Prices are skyrocketing because of excessive spending on poles and wires, charged to consumers too quickly; grossly excessive dividends to government; the carbon tax which will be passed on plus a profit margin like all costs.
Email electricshock@fairgo.org with “yes” in the subject line and your name plus suburb, town or city & state in the text or ctrl click Electric Shock. We want to show politicians that people from every suburb, town and city in Australia are determined to force power prices down.

Well they urgently needed to invest more in poles and wires. Fact is that the old systems were stuffed and regularly starting fires in places like WA. Somebody has to pay for those upgrades and powerline workers are highly paid!

Next we have subsidies paid to people who have installed solar panels, with electricity bought from them at many times market rates. That was a political decision, all users pay.

Next we have the growing population, which means more power generation equipment and all the rest.

There is an easy way to reduce electricity charges. Drop the carbon tax.

Will 10% fix all. What about dividend gouging. The states have found a way of making money.

infastructure isnt just wires/poles
its also gas lines..[in qld at any rate..

the true shock will be a thing called a metering service fee*../of 59.000 cents per day..per metering point

but wait just got a letter..its only 26.000 cents per day
as i use one dollar and 50 cents of tarrif 11..im waiting to see how much 26 with three decimal points is..in my bill.

while the press distracted with federal carbon tax/smoking tax issues
the state alp locked in price increases..for power*

the parties betray us
no lawyer should be allowed to govern..;[ie make law
ie seperation of powers*..the servant of the court shall not lord it over law..in parlement*

SEPPERATION OF POWERS
is urgently needed..before the bankers lawyers finish their enron-esq pricing structures..looting and plundering for short term gain..laying on free pipelines/building export ports..yeah govt is great.,.

for some.

<<Fact is that the old systems were stuffed and regularly starting fires in places like WA>>

Especially old tree-systems like old gum trees, where lots of un-oxidised carbon is stored in the form of flammable oil.

Meanwhile politicians can hardly believe the good news from their appointed scientists who inform them that they just discovered that silicon wires don't cause fires! As a result, all electrical wires will be replaced by silicon (minister, 3 years later: "it's not my fault, nobody advised me that silicon doesn't conduct electricity or even that electricity needs to be conducted at all - don't we all go wireless today?"), then natural causes will once again top the list of fire-causes, making fires more spectacular than ever! (second on the list will become home-fires caused by unsupervised candles, which is good too because it will boost the building industry, thus reducing unemployment and moving the dole-money away from those undeserving parasite-scums and over into the fine-lined politicians' pockets!)

Yabby>> Well they urgently needed to invest more in poles and wires. Fact is that the old systems were stuffed and regularly starting fires in places like WA. Somebody has to pay for those upgrades and powerline workers are highly paid!<<

Yabby, what a lame example of the need for improving infrastructure, scrub fires over in the west.

At least you are always consistent. If it has to do with bank profits or corporate greed you side with the biller rather than the billee.

Astute comment about the population growth. Given I have not been suffering any ongoing power outages in the fifty odd years I have been using electricity I can only extrapolate that your corporate mates killing off 90% of our manufacturing output over the past thirty years has evened it up. Manufacturing gone, domestic draw rise, we are even, except it is getting harder to pay for the stuff.

Your free market mates have shown me something I have never seen before. A usage kilowatt rate that goes down with every new reading of the meter, and a price that goes up with every reading of the meter. I have said it to you before Yabby, your “let them eat cake” mentality is unbecoming.

*what a lame example of the need for improving infrastructure, scrub fires over in the west.*

Err of course, Sonofgloin. Why should you care about tens of thousands of acres burning, livestock perishing and houses burning down. Its only in the West. We should secede from you lot, we really should. I remind you however that old poles have caused fires in places like Victoria too. But ah, thats the country, if they arn't warfies or city slickers, they are beyond Sonofgloins vision.

As a matter of fact, the Western Australian power system is owned by the State Govt and its lost money for yonks. Meantime our power charges are much the same as those in the East.

