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 couldnt 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 its 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 couldnt 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.