen’

Reply

Luminita October 5, 2010 at 20:16

He! He! He! Totul pâna in trei ori! Scuzati dublura! Mea culpa!

Reply

Lavinia October 6, 2010 at 12:35

@Luminita

Nici nu ma indoiesc ca ei sunt instruiti sa actioneze in interesul lor, tocmai de aia cred ca ordonanta 50 mai mult ne defavorizeaza decat sa ne favorizeze. O sa-ti dau si exemplu. Idea e ca noi tre sa ne informam singuri si sa ii intrebam acolo despre lucrurile astea, ca ei de la sine banuiesc si eu ca n-au chef sa-ti zica :). Gen: exista vreo cale in care pot sa ma protejez de riscul valutar? Exista vreo cale in care pot sa-mi transform dobanda variabila in dobanda fixa, sau sa mi-o blochez intre 2 limite, una minima si una maxima? Ca in mod normal ar trebui sa existe si varianta asta, se poate face swap si pe rata de dobanda, nu doar pe risc valutar. Nu-mi place chestia cu euribor+ceva fix pentru ca imi imaginez ca o banca nu va pune sub acel ceva fix nimic in interesul nostru, si noi nu vom putea sti ce au pus de fapt, ce riscuri iau ei in calcul cand ne dau noua credit si la cat le pretuiesc. Hai sa-ti dau un exemplu. Si banii lor, ca ai tutor, sunt afectati de inflatie in timp, isi pierd din valoare din cauza cresterilor generale de preturi. Mi se pare moral ca un creditor sa poata sa-si recupereze de la debitor pierderea de valoare a banilor, dar uite ce se poate intampla daca noi nu-i obligam pe ei sa creeze un indice variabil care sa evolueze intocmai cu inflatia. Ei au un intreg departament in banca de management al riscului, si riscul de inflatie e un risc, printre altele. Cine face rata la credite o sa le zica alora: suntem obligati sa transformam inflatia in contractul asta de 10 ani in ceva fix de la bun inceput, trebuie neaparat sa facem o estimare fixa pentru 10 ani. Ori in realitate inflatia e variabila si este imposibil sa estimezi asa ceva pe 10 ani cu acuratete, nu se poate, pur si simplu, nimeni nu stie :). Si atunci departamentul lor de risc, care exista ca sa raspunda la doua intrebari: la ce riscuri ne expunem si cum facem ca sa fim cat mai siguri ca ne adapostim de ele, ca nu pierdem?, o sa zica: sa presupunem ca va fi 100%, cel mai sigur pentru noi asa este :)). In felul asta ei iti vor calcula totul astfel incat intr-un sfarsit tu sa platesti pentru 1000 de lei principal imprumutat, cumulat 2000 de lei in 10 ani, asta numai in contul principalului, plus dobanzile aferente la care deasemenea se va aplica progresiv parte din aceasta estimare fixa minune pentru inflatie. De exemplu, daca ar fi sa spargi in 120 de luni, 10 ani, nu vei plati 8.3 lei pe luna in contul principalului, ci vei plati 16.6 lei pe luna in contul principalului, ca sa acoperi pieredea de valoare a banilor, nici nu mai punem dobanzile ca sa nu complicam exemplul :). Daca in realitate inflatia nu va fi de 100% ci de doar 10% pe perioada celor 10 ani, tu in loc de 1000 de lei principal trebuia sa returnezi 1100 lei principal, dar ai returnat 2000 de lei principal, cu 900 de lei in plus, adica 7.5 lei in plus lunar, deci rata corecta ar fi fost doar de 9.1, nu de 16.6 :)). Repet, nici nu mai punem dobanzile. Nu am fost niciodata intr-o banca dar sunt dispusa sa jur ca ceva de genul asta se intampla, cam asa pun ei problema. Daca sunt obligati sa faca o estimare fixa eu banuiesc ca ei o vor face astfel incat sa fie siguri ca nu vor pierde. Daca o lasa variabila tu vezi exact cat este ea si deci stii exact cand tre sa platesti mai mult si cand mai putin, ca in unele perioade ea mai si scade, daca o fixeaza de la inceput pentru toata perioada contractului in mod fix sunt dispusa sa jur ca vor face ceva asemanator cu exemplul meu de mai sus :)) Poate nu cu 100%, dar macar cu 30% :)) Inflatia e doar un exemplu, mai exista si alte riscuri care la fel ca si ea sunt prin natura variabile, si de cate ori o banca sau orice creditor de orice fel le va fixa de la bun inceput in ceva fix pe intreaga perioada, eu n-as fi asa sigura ca va face aceasta transformare artificiala in avantajul aluia pe care il imprumuta, ci evident va aplica managementul riscului si se va gandi in primul rand la binele lui. La obligatiuni situatia sta putin diferit ca ele prin ntura sunt alta poveste, poti sa le si tranzactionezi in piata, ai mai multe optiuni, dar la creditele de la banca cam asa cred eu ca aia de la managementul riscului pun problema. Daca ei la creditele in valuta ar lasa acel CDS drept risc de tara noi l-am vedea pe net cum evolueaza, si el nu e setat de bancile romanesti, se tranzactioneaza zilnic si exprima viziunea strainilor care de obicei imprumuta euro catre entitati din romania fata de capacitatea noastra de plata, ca si tara. Se coteaza pentru toate tarile, inclusiv pentru US si alte tari dezvoltate, toate tarile au un risc de tara, doar ca unele il au mai mare si deci au rate mai mari, costul banilor pentru ele e mai ridicat in idea ca acel creditor sa reuseasca sa recupereze cat mai repede principalul imprumutat, si pana la scadenta sa ramana doar profitul, cum ar veni, si altele, pentru ca stau mult mai bine economic, au un risc de tara mai mic si rate mai mici. Romania in perioada asta e in top 10 pe planeta, nu doar in UE, a tarilor cu risc de faliment, de aia au crescut ratele atat de mult. Te uiti acolo si vezi clar daca a scazut sau a crescut, cu cat, si cat platesti tu in plus la rata, daca dai mai mult de atat nu e ok, te duci si faci scandal, daca dai tot atat … asta e viata, asta e lumea in care traim, exista risc si el costa din pacate :). Dar daca noi ii obligam sa estimeze de la bun inceput un CDS fix … cel mai probabil vor veni cu o estimare cel putin usor umflata, daca nu mai mult, ca la drept vorbnd eu ii inteleg perfect, nici n-ar avea cum sa stie cu siguranta cum evolueaza in 10 ani asa ceva. Nu sunt specialista, eu am alta activitate in domeniul financiar, nu banking, nu stiu 100% cum functioneaza bancile romanesti, dar stiu principiile in mare dupa care ar trebui sa functioneze in general o banca si mai stiu cate ceva despre ratele astea, si nu cred ca ei deraiaza foarte mult de la ideile in mare :). Multa bafta daca faci credit :))

