No actually, it's called personal choice - what part of this concept don't you understand?

I never said it wasn't personal choice. His personal choice however is showing clear double standards. He even admitted it himself.

In my posts i have never said people should not go to the Bulls, my personal grievance is with this type of business,[ the sponsors] its not for me to tel people not to go, all i post is my argument, the same as others do,i have reasons why i do not like these type of businesses, some people don't mind how they operate, but some do, if every body thought the same we would not need forums to argue your case.

As far as I'm concerned, if they are not doing anything illegal, their money is good.

Only read the first 10 pages, but having worked at Provident myself I want to add something here.

Yes the interest rates are large – but the profit to the company are not. On average for every person who pays back the loan 3 do not, due to the nature of the people taking out the loan there is no point taking court action against them as even if you win they have nothing to give. So in essence to lend out £100 to someone Provident have to “spend” £400 (these figures are based on 10 year old data BTW)

At 435% (which was the top rate when I worked there, not sure what it is now) thats only 35% profit (based on having to make 3 loans to get that back due to non payment.

Now you could make the argument that it’s unfair for those who pay to have to make up the margin for those who don’t, thats the deal with these companies and if more people actually paid up they could probably lower their rates.

Then lots of people need sacking then.

It is this kind of irresponsible lending that has contributed to the financial mess. This includes high street lenders.

True, but unlike the high street lenders Provident factor the cost of defaults into their pricing stratagy - they don't depend on the tax payer bailing them out.

The fact is that with a loan this small it's hard to say who will pay back and who will not – how do you work out who can afford the £10 a month and who cannot? When the amount is so low that the difference can be weather you shop at ASDA or Tesco then it’s hard to work out who will pay back and who won’t.

I’m also sad to say that (and again this is ten year old data and today with the credit trouble we have now it might not be as bad) I dealt with a lot of people who could afford the repayments but had the opinion of “I’ve messed up my credit file anyway, I might as well take the £500 and kill my credit report off”, how would you pick up those people on an application form/interview when it is unlikely that they will not say so outright? Your tests show that they could afford it so what other criteria do you use?

I should point out I worked at the head office - wasn't a door to door saleman.

Why would a company with what seems to be a successful business model want to sack loads of people?

How has Provident's lending contributed to the financial mess? I don't recall them being bailed out by the taxpayer, did I miss something?

I have read a lot of your posts - there is a lot you are missing!

You are one-eyed, if not blind, when it comes to the glorious Bulls, rude and dismissive of any contrary view to your own.

Your last post is a perfect example of your deliberately obtuse attitude. Clearly, the previous poster stated that provident have to surcharge good customers to bail out bad ones.

Be more selective in giving loans and thus giving better deals to reliable customers, would grow the business and be a much more profitable and ethical business model...but you knew that and glibly chose to ignore it.

He's an aardvark - what do you expect? Swinging his snout from side to side, sucking up ants and termites like a vacuum cleaner. Obviously has an inferiority complex - naming himself as such to get to the beginning of a dictionary - pathetic.

its the kind of lending that has become more popular because of the recent financial problems.
They are lending to a sub-prime market and price their recoveries based on the (high) risk of default

I'm sure there is, but have hardly claimed to be omniscient. There would be more point to coming up with this sort of stuff if you went on to tell us some of this "lot" that I'm missing. Don't be shy, share.


You haven't read enough of my posts, clearly. That is nonsense.


I can see how sometimes I can come across that way. I'm failry blunt, but only deliberately rude when the occasion demands.


Happy to engage in healthy debate and perfectly open to persuasion. The fact I'm usually right does colour my general attitude, obviously.


4.900390625:5