- Banned
- #1,601
Faine's a fantastic example.
The future of the ABC - Guthrie sacked
- Thread starter Footy Smarts
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 21, 2014
- 1,822
- 1,989
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,602
Guess it's where we differ in our opinion of what constitutes "greedy". I see that as business and they are providing a service (provision of credit). Given the inherit risks associated with lending based in cash flow there needs to be adequate reward to make it a sustainable business model. Given that there are multiple suppliers all around the same price in the market I don't see this as greed.
As for why they are chasing you how is their advertising any different from any other company?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
1) if you think it is a good business, start one yourself or compare it to similar loans from competitors like pawn brokers which is 30%
2) chase? you do know as of earlier this year, it is illegal for banks to offer this to you unless you accepted an invitation to receive these offers
3) credit cards are for people with money. Only a fool would use a credit card without the capital to pay it off before they are charged interest.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,604
No the company is encouraging me to obtain more credit as they do to people that can't afford it. Unfortunately people get into debt that they can't afford by these predators.
If it costs you 2% to buy money and you charge 20% for access to that money- it is greed.
Play by Numbers has said it best.
Just as well there is some competition with credit unions and other lenders.
Of course we won't talk about their advisors, what would you call that? Not greed?
- May 21, 2014
- 1,822
- 1,989
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,606
No bank offers credit to somebody who can't afford it. You have obviously signed up to receive additional credit offerings if you are still getting these as they were outlawed 2-3 years ago. Regardless the bank extends these offers based on your transaction details of the accounts you hold with them.
Which bank can borrow funds at 2%? Genuinely would like to know that so I can go there?
As for the financial advice there is no denying there are some dodgy operators (as there are in a number of professions). In Australia we have a number of watchdogs and consumer advocates to hold companies to account when things go poorly (as is the case in the current inquiry). Have been numerous doctors, lawyers, tradies, insurance companies, manufacturers and retailers that have also had dodgy operators as well. Are they all considered greedy to or just the banks?
Floor Pie
Cancelled
- May 13, 2014
- 2,580
- 2,404
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Why did it have to be outlawed???
- May 21, 2014
- 1,822
- 1,989
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,608
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,609
No it was outlawed because lower income people were getting into debt and not realising the obscene interest they had to pay if not paying in full. Don't let the truth get in the way.
Apparently you have to tell them you don't want to receive mail of offers, i only found this out a few years ago.
If you are a bank then perhaps you can borrow at a similar rate, we were talking about banks weren't we? Perhaps 2% is a bit low but no where near what they charge to credit card holders. Again my definition of greed.
Okay banks are wonderful good corporate citizens and only making modest profits. End.
On what basis? Humour that on a thread re a tax payer funded organisation that will never deliver a profit that people are attempting to have a go at organisations that pay a huge amount of tax. One wonders why their is such a correlation between economic misology and support for the ABC.
http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2013/07/17/the-most-proftable-banks-in-the-world/
2012 profits
1(4). Industrial & Commercial Bank of China - $37.8bn
2(5). China Construction Bank - $30.6bn
3(9). Agricultural Bank of China - $22.9bn
4(10). Bank of China - $22.0bn
5(11). JPMorgan Chase - $21.2bn
6(13). Wells Fargo - $18.9bn
7(23). HSBC - $14.0bn
8(32). Sherbank - $11.2bn
9(41). Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group - $10.2bn
10(45). Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group - $9.5bn
Are you a student / public servant?
Floor Pie
Cancelled
- May 13, 2014
- 2,580
- 2,404
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
No, why do you ask?
I asked Jade's_ about the banking industry, because I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that he has been an adviser to a couple of banks.
Have you read me say anywhere that I am a student/public servant?
Pretty sure that you're an accountant or something, who lives in the UK and visits Australia a few times a year.
And you hate the ABC, and the ALP, and the Greens, and the BBC. But the biggest one is John Maynard Keynes.
(If hate is too strong a term, replace with strongly oppose).
goose and gander
or something.
I don't hate the ABC. I am all for choice. If people choose to pay for it I don't have an issue at all
Would you enjoy being forced to pay for a Carlton membership?
Floor Pie
Cancelled
- May 13, 2014
- 2,580
- 2,404
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
So, no reason...
Well, no one has yet been able to explain to me how a Carlton membership is similar to a national network that covers television, radio, and the internet.
