🚀 go-pugleaf

"R.Daneel Olivaw" <no.spam@me> wrote in
news:44e1cc98$0$1378$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:

> http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/quotes/quotes.asp?Symbol=GB
> :PNT
>
> Glad I am now with Zen!

OT, but couldn't help noticing on the same page an ad for this:

http://www.vanquis.co.uk

39.9% APR?  Credit problems or not, that's theft!

"R.Daneel Olivaw" wrote:

> http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/quotes/quotes.asp?Symbol=GB:PNT

I see it hasn't yet dropped below £1 though !


> Glad I am now with Zen!

I'm off to Idnet in a couple of days ( from Plusnet ).

Graham

"R.Daneel Olivaw" <no.spam@me> wrote in message
news:44e1cc98$0$1378$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/quotes/quotes.asp?Symbol=GB:PNT
>
> Glad I am now with Zen!
Does it really matter to the user?
Do you keep looking at the share price of your Utility suppliers and
worrying if you need to change?
Perhaps its time to buy some shares!

Retired

>> http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/quotes/quotes.asp?Symbol=GB
>> :PNT
>>
>> Glad I am now with Zen!
>
> OT, but couldn't help noticing on the same page an ad for this:
>
> http://www.vanquis.co.uk
>
> 39.9% APR?  Credit problems or not, that's theft!

The obscenity of this lot is that they charge nearly double for people with
poor credit, almost guaranteeing to maintain their poverty.

> http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/quotes/quotes.asp?Symbol=GB:PNT
>
> Glad I am now with Zen!

What you should be looking at is not the PN price in isolation. Take a look
at others in the same market sector and you will see that they have also
suffered similar losses over the last few months. This is a reflection on
the sector as a whole rather than PN alone. What it really shows is just how
competitive the market place is.

Peter Crosland

Retired wrote:

> "R.Daneel Olivaw" <no.spam@me> wrote in message
> news:44e1cc98$0$1378$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/quotes/quotes.asp?Symbol=GB:PNT
> >
> > Glad I am now with Zen!
> Does it really matter to the user?
> Do you keep looking at the share price of your Utility suppliers and
> worrying if you need to change?
> Perhaps its time to buy some shares!

It would matter if they got bought. Although it would be hard for them to get
significantly worse !

Graham

"Retired" <anon@privacy.com> wrote:

>Does it really matter to the user?

Probably not in the slightest.  Pipex shares have also come down
since April, and no doubt the big spenders (BSkyB, TalkTalk, Orange)
are one reason for the city considering the other ISPs as having some
stiff competition ahead, with a portion of customers likely to be tempted
(and unable to quickly return, with the penalty fees the others will have,
if the 'free' service gets overloaded and sluggish after 6 months).

Little doubt that this is a significant time for broadband, like the start
of the ISPs offering 'free' 0845 access a few years back, which meant
a number of "monthly fee + dial-up costs" ISPs were bound to lose out,
until they could attract users with flat fee and longer connection hours
accounts, with no per minute fees...

NoNeedToKnow wrote:

> "Retired" <anon@privacy.com> wrote:
>
> >Does it really matter to the user?
>
> Probably not in the slightest.  Pipex shares have also come down
> since April

Not to 1/4 of what they were though ! Very slightly only in fact.

Graham

Retired wrote:
> "R.Daneel Olivaw" <no.spam@me> wrote in message
> news:44e1cc98$0$1378$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/quotes/quotes.asp?Symbol=GB:PNT
>>
>> Glad I am now with Zen!
> Does it really matter to the user?
> Do you keep looking at the share price of your Utility suppliers and
> worrying if you need to change?
> Perhaps its time to buy some shares!

Perhaps it's time for some other bigger ISP to snap up Plusnet's shares
on the cheap...

>> >Does it really matter to the user?
>>
>> Probably not in the slightest.  Pipex shares have also come down
>> since April
>
> Not to 1/4 of what they were though ! Very slightly only in fact.

http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=GB%3APNT&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&CP=0&PT=7&CE=0&CompSyms=PXC&D4=1&D5=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0

Have a look at the comparison chart here, and you'll see that the trend is
very similar.

Trent SC wrote:

> >> >Does it really matter to the user?
> >>
> >> Probably not in the slightest.  Pipex shares have also come down
> >> since April
> >
> > Not to 1/4 of what they were though ! Very slightly only in fact.
>
> http://uk.moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=GB%3APNT&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&CP=0&PT=7&CE=0&CompSyms=PXC&D4=1&D5=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0
>
> Have a look at the comparison chart here, and you'll see that the trend is
> very similar.

Selective presentation of data.

Pipex haven't fallen to 25% of their value 4 months ago.

Graham

Trent SC wrote:
>> 39.9% APR?  Credit problems or not, that's theft!
>
> The obscenity of this lot is that they charge nearly double for people with
> poor credit, almost guaranteeing to maintain their poverty.

You can of course solve this problem by offering to lend money at low
rates to the chavs who will almost certainly never pay it back. Let us
know if you're still in business by next year.

Geoff

>>> 39.9% APR?  Credit problems or not, that's theft!
>>
>> The obscenity of this lot is that they charge nearly double for people
>> with poor credit, almost guaranteeing to maintain their poverty.
>
> You can of course solve this problem by offering to lend money at low
> rates to the chavs who will almost certainly never pay it back. Let us
> know if you're still in business by next year.

You make an interesting assumption that all poor people, or those with
credit problems, are chavs who have no intention of repaying their debts.
An interesting, albeit rather depressing outlook on life.  I prefer to give
someone the opportunity to prove their trustworthiness and then to repay it,
rather than making blanket generalisations and assumptions that have little
basis in reality.

I prefer to go with my own experience of working with a credit union, where
the poorest are invariably the most diligent at maintaining both their
integrity and their repayments, whatever the amount.  This credit union has
been working very successfully for a decade, so yes, it's still in business
after a year of lending to your 'chavs'.

Ghastly schemes like the one above prey on the most vulnerable, and inane
opinions like yours perpetuate untruths.

Trent SC wrote:
> You make an interesting assumption that all poor people, or those with
> credit problems, are chavs who have no intention of repaying their debts.
> An interesting, albeit rather depressing outlook on life.  I prefer to give
> someone the opportunity to prove their trustworthiness and then to repay it,
> rather than making blanket generalisations and assumptions that have little
> basis in reality.

Little basis in reality? Why on Earth do makes you think these people
have poor credit history?

> I prefer to go with my own experience of working with a credit union, where
> the poorest are invariably the most diligent at maintaining both their
> integrity and their repayments, whatever the amount.  This credit union has
> been working very successfully for a decade, so yes, it's still in business
> after a year of lending to your 'chavs'.

But it's not necessarily the poor who are forced into these schemes -
"poor credit" was the quote. You're (deliberately?) misreading me.
People who are historically "diligent at maintaining their integrity and
their repayments" are generally able to get the best rates.

As it happens I fit into my own "chav" category because my credit rating
isn't the best (although I'm not quite at the 29% level yet). I don't
moan about the fact that no-one will give me a loan at 6% because it's
entirely down to my financial mismanagement that my credit history is
how it is.

The kind of people who moan about credit checks and higher interest for
higher risks are the same people who moan that their insurance is higher
because they fit into the higher risk bracket. Statistically you're more
likely to cost the company money, so I'm afraid you have to pay more.
That's life.

Geoff

"Trent SC" <invalid@bogoff.invalid> wrote in message
news:44e4ad3b$0$3210$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>>>> 39.9% APR?  Credit problems or not, that's theft!
>>>
>>> The obscenity of this lot is that they charge nearly double for people
>>> with poor credit, almost guaranteeing to maintain their poverty.
>>
>> You can of course solve this problem by offering to lend money at low
>> rates to the chavs who will almost certainly never pay it back. Let us
>> know if you're still in business by next year.
>
> You make an interesting assumption that all poor people, or those with
> credit problems, are chavs who have no intention of repaying their debts.
> An interesting, albeit rather depressing outlook on life.  I prefer to
> give someone the opportunity to prove their trustworthiness and then to
> repay it, rather than making blanket generalisations and assumptions that
> have little basis in reality.
>
> I prefer to go with my own experience of working with a credit union,
> where the poorest are invariably the most diligent at maintaining both
> their integrity and their repayments, whatever the amount.  This credit
> union has been working very successfully for a decade, so yes, it's still
> in business after a year of lending to your 'chavs'.
>
> Ghastly schemes like the one above prey on the most vulnerable, and inane
> opinions like yours perpetuate untruths.


Well said.

This report of a Scottish loan shark jailed yesterday, illustrates exactly
the type of obscenity you refer to.
http://news.scotsman.com/glasgow.cfm?id09822006

Joe Lee