Of course manufacturing has gone offshore. Greedy unions made sure that it did. So be it. You guys clearly don't want the jobs.

NSW is far different than any state I know of.
Truth is as I have been reporting for 4 years we have been rolled!
Labor in its last term and even before planned the sale of its power.
In an effort to help that sale it put prices up!
That effort may have included getting the pigs, and we had some, nose in the money trough.
Current Liberal government,is continuing the trend to put the consumers last, if even in consideration.
More poles and wire equals more cash for the current grubs in power.
Take a look and you can easily confirm power price rises in NSW have been massive, and before the carbon tax.
Are we so blind that we blame Carbon tax for a possible 10% yet to be proven, rise, but ignore 60% proven price rises?some
From the party complaing the most?

Yabby, greedy unions?

In the past 30 years we have adopted the term "working poor".
In the past 30 years 15% of the worlds assets has moved from the greedy union members to the 10% that own 85% of the globes wealth.

As I said, why don't you just say "let them eat cake, or dirt," or nothing Yabby.

Commonwealth bank, largest profit in it's history just announced. Get real.

Sonofgloin, in the past 30 years, the real standard of living of working Australians has increased dramatically. They live in the world's largest houses, with some of the world's highest wages and cushiest bells and whistles conditions.

If you think that manufacturing is the way to go, sell that expensive Sydney house that you own, risk your testicles as other business owners do and show us how its done, employing those people that you claim to care about.

If you are not prepared to risk your personal savings, don't expect others to. Hypocrite.

'In the past 30 years we have adopted the term "working poor".'

So good to stay as a victim. You can always claim everyone owes you something.

Yabby, lets talk facts.

The Com bank has a capital of nearly $90 BILLION. They are the 7th most capitalized bank on the globe, beats the pants of the likes of Chase Manhattan. My issue is that the Comm banks expopsure to global financing is minimal. They made the vast majority of their capital from Australia, their business model is based on fleecing Aussies, simplen as that tiger.

Runner take a leap.

Ok Sonofgloin, lets talk facts. So all companies are evil, because one made a healthy profit, this year. What if the resources boom ends, house prices crash and banks lose their shirts? They did in America and Europe, are you crying for those shareholders. As it happens the CBA is largely owned my mum and dad Australians who have a super fund, which would probably include you, so any profits not paid in tax, are put away for your retirement. That is better than you throwing it down the pokies etc.

One company does not make for Australian industry. Plenty of Australian companies are losing their shirts. Don't blame them if they close and move offshore.

If you really think that the CBA are earning too much, you are free to buy some shares in them and put your own shirt on the line.

As it happens, the returns that energy companies make from electricity are only a touch above bank interest. If society wants less coal burnt, more gas, less polluting power stations, etc, society will have to pay for it.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1664258/How-much-will-my-electricity-bill-rise-under-the-c
I got it wrong in my last post here.
The link is out standing.
And highlights the DELIBERATE MISS LEADING by Abbott's circus.
In question time one of his people claimed 45% rise as a result of the carbon tax.
Wake up Aussies! Gillard is far from the only one telling lies.

Yabby>> Ok Sonofgloin, lets talk facts. As it happens the CBA is largely owned my mum and dad Australians who have a super fund.
That is better than you throwing it down the pokies etc.<<

I am still waiting for you to start talking facts dear Yabby. There was a “spin fact” in your mum and dad statement wasn’t there?
Let’s have a look at the top 10 CBA shareholders:
Coming in at number 9 is AMP Life Limited with 11,330,429 shares being 0.73 in mathematical terms, and I do believe they are the largest super investor, I know you like facts, so much for the super spin you proffered.

In fact the top 20 shareholders own close to 50% of the shares.

Yabby here are the top 4 owners of the CBA.

HSBC Holdings London
J P Morgan
National Nominees Limited
Citicorp Nominees

Who are the major shareholders in the four companies I listed? The European Banking Cartel. Gotta know what you are talking about Yabby, barracking for your side is fine, but spare the bullsheiser please. Mum and dad, they never get near a board room. Banks own the Commonwealth Bank Yabby, it was ours but now it aint.