Reply

Luminita October 6, 2010 at 16:44

Update: s-a votat! Draga Lavinia,am inteles in sfarsit! Dar lasa-ma sa fiu inca putin Gicã Contra pe acest blog! Lucrurile ar sta grozav daca in stabilirea ratelor unui credit s-ar utiliza logica de calcul pe care tu ai expus-o!acum,cred ca e cazul ca dl. van Groningen sa intervina in discutie pentru a ne explica modul in care se stabilesc penalitatile si logica comisioanelor lunare,anuale,de risc,de acordare etc! Mai am si o nedumerire legata de partea juridica a contractelor de credit! In ceea ce priveste Ord.50, mi-e greu sa cred ca aplicarea ei ar fi mai paguboasa pt clienti decat pt banci. De ce, dintr-odata , apare aceasta grija pt clienti? As vrea un exemplu concret pe un credit in derulare la RZB,ca sa respectam gazda! Lavinia,de ce ma urasti? Eu? Sa fac credit? Get real,please! Mai am curaj cand citesc in presa despre banci chestii ca: lacomie,subprime,clauze abuzive,inexistenta unui mod transparent de a calcula o dobanda variabila,executare silita etc?bancile si-au pierdut “parfumul de credibilitate”,vorba Catavencilor. E laudabil totusi pt tine ca duci grija românilor dummies ca mine!daca te apuci tu, insa,sa faci credit,te voi bântui! Chipintaci!(vorba românului).