As for being forced to pay tax. I don't know many people who do enjoy paying tax.
- May 21, 2014
- 1,822
- 1,989
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,614
You have to opt in to receive offers not opt out. It makes no difference to low socio economic people coz they can just as easily "opt in" and increase their limit.
Anyone who doesn't realize they have to pay interest on what they borrow and don't repay is a moron and my personal opinion is you can't legislate against stupidity. It isn't in the banks best interest to be lending to these people so in my experience it is very rare that they would be getting offers in the first place. You would have to deliberately mislead the bank in order to get something you can't afford to repay.
I have readily admitted that I am manage a corporate banking team at one of the big 4 but my opinion is my own not the banks so don't really understand what that has to do with anything?
We are not able to borrow at anything like 2%. Then by the time you add on technology costs, wages, administration of defaults/arrears, capital reserves that are required to be held under the Basel conventions, tax etc the net interest margin the banks make is nothing like the extremely simplified 15%-18% you are suggesting.
Now tell me more about the mark ups applied by fuel companies, retailers manufacturers etc etc
- Banned
- #1,615
Would not have expected this in the slightest
. As for borrowing, bloody sure Aust has had some of the highest cost on borrowing in the world IICR.
Crikey's Paddy Manning quotes former banker saying collusion's a big part of the 4 big banks game:
Don't think Mr Dahlsen is one of the fiscal gurus posting here.
It would be no surprise to hear the big four banks and two big supermarkets have too much market power in Australia. But it is rare to hear that same line coming from a former chairman of Woolworths and director, for two decades, of ANZ.
Melbourne businessman John Dahlsen has rounded on the establishment in a confidential paper. Written in March, the submission has been given to David Murray’s Financial Services Inquiry and to Ian Harper’s Competition Policy Review.
Dahlsen’s submission is positively scathing about the lack of competition in banking and he doubts Murray will do anything about it, telling The Australian Financial Review recently the inquiry was being conducted “by bankers, on behalf of bankers, for bankers”. The FSI declined Crikey's request for a response.
Murray’s forerunner Stan Wallis, who conducted the last inquiry into the financial services system in 1996, assumed the entry of foreign banks would increase competition. Dahlsen writes:
"Not only has this not happened, but the international banks have retreated, in many cases with their assets acquired by one of the Big Four, thus increasing concentration."
The GFC made matters worse by wiping out competition from second-tier banks, regional banks and non-bank financial institutions and resulting in a wave of new regulation linked to the concept of "too big to fail".
Dahlsen directly accuses the big banks of collusion. The industry is becoming more and more incestuous, with executives moving from bank to bank. "Co-opetition" through payment systems and loan syndicates exacerbates the problem. A false impression of competition is nurtured deliberately, says Dahlsen:
"Home loan marketing conveys to the public the idea that the competition is real. In reality, bank margins in home lending are similar and some of the highest in the world. Home loan divisions are hugely profitable."
Tougher regulations have resulted in an overwhelming focus on risk, to the detriment of opportunity. For all-powerful credit teams within banks, there is no cost of continually saying no. All focus is on minimising downside risk; there is no measurement of unsatisfied demand. Business lending, for example, suffers chronically.
He says current architecture can’t solve the competition problem. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is too narrow and needs an RBA-like independent board. ASIC is overloaded and needs to be relieved of consumer protection responsibilities. The Financial Ombudsman Service is excellent but powerless. The tools of the ACCC need updating to cover complex areas like finance. Dahlsen told Crikey part of the answer might be a dedicated national "consumer super-agency" covering all industries and able to do research and disseminate reports, hold inquiries, consider law reform, relate to relevant state agencies, and consider impacts on small business.
Dahlsen draws a contrast between “collusion” in the banking industry and “collision” in the retail industry. Banking and retail are at opposite ends of the regulatory scale -- banking is highly regulated, retail hardly at all. Where there is little competition on price in banking, competition on price in retail is fierce and consumers benefit. The “collision” is between retailers and their suppliers, who are often subject to conduct that Dahlsen acknowledges is unconscionable.
“If the public were truly aware of the reality of what is happening and this could be communicated and marketed, then small retailers or suppliers might have a chance of surviving. In the meantime, there will simply be a bubbling on the surface of these tough practices, which many would say are un-Australian,” Dahlsen writes. These are amazing concessions from a former chairman of our largest supermarket.