And on a personal note I bet you would have given Torquemada a run for his money in the Inquisitor stakes. What business is it of yours where the Aussies throw their money. I’ll give you a tip Yabby. Any money thrown down the throat of a pokie stays in our economy, it’s like welfare money, it boosts the domestic economy.

This is of course exactly the opposite to your benefactor HSBC, JP Morgan or Citicorp who grab a large slice of the CBA profits and ship it off overseas year in, year out since it was stolen from us. Not to mention the miners, who are predominantly owned in about the same percentage by the banks who own the CBA.

Worry about your scrub fires and hole digging Yabby and leave the thinking and moral judgments to the East side of the joint.

Oops Sonofgloin, you clearly don't have the foggiest, what Nominees
actually do. They don't own shares, they simply register as owners under a custodial agreement, for tax reasons, other business reasons such as lending out shares for shorting, for anonymity, so that
other companies don't know who is buying or selling etc.

Nearly all the top shareholders are nominees or super funds holding shares directly. Ring you super fund tomorrow and ask them how
many CBA shares that they hold. They should tell you.

Highly likely they use the financial services offered by any of the big banks, including international banks. Nominee holdings is one such service.

No wonder that people like you and Arjay are so confused. You simply lack the education to understand the fundamentals.

Yabby>> Oops Sonofgloin, you clearly don't have the foggiest, what Nominees actually do. They don't own shares, they simply register as owners under a custodial agreement, for tax reasons, other business reasons such as lending out shares for shorting, for anonymity<<

What absolute spin rubbish. Even simple souls understand the concept of nominees, it's who you blame when things go wrong...well enough of the levity.

I’m unsure if you are referring to National Nominees Limited or are you meaning Trustee and Nominee companies, who they represent and the benefit of the association. Either way I know sadly that you have not got a clue, your struggling with along your ...”Ring the super company….they will tell you” qualification.

I don't have to ring Yabby, I told you china, AMP owns 0.75 of the 100% of CBA shares. I even gave you the number of shares. Here is some info on National Nominees Limited, if that was what you were alluding to with that nominee/tax/only Yabby understands rubbish.

>>National Nominees Limited is the number three shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Australia Bank Limited<<

Do you want me to tell you who the five major shareholders of the NAB are? You won't be surprized, I wasn't.

Yabby you are full of something commonly refered to as "it", did you convince yourself that what you say is true, just interested, or does someone feed you.

I have given you my number of shares that the AMP holds, give me yours and we can post sources.

Sonofgloin, AMP runs Super funds on behalf of people like you.
Banks run super funds on behalf of people like you. Its all part of
the financial services business. Those shares on not registered in
the name of each of 20 million Australians, but through their super fund, through nominee companies.

Fact is, the ulimate owners are the people with money in their super funds. Where do you think that those 1.3 trillion$ of super money,
which is as much as the whole ASX is worth, are actually invested?

BHP, Rio, Westpac, CBA, ANZ, Woolies, Wesfarmers(Coles) etc.

Once again workers have 1.3 trillion $ in super fund savings. Those funds are invested in things like blue chip Australian companies,
like your CBA.

So Yabby, I take it you are not going to give me your delusions as to how many shares the AMP has in the CBA. Do you cover your ears when you read my posts and sing la la la la la la as loud as you can and hope to escape the facts?
Game set and match, don’t make the effort of replying with more rhetoric as I can sing la la la la la too.

http://www.commbank.com.au/shareholder/2005annualreport/shareholding_information_fr.asp

Sonofgloin, of course the ALP has shares in CBA. Why would they not?
They run super funds for a living, it is their job.

Yabby you are getting your wires crossed, I have not mentioned the ALP in regard to the CBA, might have been Belly, wasn't me.

Just a typo, Sonofgloin, which you would have known.

It should have read AMP.