Reply

SvG October 10, 2010 at 01:12

Bancile hotarasc comisioanele asa cum crede fiecare ca este mai bine. OUG 50 obliga bancile sa foloseasca doar cateva comisione. Un lucru bun care va ajuta clientii sa faca o alegere mai buna. De fapt idea de la Directiva Europeana era sa creasca transparenta contractelor de credit in tarile EU ca sa fie mai comparabil de la tara la tara.
E greu de spus cat de paguboase OUG 50 va fi pentru banci fiindca text este neclar. In functie de interpretarea impactul poate fi mic, foarte mare sau mic pentru unele sau foarte mare pentru altele. Intrepretarea corecta din punctul meu de vedera are un impact relativ mic pentru sistemului bancar. Pentru clients impactul nu este clar, fiindca depinde de evolutie dobanzilor. Dar impactul va fi foarte transparent. In scenariul cel mai probabil in care EURIBOR creste si CDS (Risk de Tara) scade, creste costul pentru client intr-un mod foarte transparent si la fel de transparent client nu va beneficia de scadere CDS-ului. Daca cresc si EURIBOR si CDS, clientul tot plateste mai mult, dar banca nu poate transfera crestere de CDS. OUG 50 a creat un fel de produs nou, cu dobanda partial variabil. Grija pentru client nu apare dintr-o data, poate la unele bancii dar nu la noi. De exemplu, nu am transferat toata cresterea de dobanda asupra clientilor, chiar daca din punct de vedere contractual aveam dreptul. Poate ca nu a fost transparent, dar asa a fost. In viitor asa ceva nu va mai fi posibil.

Reply

Luminita October 20, 2010 at 15:15

Bine, bine! nu va mai chinuiesc cu acest subiect! am vrut doar sa inteleg cate ceva din ceea ce inseamna managemenul riscului intr-o banca! mi-ar fi placut niste explicatii de genul celor pe care mi le-a oferit draguta de Lavinia. Nu vreau sa mi-o luati in nume de rau faptul ca las comentarii acide la adresa bancilor pe blogul dv, dar aici a fost doar vina dumneavoastra pentru ca v-ati asumat riscul de a va crea acest blog si ati acceptat sa fiti interpelati si de “necredinciosi” ca mine!
In alta ordine de idei, tot v-am obisnuit cu comentarii “rautacioase”, dati-mi voie sa nu fie de acord cu implicarea si organizarea acestui asa-zis maraton. Eu numesc acest tip de manifestare ca “sarbatoare campeneasca”, unde se inghesuie toti neica’nimeni, care n-au nicio inclinatie catre sport ci vin doar ca sa socializeze, adica sa caste gura si sa barfeasca. Toata admiratia pentru sotia dv, dar sincer cred ca ar trebui sa-i sugerati doamnei Valeria sa se implice in activitati de voluntariat si caritate. Munca de caritate nu inseamna maratoane (sau cum vreti sa le spuneti) sau baluri la care se strang bani pentru cei napastuiti de soarta. Vorbesc de munca de jos aici! ridica gunoiul, construieste case, ajuta la modul concret pe cei batrani si bolnavi sau, de ce nu, serveste supa saracilor! mie nu-mi place cand sponsorii sau organizatorii unei anumite activitati vin cu declaratii publice, suna acest lucru in opinia mea a publicitate gratuita pe banii sponsorilor! as vrea sa aud si sa vad la televizor o reclama a unei banci care a donat sume importante de bani pentru construirea unui spital, de exemplu, sau pentru construirea unei sectii dintr-un spital public, sau pentru achizitionarea unui aparat performant! televiziunile si internetul anunta in draci cazurile disperate ale unor copii cu boli grave, sau a unor persoane aflate la limita subzistentei! redirectionati fondurile destinate de banci catre campaniile de marketing, spre aceste cazuri!

Reply

SvG October 21, 2010 at 22:33

Va asigur ca sotia mea este implicata intr-o multime de activitati de voluntariat si caritate, inclusiv de constructie de case si grije pentu batrani. Unul nu exclude altul.
Caritate sau filantropie nu este marketing sau sponsoring. Sint lucruri diferite. Sint multe personane si organisatii care au contributii importante dar nu vorbesc despre asta. Apropo, stiati ca avem in Romania prea multe spitale (dar doctori prea putine) ? Ati fost vreodata la un maraton ? Orcum, as vreau sa va rog sa respectati subjectul postul cand comenatati.

