Banks the Road to Ruin

Ater a dizzying ten years of the Austraian Big Four CBA, WBC, ANZ and NAB screwing their their customers to increase the returns of my self managed super fund which gets up to 8% on their dividends I have had a catharsis. ( look it up )

I believe the big four are in for a whacking.

Nobody likes them especially the politicians.

My guess is in one years time.
CBA $35.96
ANZ $12.40
NAB $14.32
WPC $09.01

Sold today.
All of the bastards

gg

Don’t know about that GG

maybe.....but maybe not.

Big call GG, especially when the Government has just introduced a Bank Tax, to bolster a sad deficit.
It would appear to me, that the only thing the Government can bank on, is the Banks.
The population is increasing by 400,000/annum, their money is in the Bank.
Their loans, are from the Bank.
Their house will be funded by, the Bank.
Sad, but they are a required evil.

They in effect are a Government agent, they restrict or allow the flow of money, as per Government directive through the Reserve Bank.
If the Government had to control money supply through thousands of Banks, it would be a nightmare, a bit the same as enterprise bargaining in the workplace.
It is much easier to control en masse, as opposed to a fragmented chaos.
Just my opinion, neither side of politics wants a banking collapse, it would make us a third world country real fast.
All show, pomp and politics.IMO

If you have Netflix you have to watch Saving Capitalism it rings true for Australia as well as the USA
Big business runs the country not politicians, workers have been screwed into the ground while the big end of town manipulate legislation to suit themselves and on it goes. Watch it.

MrBurns said:

If you have Netflix you have to watch Saving Capitalism it rings true for Australia as well as the USA
Big business runs the country not politicians, workers have been screwed into the ground while the big end of town manipulate legislation to suit themselves and on it goes. Watch it.

Click to expand...

If you haven't already, I also recommend "Requiem to the American Dream".

MrBurns said:

If you have Netflix you have to watch Saving Capitalism it rings true for Australia as well as the USA
Big business runs the country not politicians, workers have been screwed into the ground while the big end of town manipulate legislation to suit themselves and on it goes. Watch it.

Click to expand...

I haven't got netflix and haven't watched it, but when you see Governments scared to tax miners on a volume basis, it makes you wonder.
Taxing the Banks, will be passed on to the populace, which seems acceptable by both sides of politics.
So what a Royal Commission into Banks is going to do, is beyond me, it will cost the taxpayers money to find out it is costing the taxpayers money.
Seems a pointless excercise.
Why don't the Labor Party demand workers can get paid in a pay packet, as we used to, before they made it compulsory to have our wages paid into a bank account?

Garpal Gumnut said:

Ater a dizzying ten years of the Austraian Big Four CBA, WBC, ANZ and NAB screwing their their customers to increase the returns of my self managed super fund which gets up to 8% on their dividends I have had a catharsis. ( look it up )

I believe the big four are in for a whacking.

Nobody likes them especially the politicians.

My guess is in one years time.
CBA $35.96
ANZ $12.40
NAB $14.32
WPC $09.01

Sold today.
All of the bastards

gg

Click to expand...

Read somehwere that some 75% of Aussie banks assets are consisted of OZ home mortgages.

If that's true, it's gonna crash so hard.

I think OZ laws don't allow personal bankruptcies like the US where homeowners and property investeors can just hand over the keys. That they can get a cut of their wages etc.

At some $4 or $5T in property, it'll take a few centuries to recoup half of that asset.

Gov't will bail them out though. So no biggie.

sptrawler said:

I haven't got netflix and haven't watched it, but when you see Governments scared to tax miners on a volume basis, it makes you wonder.

Click to expand...

Doco's based on his book and lectures like this


Chomsky's insights. Quick before YT took it off for its subversiveness.

luutzu said:

Read somehwere that some 75% of Aussie banks assets are consisted of OZ home mortgages.

If that's true, it's gonna crash so hard.

I think OZ laws don't allow personal bankruptcies like the US where homeowners and property investeors can just hand over the keys. That they can get a cut of their wages etc.

At some $4 or $5T in property, it'll take a few centuries to recoup half of that asset.

Gov't will bail them out though. So no biggie.

Click to expand...

The property balloon isn't a big issue IMO, when you have a small population, in an attractive Country and a mass immigration plan in place.
There will always be someone there to buy someone's misfortune, this will continue untill saturation occurs.
As the saying goes, someones misfortune, is someone elses gain.
The stockmarket works on the principal everyday.
Even a sharp correction, will only effect Sydney and Melbourne, most other places have already had a correction.
So if there is a crash in Sydney and Melbourne, I'm sure there are plenty of punters willing to jump in, on lower valuations.
Just my opinion.

sptrawler said:

The property balloon isn't a big issue IMO, when you have a small population, in an attractive Country and a mass immigration plan in place.
There will always be someone there to buy someone's misfortune, this will continue untill saturation occurs.
As the saying goes, someones misfortune, is someone elses gain.
The stockmarket works on the principal everyday.
Even a sharp correction, will only effect Sydney and Melbourne, most other places have already had a correction.
So if there is a crash in Sydney and Melbourne, I'm sure there are plenty of punters willing to jump in, on lower valuations.
Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

When it crash, it's going to go below 50%, easy.