Yabby, why did you post the 20 top CBA shareholders from 2005.
This is one of the links I got my figures from. It has a link to the 2010 CBA report. It shows the AMP as having a net share holding of 0.73%.

http://www.spankyourbank.com.au/commonwealth-bank-of-australia-top-twenty-shareholders

Have a look at the 2005 report you posted. The AMP has a net shareholding of 1.10%. The Amp lost shares in the five year gap. I am really pleased you posted this 2005 report. Have a look at HSBC, in 2005 they owned 0.53% of the shares and in 2010 they owned 13.59%. I told you who owns them, other banks.

If you compare the 2005 numbers to the 2010 numbers you will plainly see the shareholdings of the banks who own shares in the CBA grew substantially.

Yabby do you realize what you have done, by publishing 2005 stats you have sunk your own argument. The people own less of the CBA year by year, and the European banking cartel owns more.

Have a look at this link which charts the top owners of all our major banks.

http://www.spankyourbank.com.au/the-big-four-top-twenty-shareholders

Yabby I will apologise in advance for not answering any further spin dribble like your nominee/tax/ Cayman Islands/ custodial agreements/ anonymity/whatever as it is apparent you are out of your depth, so I won’t embarrass you further , cheers

so its true...when we hear the bankers are taking care of the shareholders..:OTHER BANKS..

then other corperations...trusts owning trusts..
till corperates get our rights..and govt treats the living like trash...[cash cows to fund tax scams for corperate subsidy

think of ther subsidy GIFTED to drug lords
or lawyers betraying the trust..[the people..

indvidual party members trusting*../hoping
to get a bored board seat..with some corperation..
and an expense account..on top of their family trust advantages..

and of course indexed govt pension plus other gifts galore
for pm's mostly now living abroad..sitting on the masters board.

*why did you post the 20 top CBA shareholders from 2005.*

Quite simple, Sonofgloin. 2005 happens to be they year that came up, when I googled CBA top 20 shareholders. That list showed exactly what I have been claiming, ie that virtually all the top 20 are acting as nominees. Providing those sorts of custodial services is what any major bank does, as part of their business. What the word "nominees" tells you, is that they arn't the actual final owners of the shares.

Banks do more than mom and pop retail banking, Sonofgloin. Providing superannuation services is a big business for them, given the 1.3 trillion $ involved and something like 500'000 super funds operating in Australia.

Many banks directly own super funds, its a lucrative business, charging you 1.5% commission a year, with no risk to them if the sharemarket goes down, as you will wear the loss. Yet on their lending business, they only have a spread of 2%. Meantime the profits that our banks make, don't only come from Australia. They also dominate banking in NZ. But whilst their returns on equity might be healthy, they are nothing amazing compared to other industries and carry lots of risk, as we have seen in Europe and the USA.

Yes Yabby, they are the nominees of the banks that own them...lol, I particularly asked you for no more mumbo jumbo sport, but you persist, good onya.

You gave the example of super funds and their investment in the CBA as the conduit to the banks profits that then fall like raindrops on us all. Did I mention that the AMP is our largest super fund?

THE AMP OWNED 0.73% OF CBA SHARES IN 2010
IN 2005 THEY OWNED 1.10% OF CBA SHARES

Yabby I didn’t write this in capitals because I am shouting, I wrote it in capitals because I fear you have vision impairment, you never seem to see what I write.

You may be literate cobber, but you’re not cognizant at all.

*they are the nominees of the banks that own them...lol*

No Sonofgloin, they are nominees of their customers. As it happens, I run my own super fund. I could transfer that management to any of the banks tomorrow. The shares that I now own directly, would be transferred to that bank as custodians. On the share registery, they would appear as "Xbank Nominees". You would then be claiming that
the banks owned them.

*I’ll give you a tip Yabby. Any money thrown down the throat of a pokie stays in our economy, it’s like welfare money, it boosts the domestic economy.*

LOL Sonofgloin, I had not gotten back to that one yet. No wonder the likes of James Packer see you blokes as sitting ducks and invest ever more in casinos etc. You can't help yourselves!

