Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

19 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > »    
 
  
Reply to this topic

Banks, behaving badly
henrietta
post Posted: Yesterday, 09:18 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 4,454
Thanks: 738


In Reply To: mullokintyre's post @ Yesterday, 04:07 PM

You probably complained about how long it took them to respond to your complaints. wacko.gif

Cheers
J



--------------------
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." Satchel Paige

"No road is long with good company." Traditional

Said 'Thanks' for this post: mullokintyre  
 
nipper
post Posted: Yesterday, 04:11 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 7,914
Thanks: 2646


In Reply To: mullokintyre's post @ Yesterday, 04:07 PM

at least you didn't have to click on a link and give your account details smile.gif



--------------------
"Every long-term security is nothing more than a claim on some expected future stream of cash that will be delivered into the hands of investors over time. For a given stream of expected future cash payments, the higher the price investors pay today for that stream of cash, the lower the long-term return they will achieve on their investment over time." - Dr John Hussman

"If I had even the slightest grasp upon my own faculties, I would not make essays, I would make decisions." ― Michel de Montaigne
 
mullokintyre
post Posted: Yesterday, 04:07 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,113
Thanks: 1121


The CBA must have had a quiet period where its staff don't have a lot to do.
Its the only reason I can think of as to why they sent me the following email:
QUOTE
We have reviewed our complaint records and found that we may not have given you contact details of our external dispute resolution scheme when you raised a complaint with us.

Complaint Reference Date Raised
XX-XXXXX 2011-09-26

We are sorry for this error. To put things right, we're letting you know who you can contact.

What do you need to do?
You don't need to do anything if you're satisfied with the way we handled your complaint(s).

If you'd like to discuss your complaint(s), please contact us on 1800 805 605.

If you remain dissatisfied, you can contact the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) on 1800 931 678 (Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm AEST/AEDT), or email info@afca.org.au, or mail GPO Box 3, Melbourne VIC 3001. AFCA's website is www.afca.org.au.

We're here to help
If you have any questions or if we can help in any way, please contact us on 1800 805 605.

Yours sincerely,
Commonwealth Bank of Australia

WTF??? 2011?
I have no idea what I complained about.
Must be a case of covering their collective arses.
Mick




--------------------
sent from my Olivetti Typewriter.

Said 'Thanks' for this post: boylep  
 
mullokintyre
post Posted: Jan 14 2021, 05:47 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,113
Thanks: 1121


Is it possible that the wall street banks may at last get someone in a regulatory position who will not do their bidding??
From Wall street on Parade
QUOTE
On January 7, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, released a statement indicating that he is to become the new Chair of that Committee. The announcement came as the Democrats are set to take control of the full Senate from Republicans as a result of the Georgia runoff.

Yesterday, Brown went a step further and held a conversation with major media outlets to discuss the agenda he will set as the new Chair of Senate Banking. The formal appointment process making Brown the official Chair has yet to occur, thus Brown is the “presumed” Chair.

We get the feeling that Senator Brown took the very wise and preemptive step of getting mainstream media to announce his Chairmanship yesterday because he clearly understood that Wall Street’s mega banks would be fighting behind the scenes in an effort to prevent him from advancing to Chair.

Wall Street despises Brown because he has an institutional knowledge of their patterns of crimes against the public and the regulations that they have succeeded in getting the Trump administration to gut in order to make those crimes evermore opaque and lucrative.
Brown reserved his harshest criticism for Brian Brooks, the Acting Comptroller of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the regulator of national banks, which includes the mega banks on Wall Street. Brown told Brooks the following:

“One West, the bank that you and [Treasury] Secretary Mnuchin and Joseph Otting [former head of the OCC in the Trump administration] worked at, was known as a foreclosure machine. It makes no sense that the outgoing President handed the wheels of the economy to so many people who had a hand in crashing it in 2008.

“Even though you’re running the OCC without the approval of the Senate, you’ve made sweeping changes to regulation to benefit the same corporations you used to lobby for. It’s exactly this kind of self-dealing that’s eroded so many Americans’ trust in their government and the economy. And last week, 80 million American voters rejected that thinking.”

I don't like his chances, but Trump was no better than his predecessors in reigning in the crims that run the wall street banks.
Maybe this time.
Mick



--------------------
sent from my Olivetti Typewriter.
 
mullokintyre
post Posted: Nov 12 2020, 12:04 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,113
Thanks: 1121


Anyone who thinks that things are going to change susbatially under a Biden Presidency is dreaming.
The power brokers are still there, still pushing their own agendas, still screwing the non elite American public.
From Wall street omn Parade

QUOTE
After successfully warding off barbarians outside the gates of the local election offices during the count of mail-in ballots, President-elect Joe Biden now has a new army of barbarians to deal with. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, using data collected by the Federal Election Commission, the industry category called “Finance, Insurance & Real Estate” donated a stunning $201,675,240 to Biden’s campaign and PACs supporting him. Add to that the category of “Lawyers and Lobbyists,” which donated $52,378,087, and you’re looking at a cool quarter of a billion dollars.