But at least retail customers are empowered by the competition. Bank customers by contrast are the victims of competition in banking, because banks don’t compete on price, they compete to minimise risk, and they deliberately leave the customer in the dark. Unlike shopping, which we do every day, our banking transactions are few and far between, and with complex financial products like mortgages or superannuation, public understanding is low.
“It is not more regulation that is required, but information, so that the consumer can understand and choose better,” Dahlsen said.
This is where Dahlsen’s submission is most surprising: he slams bank culture as data- and production-driven:
Don't think Mr Dahlsen is one of the fiscal gurus posting here.
It would be no surprise to hear the big four banks and two big supermarkets have too much market power in Australia. But it is rare to hear that same line coming from a former chairman of Woolworths and director, for two decades, of ANZ.
Melbourne businessman John Dahlsen has rounded on the establishment in a confidential paper. Written in March, the submission has been given to David Murray’s Financial Services Inquiry and to Ian Harper’s Competition Policy Review.
Dahlsen’s submission is positively scathing about the lack of competition in banking and he doubts Murray will do anything about it, telling The Australian Financial Review recently the inquiry was being conducted “by bankers, on behalf of bankers, for bankers”. The FSI declined Crikey's request for a response.
Murray’s forerunner Stan Wallis, who conducted the last inquiry into the financial services system in 1996, assumed the entry of foreign banks would increase competition. Dahlsen writes:
"Not only has this not happened, but the international banks have retreated, in many cases with their assets acquired by one of the Big Four, thus increasing concentration."
The GFC made matters worse by wiping out competition from second-tier banks, regional banks and non-bank financial institutions and resulting in a wave of new regulation linked to the concept of "too big to fail".
Dahlsen directly accuses the big banks of collusion. The industry is becoming more and more incestuous, with executives moving from bank to bank. "Co-opetition" through payment systems and loan syndicates exacerbates the problem. A false impression of competition is nurtured deliberately, says Dahlsen:
"Home loan marketing conveys to the public the idea that the competition is real. In reality, bank margins in home lending are similar and some of the highest in the world. Home loan divisions are hugely profitable."
Tougher regulations have resulted in an overwhelming focus on risk, to the detriment of opportunity. For all-powerful credit teams within banks, there is no cost of continually saying no. All focus is on minimising downside risk; there is no measurement of unsatisfied demand. Business lending, for example, suffers chronically.
He says current architecture can’t solve the competition problem. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is too narrow and needs an RBA-like independent board. ASIC is overloaded and needs to be relieved of consumer protection responsibilities. The Financial Ombudsman Service is excellent but powerless. The tools of the ACCC need updating to cover complex areas like finance. Dahlsen told Crikey part of the answer might be a dedicated national "consumer super-agency" covering all industries and able to do research and disseminate reports, hold inquiries, consider law reform, relate to relevant state agencies, and consider impacts on small business.
Dahlsen draws a contrast between “collusion” in the banking industry and “collision” in the retail industry. Banking and retail are at opposite ends of the regulatory scale -- banking is highly regulated, retail hardly at all. Where there is little competition on price in banking, competition on price in retail is fierce and consumers benefit. The “collision” is between retailers and their suppliers, who are often subject to conduct that Dahlsen acknowledges is unconscionable.
“If the public were truly aware of the reality of what is happening and this could be communicated and marketed, then small retailers or suppliers might have a chance of surviving. In the meantime, there will simply be a bubbling on the surface of these tough practices, which many would say are un-Australian,” Dahlsen writes. These are amazing concessions from a former chairman of our largest supermarket.
But at least retail customers are empowered by the competition. Bank customers by contrast are the victims of competition in banking, because banks don’t compete on price, they compete to minimise risk, and they deliberately leave the customer in the dark. Unlike shopping, which we do every day, our banking transactions are few and far between, and with complex financial products like mortgages or superannuation, public understanding is low.
“It is not more regulation that is required, but information, so that the consumer can understand and choose better,” Dahlsen said.
This is where Dahlsen’s submission is most surprising: he slams bank culture as data- and production-driven:
"Customers can sense staff disenchantment and they see how it affects their service. On the whole banks are not great places to work. Policy tends to be top-down, with little notice taken of customer-facing employees. This exacerbates the production-driven atmosphere. Many bank staff live in fear of losing their jobs …"
Dahlsen details efforts taken under John Macfarlane at ANZ to revive a smaller-bank feel, since abandoned. The local bank manager is sadly dead and there is no bank equivalent of the supermarket store walk-through, for example, which allows feedback from customers to front-line staff to percolate back up to management.
