Yeah, but it's our money.Remember 5 years ago when CBA got fined $700 Million, it’s no wonder banks want to step away from large cash transactions, and are asking more questions.
Basically the responsibility of ensuring that the transactions are anything to do with money laundering or terrorist financing is being put onto the banks, and these are transactions that the bank makes basically no money off. It’s a big risk with very little reward.
CBA fined $700 Million
It’s your money yes, but you are using the banks services and so have to follow their terms of service, and if the government is issuing fines for $100’s of millions you have to expect them to want to make sure their paper work is correct.Yeah, but it's our money.
Add to that the "depositers" status, legally, as unsecured lender, our funds should be at call for whatever reason that is none of the banks business, even if its just to put under the damned bed...
...which is becoming an option. Was Fraser right after all?
I fully understand advance notice. However the terms of service are very one-sided. We asked unsecured creditors should be able to dictate the terms in reality. Thanks mate also you can unilaterally change the terms as your implied contract. This is grotesquely one-sided and relies on the ignorance of depositors in understanding their position in law.It’s your money yes, but you are using the banks services and so have to follow their terms of service.
If you want instant access to your money, and don’t want to follow the terms of service, put it in your own safe at home.
Your funds are at call, your can transfer them when ever you like, but if I have $1 Million in cash in my bank account, it’s a bit crazy to think that every single CBA branch needs to have $1,000,000 sitting there just incase I want to withdraw it. It makes perfect sense to me that I would have to give them advance notice for large cash withdrawals.
There is multiple Banks, you can always shop around, but as I said it’s pressure coming from the government, so most banks will probably be similar.I fully understand advance notice. However the terms of service are very one-sided. We asked unsecured creditors should be able to dictate the terms in reality. Thanks mate also you can unilaterally change the terms as your implied contract. This is grotesquely one-sided and relies on the ignorance of depositors in understanding their position in law.
Now let's introduce the spectre of bail-ins and the deal becomes even more preposterously to the disadvantage of we "depositors".
Apart from everyday expenses and working capital for a business, you have to be nuts to have any substantive portion of your wealth anywhere near a bank deposit.
I fully understand advance notice. However the terms of service are very one-sided. We asked unsecured creditors should be able to dictate the terms in reality. Thanks mate also you can unilaterally change the terms as your implied contract. This is grotesquely one-sided and relies on the ignorance of depositors in understanding their position in law.
Now let's introduce the spectre of bail-ins and the deal becomes even more preposterously to the disadvantage of we "depositors".
Apart from everyday expenses and working capital for a business, you have to be nuts to have any substantive portion of your wealth anywhere near a bank deposit.
I found this interesting -
The current level of competition between bank and non‐bank providers is difficult to assess as many non‐bank providers are funded by the major banks. Meaning there is a lot of smoke and mirrors in the market place.
Hahaha are you serious?Maybe write a letter to your local elected representative if you want laws changed.
And the drizzle did evenuate this arvo so it was a fizzog.My foolproof way to attract rain is to get the slasher or ride on out for a major session
Try it....
From past experience I recommend major outdoor works of the kind that once started cannot be paused and must carry on uninterrupted for many hours.My foolproof way to attract rain is to get the slasher or ride on out for a major session
Then vote in better ones, or maybe run yourself.Hahaha are you serious?
I go one better bro, I turn up at their functions. My local member is a nice chick but farkin useless... Has no actual understanding of what bail-in even means.
The last member couldn't even be bothered responding to any of my emails.
They do not represent us whatsoever.
In any case banking rules are largely determined extra-nationally.
Wut?Then vote in better ones, or maybe run yourself.
Or if you believe the banks really to have some sort of special position with strong risk less earning power, then buy some shares.
No, I am not being serious, except to point out that if you want the banks to act differently rather than blame them you should be blaming the people that write the laws they are being forced to comply with.Wut?
And wut?
a/ you cannot be serious, bro... LMAO
b/ I own banks to he extent I believe they are good investments... underweight atm
You should trying punctuation so folks don't have to read it three times.... anyway.No, I am not being serious, except to point out that if you want the banks to act differently rather than blame them you should be blaming the people that write the laws they are being forced to comply with.
The bigger the better IMO, the 87 stock market crash showed what underfunded over extended banks that had to source most of their funds from overseas, look like. ?And further comment about our banking competition -
Australia's four biggest banks continue to get bigger, increasing their market dominance and making it harder for smaller banks to compete in the already consolidated industry.The bigger banks can generate returns on equity above their cost of capital, "but for smaller banks it's tough given they have a funding and operating cost disadvantage," Zaia said.Big getting biggerAlthough the big four still compete among themselves, the high market concentration has been a concern for the Australian banking system. In recommending changes to the industry, the Royal Commission, which investigated misconduct in the nation's financial services industry between 2017 and 2019, stopped short of top-to-bottom reform, though it found irregularities and illegal practices by banks.As Australia's big banks keep getting bigger, competition concerns grow
The concentration of the four biggest lenders in Australia has long been a concern for the nation's banking system. This was accentuated by Australia and New Zealand Banking Group's A$4.9 billion acquisition of Suncorp Group's banking unit in August.www.spglobal.com
Like laying cement for footings or a housepad. Guaranteed to bring on a weather change.From past experience I recommend major outdoor works of the kind that once started cannot be paused and must carry on uninterrupted for many hours.
This is remarkably effective at bringing the most miserable conditions imaginable.
The bigger the better IMO, the 87 stock market crash showed what underfunded over extended banks that had to source most of their funds from overseas, look like. ?
