You are on page 1of 1

What went wrong?

Customers, Regulator, Banks?
The regulator went wrong,
The regulations lacked clarity and transparency to enable the consumer to
perceive that there were clauses defining the main purpose of the
agreement. The regulations created an appearance of a variable interest in
which the fluctuations downwards of the reference interest rate will result in
the decrease of the price of money, this caused imbalances in the rights and
obligations under agreement making the regulator the cause
According to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-0422/protesters-mock-bankers-as-ecb-fuels-spain-mortgage-fight Eduardo
Martinez Cobo travelled to Madrid to protest what he considers unfair clauses
in his mortgage contract meaning there was something wrong with the
regulations. Banks had added floors to their mortgage contracts which set a
minimum rate for a loan that couldn’t fall even when market interest rates
lowered; this was unfair part of the regulations.
It is not ethical to write contracts in confusing terms, but, what
about signing it without understanding and claiming when the
clause is not in your favour?
Yes indeed, it is not ethical to write contacts in confusing terms and neither is
it right to sign a contract without understanding and claiming when the
clause is not in your favour.
However, I think it’s is the duty of bankers, since most of them sign an oath
of integrity or since integrity is almost part of core values of each and every
bank to make customers understand the contact before signing it.
In this case, I may reason it out that even banks went wrong because they
sold products that customers couldn’t understand and the reason was not
because customers were unable to have understanding ability but because it
was the aim of the banks to confuse customers.
Since banks treasure customers, and since banks exist because customers
are, banks should always show integrity by making customers understand
what they are buying hence responsible banking.