Banking reform falls short, says Hockey
By Samantha Hawley
AM abc.net.au/am
The Federal Opposition and banks have criticised the Government's changes to the banking system, which is designed to offer consumers a better deal.

Yesterday the Government unveiled a package which includes a ban on exit fees for new home loans from mid next year.

But Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire.


More
Bank reform without the reform  TIPICAL  

From the CLAYTONS TREASURER

bwood1946 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

Banking reform falls short, says Hockey By Samantha Hawley AM abc.net.au/am The Federal Opposition and banks have criticised the Government's changes to the banking system, which is designed to offer consumers a better deal. Yesterday the Government unveiled a package which includes a ban on exit fees for new home loans from mid next year. But Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire. More Bank reform without the reform  TIPICAL   From the CLAYTONS TREASURER

WAYNE what about all those people stuck with the fees  WANKER

bwood1946 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

Banking reform falls short, says Hockey By Samantha Hawley AM abc.net.au/am The Federal Opposition and banks have criticised the Government's changes to the banking system, which is designed to offer consumers a better deal. Yesterday the Government unveiled a package which includes a ban on exit fees for new home loans from mid next year. But Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire. More Bank reform without the reform  TIPICAL   From the CLAYTONS TREASURER

So next year, yet Kevin Rudd promised this in his 2007 election speech.
Only 3 years or so LATE! And even then it's a half-arsed effort.
The ALP should give it to Joe to fix up for them.

bwood1946 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 11:21am:

bwood1946 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 11:19am: Banking reform falls short, says Hockey By Samantha Hawley AM abc.net.au/am The Federal Opposition and banks have criticised the Government's changes to the banking system, which is designed to offer consumers a better deal. Yesterday the Government unveiled a package which includes a ban on exit fees for new home loans from mid next year. But Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire. More Bank reform without the reform  TIPICAL   From the CLAYTONS TREASURER WAYNE what about all those people stuck with the fees  WANKER

Kevin Rudd: to make it easier and cheaper to switch between financial institutions. Meaning those that are already locked into a mortgage will be able to easily and cheaply switch between financial institutions.
The ALP simply just don't get it!

exit fees are quite warranted

I say Hockey ,  the Coalition, and their supporters, are struggling to mount a plausible counter , ;D....

bwood1946 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 11:19am:

Banking reform falls short, says Hockey By Samantha Hawley AM abc.net.au/am The Federal Opposition and banks have criticised the Government's changes to the banking system, which is designed to offer consumers a better deal. Yesterday the Government unveiled a package which includes a ban on exit fees for new home loans from mid next year. But Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire. More Bank reform without the reform  TIPICAL   From the CLAYTONS TREASURER

This hollow farce is a gesture / posture of no substance on behalf of Wayne Swan.  The banks will simply side step this weak gesture & load in another "area".

wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 12:55pm:

I say Hockey ,  the Coalition, and their supporters, are struggling to mount a plausible counter , ;D....

Go back to the washing

;)

bwood1946 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 1:15pm:

wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 12:55pm: I say Hockey ,  the Coalition, and their supporters, are struggling to mount a plausible counter , ;D.... Go back to the washing ;)

O.K  :)

[smiley=bath.gif]

wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 1:18pm:

bwood1946 wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 1:15pm: wrote on Dec 13th, 2010 at 12:55pm: I say Hockey ,  the Coalition, and their supporters, are struggling to mount a plausible counter , ;D.... Go back to the washing ;) O.K  :) [smiley=bath.gif]

Lol @ veg.

wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 12:55pm:

I say Hockey ,  the Coalition, and their supporters, are struggling to mount a plausible counter , ;D....

I'd say the stock market yesterday mounted one for them.