Or take a look at the U.S, EU banking fiasco's I think in the last 30 years the big four have done a pretty good job of giving the plebs confidence that they don't need to do a run on the banks and put the money under the mattress.
There isn't many countries that can say that.
The banking oligopoly feels ‘safe’, but it’s bad for customers
Today, the major banks secure more than nine out of ten mortgages taken out by Australian homebuyers. The dominance has become more entrenched in the past five years, eroding competition in the sector.
During times of international economic volatility, the strength of our banking system instils confidence across the wider Australian economy.
The financial sector contagion that recently absorbed Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse provided a fresh reminder for governments, companies, small businesses and households in Australia about the value of resilience embedded across our major banks.
We all agree our robust banking system is overwhelmingly an asset for Australia, so we don’t want any policy measures to undermine what is in many respects the bedrock of our economy. But increasingly, Australians are recognising the oligopoly arising from the market power of the big four banks does come at a cost. And that burden is carried by the customer through a lack of competition.
The big four banks have major comparative advantages over their rivals in many areas, including funding mortgages. Compared to the smaller players, the big four start with lower capital costs, enjoy a rating uplift on the back of the implicit government guarantee of being too big to fail, and in times of volatility attract a strong flow of deposits from increasingly anxious customers seeking a safe harbour.
These advantages have helped embed the power of the big four, particularly in the home loan sector. Today, the major banks secure more than nine out of 10 mortgages taken out by Australian home buyers. The dominance has become more entrenched in the past five years, eroding competition in the sector. This is a bad outcome for customers.
Weaker competition plays out for consumers in the form of opaque pricing and the increasingly familiar loyalty penalty, where new home loan applicants are handed discount mortgages at the expense of existing customers.
On the other side of the fence, one source of mortgage funding for smaller institutions and non-banks has been private residential mortgage-backed securities. The RMBS market has a track record running over decades of contributing significantly in efforts to enhance competition in the mortgage market. For home buyers, this equates to improved service and more competitive home loan rates.
Due to cyclical and structural issues, however, the impact of the private RMBS sector can be curbed by external factors. In particular, the impact is limited in environments facing increased risk; that is, the landscape Australia faces right now as it navigates the ongoing volatility in global financial markets.
But there is a solution. And it’s already been road-tested. To sustainably strengthen competition from non-majors and non-banks, consideration should be given to supplementing the private RMBS market with a publicly supported RMBS scheme. It’s an initiative already in place in Canada, which wanted to create a more level playing field for the smaller financial institutions taking on the “Big Six” banking oligopoly.
Level playing field
In essence, the scheme helps smaller lenders access funding at the same rates as the major banks. The Canadian scheme has been operating successfully for 35 years, and was a global standout during the global financial crisis as a critical and reliable source of funding for all financial institutions despite the market meltdown at the time.
More recently, an independent review by the nation’s central bank concluded “the main social benefit for Canadians of public securitisation is the support it provides for both diversity of choice and access to mortgage financing through a stable, cost-effective supply of funding to mortgage lenders”.
“Public securitisation also supports competition in the mortgage market by providing funding to small lenders, which have fewer alternative funding sources. Financial institutions also benefit from public securitisation by using these highly rated assets to meet regulatory requirements.”
Greater availability of matched funding would help counter any potential run on the banks. In today’s tech-reliant economy, the speed of online real-time banking has made that prospect significantly more difficult to manage. In tomorrow’s world, algorithmic triggers similar to measures already in place in financial markets will play a preventative measure, but for now there is increased reliance on prudent liquidity management.
The Canadian model helps banks avoid problems managing their liquidity by lowering the mismatch risk on banks.
If adopted in Australia, the system should be available to all banks, including the majors. The fee structure would be tiered to align with the philosophy of a shaping a more level playing field.
In preparing for next month’s budget, Treasurer Jim Chalmers is inevitably poring over a mountain of budget submissions, including proposals extolling the virtues of the Canadian MBS model. The scheme would be familiar to the government, albeit distantly, having been identified 15 years ago this month as one of the more interesting ideas to come out of the Rudd government’s 2020 summit.
To assist the Treasurer, the 2020 report suggested the scheme would “ensure a relatively low-cost and stable source of financing for housing”. Given the pressures facing homebuyers in 2023, proven policy measures that generate competition in the home loan market deserve serious consideration.
Greg Medcraft is a former chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, a former member of the Financial Stability Board and a former director of OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs. He is chairman of Australian Finance Group.
Well actually it does. Cash in my pocket doesn't get hacked. I've never been robbed of cash. Three guys tried once. But I would walk around in the worst areas.If your bank is hacked from its end, that has very little to do with whether you choose to use cash or digital payments in your daily transactions.
I do as well. Turned a few coins into hundreds$ with/for the kids. One of my 7yo is a bit of a rarity collector. Amazing how clever they are these days.Did I mention that I collect coins?
When ever I get change I check the coins, I’ve built up a nice collection of rare and valuable coins from the change that I receive from using my cash over the years. The coins that aren’t of any interest for me I leave on the kitchen bench and they disappear for someone else in the family to use & enjoy.
Well this is the problem. If it's in the bank it can be at risk to the whims of a reactive govt.No, I am not being serious, except to point out that if you want the banks to act differently rather than blame them you should be blaming the people that write the laws they are being forced to comply with.
guilty as charged , but thanks for highlighting an indoctrination talent i was unaware of havingYou
You should trying punctuation so folks don't have to read it three times.... anyway.
I am not blaming anyone, just pointing out the reality of the disposition of our deposits; and perhaps positing there a may be less risky alternatives.
You seen to be going off on intellectual (and irrelevant to the discussion) tangents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?