Dahlsen details efforts taken under John Macfarlane at ANZ to revive a smaller-bank feel, since abandoned. The local bank manager is sadly dead and there is no bank equivalent of the supermarket store walk-through, for example, which allows feedback from customers to front-line staff to percolate back up to management.
"When the CEO of Woolworths visits stores, he uses a dictaphone to record all the comments made to him by staff or customers, which then goes to support office for immediate attention. This is checked the following day to see that action is taken. A surprising number of these comments raise important issues rather than minor complaints of inconvenience. It is difficult to imagine this happening in a bank."
The dictaphone may have been replaced by a tablet, but Dahlsen's point is well made. The result? Banks are held in low regard by consumers (never mind the jimmied-up customer satisfaction surveys produced endlessly at the industry's behest) and the feeling, we discover, is mutual. It is a fascinating submission.
The dictaphone may have been replaced by a tablet, but Dahlsen's point is well made. The result? Banks are held in low regard by consumers (never mind the jimmied-up customer satisfaction surveys produced endlessly at the industry's behest) and the feeling, we discover, is mutual. It is a fascinating submission.
Crikey's Paddy Manning quotes former banker saying collusion's a big part of the 4 big banks game:
Don't think Mr Dahlsen is one of the fiscal gurus posting here.
It would be no surprise to hear the big four banks and two big supermarkets have too much market power in Australia. But it is rare to hear that same line coming from a former chairman of Woolworths and director, for two decades, of ANZ.
Here's silly old me saying banks are greedy when they are obviously more corrupt & criminal than just plain greedy.
But I think most people suspected that anyway.
- Banned
- #1,620
I would be interested in hearing your defence of those crooks who works for the CBA's financial planning division?
Ratts of Tobruk
Cancelled
- May 1, 2013
- 9,168
- 5,975
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- ATV Irdning
Did you just repeat the 'opt in' point, while ignoring the fact you were just told that the government changed the law to make this the case due to predatory lending?
The ABC routinely is voted one of the most trustworthy brands in Australia. If right-wingers really hate it maybe they should remove the Nationals from the Coalition. Country people love the ABC as it covers their area where private enterprise cannot afford to. Of course, removing the Nationals would mean the Liberals wouldn't win power...
Mate, do you even know what a 457 is*? New Zealanders on 457s? Are you writing this on the back of that weird article The Australian ran a month or two ago about Brits working at the ABC? (a) They would probably be on skilled visas (Paul Quinn is an Executive Producer - highly skilled job) (b) the problem with 457s is the rorting of them, not their existence. The point is if they are being used correctly.
*Rhetorical question. Everyone else, please don't use this as a prompt to again point out Dymot don't do facts.
Last edited:
- May 21, 2014
- 1,822
- 1,989
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,622
Crikey's Paddy Manning quotes former banker saying collusion's a big part of the 4 big banks game:
Don't think Mr Dahlsen is one of the fiscal gurus posting here.
It would be no surprise to hear the big four banks and two big supermarkets have too much market power in Australia. But it is rare to hear that same line coming from a former chairman of Woolworths and director, for two decades, of ANZ.
Melbourne businessman John Dahlsen has rounded on the establishment in a confidential paper. Written in March, the submission has been given to David Murray’s Financial Services Inquiry and to Ian Harper’s Competition Policy Review.
Dahlsen’s submission is positively scathing about the lack of competition in banking and he doubts Murray will do anything about it, telling The Australian Financial Review recently the inquiry was being conducted “by bankers, on behalf of bankers, for bankers”. The FSI declined Crikey's request for a response.
Murray’s forerunner Stan Wallis, who conducted the last inquiry into the financial services system in 1996, assumed the entry of foreign banks would increase competition. Dahlsen writes:
"Not only has this not happened, but the international banks have retreated, in many cases with their assets acquired by one of the Big Four, thus increasing concentration."
The GFC made matters worse by wiping out competition from second-tier banks, regional banks and non-bank financial institutions and resulting in a wave of new regulation linked to the concept of "too big to fail".