Luminita November 1, 2010 at 13:41

V-ati suparat?
Sincer, imi pare rau! eu cred ca ma exprim foarte clar in limba romana, sunteti singurul care imi reproseaza asa ceva pana acum! este si motivul pentru care am preferat sa scriu in limba mea materna si nu in limba engleza (chiar daca exista Google translator pe lumea asta!), Imi pare rau ca va raspund cu intarziere, ca toata lumea sunt si eu in contracronometru!
Ajutati-ma sa inteleg ce nu am respectat pe acest blog, sincer nu-mi dau dau seama!
E adevarat ca fac si comentarii sarcastice, dar asta nu inseamna ca am avut intentia sa va jignesc pe dumneavoastra, sau pe vreun comentator. Departe de mine acest lucru, credeti-ma! ati reusit sa-mi stricati ziua, dar nu-i bai! daca doriti, o sa ma dezactivez de la RSS, dar numai daca dumneavoastra imi cereti acest lucru!!!
Incerc sa va raspund punctual: am fost la cateva activitati de genul maratoanelor, dar niciodata la cele pe care le organizeaza sotia dv, pentru simplul fapt ca nu sunt din Bucuresti!
Stiu ca sa sunt spitale care nu au numarul de doctori necesar, dar poate ca dumneavoastra nu stiti si de ce se intampla acest lucru! Doctorii sunt foarte prost platiti, d-le van Groningen! prietena mea cea mai buna a plecat in vara aceasta in Anglia, ca medic stomatolog! verisoara mea e medic de familie….stiu al naibii de bine ce e in sistemul sanitar, din aceasta cauza imi permit sa comentez!
Ma bucur sa aud ca sotia dv e implicata in activitati de voluntariat si caritate, dar n-am auzit si imi pare rau pentru asta! Eu sunt implicata in activitati de voluntariat si caritate, ati auzit de mine? E o gluma, n-o luati in nume de rau!
CONCLUZIE: cred ca nu excelati la capitolul umor (o explicatie ar fi ca nu ati citit inca operele lui Caragiale).
Sper ca cele de mai sus sa aiba legatura cu subiectul postului!
Imi pare rau pentru neplacerile pe care vi le-am creat, au fost fara intentie si imi cer scuze tuturor comentatorilor acestui blog daca au fost jigniti de comentariile mele!
Va urez tuturor mult succes si ganduri bune!

Vasile Pop-Coman October 9, 2010 at 18:31

Mr. van Groningen, allow me uncover just 2 flaws of your 2 main arguments:

– the OUG 50 shouldn’t be applied for existing (and mortgage) loans, because no other country did it, you said. But what is going on in other countries regarding interests rates for loans? I’m afraid the situation is far more different and transparent than here, you may know it better, for sure. But why, after all, the existing (mortgage) loans shouldn’t be as (legally) transparent as new loans? Just because the poor Romanians weren’t aware in the past of the loan contracts traps, designed mainly in bank favor?!

– as for interest rates increase in the future, as you fear for clients, what on earth would prevent you at that moment from lower them (even fixed margins), just as you have raised them after the EURIBOR plunged under 1%? Perhaps the bank “long term (commitment) relationship” with its clients? Because an agreement can anytime be changed in favor of the client… and the bank, in a win-win situation.

There are a lot of invisible question marks left spotted in your comment and much more visible unanswered, such as ARB opacity and unwillingness to publicly and fairly discuss this very important issue in order to clarify in time the problems and try to help prevent this real mess maid by OUG 50.

Reply

SvG October 9, 2010 at 23:29

Vasile, a few quick comments, in reverse order. ARB is not unwilling to discuss the issue but it was decided to have the discussions with the stakeholders and not through the press. So the process that should have been taking place before OUG 50 was published is taking place now. It is rather difficult for banks to communicate if the authorities refuse to clarify simple issues. Also, the impact of OUG 50 is totally different from bank to bank, this makes it difficult for ARB to represent all. In a next post I hope write about “the making of OUG 50”.
As for the interest rates, the whole idea of variable interest rates is that they are…. variable. That means they fluctuate with the market. This was seen at the beginning of the crisis. EURIBOR went down but CDS (Country Risk Premium) went up, the over all variable cost increased. OUG 50 now ignores the much bigger CDS part. It has to be in the fixed margin. Of course banks could lower their margin when CDS comes down, but they are not allowed to increase it when CDS goes up. So the loan contracts are “one -way” variable for CDS. Banks are likely to be more reluctant to pass lower CDS on when higher CDS may not passed on. In fact OUG 50 created some sort of new product, in between fixed interest and variable interest loans. EURIBOR is variable, but CDS, also a variable part, may be adjusted only in one direction which will mean that it will move slowly and with delay down, if at all.
The whole ideas of EU Directive 2008/48 is to align practices within the EU and to make loan documentation more transparent throughout the EU. Thanks to OUG 50 clients can refinance their loans without paying for early repayment. If a customer is unhappy, he can choose another bank. Competition will solve this problem. Some clients might be interested in transparency, others in cheaper loans.