The big banks stock prices rose while the small ones dropped, all off the back of Mr Swans package.

vegi - no one HAS to " to mount a plausible counter "

it's a gormless counterproductive leftard idea, attack profitable stable businesses.

hahahahhahahaha


Quote:

...............While consumer groups were underwhelmed by the package, investors delivered their unequivocal verdict: this was good for big banks. A rally in Westpac, Commonwealth Bank, NAB and ANZ shares dragged the entire stockmarket higher. Advertisement: Story continues below The second tier banks, however, whose fortunes the Swan package was supposed to improve so they could compete with the might of the big four, suffered share price falls. Bendigo Bank, Suncorp and Bank of Queensland shares all closed lower. Sharemarket analysts were virtually united in the view that the ''reforms'' were positive for bank profits: ''No adverse impact on the major banks at all,'' said one fund manager. ''A major win for the major banks'' was the way stockbroker Credit Suisse described the Treasurer's funding initiatives. It was the recommendation for banks to diversify their funding sources to include ''covered bonds'' which had analysts excited. Mr Swan also entrenched taxpayer support for the banks by making the guarantee on deposits permanent. It had been an emergency measure to protect the banking system during the financial meltdown. The reaction from the sharemarket is likely to embarrass the government. What is good for bank shareholders is usually bad for their customers. Share prices rise on the anticipation of higher profits. Higher profits for banks means higher fees and charges for consumers.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/bank-reforms-have-big-four-laughing-all-the-way-20101213-18vfx.html

FFFFAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRQQQQUUUUIIIIIITTTTTTTTT

Quote:

Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire

Not exactly a lot of credability form a member of a former government which did nothing about this.

However what he is saying is the the banks will just find another way to rip off customers, he is probably correct on that and as a liberal would be a supporter of the practice.

This is a complete joke. where is the 'reform'. not only has it taken 3 years to get here it is of 100% no use whatsoever to existing mortgagees - which was kinda the point!

it takes a particular skill to come up with a reform package that is TOTALLY worthless.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:03am:

Quote: Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire Not exactly a lot of credability form a member of a former government which did nothing about this. However what he is saying is the the banks will just find another way to rip off customers, he is probably correct on that and as a liberal would be a supporter of the practice.

Yawn DNA.

If your only response to Hockey is "you did nothing when in power" why dont we just clean the house of every single pollie who is of a former government in power.

Or you could evaluate what they have to say and form an opinion on the principles.

What defeatist mentality do the leftwads have, that they see a profit as being evil ????????

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:29am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:03am: Quote: Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire Not exactly a lot of credability form a member of a former government which did nothing about this. However what he is saying is the the banks will just find another way to rip off customers, he is probably correct on that and as a liberal would be a supporter of the practice. Yawn DNA. If your only response to Hockey is "you did nothing when in power" why dont we just clean the house of every single pollie who is of a former government in power. Or you could evaluate what they have to say and form an opinion on the principles.

It might happen when Halley's comet makes a return.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:47am:

What defeatist mentality do the leftwads have, that they see a profit as being evil ????????

There is a difference between making an honest profit and ripping people off.

Libralites fail to see any difference.

Most people with a view from around the centre see profit as a good thing; all employees understand that the business being a success is vital to their continued employment.

Although at the same time realise that unfair practices which include ripping off their employees and customers as not such a positive or sustainable practice.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:32pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:47am: What defeatist mentality do the leftwads have, that they see a profit as being evil ???????? There is a difference between making an honest profit and ripping people off. Libralites fail to see any difference. Most people with a view from around the centre see profit as a good thing; all employees understand that the business being a success is vital to their continued employment. Although at the same time realise that unfair practices which include ripping off their employees and customers as not such a positive or sustainable practice.

Interesting how you target the Liberals, considering if big Shrek had not of got into Swan a month ago none of this would be moving.

Swan promised 3 years ago and is only starting to deliever after intense pressure from the Libs, why is that?

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 11:29am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:03am: Quote: Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire Not exactly a lot of credability form a member of a former government which did nothing about this. However what he is saying is the the banks will just find another way to rip off customers, he is probably correct on that and as a liberal would be a supporter of the practice. Yawn DNA. If your only response to Hockey is "you did nothing when in power" why dont we just clean the house of every single pollie who is of a former government in power. Or you could evaluate what they have to say and form an opinion on the principles.

