Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

I believe both sides are to blame, the borrowers and the lenders. I just think the proportion of the blame fluctuates.
Yes


[...] banks need to have a similar duty of care toward vulnerable people that are easy to exploit due to lack of IQ/knowledge/education/entitlement etc.
Agreed. We don't think that kind of behaviour is acceptable in other parts of our society, so why finances?

Plenty of blame to go around, obviously.
 
The article generated a lot of responses in a short amount of time.

The phrase that comes to my mind is .....

Individual Financial Education, and the lack of it.

The other side of the coin has phrases like ......

Too big to fail. Commissions. Unethical. Dishonesty. Consumerism. Keeping up with the Jones’s. Entitlement.

I believe both sides are to blame, the borrowers and the lenders. I just think the proportion of the blame fluctuates.

Gunnerguy.
I want to throw in, asking for a loan that they really shouldn't be asking for, I never made a zillion dollars on a deal, mainly because I never borrowed more than I could afford to pay even if I lost my job.
Boring I know, but it did serve me well, i never worried about losing what I had already accumulated.
But my first house was 50 years old, chopped in half, loaded on two trucks and transported 200klm to a rural town block, then re stumped and nailed back together. ?
 
On one hand I agree that banks shouldn't lend to people who can't repay the debt and so on.

On the other hand we're talking about grown adults borrowing serious amounts of money and making the largest financial decisions most people will ever make here and doing so in a world where practically everyone has access to all manner of information via the internet.

We're talking about people aged 25+, in many cases substantially older than that. People who've had various jobs, relationships, in many cases have tertiary education, some have children and so on. That is, broad life experience. If they're not grasping the seriousness of what they're doing then as a society we're going wrong in more ways than just with housing or lending money.

I knew in primary school that advertising of any kind is simply about business trying to convince people to spend money and that whilst it might be true as such, it needs to be treated with extreme caution always. Doesn't everyone know this stuff? Just because someone says it's a good deal doesn't mean it is. :2twocents
 
On one hand I agree that banks shouldn't lend to people who can't repay the debt and so on.

On the other hand we're talking about grown adults borrowing serious amounts of money and making the largest financial decisions most people will ever make here and doing so in a world where practically everyone has access to all manner of information via the internet.

We're talking about people aged 25+, in many cases substantially older than that. People who've had various jobs, relationships, in many cases have tertiary education, some have children and so on. That is, broad life experience. If they're not grasping the seriousness of what they're doing then as a society we're going wrong in more ways than just with housing or lending money.

I knew in primary school that advertising of any kind is simply about business trying to convince people to spend money and that whilst it might be true as such, it needs to be treated with extreme caution always. Doesn't everyone know this stuff? Just because someone says it's a good deal doesn't mean it is. :2twocents

reminds me of that woman on current affair back years ago who was shaking a fist at the banks that her interest repayment only period ended and has to start paying principle + interest. Apparently she never read or understood the contract and thought will be repaying interest only for eternity.

Those evil banks! {shakes fist}
 
All points are above are true but would you apply the same logic to the medical profession, engineering.....etc.

For example a patient is convinced they need a surgical operation - the doctor will make a lot of money from it. The doctor knows it's unnecessary, the doctor should do it anyway??

In fact according to the logic some are displaying illicit street drug dealers selling heroin to adults have no responsibility or liability.

Heroin would be the ultimate capitalist commodity.
 
Government intervention is about to trickle through again. Either scomos "first buyers" bribe, or albos "Government buyout". Either way it's going to help prop prices. Unless they really ramp rates.

one of the reasons why it just keeps going up is all the stupid government intervention over the years.
 
All points are above are true but would you apply the same logic to the medical profession, engineering.....etc.

For example a patient is convinced they need a surgical operation - the doctor will make a lot of money from it. The doctor knows it's unnecessary, the doctor should do it anyway??

In fact according to the logic some are displaying illicit street drug dealers selling heroin to adults have no responsibility or liability.