Reply

Vasile Pop-Coman October 10, 2010 at 15:02

Mr van Groningen,

Let me contradict you. OUG 50 did not, in fact, created a new type of interest rate. Many big (including yours) and small banks in Romania (and elsewhere, I guess) used to apply this formula (EURIBOR plus a fixed margin), before, during and after the crises epicenter, without changing the loans cost, irrespective of the CDS waving. This only proves the CDS is not the clients (risk) business, but banks.

As you remember, some (including yours) but not all banks have tried last year to pass the CDS risk on clients by (strange) new interest rates formulas with CDS included (I have not seen them in other countries) in new loan agreements, an idea proved to be wrong and eventually abandoned.

In fact, the banks are the ones that created new (weird) interest rate formulas and law enforcement that brought big problems along.

If we looked right now at banks new euro loan (mortgages) offers, we’d find fixed margins of 4-4,5 percent added to EURIBOR, compared to 8-10 in case of some existing loans, even at the same institution.

The (ARB) banks wrongly decided (interpreted the poor law) to keep unchanged the old interest rates, without taking into consideration (with no remorse, you may say) that they have been risen before.

In fact not the law is the problem. It doesn’t tell you what the interest rate must be, but the banks in corpore (and I assume defying competition and transparency conduct) kept the old values, triggering predictable client dismay, that I guess cannot be restored by no new (improved) law.

So why are you still trying to change the law and not solve the (your) problem?

Reply

SvG October 10, 2010 at 21:32

I didn’t say interest rate, I mentioned product. It is very simple actually, There are two types of interest, fixed and variable. Variable fluctuates with the market. In Romania that includes -for EUR – the country risk premium. If consumers don’t want to be exposed to the country riks premium, they should take a loan in local currency, RON. Alternatively, they can take a loan in a country where the home country is EUR (good luck) you cannot have it both ways. Indeed we passed on part of the CDS increase to our customers as was stipulated in the contracts for variable interest rate loans. Contractually we could have transferred the full CDS increase, but we didn’t. The reason you haven’t seen this in other countries is because people borrow in the home country currency in most countries. In order to give EUR loans, banks need to go to the international markets, because the majority of the savings in Romania are in RON.
If ind it difficult to comment on “the banks” I don’t represent “the banks”. I am sure there are a few that have done strange things, I hope their clients learn from it and switch banks. The interpretation by ARB is based on a letter from ANPC. I have not analyzed the difference between “old” and “new” loans, but would expect that the risk profile is rather different.
Client dismay is triggered by the unjustified expectation (created by whom ?? not the banks) that OUG 50 would make existing loans cheaper. This expectation is false.
If a client is unhappy about his loan with a bank, he can refinance at another bank and repay his existing loan without any early repayment commission. I have no problem with this.

Reply

Luminita November 16, 2010 at 15:10

D-le van Groningen, ma grabesc sa va lansez un subiect care pe mine m-a bulversat, asa ca nu va suparati pe mine ca las acest comentariu in dreptul celebrei Ordonante 50.

La o recenta intalnire a liderilor G20, s-a alcatuit o lista cu 20 de banci ale caror falimente ar putea avea repercusiuni asupra sistemului financiar mondial. Proiectul documentului, elaborat de Consiliul de Stabilitate Financiara, include bancile: DEUTSCHE BANK, BANK OF AMERICA- MERRILL LYNCH, CITIGROUP, GOLDMAN SACHS, JPMORGAN, CHASE, MORGAN STANLEY (sua), BARCLAYS, HSBC, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND, STANDARD CHARTERED, RBC (CANADA), SANTANDER, BBVA (SPANIA), BNP PARIBAS, SOCIETE GENERALE (FRANTA), MITSUBISHI, UFJ, MIZUHO, NOMURA, SUMITANO, MITSUI (JAPONIA), ING (OLANDA), CREDIT SUISSE si UBS (ELVETIA).

Reply

Luminita November 16, 2010 at 15:14

Of, graba asta! nu terminasem comentariul!
vroiam sa stiu ce ne sfatuiti pe noi cei care avem depozite la una dintre aceste banci, ce se intampla cu economiile tarilor in care aceste banci au filiale puternice si ce se intampla cu cei care avem contracte de pensii private reasigurate la CREDIT SUISSE?