Hockey had nothing to say with principals involved he simply threw out a one liner with little actual meaning on a subject where he has been proven a failure himself.

Hockey has not explained his position, he has no alternate option except to allow the current situation to continue because it is all too hard and the banks will only circumvent the change.

The previous Lib policy in this area was to do nothing and their current policy is the same.

I would think that he is sniping from a position with little strength and no credability.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:42pm:

Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:29am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:03am: Quote: Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire Not exactly a lot of credability form a member of a former government which did nothing about this. However what he is saying is the the banks will just find another way to rip off customers, he is probably correct on that and as a liberal would be a supporter of the practice. Yawn DNA. If your only response to Hockey is "you did nothing when in power" why dont we just clean the house of every single pollie who is of a former government in power. Or you could evaluate what they have to say and form an opinion on the principles. Hockey had nothing to say with principals involved he simply threw out a one liner with little actual meaning on a subject where he has been proven a failure himself. Hockey has not explained his position, he has no alternate option except to allow the current situation to continue because it is all too hard and the banks will only circumvent the change. The previous Lib policy in this area was to do nothing and their current policy is the same. I would think that he is sniping from a position with little strength and no credability.

Care to show me where that is their current position, because according to them this is their position;

Banking Sector Reform – the Coalition’s 9-point policy recommendations:

1: Give the ACCC power to investigate anti-competitive price signalling.

2: Encourage the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to investigate whether the major banks are taking on unnecessary risks trying to maximise short-term returns.

3: Mandate the RBA to publish regular reports on bank net interest margins, returns on equity, and profitability to determine whether the major banks are extracting monopolistic profits.

4: Investigate allowing Aussie Post to make its 3,800 branches available as distribution channels for smaller lenders.

5: Ask the Treasury and the RBA to investigate ways to further improve the liquidity of the residential and commercial mortgage backed securities markets.6: Explore further simplification of the Financial Services Reform Act, to make the business of actually getting out and doing business easier.

7: Direct the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to explore whether the risk-weightings on business loans secured by residential properties are punitive.

8: Commission a resolution to the debate about whether the banks should be able to issue “covered bonds”.9: And let’s wrap up all of this work into a full review of the financial system.


A couple look pretty familar too.

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:39pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 1:32pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:47am: What defeatist mentality do the leftwads have, that they see a profit as being evil ???????? There is a difference between making an honest profit and ripping people off. Libralites fail to see any difference. Most people with a view from around the centre see profit as a good thing; all employees understand that the business being a success is vital to their continued employment. Although at the same time realise that unfair practices which include ripping off their employees and customers as not such a positive or sustainable practice. Interesting how you target the Liberals, considering if big Shrek had not of got into Swan a month ago none of this would be moving. Swan promised 3 years ago and is only starting to deliever after intense pressure from the Libs, why is that?

I was simply responding to the absurd generic statment which had been put.

Relating that responce back into the main topic is misleading.


Quote:

Interesting how you target the Liberals, considering if big Shrek had not of got into Swan a month ago none of this would be moving.

Shrek pushing Swan to go forward with a policy direction which they do not support?

Why would he do that?

Now there is some constructive opposition - NOT.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:55pm:

Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 1:39pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 1:32pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:47am: What defeatist mentality do the leftwads have, that they see a profit as being evil ???????? There is a difference between making an honest profit and ripping people off. Libralites fail to see any difference. Most people with a view from around the centre see profit as a good thing; all employees understand that the business being a success is vital to their continued employment. Although at the same time realise that unfair practices which include ripping off their employees and customers as not such a positive or sustainable practice. Interesting how you target the Liberals, considering if big Shrek had not of got into Swan a month ago none of this would be moving. Swan promised 3 years ago and is only starting to deliever after intense pressure from the Libs, why is that? I was simply responding to the absurd generic statment which had been put. Relating that responce back into the main topic is misleading. Quote: Interesting how you target the Liberals, considering if big Shrek had not of got into Swan a month ago none of this would be moving. Shrek pushing Swan to go forward with a policy direction which they do not support? Why would he do that? Now there is some constructive opposition - NOT.

