Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
MOST CONSUMERS ARE missing out on chances to save money when it comes to financial products and services, according to a survey conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
The survey, which was commissioned by the Department of Finance, consulted almost 3,000 consumers from across the country and found that the majority do not shop around for the best value offer or consider switching once they’ve signed up.
People opening bank accounts and applying for loans, mortgages or credit cards are more likely to rely on personal recommendations than to shop around for the best deal, the ESRI said in a statement.
“When choosing their bank account, 73% of consumers did not shop around. The figure was 68% for loans and 74% for credit cards,” the statement read.
That number is lower for people applying for mortgages but the survey still still found that 46% of people did not compare offers from other banks even though different interest rates were available.
The survey also found that consumers are generally unlikely to switch banks, not out of loyalty, but due to a lack of certainty regarding financial products.
“Once consumers have these financial products, the majority do not consider switching to better value ones. Switching rates across the four products ranged from 6-17% over five years,” the statement read.
That 6-17% figure is likely even lower, however, because the research was conducted while two banks – KBC and Ulster Bank – were leaving the Irish market, which caused more people to make a switch.
“Most people are aware that switching is an option but cite difficulty comparing offers, costs, time, uncertainty about the process and worries about making a mistake,” the ESRI statement said.
“People are just not shopping around as much as they could and it’s costing them a lot of money,” said Professor Pete Lunn, Head of the Behavioural Research Unit at the ESRI.
“Consumers could make substantial gains by choosing better value financial products, but many feel unable to do so,” he said.
Following the completion of the research phases of the Switch Your Bank campaign, which aims to equip consumers with the information they need to find the best deals, the ESRI intends to introduce new “digital tools” sometime next year.
In the meantime though, Lunn says that if people are not comfortable or familiar with the markets for these products, there are existing resources available to them.
“Make use of the tools that are available now,” he says, recommending CCPC.ie (Competition and Consumer Protection Commission), a product comparison site.
“The banks have to lodge details of their products there, so you can compare credit cards, loans, mortgages and bank accounts on that site. It’s very good. It makes you realise how much money you can save if you use it.”
“Most of the time, if you’re looking for a personal loan, the most expensive ones on the market can be up to twice as much as the cheapest,” he says. “If you’re looking at a €10,000 loan over three years, the difference in cost is going to be about a grand.”
When it comes to mortgage prices in particular, Trevor Grant, chairperson of the Association of Irish Mortgage Advisors said:
“For first-time buyers, given the backdrop of rising interest rates, it has never been more important to ensure they get the best mortgage deal they can at the outset. You can substantially reduce the cost of your mortgage by shopping around lenders or by seeking guidance from a mortgage broker to ensure you get the best deal.
“It is important for all mortgage holders to understand that their lender will only advise them on the products they have to offer and not what is available in the market.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Monsters in the making….
Is could have been another James bulger case
Lucky escape from these demons !
Name and shame them .. Never mind this protecting them malarkey .. If they want to do an adult crime then they should do adult time
They aren’t adults though. Do you not see how that works?
A cautionary tale of the demonic temptations that lurk on the internet. Evil ideas and suggestions can easily attack the minds of young and old people.
Porn is not to blame for bad behaviour. The science shows porn is NOT harmful. If you’re of the feminist persuasion and believe it’s derogatory etc. then fair enough but the facts are… Michael Castleman M.A. Michael Castleman M.A. All About Sex Does Pornography Cause Social Harm? Porn causes no measurable social harm. Posted Apr 27, 2009 Many people feel offended by pornography. Those who find it odious have every right to their opinion. But some porn-haters declare that X-rated material does more than just disgust them. They contend that it contributes to significant social harm. In The Porn Trap (2008), psychotherapists Wendy and Larry Maltz assert that it’s a significant factor in sexual irresponsibility and divorce. Advertisement The late feminist activist, Andrea Dworkin, argued that by depicting women as men’s willing sexual playthings, porn contributes to rape. Her disciple, Robert Jensen, writes: “pornography alone doesn’t make men rape…[but] it may activate coercive tendencies.” And porn critic Diana Russell argues that porn undermines men’s inhibitions against rape and spurs some to commit it. Strong accusations. But are they true? The advent of Internet porn provides surprising answers. The Internet became a major force in everyday life in the late 1990s. Before then, porn was available in adult stores, through X-rated video rentals, and on some newsstands. But with the arrival of the Internet, porn availability exploded. It was just a click away 24-7 for free in tens of millions of homes and offices. In 1997, 16 percent of American adults used the Internet regularly. By 2005, the figure had quadrupled to 65 percent. The Internet has also made porn much more available to impressionable kids. How many kids, ages 10 to 17, have viewed Internet porn? According to a recent report in the journal Pediatrics, 42 percent. Advertisement If porn is a significant contributor to social harm, we would expect to see substantial increases in sexual irresponsibility, divorce, and rape since the late 1990s when the Internet suddenly made X-rated material much more available to those who might instigate sexual mayhem, overwhelmingly men. Guess what. Since the arrival of Internet porn: * Sexual irresponsibility has declined. Standard measures include rates of abortion and sexually transmitted infections. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), since 1990, the nation’s abortion rate has fallen 41 percent. The syphilis rate has plummeted 74 percent. And the gonorrhea rate has plunged 57 percent. * Teen sex has declined. The CDC says that since 1991, the proportion of teens who have had intercourse has decreased 7 percent. Teen condom use has increased 16 percent. And the teen birth rate has fallen 33 percent. * Divorce has declined. Since 1990, the divorce rate has decreased 23 percent. * Rape has declined. According to the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1995, the sexual assault rate has fallen 44 percent. Taken from Psychology Today 2009
Genuinely did not mean to post that whole thing. Point still stands.