Australians are so rich that they can afford to be the biggest gamblers in the world, losing around 20 billion a year. If you blokes
invested the money in bluechip shares instead, more and more of Australian assets would be Australian owned, rather than the evil
foreigners that you complain about.

No wonder the rich are getting richer!

It is not relevant that the super investment comes via a super company or a nominee on behalf of the self managed segment my vacant Yabby.

AMP manages 24% of the Australian superannuation market. If the total CBA shares owned by the AMP are 0.73% Yabby, then we can extrapolate that the remaining 76% of the market has a relative investment in CBA shares. Given that the whole Australian super segment including other super companies and NOMINEES must hold as much as 4% of the CBA’s shares.

Who owns a large part of the other 96%, HSBC, JP Morgan, Citicorp…..

Your spin of the CBA being a great benefactor to the battling Aussie is tripe, offal; it’s on the nose sport.

Right now the CBA are paying 0.01% interest on savings accounts with balances up to $49,999

Right now the CBA are charging over 13% interest on personal loans,that is a margin of 1299%.

Right now the CBA are charging up to 21% on credit cards and that is a margin of 2099%

Take money from a box hanging off a wall and it costs $2.50.

Yabby you are definitely living in your own private Idaho.

http://www.triapartners.com/resources/documents/12-04-17_00_Investment_Mergers%20spur%20super%20fund%20growth_17%20April%202012.pdf

Oops Sonofgloin, here is a list of the top 5 super funds. AMP Financial Services has 68 billion or 5% of the market of 1.3 trillion. The top twenty shareholders only tell you how much AMP has directly invested under their name, in CBA. What about their use of
Master trusts, wrap funds, index funds, hedge funds? None of those things would need to appear under their name.

So your 25% of the market, seems to be dreaming.

What most super funds do is spread their assets really thin, over a number of investments, from Australian shares, to international
shares to property funds, or direct property, to bonds. AMP for instance, gives you a choice as to how much risk that you want to take.

The amount that super funds have invested in Australian banks is regularly mentioned in the AFR, but their data is not online, unless you subscribe. Around 30% of super funds are private, like mine.
I've asked my accountant a number of times, where his clients invest.
A third of their investments in the banks is common.

Yabby>> So your 25% of the market, seems to be dreaming.<<

I agree.

Doesn't change the premise though. It just changes the total investments into the CBA by the Australian superanuation segment, it is 14%....still bugger all, where do the returns from the remaining 76% go. The majority to other banks

*It just changes the total investments into the CBA by the Australian superanuation segment, it is 14%....still bugger all,*

Well no, you are grasping that number out of thin air. Super funds have around 55% of their assets in Australian and international shares. More then half of that would be the top 200 companies, in the Australian market. Banks make up about a third of the ASX and with 1 trillion held in major funds, that would be a huge banking investment. Add to that the half million private funds, again with a huge chunk in local shares, banks dominating, then add straight moms and pop shareholders, CBA has around 800'000 of those. It adds up to a huge invesment in our banks. For good reasons. Good dividends, and of course dividend imputation, which is not available to foreigners
who don't pay tax here.

Your going to be the death of someone Yabby, talk about return for investment in transaction accounts, it relates more closely top your assertion that the banks are benefactors.

*Right now the CBA are paying 0.01% interest on savings accounts with balances up to $49,999*

Well you had better change banks, Sonofgloin. My Westpac Esaver pays 3.5%, money available anytime. My cheque account pays zilch, so there is not much in it. But I can transfer money in and out of my esaver from my cheque account, as I please. I just renewed a short term deposit at 4.75%, down from 6%, as interest rates have dropped.

Yes, banks charge high interest on credit cards, but in total its a small part of their business. I've never paid interest on a credit card, as I pay it off before the due date.

What we know is this, as its published by all banks in their annual reports: Banks have a variety of sources of funding, from local moms and pops, deposits, overseas borrowings etc. I know of some people still being paid 8%, when they took out 5 year term deposits at that rate, a few years ago. Banks publish what they call their spread.
That is average cost of funds versus average interest received over their whole loan book of 2 trillion $. That averages out at a little over 2%. So if banks decided to make no profit at all, that would
only affect interest rates to the tune of about 1%, given that one percent of two trillion, is around 20 billion.