The bulk of the $52 million that came from “Lawyers and Lobbyists” was donated by the lawyers and partners of the big law firms that represent the biggest Wall Street banks and securities firms. Big donors to Biden and the Democratic Party in the 2019/2020 cycle hail from such law firms as Kirkland & Ellis; Paul Weiss; Akin Gump; Sullivan & Cromwell; Covington & Burling; and Sidley Austin, to name just a few.

The current head of the U.S. Department of Justice, William Barr, hails from Kirkland & Ellis, as does Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. The former head of the criminal division of the Justice Department, Brian Benczkowski, who stepped down in July, also came from Kirkland & Ellis.

Covington & Burling similarly staffed up President Barack Obama’s Justice Department with Eric Holder as Attorney General and Lanny Breuer as head of the criminal division. Covington & Burling is also the law firm that fronted for Big Tobacco’s crimes against the American people for four decades. (See our 2012 article, Was the U.S. Justice Department Sold to the Highest Bidder.)

The current Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Jay Clayton, was a former law partner at Sullivan & Cromwell. Clayton represented 8 of the 10 largest Wall Street banks in the three years prior to landing the top post at the SEC in the Trump administration.

One name noticeably missing among the big law firms whose lawyers and partners are supporting Biden and the Democratic party is the law firm, Jones Day. That’s the law firm that sent 12 of its law partners to staff up the Trump administration on the very day Donald Trump was inaugurated.


The politics may have changed, the money has not.
Mick



--------------------
sent from my Olivetti Typewriter.
 
Mags
post Posted: Oct 26 2020, 07:06 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 471
Thanks: 256


In Reply To: nipper's post @ Oct 26 2020, 12:55 PM

Yep, more and more of the same.
It's exponential: Remember how hard bush had to work to get his sept-11 stimulus through, it took months.... That was $700m.
obumma then pumped one through, that took a few weeks... $1.4 trillion...
Now under trump how much did they put in??? And did it in hours...

Just look locally: The budget for Aus is 5 times more than rudd put in... 5 times!!
Did we have endless debate on tv and radio about how the stimulus was bad??? reckless???Nah, most people just grabbed the $750 hitting their bank accounts...
Interestingly, the small business circles I move in, are hard working honest people, and most received no support at all from the government.....
And now, they all have the same conclusion: why am i hiring, when staff literally do not benefit my business financially???
My personal business, my net profit is $15k better off when I work alone. Yes, that's right: a staff member costs me $300 per week. That's how hard it is to employ people in this country. Government has made hiring too expensive, and the school system has made them useless.

And now the UBI crap being trotted out. That tax concessions given to the super system cost the budget horrifically, and that policing self funded retirees costs more than if they gave them the pension anyway...
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what's going on here: Everything is pointing to an utter collapse of the currency. People earning more to stay home, 80% of households paying no net tax, government departments costing more than the problems they're policing etc etc... It's a complete disaster.
And many, many smart individuals can see this: and all they are doing is feathering their nest. Post war these same people were entreprenuers who hired people: Now they see no benefit in staff, so they have none. Big business and investors have no desire for workforces: Company announcing staff cuts will see it's share price rise, every time.
it's a compete disaster: Feathering your nest is THE ONLY answer.
And use the knowledge of the coming economic blow up: USE and ABUSE, is my slogan. 7 in 7 is another one, from the financial sector: by (20)27 you need 7 figures, and cash out, because the years after that are going to be hell.
The stock markets are going to do what Aussie housing did since 2000: Regardless of your knowledge or skill level, almost any investment is going skywards: Just don't be that greedy sucker that's unable to take a profit and walk away.
But the economic vacuum that's coming on the currency collapse, will suck all your wealth via inflation in the blink of an eye. Don't laugh, this is coming. Remember how stupid it sounded that you'd have give people money to take oil away... well, oil did turn negative... and so to will most people finances.



Said 'Thanks' for this post: mullokintyre  
 


nipper
post Posted: Oct 26 2020, 12:55 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 7,914
Thanks: 2646


In Reply To: Mags's post @ Oct 26 2020, 12:10 PM

Mags, so how do we dig ourselves out of the hole? Keep digging, seems to be the answer, so far.
I am in the same camp as you; ride this bronco, be alert to change. I have given up trying to predict outcomes.

on the matter of Banks: Surviving but not altogether thriving
QUOTE
... Because mortgages make up about 70% of their lending book, the big revenue driver for banks is housing credit growth. Twenty years ago, this was running at close to 15%, but in the past decade we've seen this drop down to half that. And, there's questions about whether can continue even at this rate due to the gearing in Australian households....
....Due to the reduced economic activity expected in the next couple of years, the Reserve Bank is likely to keep interest rates low. Again, this is not good news for Australian banks since they price off of the short end of the curve. For banks' net interest margins to increase, short end rates need to go back up, which means the RBA needs to feel so good about the economy that they start to raise the cash rate again. And because banks are highly leveraged, changes in profitability are magnified...
....Add to this competition. Banks have had a four pillar structure and that's been supportive of returns. However now you have got competitive threats from companies outside of the banking sector, mainly tech firms. None of these tech firms have a banking licence (or want one) and yet all of them are making incursions into financial services, mostly in the payments area. This is not because they want to be banks; it is because they want to reduce friction for their core services ...

