numbercruncher
Beware of Dropbears
- Joined
- 12 October 2006
- Posts
- 3,136
- Reactions
- 1
The point of the Article is that bankers are already spending millions defending their position against homeowners who shouldnt of been lent money.
The future of Australian property prices
- Thread starter Joe Blow
- Start date
The point of the Article is that bankers are already spending millions defending their position against homeowners who shouldnt of been lent money.
I'm sure they have always spent millions on legal expenses. Not 100% sure, but check out some historical financials for the Big 4. Probably tell us more.
A few million bucks on legal fees are pocket change for banks
large corporation spending Multi millions and hundred of million every year on legal fees.
They probably has their own legal department so they just keeping these guys busy
this is a fixed cost for them.
large corporation spending Multi millions and hundred of million every year on legal fees.
They probably has their own legal department so they just keeping these guys busy
this is a fixed cost for them.
- Joined
- 5 October 2011
- Posts
- 896
- Reactions
- 0
Don't make it illegal to be stupid, make it illegal to take advantage of stupid people perhaps? its illegal for Nigerians to lull stupid people into scams, why is banking ok? as i said initially, there is no excuse for people making obviously stupid decisions, but if there is a way to stop it or limit it then shouldn't it be explored? I am right down the middle on this one, banks are equally responsible as the customers, but if you want to stop a drug problem do you lock up every user in hope so that there is no more demand, or do you try take out the top guy to limit the supply?
+1. except it's not stupidity of the banks, it's pure greed. well i guess stupidity is a bi-product of such an insane amount of greed.
numbercruncher
Beware of Dropbears
- Joined
- 12 October 2006
- Posts
- 3,136
- Reactions
- 1
Very valid point actually.
Aussie banks have hardly been punished at all yet.
So i imagine they will at some point start doing it again. :swear:
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
No Australian bank was bailed out by anyone.
The banks paid a significant amount to the government for the government guarantee.
Why do you make it sound as though the Australian taxpayer actually gave the banks something for nothing?
So misleading and inaccurate.
Is it so? Who prosecutes the Nigerians for offering scams to people who are stupid enough to get sucked into thinking they are suddenly due millions of dollars from someone they have never heard of?
How impossibly unrealistic!
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 13,130
- Reactions
- 19,317
If only....
I am soon getting a new enemy in Julia, but one of the big 4 got bailed out by the US government during the worst of the GFC at the time of 20 or so billions if I remember well
I post gain when I find a link
Glen48
Money can't buy Poverty
- Joined
- 4 September 2008
- Posts
- 2,444
- Reactions
- 3
Think it was CBA and NAB needed a few bucks.
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 13,130
- Reactions
- 19,317
not 20 billions, was a big high but still $4billions:
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20101203/nab-and-westpacs-secret-bailout-revealed.html
download the spreadsheet from the fed:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_taf.htm
in US$ (at the time)
3 billions for NAB
1 billion for westpac
idea being to grease the wheel as the monetary system was frozen and these two were unable to access any credit otherwise and would have been in default
But was just a loan not a bailed out if we want to keep pretending...
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 13,130
- Reactions
- 19,317
Thanks Glenn, unsure about our own aussie government, anyway at least the ones i quoted
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
We were discussing the Australian taxpayer funds bailing out Australian banks by the Australian government.
I made no comment about any overseas arrangements.
Well first of all those Nigerians are committing a crime which is called fraud. Anyway did you ever hear of the saying that a fool and his money are easily separated.
Taking out a mortgage isn't illegal no matter how stupid you are. There requirements by a bank are usually capital and a contract stating that they will take the house of your hands to recapture their capital if you don't keep up payments. It has worked like this for many hundreds of years. The only difference now is that stupid people expect big bank loans and banks are willing to oblige as it means money for them. Of course banks should take the losses on the chin. I do not in any way advocate bailing out banks.
Regarding drugs. Well drugs are illegal. How are you equating a financial contract or financial process that has the basis of capitalism to illegal activities. Makes no sense.
Poor arguments all round I think.
Agreed Julia, no Australian taxpayer bailed out any Australian bank! This is still true.
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 13,130
- Reactions
- 19,317
Noted: all depends on whether we focus on : the use of Australian taxpayer's $ or the strength of our big four during hardship
As there was a reference on shorting banks who could be stressed during GFC2, I thought it was relevant
- Joined
- 5 October 2011
- Posts
- 896
- Reactions
- 0
of course I have heard, what does that make the people who have also been separated from there money in the way of over-priced homes and lavish lifestyles at the expense of debt? whos the stupid one, the one giving away money they have to the nigerians, or the one giving away money they don't even have, and have a contract to say they should give it back.
your inability to understand a basic metaphor is not my problem.
- Joined
- 5 October 2011
- Posts
- 896
- Reactions
- 0
I'm sure to an extent the authorities over there are trying to track them down, fact is it's illegal. If you prefer you could simply use similar scams carried out here in Aus where people actually get locked up.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
OK. I was unaware just making an offer to someone was illegal.
prawn_86
Mod: Call me Dendrobranchiata
- Joined
- 23 May 2007
- Posts
- 6,637
- Reactions
- 7
I dont think it is illegal to make the offer, but if you were to do it in Aus and the Charity/King/Lotto you said didnt exist, and you didnt pay out it would probably be false advertising at the least, or fraud at worst.
If you were to buy something from a shop and the salesmen was making up things to sell you the item. You buy the item and when you go home you find it does not do what the salesmen said it would do, then under Australian Law you are entitled to a full refund. To be specific if the salesmen gives a different story and says he didn't tell you anything and you just bought the item, then ultimately it needs to be judged in court before you get your refund, assuming of course the court decides you were in the right.
You can call people who don't do enough research on a item before buying it and only rely on the advice of the salesmen stupid. However the fact is this applies to the majority of the population, in fact I would bet that you yourself fit into this category and have bought things from stores without researching thoroughly.
Lets look at a hypothetical example. You just applied for a Optus cable broadband plan, instead of getting the modem from optus you decide to get a modem elsewhere to save a bit of money. You walk into a store and being stupid you buy a ADSL modem rather than a cable modem (note in this scenario the salesmen didn't push you to buy anything, you just walked up to the counter and asked for a modem).
You go home and find out that you actually needed a cable modem and because you were stupid you bought the wrong thing. You go back to the store and demand they take it back. By rights the store doesn't have to do anything, it was your own stupidity that led you to buy the wrong thing. Obviously the majority of stores will just give you a refund. However I bet if the store didn't, you would have bad mouthed the store and said things like how Dicksmith/e.t.c has crappy customer service and sold you the wrong thing when in fact it was your own fault.
Taking the hypothetical example even further, you decide to call fair trading and complain about the store. While on the phone with fair trading you pretend that it wasn't your fault at all and that you asked for a modem to connect to optus broadband. Fair trading then calls the store and tries to negotiate with the store. The store decides to give you a refund even though they are in the right because they don't want to waste time going to court over the matter. They also know that in court its just your word against theirs and there is a high chance that the court will side with you even though you were in the wrong.
Funny how if this hypothetical scenario happened to you, I bet you would be complaining about the store. Yet when banks knowingly give mortgages to people who can't service them, you place more blame on the people who take out the mortgage.
Are you seriously still equating someone getting scammed by a nigerian "prince" to someone who has bought property in a bubble?
I have no idea what your arguement is anymore, seems you are arguing for the sake of it.
