Pericle,vhttp://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/swp2003-08.pdf&sa=U&ei=ywhzU_viBs6YlQW8zoHAAQ&ved=0CAsQFjAA&sig2=MYtQsyqSZb6WuK2l2IWcjw&usg=AFQjCNFbSkxwWKCmsoq6lO4jhRvJr0k_4Q

This is an overview discussing demutualization, banking and insurance mergers and the change of focus on both industries due to deregulation.

What I've attempted to describe to you, is what that all meant on a day-to-day basis of conducting business, which of course is somewhat different to theoretical analysis or discussion.

I said that most insurance companies were traditionally mutual, not that they became mutual. So your pointing out that they were mutual from the late 1800's only speaks of your lack of comprehension, nothing else.

Deregulation occurred in 1983 under Keating, and I was in the industry from 1985-92. My observation of the two companies I worked for demutualizing and listing on the stock exchange seems to be an error in attributing it directly to deregulation, but it would seem it was an indirect result. Sorry that I'm human and not a god such as yourself.

Now, you asked me where I was, and I've told you. Where were you? And if your answer is anywhere but the financial services industry, then you're an "armchair expert" with a troll-like attitude, displaying nothing but rude arrogance. I can attest to THAT expertise.

If you wish to continue to have discourse with me, learn some manners. That's not to say one can't disagree, but there's no reason not to be polite about it.

Cheers.

HI DICK..not something WE SEE OFTEN HERE
NOT SURE WEHETER TO THANK OR WARN..

THE DUDE ISNT IGNORANT OF these things/but totally loyal to the spin/he hAS STOPPED MANY OF US/with rIdiculE..AND DAmm statistics...over the years..

but you seem to know your stuff/as i see it/insurances/underwriters etc have been specifically targeting fund investors/MUCH LIKE MADDOF/EXCEPT HE BETRAYED THE WRONG ONES/

usa is terrified the people WILLL FIND GOVT lOOTED AWAY THEIR PENsion funds..AND THE DRUG WAR Ending [no more secret wars/broibe mon ey for politicization]..anyhow the insurance underwriters got their balls in a sling/its ALL OR NOTHING FOR THEM...but them..cleverly put the bailout on us/because WE ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL

Thing is debasing the queens coin/HIGH-treason\
now stealing the royal mint/to hide the thEFT/OF THE GOLD..[BY LEASING THE PHYSICAL GOLD TO THE BaNkers]/and them 'selling' iT INTO THE GOLD MARKET..[like selling a reNTAL..ISNT THAT A CRIME?

BUT UNDER IT ALL LIE THE UNDERWRITERS/us..
WHO CANT UNDERWRITE ANything cause its mortgaged or Limited TAX AVOIDING trust..IF ONLY I COULD WRITE LIKe you guys..if only per ridicules COULD CHANGE SIDES

FOLLOWING UNLAWFUL ORDERS DIDNT WORK..in Nuremberg
EVERY BIT OF Real life experience.is valuable beyond price.

The powerful question relates to how it can be assured that advisers act in the best interests of their clients, not themselves. Proposed legislative changes give an unacceptable leniency in how to determine the best interests of a client. This is not good, as the needs vary from one person to another and each one has different financial imperatives.

Rather than change legislation, it will be best to encourage banks and other financial institutions to create new financial products for the Ageing, as most Seniors want to invest in products that will guarantee them a reasonable financial return for the term of their life expectancy. There are very few investments that meet this need.

If the proposed changes do become law, there will be a very considerable backlash from Seniors, many of whom will decide to handle their investments without seeking financial advice, and this will lead to many more personal disasters.

I will do my best to encourage the four banks in which I am an investor to voluntarily break with any such legislation and guarantee their customers the security they want and deserve through the provision of innovative investments of integrity and security.

The bank that takes this initiative will earn a lot of money....>>

AND EVERY PENNEY IT HOLDS CAN BE FRACTIONALLY INCREASED*/LEVERAGED INTO MORE ';CREDIT'.,,but contract HOLDS LITTLE weight IN REALITY made chaos.[POSSESIon=9/10th the law]..THAT GAINED BY LIE Cannot hod clean title/BANKS..NEVER LENT US A CENT/OUR APPLICATION..CREATED'..the money

our promise to repay/created the debt..to oursELVES
ALL DEBT IS HERBY FORGIVEN..[SEE SUN TREATY]

Sorry, Dick. It's here, in black and white, and complete with your signature.