We are not going to see strong dividends paid out for a while, but the banks do still return their cost capital ......
https://www.sharecafe.com.au/2020/10/19/sur...ether-thriving/


QUOTE
UK economist John Maynard Keynes in 1936 spoke of the liquidity trap when describing the limits of low-interest rates as an effective policy tool. He described situations when uncertainty is so great that even low-interest rates would fail to generate enough demand to ensure full employment. But Keynes was indicating that low interest rates could be ineffective as a macro tool. The worry after 12 years of low and negative rates is that these settings produce side effects that make them counterproductive. Ten side effects stand out.

A core concern is that the Keynes liquidity trap concept seems to underestimate the dampening effect of emergency measures. Low rates seem to dent consumer spending and business investment because they signal that authorities are gloomy, even panicked.

A second side effect is that low interest rates have encouraged so much borrowing that consumer, corporate and government debt have reached an unprecedented level of GDP in many countries. This could prove a systemic risk. Even without such mishaps, future repayments are likely to reduce consumption and investment.

Another side effect is that low and negative rates can lift asset prices. Lower interest rates push investors into riskier assets and argue for higher prices on property and shares, asset gains that tend to boost inequality. More tellingly, negative policy rates helped push bond prices so high that yields went negative... and widely so. The concern is that, if low and negative rates help the economy as intended, interest rates will move higher and puncture asset prices.

A fourth problem is that low and negative rates trouble the business models of insurers and pension funds that typically use the safety and positive returns of government bonds to help meet long-term liabilities. A fifth spillover is that low and negative rates squeeze bank margins, perhaps to the point of threatening financial stability. Any crimping in bank margins brings a sixth problem; that at some level, low rates could backfire by forcing banks to restrict lending ... a level known as the 'reversal rate'.

A seventh handicap is that central banks have faced political pressure for hurting savers and rescuing reckless borrowers. An eighth side effect is low and (especially) negative rates can, perversely again, force people to save more to attain a targeted level of savings.

A ninth drawback is that low rates can encourage unproductive investment. A tenth criticism is that low rates help embed economies in the 'debt trap'. This term describes how indebted economies need more debt to overcome the problems left by past debt. But at some indeterminant point this strategy must miscarry....
https://www.sharecafe.com.au/2020/10/15/sup...h-side-effects/



--------------------
"Every long-term security is nothing more than a claim on some expected future stream of cash that will be delivered into the hands of investors over time. For a given stream of expected future cash payments, the higher the price investors pay today for that stream of cash, the lower the long-term return they will achieve on their investment over time." - Dr John Hussman

"If I had even the slightest grasp upon my own faculties, I would not make essays, I would make decisions." ― Michel de Montaigne
 
plastic
post Posted: Oct 26 2020, 12:16 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 10,540
Thanks: 306


In Reply To: Mags's post @ Oct 26 2020, 12:10 PM

You might be right about no better business but I wouldn't interpret that to be no better stock to be in. Try a bank bond instead.



--------------------
What did Uncle Mel do to us?
 
Mags
post Posted: Oct 26 2020, 12:10 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 471
Thanks: 256


In Reply To: mullokintyre's post @ Oct 26 2020, 11:44 AM

It's all going according to plan: We are in late stage capitalism and fiat currency. The financial places are so powerful, they are literally sucking the life out of anything they touch. Legally, ethically, morally, no one cares.
I've said it before, and I remain true to it: I will hold my banks stocks until the bitter end. There is no better business to be involved in at the present time.


 
mullokintyre
post Posted: Oct 26 2020, 11:44 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 3,113
Thanks: 1121


From WOP

QUOTE
If you needed further proof that crime pays on Wall Street, look at the chart above. Goldman Sachs and its Malaysian subsidiary were criminally charged yesterday by the Justice Department, they admit to the charges, and its stock closed up on the day by $2.49.

The U.S. Department of Justice is being played like a fiddle at a tractor meet. Those big white shoe law firms that handle increasingly dirty cases against the mega banks on Wall Street have twice, in a period of just three weeks, managed to get the Justice Department to announce settlements of landmark criminal cases against two of the largest banks on Wall Street on the day of presidential debates when the public and the media are not paying attention to Wall Street.

On September 29, the day of the first presidential debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, the Justice Department brought two criminal counts against JPMorgan Chase for “tens of thousands of instances of unlawful trading in gold, silver, platinum, and palladium…as well as thousands of instances of unlawful trading in U.S. Treasury futures contracts and in U.S. Treasury notes and bonds….” That was the date of the first presidential debate.


Nothing to see here folks, move right along, just procedural matters.
I bet the Chinese, Russians and Iranians wish they could have just one of these criminal mega banks in their system, while the US has 5 or 6.
Mick



--------------------
sent from my Olivetti Typewriter.
 
 


19 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING