Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

One Big Switch branded 'cynical' and 'misleading'

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 05 Nov 2012, 06:00 AM Agree 0
A leading industry figurehead has come out to attack One Big Switch for what he calls a misleading and "cynical bank-bashing campaign"
  • Country Broker | 05 Nov 2012, 10:26 AM Agree 0
    CHOICE have been silent for a long time now ABOUT THEIR INVOLVMENT in the early days of "one big switch" , it cost them a member and probabbly plenty of others as well. Most of all it cost them credibility!
  • Bernie Rose | 05 Nov 2012, 10:28 AM Agree 0
    We all know that the banks act for themselves and not the client. Some of them do not have very good ethics when it comes to dealing with their customers. They are concerned with the almighty dollar instead of giving clients a fair go.
  • John Black | 05 Nov 2012, 11:15 AM Agree 0
    If you agree with John Kolenda's summation of the increased funding costs of the banks one could draw the conclusion that there is no correlation between lending margins and the record profits announced recently by the banks.

    Trying to support the current margins may have credibility if profits were less or past results maintained, but new record levels of profits.

    I wonder if John uses the same argument regarding broker commissions current versus pre GFC levels.

    Fair go John not sure your argument stacks!
  • Beenhadbefore | 05 Nov 2012, 11:23 AM Agree 0
    Banks have little in the way of ethics and what ethic they do have is waved around as if they are perfect whenever the occasion requires.
    They have blatantly used Government protection to own the market. Any in that position would do the same. This was a misguided political manuvere to protect against previous misadventure by the banks. Really they do need bashing. And often. Banks are only interested in increasing profits and share holder satisfaction. Customers are merely there to be fleeced. This fact iis evidenced
    with current events and the increasing interest rates. Which are reflected n the increasing bank profits.
    Good luck to any and all who provide some challenge to the banks arrogance and gross misbehavior which is paid only lip service by the incompetents in political power.
  • BONED | 05 Nov 2012, 11:50 AM Agree 0
    It disappoints me greatly that even within our own industry there is a lack of understanding of funding when it comes to banks. John Black... if you have 10 revenue streams that are the source of your income. 9 are very profitable, one is marginal, which one would you cut?! That folks, is the lending portfolio's. Do your homework before you state a 'misleading' opinion please... Ultimately, no matter which way you disect it, this is the bottom line. Banks are answerable to shareholders only - who are only interested bigger dividends/higher SP's, and hence are managed accordingly. If home borrowers do not like the way banks operate their businesses, perhaps they can choose to sell their property and go rent somewhere! No-one is holding a gun to any borrowers head saying you have to have this home loan, are they...
  • Andrew Aickin | 05 Nov 2012, 02:08 PM Agree 0
    (Boned) - if you don't borrow money how do you leverage to grow your net wealth? Work for the man and earn more money and be taxed more? If you don't invest your money (in you home or other assets) and leverage how are you to get ahead? Even using other means of investment you don't get the scalability with small amounts of cash that is hard to build from just a wage. Sorry Boned the average Australia needs some kind of borrowing (home or otherwise) and I don't see co operatives of people pulling together to cut out the lenders. There needs to be a huge shift in the views that banks and business have to this issue. Otherwise there is going to be a huge gap develop between those that have and those that wish.
  • BONED | 05 Nov 2012, 03:12 PM Agree 0
    Andrew, no disagreement whatsoever with what you're saying. In that case people need to accept that that is the basis/terms/conditions on which they borrow money. Banks are a business, not a charity. What you say is why banks aren't cutting in full - to continue lending. Last thing any of us want is a 'credit squeeze'...
Post a reply