So best you rush to Westpac, Sonofgloin, I have shares in them and then I can make a profit out of you :)

It makes me smile, when you smile Yabby, and I bet you smiled as you tapped out that quite entertaining market comparison. OK I'll go the Wespac and give them my money and they give me 3.5%.

Then I take some of theirs, the one they paid 3.5% for and pay them 14% for the privilege. They do nothing excepting electronically storing a number of digits and I pay them 400% more for exactly the same type of transaction they give me 3.5% for.

The CBA announced a record profit the other day.
Then promptly announced huge staff cuts. Get real tiger.

On a whimsical note. Yabby is a deceiving nom de plume for your good self; it should be Lobster, silver tail lobster…lol…...

*Then I take some of theirs, the one they paid 3.5% for and pay them 14% for the privilege*

Well I never claimed that you were bright Sonofgloin, so if you do such silly things, I can blame nobody but you :)

You own a house, so could easily add to your mortage and pay maybe
6-7%, depending on how well you negotiate your deal.

14% loans would only apply to higher risk loans, with more write offs for the bank. To cover a higher risk, they charge more, fair enough.

Now if you were really smart, you could have put your money in fixed deposit at the bank for 8% when it was available and now borrow it back on the house for a couple of percent less!

But what many of the punters are really doing is blowing their money at the pokies and having none left, which you claim is great for the economy. Then they are off to the payday lender and pay 400%, to get through until next week. Then they wonder why life sometimes sucks.
Then they want to blame people like me, who worked and saved a bit, for their perils. I've never claimed that humans are too rational either.

Yabby>> Then they wonder why life sometimes sucks.
Then they want to blame people like me, who worked and saved a bit, for their perils.<<

God Yabby, I see that you have once again designated yourself as the benchmark for not only intelligent decision making but for moral and cultural behaviour as well.

Yabby says:
Why don’t the plebs borrow at this rate.
Why don’t they second mortgage.
Why don’t they negative gear.
What about the capital gains tax.
Get an accountant and a family trust.
Open an off shore bank account.

As you exampled, without reference, there are better options available in the usury market tell me where you found a savings account that returned 8% Yabby….you didn’t. You give some bullsheiser example of a term deposit or some other bonded savings investment that was available for five minutes.

Right now you put $199,999 in a term deposit in the CBA and they will give you 4.5%. Right now if I borrow $199,999 they will charge me 13.9% fixed and 14.4% variable. As I mentioned earlier their everyday access accounts are paying 0.01%.

Geeze I’m lucky to have a bright person like yourself to tell me how good the banks are to me. Someone like you that educates me on the benevolence of the banks and that what I am seeing is wrong thinking. Who's bank, my bank, the one that registered a record profit in one breath and sacked 1500 little Australians with the second.

Just to know that my AMP has a real investment of 0.73% in CBA shares gives me a great feeling of prosperity and security.

Just to know that;

HSBC Holdings London
J P Morgan
National Nominees Limited
Citicorp Nominees

hold 36% of the shares in the CBA this must give you a great feeling of prosperity and security.

Yabby would you consider doing a regular “money talk” thread on OLO so those not as astute as yourself might know how to take advantage of the wonderful things our banks can do for us, I know I for one would appreciate it.

Sheesh Sonofgloin, you are a worry sometimes, you really are. But quite human of course as in this case. Its a human foible to stuff things up, as it seems in your financial affairs, and then to blame others for the mess.

For the record, I did not mention second mortgages, there are flexible first mortgages. I did not mention negative gearing, or capital gains tax of family trusts of offshore banking.

If you are foolishly paying 14%, when you need only pay 6.5%, well I can't help that either.

I gather that the AMP gives people choices about what kind of super that they want. Some want exposure to more Australian shares like banking shares, some less. If you want more, change your policy.