He pushed him into getting his banking reform policy going by getting their own out first.

Care to offer proof the Liberal Party is against banking reform?

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 1:42pm: Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:29am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:03am: Quote: Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire Not exactly a lot of credability form a member of a former government which did nothing about this. However what he is saying is the the banks will just find another way to rip off customers, he is probably correct on that and as a liberal would be a supporter of the practice. Yawn DNA. If your only response to Hockey is "you did nothing when in power" why dont we just clean the house of every single pollie who is of a former government in power. Or you could evaluate what they have to say and form an opinion on the principles. Hockey had nothing to say with principals involved he simply threw out a one liner with little actual meaning on a subject where he has been proven a failure himself. Hockey has not explained his position, he has no alternate option except to allow the current situation to continue because it is all too hard and the banks will only circumvent the change. The previous Lib policy in this area was to do nothing and their current policy is the same. I would think that he is sniping from a position with little strength and no credability. Care to show me where that is their current position, because according to them this is their position; Banking Sector Reform – the Coalition’s 9-point policy recommendations: 1: Give the ACCC power to investigate anti-competitive price signalling. 2: Encourage the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to investigate whether the major banks are taking on unnecessary risks trying to maximise short-term returns. 3: Mandate the RBA to publish regular reports on bank net interest margins, returns on equity, and profitability to determine whether the major banks are extracting monopolistic profits. 4: Investigate allowing Aussie Post to make its 3,800 branches available as distribution channels for smaller lenders. 5: Ask the Treasury and the RBA to investigate ways to further improve the liquidity of the residential and commercial mortgage backed securities markets.6: Explore further simplification of the Financial Services Reform Act, to make the business of actually getting out and doing business easier. 7: Direct the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to explore whether the risk-weightings on business loans secured by residential properties are punitive. 8: Commission a resolution to the debate about whether the banks should be able to issue “covered bonds”.9: And let’s wrap up all of this work into a full review of the financial system. A couple look pretty familar too.

And I thought the topic and critisism was about exit fees?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 1:49pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 1:42pm: Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:29am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 11:03am: Quote: Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire Not exactly a lot of credability form a member of a former government which did nothing about this. However what he is saying is the the banks will just find another way to rip off customers, he is probably correct on that and as a liberal would be a supporter of the practice. Yawn DNA. If your only response to Hockey is "you did nothing when in power" why dont we just clean the house of every single pollie who is of a former government in power. Or you could evaluate what they have to say and form an opinion on the principles. Hockey had nothing to say with principals involved he simply threw out a one liner with little actual meaning on a subject where he has been proven a failure himself. Hockey has not explained his position, he has no alternate option except to allow the current situation to continue because it is all too hard and the banks will only circumvent the change. The previous Lib policy in this area was to do nothing and their current policy is the same. I would think that he is sniping from a position with little strength and no credability. Care to show me where that is their current position, because according to them this is their position; Banking Sector Reform – the Coalition’s 9-point policy recommendations: 1: Give the ACCC power to investigate anti-competitive price signalling. 2: Encourage the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to investigate whether the major banks are taking on unnecessary risks trying to maximise short-term returns. 3: Mandate the RBA to publish regular reports on bank net interest margins, returns on equity, and profitability to determine whether the major banks are extracting monopolistic profits. 4: Investigate allowing Aussie Post to make its 3,800 branches available as distribution channels for smaller lenders. 5: Ask the Treasury and the RBA to investigate ways to further improve the liquidity of the residential and commercial mortgage backed securities markets.6: Explore further simplification of the Financial Services Reform Act, to make the business of actually getting out and doing business easier. 7: Direct the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to explore whether the risk-weightings on business loans secured by residential properties are punitive. 8: Commission a resolution to the debate about whether the banks should be able to issue “covered bonds”.9: And let’s wrap up all of this work into a full review of the financial system. A couple look pretty familar too. And I thought the topic and critisism was about exit fees?

Just merely proving the Liberal Party does indeed have a position on banking reform, one you claimed they didnt.

Quote:

4: Investigate allowing Aussie Post to make its 3,800 branches available as distribution channels for smaller lenders.

a novel idea, merits pursuing

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:02pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:00pm: And I thought the topic and critisism was about exit fees? Just merely proving the Liberal Party does indeed have a position on banking reform, one you claimed they didnt.

Quote:

But Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire.

The topic , the critisism from Schrek and my comments related to exit fees, I made no comment on general banking reform.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:18pm:

Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:02pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:00pm: And I thought the topic and critisism was about exit fees? Just merely proving the Liberal Party does indeed have a position on banking reform, one you claimed they didnt. Quote: But Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire. The topic , the critisism from Schrek and my comments related to exit fees, I made no comment on general banking reform.

And why is he saying it will backfire?

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:32pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:18pm: Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:02pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:00pm: And I thought the topic and critisism was about exit fees? Just merely proving the Liberal Party does indeed have a position on banking reform, one you claimed they didnt. Quote: But Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire. The topic , the critisism from Schrek and my comments related to exit fees, I made no comment on general banking reform. And why is he saying it will backfire?

That is part of the critisism he isnt saying.

The assumption is that he means that the banks will circumvent any benifit by increasing the entrance fees or interest rates.

Maybe - maybe not - maybe partially

or:

he could be talking about something else.

The Libs have no intention of doing anything, when Hockey released his plan those in his own party ridiculed him and the banks laughed at him.
If the libs were sooooo concerned why didn't they do something when they were in gov for 12 of the past 15 years?
I find it interesting those here, like sprint, jump up and down like horny banshees that the gov have no right to encroach on the massive profits the banks make out of its customers, while at the same time whinge like screaming bay city rollers groupies that labor let the banks make these massive profits, hypocrites much.

sorry idiot, that's what businesses are meant to do

Quote:

......the massive profits the banks make out of its customers......

go back and reread.

If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector.
if running a bank was as easy as picking your nose, everyone would run banks.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:52pm:

Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:32pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:18pm: Verge wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:02pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 2:00pm: And I thought the topic and critisism was about exit fees? Just merely proving the Liberal Party does indeed have a position on banking reform, one you claimed they didnt. Quote: But Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says the move to scrap mortgage exit fees will backfire. The topic , the critisism from Schrek and my comments related to exit fees, I made no comment on general banking reform. And why is he saying it will backfire? That is part of the critisism he isnt saying. The assumption is that he means that the banks will circumvent any benifit by increasing the entrance fees or interest rates. Maybe - maybe not - maybe partially or: he could be talking about something else.

He did say, he said the banks will increase other fees accordingly in order to re-coup.

Making banks ban fees isnt the way to go, as they will always find a way.  Increasing competition in the sector is a far better thing to start will.

There is no point banning exit fees, if you then dont also regulate the margin above the offical cash rate.

Oh and skip, its all well and good to say the Libs did nothing, but it wasnt until recently when every other industry was in decline that the banks have made record profits.  No one is disputing the banks need to be reigned in.  There is a difference between a healthy and strong profit, and just obscene.
By your standards the ALP in Victoria might as well sit at home for the next 4 years as they wont be free to make comment on anything.

Quote:

By your standards the ALP in Victoria might as well sit at home for the next 4 years as they wont be free to make comment on anything.

Well to a degree I think that is true, Labor had a long time in gov in Vic so they are hardly in a position to bang on about things they should have addressed themselves.

Quote:

If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector

That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please.

skippy. wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:

Quote: If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please.

There's more than 4 banks in Australia.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:38pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Quote: If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please. There's more than 4 banks in Australia.

There's 4 major banks numbnut, because the 4 majors bought up all the small ones.That's why competition is so limited, get an adult to explain it to you.

skippy. wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:43pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:38pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Quote: If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please. There's more than 4 banks in Australia. There's 4 major banks numbnut, because the 4 majors bought up all the small ones.That's why competition is so limited, get an adult to explain it to you.

There's more than 4 major banks in Australia, numbnut!

How about you do some research first before you post your crap!

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:45pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:43pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:38pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Quote: If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please. There's more than 4 banks in Australia. There's 4 major banks numbnut, because the 4 majors bought up all the small ones.That's why competition is so limited, get an adult to explain it to you. There's more than 4 major banks in Australia, numbnut! How about you do some research first before you post your crap!

Earth to mellie, no dont bother there's no one home.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:45pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:43pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:38pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Quote: If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please. There's more than 4 banks in Australia. There's 4 major banks numbnut, because the 4 majors bought up all the small ones.That's why competition is so limited, get an adult to explain it to you. There's more than 4 major banks in Australia, numbnut! How about you do some research first before you post your crap!

Quote:

Currently, the Australian banking sector is dominated by four major banks: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank and Westpac Banking Corporation.

there you go troll, its easy to search if you had a brain.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:45pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:43pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:38pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Quote: If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please. There's more than 4 banks in Australia. There's 4 major banks numbnut, because the 4 majors bought up all the small ones.That's why competition is so limited, get an adult to explain it to you. There's more than 4 major banks in Australia, numbnut! How about you do some research first before you post your crap!

I guess you can't really count all the major banks as you've not passed counting up to 4.

This should help you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmfKzTOGf-U

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:49pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:45pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:43pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:38pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Quote: If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please. There's more than 4 banks in Australia. There's 4 major banks numbnut, because the 4 majors bought up all the small ones.That's why competition is so limited, get an adult to explain it to you. There's more than 4 major banks in Australia, numbnut! How about you do some research first before you post your crap! I guess you can't really count all the major banks as you've not passed counting up to 4. This should help you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmfKzTOGf-U

You should be used to doing the five jive.
How's Mrs Palmer?

skippy. wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:49pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:45pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:43pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:38pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Quote: If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please. There's more than 4 banks in Australia. There's 4 major banks numbnut, because the 4 majors bought up all the small ones.That's why competition is so limited, get an adult to explain it to you. There's more than 4 major banks in Australia, numbnut! How about you do some research first before you post your crap! [quote]Currently, the Australian banking sector is dominated by four major banks: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank and Westpac Banking Corporation.

there you go troll, its easy to search if you had a brain.[/quote]



It's so easy to fool the unintelligent.
Now recall the question, there's more than 4 major banks within Australia.

Now here's a new experience for you, think about it!

Where'd the little boy go?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibAe8ArmvwY

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:52pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:49pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:45pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:43pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:38pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:29pm: Quote: If coys make a huge enough profit, competitors come into the sector That doesn't happen in bank world ,kiwi fruit loops, if it did why have the 12 or so banks that existed been gobbled up ,mostly during the Liberal reign, to only have four left standing? Under the Libs this country lost most of its banking competition. But they are not the only ones to blame, the worst thing Labor ever did was sell off the Comm bank, without a gov run bank the private sector banks do as they please. There's more than 4 banks in Australia. There's 4 major banks numbnut, because the 4 majors bought up all the small ones.That's why competition is so limited, get an adult to explain it to you. There's more than 4 major banks in Australia, numbnut! How about you do some research first before you post your crap! [quote]Currently, the Australian banking sector is dominated by four major banks: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank and Westpac Banking Corporation. there you go troll, its easy to search if you had a brain.

It's so easy to fool the unintelligent.
Now recall the question, there's more than 4 major banks within Australia.

Now here's a new experience for you, think about it![/quote]
Piss off troll, dogs breath bores me.

skippy. wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 5:55pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:52pm: It's so easy to fool the unintelligent. Now recall the question, there's more than 4 major banks within Australia. Now here's a new experience for you, think about it!

So you haven't learnt how to count yet.

So how old are you?
5? 6?

That's ok, as long as you count up to your age then you're doing fine.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:00pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:55pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 5:52pm: It's so easy to fool the unintelligent. Now recall the question, there's more than 4 major banks within Australia. Now here's a new experience for you, think about it! So you haven't learnt how to count yet. So how old are you? 5? 6? That's ok, as long as you count up to your age then you're doing fine.

See that the lil pinky ran away.
LOL

---

Skips right, when people refer to the major banks they are generally accepted as "The Big 4".

Verge wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

Skips right, when people refer to the major banks they are generally accepted as "The Big 4".

That wasn't what was asked.

There's more than the 4 domestic banks within Australia.
In fact Australia's banks don't even register on the radar for the major banks that are in Australia.
Pinky failed to realise that I wasn't referring to domestic banking, rather I was refering blatantly to major banks in Australia.

This government -Ruud and Gillard and Swan - is soooo bloody incompetent, I am afraid that it will take a major calamity to grab people by the scruff of the neck and shake them until they wake up. (The GFC response was a major example of incompetence, in case you want to use it as evidence of ability. In any case it is very much debatable)

Beyond that, I have not seen anything in the last three years that this government  has managed competently. I am dealing with another cycle of government review in my job at the moment and I can say with confidence that this government is just utterly incompetent, without precedent in living memory. It is amazing.

Soren wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 7:47pm:

This government -Ruud and Gillard and Swan - is soooo bloody incompetent, I am afraid that it will take a major calamity to grab people by the scruff of the neck and shake them until they wake up. (The GFC response was a major example of incompetence, in case you want to use it as evidence of ability. In any case it is very much debatable) Beyond that, I have not seen anything in the last three years that this government  has managed competently. I am dealing with another cycle of government review in my job at the moment and I can say with confidence that this government is just utterly incompetent, without precedent in living memory. It is amazing.

This Government must be4 made accountable to the rule of our law through its policy decision making.  Its high time they were tested in the High court, but it is not going to just happen Australia we have to make it happen. >:(

Soren wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 7:47pm:

This government -Ruud and Gillard and Swan - is soooo bloody incompetent, I am afraid that it will take a major calamity to grab people by the scruff of the neck and shake them until they wake up. (The GFC response was a major example of incompetence, in case you want to use it as evidence of ability. In any case it is very much debatable) Beyond that, I have not seen anything in the last three years that this government  has managed competently. I am dealing with another cycle of government review in my job at the moment and I can say with confidence that this government is just utterly incompetent, without precedent in living memory. It is amazing.

True.
But we've had major calamities already, BER, pink batts, boat people.
Now rising energy prices, more white elephants.
Just how many more calamities must Australia endure before the voters wake up to these three incompetent stooges.

Just to think it could always be worse, imagine we could have the other mob back looking to trigger another GFC and spending billions illegally invading countries looking for things which do not exist.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:20pm:

Just to think it could always be worse, imagine we could have the other mob back looking to trigger another GFC and spending billions illegally invading countries looking for things which do not exist.

Yes the greens would do that too.

They've already convinced some people that climate change exists, when we all know that it doesn't.

The absolute stupidity of the 2 major parties by using the banks as political pawns is appauling.
We have a strong and profitable banking system here and just because some idiots have paid to much for real estate or over extended themselves over a failing small business it does not mean Labor and the Coalition should put the banking sytem at risk to score political points.
Both major parties have now shown they are incompetent when it comes to economics, bring back Keating and Costello!
Consumers should be made responsible for their own stupidity because if they cant afford to pay back loans when rates are still at historic low levels then they will never be able to.
One of the reasons Aussie banks are paying a premium for money is because the worlds lenders see Australia is just a huge housing bubble straining at the seams and the drop kicks who keep bidding up house prices and then crying foul because they cant afford to pay back their loans are the major culprits and their own worst enemies!
Get rid of the Treasurer and the Shadow Treasurer because they are putting our whole financial system at risk and are both criminally incompetent!

Adel, politicans respond to what keeps the punters happy.

Unfortunatley, policy is driven by popularity and not best practice, and while there is minority governments and small margins this will be even more so as pollies scramble for votes.  Thats what I liked about people like Howard and Hawke, they werent frightened to take an unpopular path if they thought it was in the best interests.

You only need to head to the general board and have a look at the massive whinging by crook and nail about CEO salaries and big business profits.