Banks - GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Disco08]

Why do they have to move on interest rates for?

They're a business trying to make profits and give back to share-holders who invest in their business.

They're not a charity.

At the end of the day, if people are relying on some small interest rate cut to save their house, then they borrowed too much to start with, wouldn't you say? :don't know

Come on Livers. You don't think their billions in profit are enough? This country needs to seriously look at legislation to limit the banks power before the middle classes are unable to afford the basic cost of living.

 

[Tiger44]

Why do they have to move on interest rates for?

They're a business trying to make profits and give back to share-holders who invest in their business.

They're not a charity.

At the end of the day, if people are relying on some small interest rate cut to save their house, then they borrowed too much to start with, wouldn't you say? :don't know

Spoken like to a true shareholders advocate Liverpool. No need to comment on the fact that their cost of borrowing has just reduced by 0.25% courtesy of the Reserve Bank ? Yes they are not a charity but last time I checked they were all doing very nicely thank you very much. Didn't notice any of the banks coughing up any $ when the Government guaranteed deposits at the time of the GFC. Again just sat back and "looked after their (own) shareholders interests". I think they should be made to publicly justify not passing on the full increase immediately.

And this is not about saving a persons house but giving the ordinary person a little extra breathing space in meeting their commitments.

Greedy b***ards !

 

[shawry]

ING Direct passed it on in full. I will not complain about that even if it is effective Friday 12th October.

 

[AngryAnt]

Abbott thinks they should.

Yes but Livers forgives Tony all his sins.

 

[Ian4]

Livers :rofl

 

[Legends of 2017]

still no moving on interests rates? these greedy pigs have no shame.

you sure about that Ian? I think last time they were very quick to move to cut rates, what they paid to account holders that is

 

[WesternTiger]

Why do they have to move on interest rates for?

They're a business trying to make profits and give back to share-holders who invest in their business.

They're not a charity.

At the end of the day, if people are relying on some small interest rate cut to save their house, then they borrowed too much to start with, wouldn't you say? :don't know

Saw an interesting stat today where it takes the banks more than 50% more time to pass on an interest rate cut than they do an interest rate rise. But they're not a charity!

 

[Liverpool]

Come on Livers. You don't think their billions in profit are enough? This country needs to seriously look at legislation to limit the banks power before the middle classes are unable to afford the basic cost of living.

Its never enough for a business Disco.

Spoken like to a true shareholders advocate Liverpool. No need to comment on the fact that their cost of borrowing has just reduced by 0.25% courtesy of the Reserve Bank ? Yes they are not a charity but last time I checked they were all doing very nicely thank you very much. Didn't notice any of the banks coughing up any $ when the Government guaranteed deposits at the time of the GFC. Again just sat back and "looked after their (own) shareholders interests". I think they should be made to publicly justify not passing on the full increase immediately.
And this is not about saving a persons house but giving the ordinary person a little extra breathing space in meeting their commitments.
Greedy b***ards !

Funny enough, there would be a few people on this very board who are more than happy to have their superannuation funds improving due to their super being invested in banks and other corporations.
I'm glad people though realise the banks aren't a charity, so on what basis are we aiming at our ire at banks doing well and making decisions in the best interests of their investors and shareholders when that is usually what all major corporations set out to do anyway?

 

[Baloo]

While the government support and protect the banks oligopoly there will be no change. Let real competition enter the market and the banks will have to start winning business again.

 

[Ian4]

we need a new government run bank. i work for australia post and we would be the perfect busniess to run a bank given the infrastructure we already have in place.

 

[Baloo]

we need a new government run bank. i work for australia post and we would be the perfect busniess to run a bank given the infrastructure we already have in place.

Two countries I have lived in had post office run banks. Both have now privatized / sold them. I'm not keen on my tax money being used for something that is better off being in the pirate sector.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm glad people though realise the banks aren't a charity, so on what basis are we aiming at our ire at banks doing well and making decisions in the best interests of their investors and shareholders when that is usually what all major corporations set out to do anyway?

Money rorted by profiteering banks can not be used in other areas of the economy - so if I pay more servicing the debt on my mortgage, I have less discretionary spending for retail and other services. So this kind of profiteering actually has a negative effect on the rest of the economy.

 

[Liverpool]

Two countries I have lived in had post office run banks. Both have now privatized / sold them. I'm not keen on my tax money being used for something that is better off being in the pirate sector.

Your new bank manager? :hihi

 

[Ian4]

Two countries I have lived in had post office run banks. Both have now privatized / sold them. I'm not keen on my tax money being used for something that is better off being in the pirate sector.

australia post wouldn't need to use taxpayers money to start up i wouldn't have thought... although the profits we hand back to the government coffers would have to be redirected to help with the start up costs. and the former NAB CEO is our MD (carlton scum).

 

[Disco08]

Its never enough for a business Disco.

That's the problem Livers. They're buying extra ivory back scratchers at the expense of the population's well being. It's out of whack and that's purely because of legislative carelessness.

 

[AngryAnt]

That's the problem Livers. They're buying extra ivory back scratchers at the expense of the population's well being. It's out of whack and that's purely because of legislative carelessness.

Actually it's more out of whack because we have an oligopoly of five major banks who tend to strategically move in lock-step because they can. Market failure alongside inadequate regulation.

 

[Liverpool]

That's the problem Livers. They're buying extra ivory back scratchers at the expense of the population's well being. It's out of whack and that's purely because of legislative carelessness.

But again...people are looking at it from a moral perspective and not a business one.

The banks are there to make money and profits...they are not in the business of "the populations well-being".

It may sound cold and heartless but thats the reality of it.

 

[Disco08]

If you want a world where morality counts for nothing that's fine, but for a sustainable future we're going to need less greed and more compassion. If it's going to take legislation to make the banks show compassion towards the people they are fleecing then that's the way it'll have to be.

 

[Ian4]

NAB reduced by 20 basis points. clark kents.

But again...people are looking at it from a moral perspective and not a business one.

so businesses should have no moral obligation to society?

 

[Giardiasis]

Actually it's more out of whack because we have an oligopoly of five major banks who tend to strategically move in lock-step because they can. Market failure alongside inadequate regulation.

Only governments can create monopolies. Baloo is bang on the money.