The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > How to Beat the banks.

How to Beat the banks.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
I seem to recall keating wanted to lend some billions of money [no worries said the commonwealth bank 4 percent fixed]

No replied the privatly owned federal reserve you will lend it from the bankers cartel at 12 percent [by-the-way you-will sell the peoples bank to shareholders [us ; bankers]

And so was the commonwealth [roughly] privatised ,well things rolled along nicely and the banking system ran amuck till the time of bondie and his mates and the banks went bankrupt [some how they were allowed to charge bank fees ,and saved the day , with banking now effectivly taxed [not by percentage of transaction that would be fair [but at a fixed fee that is nothing to the elites and a heavey burden on the poor]

so next feeding day for the bankers was howard and co making super contribution compulsory[a nice extra tax like cost provided yet more money for the banking cartels

ok i havnt mentioned the federal-reserve stolen in the 30's ,because govt became bankrupt ,nor the illegal income tax burden laid on wage earners [that is unconstitutional] nor the fact that constitutionally gold and silver coin will be our only legal tender [and that bank notes that were promise to pay when our pounds /shillings/were still sterling silver

[that became nickle with the introduction of dollars and cents[allowing the private owned fed reserve to keep all our silver and gold ,noting the one time printing of round 50 cent pieces [now containing 13 dollars of silver was actually pressed with real silver ,but not the new generation [by which time we forgot all obout notes being 'a promise to pay IN SILVER']

Any way to those losing your house make sure the 'lender holds your origonal contract [not a replacement copy as is the usual case ] they cant produce the origonal that means they cant take your house[because these have been bundeled into 'securities' ,and onsold ,thus the bank you pay dosnt hold the mortgauge in law. its all a huge con [govt has-been told but continues to play along with the lies.
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 18 May 2008 6:27:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

Your thread has reached in my subconscience. Last night I dreamt that organisations started charging for checking signatures on credit cards.

I wonder if there should be regulation of Banks. That hurts for [usual] believer in the free market. Credit card rates to be capped.

Home equity loans used for depreciating assets capped at 10% of equity and 20% for other loans having some potential for long-term growth: e.g., blue chip shares. Percentages rate stated refer to security vaue, usually 85% of true market value.

In political philosophy in defining a political status, the key question is; In whose intesrest does the Govenment act? In our democracy the People are in theory in control through our votes and lobbyings. Moreover, if re-regularation is required, to curtail the Banks, it is no different than putting a speed limit on a highway: Both are necessary at times
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 10:56:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver

Credit cards (and their relatives) are definitely a big issue. Perhaps a more effective approach that may go some way to apeasing that free market mind of yours is not about price regulation.

Instead why not outlaw some of the marketing trickery and increase the onus of credit checking. For example:

1. Outlaw Interest free deals - commonly sponsored by GE and proudly pumped out by hardly normal and his ilk. The reality for most is these offers encourage consumers (i) consumer/consume more/overconsume (ii) forget about the outrageous interest they will be up for if/WHEN they don't clear the debt during the interest free period.

I hate to think about the amount of credit out there in consumer land that is both feeding inflation and currently unaffected by RBA increases because of this unfriendly product.

2. Outlaw Automatic Limit Increases

3. Outlaw direct marketing of consumer credit products such as credit cards.

4. Impose credit checking and capacity to repay obligations on credit providers that void the contract ab initio where a credit provider extends credit without contacting credit providors listed on the consumers credit record.

Four simple steps to protect vulnerable consumers and cut back on consumption ergo reduce pressure on inflation.

Just a thought.

mortgageinsider
Posted by mortgageinsider, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 12:07:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mortgageinsider,

An interesting read. Good. Thanks.

GE is a credit agency not a Bank. There is leglisation about how much [very little] information a credit agency can hold, especially in a linked agency agree as with stores. Yet, they have credit scoring systems, I undrestand, that would collect a substantial amount of personal information. It would be intersting to check this against TPA.

Likewiae, does an unsolicited increase amount to a breach of 63(A). That is limits "should" [?] only be increased, if a person writes to the credit provider and requests it. The correctleglisation only deals directly with the provision of the first card. Can the presumption be extrapolated?

[In the days of FID, when say $100 was added to a $1,000 term deposit,that extra $100 amount was deemed a separate new deposit for FID purposes, though Term Deposit in material dorm was for $1,100.]
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 8:20:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Oliver - Noted on GE. That's why I shifted my terminology to credit providers. Of course, GE is an easy target, but there are plenty of others doing the same thing.

I'm also not trying to hijack Arjays thread away from bank focus, it's just that I have been involved in quite a few rescues - although rescue has an overly optimistic ring to it. The crisis often comes down to credit card / easy consumption credit pressure.

This is because this type of credit is extremely easy to access and the amortisation period relatively short. Most of these facilities require minimum monthly repayments of between 2% and 3% of the balance. It's the cashflow pressure from these facilites that ultimately squashes the unwitting. To put that in perspective, imagine if you had to pay $9,000 a month on a $300,000 mortgage. Now that's mortgage stress.

The first card is not the only problem with 63(A). Extension to include subsequent increases could be side stepped by credit providers still offering the increase, then to accept the offer, the borrower must sign an acceptance document. This is how it operates today for many card issuers and could easily be deployed as a defence by the credit providers against prosecution.

For many consumers, the process is too easy, the temptation to great, the comprehension of the downsteam impact not understood or not thought through. Caveat emptor is not enough in this market segment which is why I believe a solution is to outlaw the offer, rather than defining the terms of acceptance. At least that pulls back the reigns a little on temptation.

Many solutions are needed for this one big problem.
Posted by mortgageinsider, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 8:24:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One other thing... putting aside constraints on credit history data, GE and any other credit provider can access the Veda database (nee CRAA).

The information available is more than adequate for a credit provider to discover how much credit the customer really has, who it is with and from there, how well that credit is managed. Applications already include borrower consent to exchange information between credit providers, so there shouldn't be any real barriers.

If there is a legislative constraint (I'm not sure that there is), then it seems reasonable to remove it in order to increase the responsibility of the credit provider. When you look at bargaining power, they're the ones that have the lions share.
Posted by mortgageinsider, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 8:31:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy