Cashless society

[divs4ever]

Well this is the problem. If it's in the bank it can be at risk to the whims of a reactive govt.
Look at Canada as an example. Accounts were frozen.

If you take money out past a certain amount you get asked about it. Your spending gets tracked. There's a lot not to like. But they bank on peoples laziness.

Digital is great for business to a degree (those fees add up). On a personal level it's simply convenience. I'd question if that convenience is actually good for people though as it's very easy to waste money.

i find it extremely difficult to trust a government who doesn't trust me ( all solid relationships rely on mutual trust

 

[sptrawler]

As a shareholder of big banks, they have your mind where they want it.

"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."​

Big is good, but like anything that gets too big it tends to become full of bureaucracy, heavy doors and closed windows. What is the difference between a bunch of politicians, public servants and big bank management?

They spend most time with the upper end of town and forget what the small person and youth need. Eventually slowing down progress with red tape, hurdles and paperwork. All the while smothering smaller upstarts that are threatening their competition.

A small bank may not be as safe as one of the big four, but that is mostly due to government backing and huge reserves of assets. With well thought out and implemented rules and regulations customers of small banks can be protected from failure.

With more choice and competition costs can be lower, less smoke screens, and different choices. A big bank may not like cash because of the cost, but a smaller bank may be able to take advantage of a sector of clientele that prefer cash.

If the big four banks keep buying up the smaller banks there will be no competition, because the big four are all good friends of each other.

I actually use a small bank for all my banking, so they don't have my mind where they want it and the same as you I also do hold 'big' bank shares.
The issue Australia has is a problem with 'little man syndrome' the ACCC has a big dose of it and IMO has managed to put people's minds where they want it.
Australia has a population of 25million and they only have so much money to spread around buying their sht, everyone wants a piece of their money, but it isn't a bottomless pit.
So the amount of competition, in a lot of ways, is a reflection of how much money there is available to support it.
If there is more money available more businesses will start up to supply the demand, if there isn't enough then some of them will fail.
The Banks have to supply capital to the system to support the businesses and the private sector and in turn the Banks have to have enough capital themselves in the way of deposits or funding to be able to handle an unexpected economic shock.
When the 1987 stock market crash happened, some of our major banks nearly folded, this was mainly due to insufficient Australian deposits and the banks getting funding from overseas, when Skase, Bond, Adelaide Steamships, Holmes a Court etc went belly up and were struggling to pay the banks, the banks were struggling to meet their obligations.
So competition is great, until there is too much competition and no one is making money, especially in the banking system because they lend out a lot more than they actually have at their disposal.
Australia has a population of 25million people, they can only support so many businesses, as well as support the welfare system.
There is a huge difference between a local delli or fish and chip shop, or even a telecommunication company going broke and a major bank going broke.

 

[JohnDe]

I actually use a small bank for all my banking, so they don't have my mind where they want it and the same as you I also do hold 'big' bank shares.
The issue Australia has is a problem with 'little man syndrome' the ACCC has a big dose of it and IMO has managed to put people's minds where they want it.
Australia has a population of 25million and they only have so much money to spread around buying their sht, everyone wants a piece of their money, but it isn't a bottomless pit.
So the amount of competition, in a lot of ways, is a reflection of how much money there is available to support it.
If there is more money available more businesses will start up to supply the demand, if there isn't enough then some of them will fail.
The Banks have to supply capital to the system to support the businesses and the private sector and in turn the Banks have to have enough capital themselves in the way of deposits or funding to be able to handle an unexpected economic shock.
When the 1987 stock market crash happened, some of our major banks nearly folded, this was mainly due to insufficient Australian deposits and the banks getting funding from overseas, when Skase, Bond, Adelaide Steamships, Holmes a Court etc went belly up and were struggling to pay the banks, the banks were struggling to meet their obligations.
So competition is great, until there is too much competition and no one is making money, especially in the banking system because they lend out a lot more than they actually have at their disposal.
Australia has a population of 25million people, they can only support so many businesses, as well as support the welfare system.
There is a huge difference between a local delli or fish and chip shop, or even a telecommunication company going broke and a major bank going broke.

That is exactly what the big banks want you to think and speak.

There are smaller countries than ours doing very well with small populations, including some very influential European countries.

 

[sptrawler]

That is exactly what the big banks want you to think and speak.

There are smaller countries than ours doing very well with small populations, including some very influential European countries.

Well I guess we have differing opinions, life's like that.
The Governments of both sides, seem to think the same as I do.
By the way, what European economy is anything like ours, or are you comparing apples with oranges?
There is a lot of South American countries the same size as ours, with larger populations and the same style of economy doing extremely badly. ?

 

[JohnDe]

Well I guess we have differing opinions, life's like that.
The Governments of both sides, seem to think the same as I do.
By the way, what European economy is anything like ours, or are you comparing apples with oranges?
There is a lot of South American countries the same size as ours, with larger populations and the same style of economy doing extremely badly. ?

Opinion and fact are not the same. It is fact that there are smaller countries than Australia that have a thriving economy.

The LNP and Labor party's may both float around the centre ground but there are differences, as we are currently seeing. However, I get your gist and agree, that is why I mentioned "Big is good, but like anything that gets too big it tends to become full of bureaucracy, heavy doors and closed windows. What is the difference between a bunch of politicians, public servants and big bank management?"

 

[sptrawler]

Opinion and fact are not the same. It is fact that there are smaller countries than Australia that have a thriving economy.

And there are larger countries thriving too, your point is? If the fact isn't relevant, it isn't worth any more than an opinion.

We are talking about whether Australia's 25million people can support more than four major banks, you think yes, I doubt it.

The LNP and Labor party's may both float around the centre ground but there are differences, as we are currently seeing. However, I get your gist and agree, that is why I mentioned "Big is good, but like anything that gets too big it tends to become full of bureaucracy, heavy doors and closed windows. What is the difference between a bunch of politicians, public servants and big bank management?"

It is a bit like our telecommunications sector, Telstra was a Government owned monopoly, then privatised. Competition was forced on Telstra and new players have come into the market, at first many but also many have fallen by the wayside.
Have we received a better service than if Telstra was left in Government ownership and a monopoly I doubt it, we the taxpayer had to put in a fibre backbone for the private communications companies anyway, we now have to subsidies them by losing money on the NBN so that they can on sell it to us and make a profit. The profit that Singtel (Optus), Vodaphone make, could be going back into consolidated revenue and improving the telecommunications in regional areas.
A bit like has competition improved the electrical system over East, do you need more competition in it?
As with everything it all depends on how you look at things.
By the way were you working during the 1987 stock market crash?
The more banks, the less money in each, yet they all have to meet Govt fiscal requirements and to get business they lend more aggressively.
Article from 2017:

'Skid-marks on the pathway of progress': The crash that killed the entrepreneur

The 1987 share crash wiped out fortunes and empires. The Business asks those who were there — brokers, corporate raiders and the treasurer — what went wrong and what they learnt.

www.abc.net.au

 

[farmerge]

As a shareholder of big banks, they have your mind where they want it.

"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."​

Big is good, but like anything that gets too big it tends to become full of bureaucracy, heavy doors and closed windows. What is the difference between a bunch of politicians, public servants and big bank management?

They spend most time with the upper end of town and forget what the small person and youth need. Eventually slowing down progress with red tape, hurdles and paperwork. All the while smothering smaller upstarts that are threatening their competition.

A small bank may not be as safe as one of the big four, but that is mostly due to government backing and huge reserves of assets. With well thought out and implemented rules and regulations customers of small banks can be protected from failure.

With more choice and competition costs can be lower, less smoke screens, and different choices. A big bank may not like cash because of the cost, but a smaller bank may be able to take advantage of a sector of clientele that prefer cash.

If the big four banks keep buying up the smaller banks there will be no competition, because the big four are all good friends of each other.

We have one account with the local Community Bank, the only left in town now. All the rest bailed out over time. The Manager is there and available and the staff behind the counter very helpful. I think It is called looking after the small business entities, and I know even some of the bigger ones don't bother going down the Hill any more. It serves the peasants and businesses and puts back into the community.

 

[sptrawler]

We have one account with the local Community Bank, the only left in town now. All the rest bailed out over time. The Manager is there and available and the staff behind the counter very helpful. I think It is called looking after the small business entities, and I know even some of the bigger ones don't bother going down the Hill any more. It serves the peasants and businesses and puts back into the community.

Yes I'm with P&N, been with them since they took over Energy Credit, which I joined in 1972.

Have a credit card with CBA.?

 

[qldfrog]

We have one account with the local Community Bank, the only left in town now. All the rest bailed out over time. The Manager is there and available and the staff behind the counter very helpful. I think It is called looking after the small business entities, and I know even some of the bigger ones don't bother going down the Hill any more. It serves the peasants and businesses and puts back into the community.

I deal with CBA a lot, used to have a personal contact I trusted there but as years went, I am back to mostly if not only internet phone banking.
I have a premier status but whereas initially I was calling/emailing a person, now I just have a no wait it is true and competent call centre.
But I am typing this today from Noosa junction, as we had to go in person to a branch..to transfer a 7 figures amount for our house purchase.
So internet banking is great for 95% of my needs..but the 5% left is a pain...
A bit like cash vs digital.. digital is great and more convenient but from time to time...cash is needed and irreplaceable
A sophistication vs robustness debate even if not looking at the intrusion of government in our every day life.
Soon, I suspect many will read 1984 or a woke version of it, and say "and?"

 

[Value Collector]

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.

Well I have never been hacked either, and since you haven’t been robbed I guess crime doesn’t exist?

I haven’t had cancer either, so I guess that’s not an issue.

Gee, aren’t small sample sizes great ?

 

[JohnDe]

And there are larger countries thriving too, your point is? If the fact isn't relevant, it isn't worth any more than an opinion.

We are talking about whether Australia's 25million people can support more than four major banks, you think yes, I doubt it.

My point was your point "Australia has a population of 25million and they only have so much money to spread around buying their sht, everyone wants a piece of their money, but it isn't a bottomless pit."

And FYI Australia has 95 registered banks. A little more competition for the big four will not hurt the Australian economy, but the management might not like their pay cuts.

 

[sptrawler]

My point was your point "Australia has a population of 25million and they only have so much money to spread around buying their sht, everyone wants a piece of their money, but it isn't a bottomless pit."

And FYI Australia has 95 registered banks. A little more competition for the big four will not hurt the Australian economy, but the management might not like their pay cuts.

What you think the managers of the Big 4 are the highest paid managers in Australia?
By the way your " A little more competition for the big four, will not hurt the Australian economy", is an opinion. ?

If one did go broke, could we forward your quote to those who get screwed?

 

[JohnDe]

Well I have never been hacked either, and since you haven’t been robbed I guess crime doesn’t exist?

I haven’t had cancer either, so I guess that’s not an issue.

Gee, aren’t small sample sizes great ?

I doubt that you would know whether you have been hacked. Banks lose data and funds through hacking and rarely share all the information with their customers.

 

[JohnDe]

What you think the managers of the Big 4 are the highest paid managers in Australia?
By the way your " A little more competition for the big four, will not hurt the Australian economy", is an opinion. ?

What's your point?

I made no mention of "highest paid managers in Australia". My only thought is that a bit of competition would cause some sharing of profits with the smaller banks, and with that will come more options for customers.

 

[JohnDe]

If one did go broke, could we forward your quote to those who get screwed?

You threw that comment late, I answered, and it wasn't there.

Do you believe that no one was "screwed" by the big banks?

https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/banking

It found their financial advisers had failed to comply with the best interests of customers in 75% of advice files reviewed. It concluded there was an “inherent” conflict of interest arising from banks providing personal financial advice to retail clients while also selling them financial products.​

 

[farmerge]

You threw that comment late, I answered, and it wasn't there.

Do you believe that no one was "screwed" by the big banks?

https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/banking

It found their financial advisers had failed to comply with the best interests of customers in 75% of advice files reviewed. It concluded there was an “inherent” conflict of interest arising from banks providing personal financial advice to retail clients while also selling them financial products.​

When we bought our first home 50 yars ago it was a requirement of the bank that we used their highly inflated home insurance for the home. As soon as it was paid for gave that the flick and got a polcy at about half the rate.

 

[sptrawler]

You threw that comment late, I answered, and it wasn't there.

Do you believe that no one was "screwed" by the big banks?

https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/banking

It found their financial advisers had failed to comply with the best interests of customers in 75% of advice files reviewed. It concluded there was an “inherent” conflict of interest arising from banks providing personal financial advice to retail clients while also selling them financial products.​

Conflict of interest happens with most service providers, or do you think that only happens with the Big banks?
No doubt a time will arise where more banks are added to the quad system they have currently, but it wont be until the population and economy can carry it.
The big 4 basically are quasi Govt institutions, that enact monetary policy for the Govt and as was shown with the royal commission you posted, they had enough problems controlling them.
Like I said we have a different view on it, I would rather have my money in 4 heavily regulated banks than a free air fryer with every loan.
Guess I'm just old enough to have seen plenty of crashes.

 

[JohnDe]

Conflict of interest happens with most service providers, or do you think that only happens with the Big banks?
No doubt a time will arise where more banks are added to the quad system they have currently, but it wont be until the population and economy can carry it.
The big 4 basically are quasi Govt institutions, that enact monetary policy for the Govt and as was shown with the royal commission you posted, they had enough problems controlling them.
Like I said we have a different view on it, I would rather have my money in 4 heavily regulated banks than a free air fryer with every loan.
Guess I'm just old enough to have seen plenty of crashes.

I don't think that anyone is calling for an all or nothing bank system.

 

[divs4ever]

I don't think that anyone is calling for an all or nothing bank system.

certainly not me

i am very big on asset diversification ( and not just relating to shares )

 

[sptrawler]

I don't think that anyone is calling for an all or nothing bank system.

Yes and I would like to see more domestic airlines, to bring down prices, unfortunately they keep going broke too, because of competition.
By the way I get a better term deposit rate with the small bank than the big 4 offer.
There is lots of things in life that could be better, then again there are lots of things in life that get changed and then they realise they would have been better left alone.