It certainly sounds to me like you need to find somebody to give you some good financial advice. Surely there are people like that available in a place like Sydney?

The 8% was available for a time, other rates later at 7.5% or 7%.
I live in the sticks and I knew about it from Business Spectator,
which is on the net. If a bushy like me can inform themselves, surely you can too. Otherwise, as I suggested, get some help.
Sydney is after all Australia's financial capital.

it comes to mind that..any advantage banbking might have had/employing tellers..is gone..now you only need a cash machine..some crossholding shares..and a serevice to replace the notes..'spent'..

much like when govt got smaller..by selling off the family silver in the states..yet still managed to 'grow'...banking soon will take a computer..

then much like front running..the few who really run things..will be easy revealed..and jailed..and their assets..[PROCEEDS OF CRIME*..seized..

the fools are now talking about inflation..[ie deflating the real bying worth..of your savings..ie stealing from the poor on fixed wages etc..

while those in the know..will pick egsactly the right time to lock in
or value it in high inflating monies..so the debt..[in money ammounts gets smaller..but in loss of true value/the skills that create[the real economy..

just had to share this
from three things

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/16/bank-break-ups-dividends/

But there is a darker horse in this race -- feckless U.S. policy which continues to prolong the Death of the Dollar. Those in Congress pushing to audit the Fed may have a point. But we think the Fed should push for an audit of Congress.

Bernanke has been given a limited toolkit and instructed to fix what all of Congress and the White House combined can not even begin to address.

Armed with only a hammer[and sychle]compass and straightedge, Bernanke has to figure out how to cut, drill, screw, bevel, plane, level, miter and join an economy that is maliciously neglected by those most responsible for its welfare.

public servants doing treadon to state

Congress's job is to enact responsible fiscal policies, then to empower the Fed to draw the reins now to this side,..now that,..to keep the horses in the middle of the path.

Instead, Washington has abdicated its responsibility,..in the face of which no amount of Fed soldiering can strengthen the dollar.

Corporate America is not dumb.

In an environment where the Risk Free investment can allow itself to sell at a negative return, even after allowing its rating to be cut from AAA to AA, why should AAA companies knock themselves out to beat the yield on Treasurys?

Should corporate America dole out its cash when neither the government nor the banks will?

Look at IBM yielding almost 3.5% and ask yourself: "Why?"

If you oversee managed equity funds, or retail brokerage accounts, you should be sensitive to outlier events. All it takes is one major listed company to announce they believe it prudent to husband their resources, given the uncertainty of the environment.

The stock will take a temporary hit, but they'll tough it out. And all of a sudden, all those "prudent" blue chip portfolios will turn into customer lawsuits.

These kind of tumultuous changes..are like getting pickles.out of a jar...That first one is so hard to get...

But..once it comes out,

the rest just keep spilling and spilling and spilling…
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/08/iran-standard-chartered/

Yabby I purchased my first little hobble for cash in 1978. In 1987 I purchased a better hovel, borrowed $120k and threw in$40k. The interest rate was 11.5% but quickly ran up to 17.5% and stayed up around there for the next decade from memory. I ate a load of spaghetti bol during those years. In 2001I purchased some property over the mountain, 120 hectares for the price of a new ute and family sedan.

I have always had a corporate credit card, I have one now and I use that to pay immediate bills. I have a personal visa and diners and that is it. I pay big things by cheque or direct debit from a transaction account. Right now I am debt free.

You see Yabby I am not an aging anti establishment Trotskyite. I have a sound understanding of the usury system. Since deregulation in the 1980’s the banks relationship with its depositors moved from valued client who was paid to deposit funds for the banks use. To a depositor using the banks facilities to store and draw their money.

Stick to your story Yabby, banks are our friends.

Ah Sonofgloin, so you are actually a rich real estate owner and are not paying 14% interest as you claimed!

I too borrowed from the banks in the 70s, cap in hand. The development bank knocked me back, thought I would never make it.
Luckily the Commercial Bank now Westpace, gave me some help, so did some family members. For young people to borrow, to say start a business, was virtually impossible in those days.