MULTUMESC FRUMOS!

Reply

Alexandru August 4, 2011 at 21:27

Eu am o mare nedumerire- de ce nu platesc bancile TVA? Din cite inteleg eu,activitatea respectiva- bancara,s-o numim asa,nu este platitoare de TVA- nu este bizar? Ei se definesc ca o activitate comerciala oarecare,care trebuie sa se supuna regulii pierderi/profit- ca si orice butic amarit……..ce interesant…………..in alta ordine de idei……….imi aduc aminte,in2007,ca daca voiai sa iei un credit ,de la RFB puteai primi- pentru un salariu ex-100000lei,120000 echivalent euro-150000 in CHF- ce ciudat……….si in antichitatate zarafii nu pecepeau mai mult de 5% …….

Reply

Beatrice December 9, 2012 at 12:49

Dezgrop acest subiect ref.la OUG50 si a implementarii Directivei 2008/48/CE in legislatia din Romania deoarece m-ar interesa parerea dvs privitoare la Decizia CJUE din 12 jul.2012
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124988&pageIndex=0&doclang=RO&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=15012
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124988&pageIndex=0&doclang=RO&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=15012

Reply

SvG December 9, 2012 at 14:16

Decizia de la CJUE nu poate fi o surpriza. Nu faptul ca ANPC a “imbunatatit” Directiva EU consider problema adevarata dar faptul ca a fost facut in mare graba fara nici-o analiza de impact. ANPC nu a facut absolut nimic timp de 2 ani de zile (directiva EU dateaza de 2008) si cand sa aproprie temen impus de directive abuzeste instrumet de OUG cu un text care este atat de ambivalent ca nici ANPC nici avocati nici bancheri nu au putut clarifica cum trebuie aplicat. Ar fi fost mai corect sa fie folosit OUG pentru a implementa strict partea impus de Directiva.
Rezultat a fost o situatie in care sute de mii de Romani nu a stiut ce sa faca. Bancile a fost dati in judecate, catodata au pierdut, catodata a cistigat. Asa s-a ilustrat inca o data abordare neunitare in justitie in Romania.

Mai interestand decat decizia de la CJEU mentionata de Dvs este deciza recente al Inalta Curte de Justitia.

Reply

beatrice December 11, 2012 at 23:37

Permiteti-mi sa va contrazic. Rolul OUG50 a fost sa trezeasca romanii din amortire, majoritatea acestora au actionat bancile in instanta in baza legii 193/2000. Pe aceasta lege se castiga in instanta.
In ultimii ani increderea romanilor in banci a scazut ingrijorator de mult iar creditarea aproape blocata.
Pentru deblocarea situatiei, parerea mea este ca intre clienti si banci trebuie construit un parteneriat si abandonata atitudinea bancara de “master and servant”, trebuie sa existe comunicare (bidirectionala) si trebuie recapatata increderea clientilor.
Mediul bancar din Romania trebuie sa inteleaga ca romanii sunt si ei cetateni europeni si macar din acest punct de vedere merita contracte de credit curate si simple, pe intelesul si celui mai putin educat(financiar) cetatean/client, fara dobanzi mascate sub forma de comisioane. Ideal ar fi ca in contractul de credit sa existe un singur cost _dobanda, oricat de mare ar fi aceasta.

Reply

SvG November 1, 2010 at 18:21

Multumesc!. Nu sint chiar atat de usor de suparat….

Reply

Luminita November 16, 2010 at 15:12

Sa mai incerc? Glumeeeeeeeeeesc…………..

Reply

beatrice December 11, 2012 at 22:33

La ICCJ Volksbank a pierdut deja cateva procese, inainte de cel mentionat de dvs. Numai ca acelea nu au fost mediatizate…normal :). Va pot da si link-urile dosarelor daca prezinta interes pentru dvs.
Din pacate, in Romania precedentul judiciar nu functioneaza ca izvor de drept. Scorul clienti vs Volksbank este coplesitor in favoarea clientilor iar daca ar fi existat precedentul judiciar aceasta banca ar fi fost scoasa de mult de pe piata.
Si pentru ca tot ati adus vorba de Volksbank, aceasta este banca care a gresit cel mai mult dintre toate…atat in fata clientilor cat si a competitorilor. Daca nu ma insel, chiar Volksbank a detronat Raiffeisen datorita ofertelor cu dobanda fixa pe care astazi nu o mai recunoaste in fata clientilor. Vi se pare corect?

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: