According to the government, proposals on fair banks and forint conversion address the problems of foreign currency lenders, but the opposition did not consider the proposals in a joint debate conducted by the House on Friday to be sufficient.

Contrary to Roland Guys, unlike the socialist and liberal governments, they have promised to settle the situation of foreign currency borrowers.
According to him, the two bills jointly remedy the problems of foreign currency debtors and eliminate the foreign exchange risk of the debtors, which contributes to the stability of the financial system. Eliminating banks’ unfair lending practices, legalizing consumer protection guarantees, increasing transparency of interest rate conditions and eliminating foreign currency loans are measures that can significantly reduce the financial uncertainty factor, a pro-government politician said.
He stated that unilateral treaty changes should also be suppressed and that the most vulnerable should not lose their homes.

It is not foreign currency borrowers who should pay the price of the government’s economic policy


Kauli Ahya emphasized that the exchange rate of the Swiss franc was 185 forints in 2010, and although the currency strengthened, the current situation was due to the irresponsible economic policy of the government. The price would not have to be paid by foreign currency debtors, he said.
Laws introduced under an agreement with the banking association transfer all the burden of the problem to one of the three actors, the debtors. They also lose hope that the exchange rate and their situation will improve, he said.
He also touched on “luxury investments” funded by György Matolcsy, the president of the central bank, saying that this is unworthy of a situation where there is such a social problem. In his view, banks could see to it that they had to be involved in solving the problem, so that debtors would not be impossible. He also said that family bankruptcy protection has been talked about for years, but nothing happens.

Missed punishing the banks


Anul Laota (klali) asked the question: If there was an honest talk about punishing banks in the United States because of the crisis, why didn’t they do anything about it in Hungary? He said that if the legislature did not free people from the debt trap, then the Hungarian economy could not rise.
Among the risks assumed by foreign currency lenders, he highlighted the exchange rate risk. He reiterated that there was foreign exchange coverage behind a fraction of the loans, so there was no real exchange rate risk. He called the raising of interest rates a “staggering exploitation”, and he said the current proposal and the previous ones did not change the brutal rate hike.
His fellow member, Daniel Z. Carpathian, considered the “cover-up” of the Mansion’s decision astonishing. He called the bills a hybrid junk, stating that peace with banks is more important to the government than giving back money that people have taken away.

 “Crime” as banks shifted their burden

Kalou Mana (MSZP) said that, partly living in Belgium and Hungary, he had credit in both countries, with a Belgian parent bank and its domestic subsidiary. He stated that what the bank had been doing in Hungary after the crisis in shifting the burden was an outrageous crime.
He added, however, that the government, seeing how effectively the banks had plundered the Hungarian people and made them profitable during the crisis, did not oblige the financial institutions not to further the people, but said: “You can recover the money well, let’s do it together. ”
According to him, the banks’ accountability was not initiated by the government but by the people who sued the financial institutions. He stressed that the Fair Banking Act should have been tabled in 2010.

State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice (IM), said in his reply that the government first allowed a lump sum repayment, then introduced an exchange rate barrier and created an asset manager.
Future stricter rules also need to be decided, he said, emphasizing the obligation to provide information and minimizing the possibility of unilateral contract modification.
Together with the proposal on loan conversion, the burden on debtors will be significantly reduced and debts will become more predictable, he said, but he said after the settlement, the government would care for those for whom the changed terms do not work.