That's the only way for anyone on average wage to even think about buying a house or an apartment (and still sleep at night).

I browsed through Domain's auction results last weekend and the average property/detached in, I guess the inner West - canterbury, some 20Km from the city... they're going for $1.3M to $1.6M.

Move a bit north and they goes for the high $million.

Australia is a great country, population is growing... true. But at the end of the day, demand needs money to satisfy the urge.

We all want [demand] a McMansion by the water, a boat on the jetty and two babes in arms. Can't get that demand on an average $70K a year pre-tax.

WA and other states, yea, they do get investors from the East Coast coming over to buy up when it's down recently. Not sure who can afford the east coast market once it hits the fan.

it could, from the little that I can imagine, be a situation where the East collapses and properties in the West and South need to be flogged off to keep properties in states you live in and know best.

Maybe private equity will do very well out of it. They'll scoop them all up and we all get to be landless peasants, again.

Dear Treasurer

We are writing to you as the leaders of Australia’s major banks. In light of the latest wave of speculation about a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the banking and finance sector, we believe it is now imperative for the Australian Government to act decisively to deliver certainty to Australia’s financial services sector, our customers and the community.
Our banks have consistently argued the view that further inquiries into the sector, including a Royal Commission, are unwarranted. They are costly and unnecessary distractions at a time when the finance sector faces significant challenges and disruption from technology and growing global macroeconomic uncertainty.

However, it is now in the national interest for the political uncertainty to end. It is hurting confidence in our financial services system, including in offshore markets, and has diminished trust and respect for our sector and people. It also risks undermining the critical perception that our banks are unquestionably strong.

As you know our banks have acknowledged that we have not always got it right, and have made mistakes. Together with the Government and regulators, since 2014 we have been taking action to fix issues, and improve what we do and how we do it. We have collectively appeared before, or taken part in 51 substantial reviews, investigations and inquiries since the global financial crisis, 12 of which are ongoing. We continue to demonstrate our commitment to doing the right thing by our customers and seeking to ensure those genuinely affected by these mistakes are appropriately compensated.

A strong, well-regulated and well-governed banking system is in the interests of all Australians and is critical to job creation and fairness. The strong credentials of the banking system ensured Australians were spared the worst of the Global Financial Crisis, and have been fundamental to the ongoing performance of our economy despite global and domestic political turmoil.

We now ask you and your government to act to ensure a properly constituted inquiry into the financial services sector is established to put an end to the uncertainty and restore trust, respect and confidence.

In our view, a properly constituted inquiry must have several significant characteristics. It should be led by an eminent and respected ex judicial officer. Its terms of reference should be thoughtfully drafted and free of political influence. Its scope should be sufficient to cover the community’s core concerns which include banking, insurance, superannuation and non-ADI finance providers. Further to avoid confusion and inconsistency, the inquiry must to the most practical extent replace other ongoing inquiries.
It is vital that the terms of any inquiry consider the many reviews and inquiries that have been conducted into the banking sector in recent years; the significant government and industry-led reforms that have been and will shortly be implemented; the 44 recommendations made in the Financial System Inquiry in 2014; and the broad and positive contribution that banks make to the Australian economy and to millions of customers and shareholders.
It is also important that any inquiry reports back in a timely manner so that we can have certainty about the findings and move forward to implement any recommendations.
We will work hard to ensure our contribution to any process helps to further strengthen Australia’s financial services system.

Throughout this, our focus will remain on our customers. We are proud of the work our people do every day to support them. That work continues.

[ Signed by the al the major banks ]

And Malcolm promptly complies:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-...announced-by-pm-after-big-four-letter/9209926

Isn't it ironic that it takes a letter from the Bankers to persuade Malcolm into yet another! backflip. Cirque Du Soleil should offer him a job in one of their Shows.

It is also interesting to note how the letter sets out the expected terms. e.g.

It is vital that the terms of any inquiry consider the many reviews and inquiries that have been conducted into the banking sector in recent years; the significant government and industry-led reforms that have been and will shortly be implemented; the 44 recommendations made in the Financial System Inquiry in 2014; and the broad and positive contribution that banks make to the Australian economy and to millions of customers and shareholders.

Click to expand...

(my bolds)

Malcolm must be pleased to see how much of his job has already been done by his helpful mates, the Bankers. Gotta luv'em

It’s still going to be the shareholders who will Suffer, not bankers, not PM or staff, will be just people trying to live life

The financial sector gone nowhere for many years,

Former High Court Judge Kenneth Hayne has been appointed to head the royal commission into the banking sector.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-...nneth-hayne-appointed-as-commissioner/9215780

Will a banking Royal Commission really shake up the sector, or will it just be political window dressing and business as usual?

luutzu said:

Chomsky's insights. Quick before YT took it off for its subversiveness.

Click to expand...

Chomsky is a Shill.