>>I said that most insurance companies were traditionally mutual, not that they became mutual. So your pointing out that they were mutual from the late 1800's only speaks of your lack of comprehension, nothing else<<

Two things. I said "shareholder-owned insurance companies have been around since the eighteenth century", not that "they were mutual from the late 1800's". Furthermore, you stated, quite categorically and incorrectly, that they listed as a result of deregulation:

>>Pericles, one major change was that insurance companies, most of which were "mutual" companies, meaning their only shareholders were their clients...policy-holders, were now allowed to list on the stock exchange.<<

And I quite correctly pointed out that they have always been "allowed to list on the stock exchange", which means that this particular piece of deregulation was entirely imaginary on your part.

Which you now also recognize to be correct.

>>My observation of the two companies I worked for demutualizing and listing on the stock exchange seems to be an error in attributing it directly to deregulation, but it would seem it was an indirect result. Sorry that I'm human and not a god such as yourself.<<

Your apology is accepted.

>>Where were you? And if your answer is anywhere but the financial services industry, then you're an "armchair expert" with a troll-like attitude, displaying nothing but rude arrogance. I can attest to THAT expertise.<<

In this instance it would seem that whatever my background may be, my understanding of the financial arena exceeds yours, wouldn't you say?

Basically, the problem is that any old Tom Dick or Harry can say what they like on platforms such as this one, and unless they are immediately corrected, the error proliferates to other, equally careless-of-facts contributors.

If you consider that "trolling", then so be it..

Pericles, remembering a detail about insurance companies being able to list on the stock market prior to deregulation isn't a display of understanding of how that industry works and/or changed. It's a detail. You've said nothing to display any such understanding, but assert otherwise.

Stating that what someone has said is "rubbish", without substantiation, and using my moniker as an innuendo is troll-like. I'd been polite to you, I see no reason why you couldn't return the courtesy...you choose the moniker of a Greek statesman, yet can't conduct yourself as such, only discredits that name.

The points I made about mergers and the dynamics involved in the change of focus within the financial services industry stand true, but you want to claim "better understanding". You need to display that before claiming it, and technical detail doesn't qualify. You need to state what I said was incorrect about the change of focus, which if course you can't do, as you weren't there to see the shift from one focus to another.

If you want an example of the difference between our economy prior to deregulation, you need only look at the four decades in our credit economy post WWII, and see no stock market crashes or financial crisis of any type, and the near four decades post deregulation hosting two stock market crashes, the Dot Com Bubble, Subprime Loan fiasco and GFC. I say the post WWII credit economy, as this economy is a bit different to the economy prior to WWII where credit was not made available as easily to the average worker as it was post WWII.

So show us what you KNOW, rather than your nitpicking.

Cheers.

What is nit-picking to you, Dick, to others is simply being accurate.

>>It's a detail<<

You may consider it a "detail", but it appeared to be the foundation upon which you based your argument. Let me remind you of the context of the "detail" to which you refer.

>>Pericles, one major change was that insurance companies, most of which were "mutual" companies, meaning their only shareholders were their clients...policy-holders, were now allowed to list on the stock exchange.<<

The context was that I had asked which aspect of deregulation caused the problem. You stated that deregulation had allowed insurance companies to list on the stock exchange. I called you on this fairly fundamental error, in that it could not possibly have been a cause, and you get all huffy about it.

(Incidentally, policyholders in a mutual are not shareholders. But you knew that "detail" too, did you not)

>>Stating that what someone has said is "rubbish", without substantiation<<

I thought it quite well substantiated, personally. You stated that insurance companies were not allowed to list, prior to "deregulation". I showed you that they were. That's substantiation.

>>If you want an example of the difference between our economy prior to deregulation, you need only look at the four decades in our credit economy post WWII, and see no stock market crashes or financial crisis of any type, and the near four decades post deregulation hosting two stock market crashes, the Dot Com Bubble, Subprime Loan fiasco and GFC... So show us what you KNOW<<

What I know is that correlation does not imply causation, and that all generalizations are false.

As it stands, all you are saying is that things ain't what they used to be, and blaming this vague, amorphous thing called deregulation for the ills of the world. We shouldn't forget that the same easing of credit allowed an awful lot of highly productive and valuable companies to come into existence too.

But if you care to be more specific as to which aspects of deregulation led to which calamity, we might still have an interesting and fruitful discussion.