Dahlsen directly accuses the big banks of collusion. The industry is becoming more and more incestuous, with executives moving from bank to bank. "Co-opetition" through payment systems and loan syndicates exacerbates the problem. A false impression of competition is nurtured deliberately, says Dahlsen:
"Home loan marketing conveys to the public the idea that the competition is real. In reality, bank margins in home lending are similar and some of the highest in the world. Home loan divisions are hugely profitable."
Tougher regulations have resulted in an overwhelming focus on risk, to the detriment of opportunity. For all-powerful credit teams within banks, there is no cost of continually saying no. All focus is on minimising downside risk; there is no measurement of unsatisfied demand. Business lending, for example, suffers chronically.
He says current architecture can’t solve the competition problem. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is too narrow and needs an RBA-like independent board. ASIC is overloaded and needs to be relieved of consumer protection responsibilities. The Financial Ombudsman Service is excellent but powerless. The tools of the ACCC need updating to cover complex areas like finance. Dahlsen told Crikey part of the answer might be a dedicated national "consumer super-agency" covering all industries and able to do research and disseminate reports, hold inquiries, consider law reform, relate to relevant state agencies, and consider impacts on small business.
Dahlsen draws a contrast between “collusion” in the banking industry and “collision” in the retail industry. Banking and retail are at opposite ends of the regulatory scale -- banking is highly regulated, retail hardly at all. Where there is little competition on price in banking, competition on price in retail is fierce and consumers benefit. The “collision” is between retailers and their suppliers, who are often subject to conduct that Dahlsen acknowledges is unconscionable.
“If the public were truly aware of the reality of what is happening and this could be communicated and marketed, then small retailers or suppliers might have a chance of surviving. In the meantime, there will simply be a bubbling on the surface of these tough practices, which many would say are un-Australian,” Dahlsen writes. These are amazing concessions from a former chairman of our largest supermarket.
But at least retail customers are empowered by the competition. Bank customers by contrast are the victims of competition in banking, because banks don’t compete on price, they compete to minimise risk, and they deliberately leave the customer in the dark. Unlike shopping, which we do every day, our banking transactions are few and far between, and with complex financial products like mortgages or superannuation, public understanding is low.
“It is not more regulation that is required, but information, so that the consumer can understand and choose better,” Dahlsen said.
This is where Dahlsen’s submission is most surprising: he slams bank culture as data- and production-driven:
"Customers can sense staff disenchantment and they see how it affects their service. On the whole banks are not great places to work. Policy tends to be top-down, with little notice taken of customer-facing employees. This exacerbates the production-driven atmosphere. Many bank staff live in fear of losing their jobs …"
Dahlsen details efforts taken under John Macfarlane at ANZ to revive a smaller-bank feel, since abandoned. The local bank manager is sadly dead and there is no bank equivalent of the supermarket store walk-through, for example, which allows feedback from customers to front-line staff to percolate back up to management.
"When the CEO of Woolworths visits stores, he uses a dictaphone to record all the comments made to him by staff or customers, which then goes to support office for immediate attention. This is checked the following day to see that action is taken. A surprising number of these comments raise important issues rather than minor complaints of inconvenience. It is difficult to imagine this happening in a bank."
The dictaphone may have been replaced by a tablet, but Dahlsen's point is well made. The result? Banks are held in low regard by consumers (never mind the jimmied-up customer satisfaction surveys produced endlessly at the industry's behest) and the feeling, we discover, is mutual. It is a fascinating submission.
Finally got through the above wall of text. Reads like a disgruntled ex-lover. If you don't think there is any competition on pricing for banks then you are a moron.
Pricing for the right application is extraordinary at the moment and as a result net interest margins are decreasing.
As for his nonsense that banks aren't lending on risky assets I have already covered that above and is a common sense business decision similar to those made in all industries
- May 21, 2014
- 1,822
- 1,989
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,623
Individuals involved should face jail time.
Ratts of Tobruk
Cancelled
- May 1, 2013
- 9,168
- 5,975
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- ATV Irdning
I love seeing these sorts of descriptions used by people claiming to be intelligent. It seems like the sort of thing a News Corp newspaper reader would reach for. And Mark Latham. If those two things are mutually exclusive.
- May 21, 2014
- 1,822
- 1,989
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #1,625
So you focus on a throw away comment and ignore the rest of the post?
Care to argue any of the points on a factual basis or just throwing motherhood statements out because "dem banks are criminals"