A master of false equivalency. With all the illumitardy's lapping up every word.
He has been ranting, on with the massive chip on his shoulder, for decades and decades about the end of the United States with the same doom and gloom drivel.
Watch what it he does when confronted by a balanced intellect.
Chomsky runs from genuine debate and falls into name calling and sloganeering as soon as he begins to be dismantled.
His main driving force seems to be the love of bathing in this nauseating vanity of appearing to be some grand insightful intellect. Unfortunately he has quite a following of naive and not so smart youth who just become dissolution's and really screwed up in their views of the world. He's a kind of cult leader who is quite subtle in the way he destroys young minds.

notting said:

Chomsky is a Shill.

A master of false equivalency. With all the illumitardy's lapping up every word.
He has been ranting, on with the massive chip on his shoulder, for decades and decades about the end of the United States with the same doom and gloom drivel.
Watch what it he does when confronted by a balanced intellect.
Chomsky runs from genuine debate and falls into name calling and sloganeering as soon as he begins to be dismantled.
His main driving force seems to be the love of bathing in this nauseating vanity of appearing to be some grand insightful intellect. Unfortunately he has quite a following of naive and not so smart youth who just become dissolution's and really screwed up in their views of the world. He's a kind of cult leader who is quite subtle in the way he destroys young minds.

Click to expand...

Serious?

Chomsky is one of the smartest, most honest, most humane people in the history of the world.

Anyone who want to understand how the world really works should read and listen to his work.

And I come to that conclusion from listening to his lectures and speeches for over four years now. Speeches that dates back to the 90s.

Idiotic sell-out "intellectual" like Sam Harris aren't worthy of shining Chomsky's shoes let alone hold a conversation or debate with the man.

The reason that Chomsky is pushed aside from the mainstream, made to look like an idiotic leftist nutjob while people like Harris are praised and sold as some sort of balanced "intellect" is because Chomsky don't hold back his criticism of anyone.

Useful idiots like Harris would use his deep voiced conman bs to excuse warcrimes, genocide and wholesale murder.

Like in that clip you linked. Harris claimed that the US is noble and good even though it blew up Somalia [Kenya's?] only pharmaceutical plant knowing exactly what was there and why they want to take it out. Why? Because, Harris says, the US meant well.

Ask the Nazi if they "means well". Or the Chinese if they means well; or ISIS if they don't also say they mean well.

Chomsky sums it up best about people like Harris: If we do it, it's for a good cause. If they do the same, it's terrorism.

People like Harris makes good lapdogs. Chomsky is one of those giants whose body of work will be read and studied as long as civilisation exists.

Hook, line and sinker.
WOW he got you

notting said:

Hook, line and sinker.
WOW he got you

Click to expand...

There's very few other people I admire more than Chomsky.

The man has the most detailed, incisive and honest analysis on geopolitics, politics, history, the media, capitalism, human psychology... I've ever come across. Thing is people have to listen or read his body of work to see that because there's no "Chomsky's theory" or ideology... There's just "this is what really happened, and here's why".

Apparently he's also a distinguished theorist in the field of Linguistics, mostly established in his 30s.

----------

Take Chomsky and Harris...
Harris claims that the US went into WWII to fight evil and Nazism. i.e. fight for good, then bring peace and democracy to Germany and the rest of the world.

Chomsky says bs.

Here's why:

The US didn't go into WWII until its own interest was directly attacked [Pearl Harbour];

Before the Poms miraculously avoid defeat in that Battle for Britain, American planners have already drawn up plans for a world where the Third Reich rule Europe, most of Africa and the Middle East. America can rule the Americas and try to work with the Fuhrer.

At Nuremberg, war crimes are defined as what bad shiet the Nazi did but the Allied didn't do. That's not too objective now is it?

Postwar reconstruction of Europe through such plan as the Marshall plan was not the kindness of a liberator. The Yanks "encourage" practically all the capital from European elites to flee to the US. use those capital to lend back to Europe with such strings as buying American made goods and services; permitting US military bases on their soil; hand over valuable colonies etc. etc.

And that's in Europe. You don't want to know what their plans and actions are for Africa, South America, Asia and the Middle East.

An average American patriot wouldn't like to hear such things about their country. They prefer the Harris version. It goes well with a Michael Bay or Bruckheimer production.

luutzu said:

The man has the most detailed, incisive and honest analysis on geopolitics, politics, history, the media, capitalism, human psychology... I've ever come across.

Click to expand...

That's just kind of sad.
I hope this will be the beginning of the pop of that bubble.
Read this carefully -
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

What you should look for at the beginning is how Chomsky is far more focused on avoiding public discourse than on an open, honest analyses. Chomsky thus obviously knows and is afraid of something untenable in his own position. Otherwise why try to bamboozle Harris with the crap he sends him to try to fudge the debate. Before it even starts and most tellingly maintain a position of not wanting it to be public!!!!'
Bamboozling is how Chomsky gets around most people that do try confront him. He hurls oceans and oceans of red hearings at them to try to lose them in intellectual muck mixed in with loosely related historical mutations of intent.
Again why is he so afraid of Harris taking him on publicly if he is such an upright rationalist genuinely reflecting truth and interested in honest discourse.