Heroin would be the ultimate capitalist commodity.
When a person goes to a doctor or an engineer, they usually have a problem they want to have solved, if it is say major surgery or major engineering works they should get a second opinion, I know I did before having both knees and a hip replaced(not at the same time).
But if the patient wants the operation to relieve chronic pain, but can still walk, is it up to the doctor to say you don't need it because you are still walking?
Then when the patient demands it and finds after the operation the pain is bad(because it is), should the patient be able to turn around and say the doctor should have refused to do the operation?
Where does responsibility, accountability and rights begin and end? These days we want to have the right to decide, but we don't want to take responsibility if the outcome isn't favourable.
The same with the single mother in the earlier post, if her house goes up in value and she sells and makes a lot of money, it was a great decision on her part, if interest rates go up and she loses everything it's the Banks fault for lending her the money.
 
Last edited:
The issue of people being "creative" with their loan applications has been around for many years. It has been boosted by the advent of mortgage brokers who make it clear that "of course they can get a loan for their clients but we have to be smart about it."

Those with slightly longer memories may recall the days of 105% property loans ! One could borrow $525k on a $500k property. Yes that was happening with subprime loans in the past but the option is still available today. (All you have to do is find a guarantor for the loan...)

 
I can appreciate the observations of posters around lack of financial literacy etc with home buyers.

Having said that check out the stories from Home Loan experts. They ceratin seem genuine about delivering Home Loan solutions to everybody.

At what cost ?

 
What do you mean?

Firstly. What are the direct charges that make their way onto clients repayment costs ?
Secondly. The risk of clients having a unsustainable house loan because the loan parameters have been seriously fudged.
 
What do you mean?
I assume it means the social and economic costs if home affordability becomes out of reach for too many people.

I thought a 25 year mortgage was absurd the first time I heard of it as a kid, then I went to Europe and met families renting the same house for generations and home owners paying a house off over generations. Kicking a renter out of your home was basically impossible, After seeing all of that a 25 year mortgage seems like childsplay.

I am guessing house price increases will eventually cause gov to build more public housing and to allocate more land for housing development. Both will put downward pressure on house prices and people who bought homes and property as retirement investments will lose money.

I am also seeing a lot more squatters, urban encampments and people occupying vacant land than ever. Councils and police seem to ignore it, locals don't because we now go on Sunday walks together picking up used needles and other hazardous rubbish where local children are meant to play.
 
All points are above are true but would you apply the same logic to the medical profession, engineering.....etc.

For example a patient is convinced they need a surgical operation - the doctor will make a lot of money from it. The doctor knows it's unnecessary, the doctor should do it anyway??

In fact according to the logic some are displaying illicit street drug dealers selling heroin to adults have no responsibility or liability.

Heroin would be the ultimate capitalist commodity.

True, all drugs should be legal. You're living in fairy land if you think money doesn't influence doctors. Cosmetic surgery is one of the most lucrative medical business lines and how much of that is necessary? Who gets to decide what is necessary? If a woman decides enormous gazongas are necessary to her would you be brave enough to argue?
 
I assume it means the social and economic costs if home affordability becomes out of reach for too many people.

I thought a 25 year mortgage was absurd the first time I heard of it as a kid, then I went to Europe and met families renting the same house for generations and home owners paying a house off over generations. Kicking a renter out of your home was basically impossible, After seeing all of that a 25 year mortgage seems like childsplay.

I am guessing house price increases will eventually cause gov to build more public housing and to allocate more land for housing development. Both will put downward pressure on house prices and people who bought homes and property as retirement investments will lose money.

I am also seeing a lot more squatters, urban encampments and people occupying vacant land than ever. Councils and police seem to ignore it, locals don't because we now go on Sunday walks together picking up used needles and other hazardous rubbish where local children are meant to play.
The Government building social housing would be a last resort, the costs associated with repairs and rent arrears/evictions just balloons out massively, that was why they started building state housing suburbs and flats to keep all the repairs in one location.
But that brought about its own social problems, so then they started helping the private sector supply the housing with negative gearing and bond assistance, rent assistance etc.
You only have to watch a t.v programme where someone in social housing is complaining about the mess it is in, as though the mess fairy came in the night and wrecked it.
Pre election all parties say they are going to supply more social housing and it never seems to happen.
 
Top