Luckily Keating deregulated the banking system, but high interest rates which I too paid, were not due to the banks, but due to the RBA, who were determined to bring down inflation which was out of control.
Mr Keating told us, the recession that we had to have.

Interestingly bank spreads were up to 4% before the deregulation of
the market. Competition in the market drove them down to just over 2%, where they are now.

Yes, the banks have done well. Australians went on a borrowing binge, encouraged by US lenders like GE (Harvey Norman - free lending etc)
But they have done well because of such huge growth in the market,
not because of rising margins.

What amazes me is how poorly informed people are. You complain about banks earning too much, when their return on equity is nothing special, despite the risks, given our high house prices. But a company like carsales.com can return 56% on equity and you don't say a word! Then you pay super funds a fortune to manage your super, something like 9 billion $ a year, without taking any risks at all!

yabby/quote..""You complain about banks earning too much, when their return on equity is nothing special,''

yes thats one of my gripes..the proffit margin
AFTER BONUS ETC THAT GUTTED IT..make as loan..get a big fat commission..make sure it dont look like your making much/despite holding near anything asset wise..'as security'

it takes your dollar..and makes it into ten
but even then dont get enough bonus..so it lends..giving 'someone..a nice big fat bonus

lol...""despite the risks""

yeah your bank helps set the lie-bore rate
BANKS PICK AND CHOSE..hold all the cards..DIDNT ACTUALLY LEND NUTHIN
took yoyur promise to repay..and monetised that..lest we forget credit cards astill pay ursurous intret rates,

""given our high house prices.""
is cause govt incentive[tax avoidance..where middle class inbvesters buy up all the cheaper better stuff..to make comfortable middle class rental..[for those who make too much to get further subsidised govt housing..so many issues in one line

but there is more

..""But a company like carsales.com can return 56% on equity and you don't say a word!""

lol return on equity*..a computer server
costing what a few grand..getring a retutrn of one grand
JUST WAIT TILL YOU GET THE CHANCE TO BUY IT>>like the facebook shares/plumiting to half its valuation*

then you return to govt bailing out the super industry with compulsory super from the 'babvy boomers reti\ring..wanting cash..not bit by bit payoff

that govt 'topped up'
and taken EVERY PAYDAY..upfront..plus some mug getting ongoing commisions

BUT IN THE END..you reveal you get it
but its against the flow of the rest

""Then you pay..!,super funds..a fortune to manage your super,! something like 9 billion $ a year,..without taking any risks at all!""

they dont
but we do...look at it in a ten year lol
yeah but look at the trend line..its going down.down and staying down

supper for the poor...yeah that will bve the day
the more you can afford to lock away..the more govt gives ya
then deeductions,..for 'investments'..great stuff cheating keaking and the blowhard ho-ward

Back in 1987, following bank deregulation, we introduced Moneygrams to every state in Australia. They allowed personal, business and farm borrowers to compare interest rates and charges, then go with the bank offering the best deal. By playing other banks off one against the other then going back to his original bank (Westpac), one of our first (farmer) clients saved 6% on a $1m loan for 5 years ($300,000). He was delighted with the impact of our $100 Moneygram.
Our Votergrams are achieving in the same way on electricity.
Following our initial electricity campaign (& by no means just due to us) the 10% reduction we sought has been achieved. Follow the same path as we did with banks and loans. Ring around the other electricity suppliers which you do not use. Seek competitive prices per kilowatt, paying particular attention to rates at peak and off peak times. Play one off against the other to get the lowest, if you like. Then phone your existing supplier and tell them what you have been offered elsewhere. The chances are they will offer you the same to keep your business.

Electricity prices will fall back to sensible levels when voters make it do so by encouraging the government to play fair. At present politicians are allowing electricity users to be ripped off by hidden taxes, huge dividends and fabulous executive salary packages.
Government will listen, but first we need to speak up and say what we want.The best way is for voters to go to www.voterland.org and support the Electric Shock campaign team for their state with a "like".