@ TG My short post doesn’t specify porn, but mentions ‘evil ideas and suggestions’ on the internet as luring young and old people into temptation. A schoolgirl in rural Ireland a couple of years ago was hurtfully ‘trolled’ on a chat site and took her own life.
Porn is an interesting topic, suited to a different thread perhaps.
Conor, that is just excusing what they did. That child had a very narrow escape. Would you be so quick to pass it off as youthful confusion if the child had not been rescued safely? Would torture, rape or possibly murder also be explained away? Their plan was evil and depraved and some day these teens will be adults. Where is the magic light bulb that will suddenly turn on revealing to them the horror of what they were planning to do?
Those girls were 13 and 14 and knew better , James Bulgers murderes were only 10 and able to plot and plan what they did . That child was blessed and those girls should be locked up for ever
Gareth, maybe read up about Mary Bell – well before ‘evil internet’
In fairness Mary Bell was subjected to some pretty harmful things growing up.
They should never be allowed have kids or be around kids its sick – no matter what age you are to want to hurt a child – evil monsters !!!
Control your mind (brain) or it will control you!!! There is a perfect example!!
Jesus, it’s Jamie Bulger all over again. That child could have met a frightening end..
I did realise kidnapping was frowned upon by 13 Vincent, hence I’m not the topic of a journal article. These kids will be punished and re educated, clearly necessary. But they’re not demons. Or monsters. Or even evil. That sort of rhetoric leads to dehumanisation, something we’re all accusing them of. You need a clear head to deal with the situation, not a pitch fork. It’s an emotive subject and clearly I won’t be winning this one. Online commentary is fun but perhaps not the arena for debating key aspects of psychology and rehabilitation! After all these kids ARE going to get out.
I wonder if these girls parents are being investigated in some way? That these girls were going to abuse a child they way they had been?
They’re 13 yrs old. Not evil. Just totally confused, misled kids. You’d never suspect two young girls though. Anyone’s capable of going completely wrong I suppose.
We’re the two boys involved in the Jamie Bulger case just confused? No, I don’t think so. This is no different just because they were girls. The things they were researching before hand does not suggest they just wanted to mind her and play with her. They wanted to hurt her. That’s some form of evil.
Did you not no by 13 or 14 it was wrong to go out and try kidnap toddlers?
See that’s just the thing isn’t it, nobody would suspect two young girls. But psychosis knows no gender. Nobody would have suspected two young boys either before the Jamie Bulger case.
Conor
So what age is it exactly that evil kicks in at
At Jeanniejampots, yes the two ten year olds that killed little Jamie Bolger were deeply confused. That’s exactly what they were. What else is there?! Exorcism?! They are 10 year old children, completely incapable of making rational decisions on life and death. That part of the brain doesn’t even begin to develop until late teens, getting more robust in your 20′s. Hence you recruit young kids to fight wars (or believe in religion) not older more rational people. It’s why rational societies have different and far tougher penalties for adults.
One of the Jamie Bulger killers was arrested for having child pornography recently. Some people are broken from the start and it isnt all nurture issues. I wouldnt call it evil but plain dangerous.
Confused? In 2010 Venables clearly still very confused about right and wrong, was sent back to prison charged with downloading child pornography depicting children as young as two years og age being raped by adults. Well he certainly is a reformed character.
have your say