But I get some amusement out of taunting bankers like Token Funder with these moral dilemas
.
Minor panic related to new legislation... help
- Thread starter Samwise
- Start date
But I get some amusement out of taunting bankers like Token Funder with these moral dilemas
.
I used to just sit on the floor or in the luggage compartment if noone would stand up. I couldn't stand up that long, period. It was not an option.
The bus driver would throw a fit at someone sitting down on the floor because that was against the law and stopped people being able to get out and MAKE someone give me a seat. Usually some snotty 12yo school kid got moved.
In our case, where we intend to keep the loan for a very, very short period before paying it out in full, it is actually not in the bank's best interest at all to give us the loan - they don't make money on it on such a short period. So the fact that we can afford to service it only if they include all our income instead of just some of it doesn't count because they don't want/need our business anyway. The total loan amount we want is just under 3x our net income.
Another thing - why don't online calculators match what they say over the phone!
They ask the same info over the phone as the calculator gives. One lender's online calculator will give us $120k using the few income sources they allow (as informed via phone). We need $100k, that's fantastic. Now ring them up and they only say $70k with the SAME info
They ask the same info over the phone as the calculator gives. One lender's online calculator will give us $120k using the few income sources they allow (as informed via phone). We need $100k, that's fantastic. Now ring them up and they only say $70k with the SAME info
Yep and people need to get used to it. Advances in modelling and behavioural scoring strategies mean that some banks are moving to auto decisioning more than 90% of all loans.
Joe Average does not seem to understand that banks are constantly assigning them a behavioural score and that their day to day banking activities can affect this score and ultimately their ability to access credit.
Perhaps you'd be more pleased if:
1. The wife brought you in a certificate of sterilization, so that you could be confident that she would never again fall pregnant during the course of the loan repayment period.
2. Or the results of the husband's fertility test showing that he could never father a child.
3. Or if the wife was pregnant, the results a chromosome test on the unborn baby to prove it did not have Down's Syndrome or some other genetic defect that would be a financial drain on the family
.........where does this all stop?
LOL; I love it!
I was wondering where the line should be drawn in regard to "child bearing age." I'm in my early 40s & should be OK but my $%^! peers keep procreating, which will reflect badly on me.
I'd also like to know if it is specifically stated in this legislation that it intends to be outside the operation of the discrimination statutes. I can't see how a bank manager is allowed to ask a customer if she intends to get pregnant (and perhaps feels compelled to) when she applies for a loan, but when said lady applies for a job the manager is absolutely precluded from same conduct.
. I can't see how a bank manager is allowed to ask a customer if she intends to get pregnant (and perhaps feels compelled to) when she applies for a loan, but when said lady applies for a job the manager is absolutely precluded from same conduct.
the lender is asking for the "protection" of the client, the interviewer is asking for their protection.
ta
rolf
So they may say - but I don't know if that is a defence: Vic Human Rights Commission
I'm not arguing for or against the practice so much as finding it an interesting legal argument. I don't work in discrim. law but I'd be interested to hear from someone who does.
But like I said earlier - those with the resources aren't going to need to challenge this, and those who would possibly have the motivation to do so likely want have the resources. The issue would come right down to the validity of the new legislation and the extent to which it may be applied.
Personally, this new legislation does descriminate against me: BUT I would never bother challenging it, not worth my time or expense. Rather I would work within the constraints and try other avenues of getting 'around' the problem.
I mean there is hardly any point fighting it anyway. Say you do win - what then?? A significant amount of time would have passed, in this timeframe your circumstances and the servicibility calculations would have changed: and lets face it, the banks can find any other number of ways to ensure you aren't getting a loan from them anyway. To get anything out of this, other then a change in legislation (which may benefit others, or not as the govt would likely take immediate action to 'fix' any legal issues whilst this were going through the courts), you would have to prove 'damages'. It is hard to prove you have incurred 'damages' when you are applying for a loan - which in itself is not a right, but rather a privledge. Maybe some borred law professor wishing to relive their glory days may attempt this - but I cann't see the 'average joe' doing so.
Perhaps you'd be more pleased if:
1. The wife brought you in a certificate of sterilization, so that you could be confident that she would never again fall pregnant during the course of the loan repayment period.
2. Or the results of the husband's fertility test showing that he could never father a child.
3. Or if the wife was pregnant, the results a chromosome test on the unborn baby to prove it did not have Down's Syndrome or some other genetic defect that would be a financial drain on the family
.........where does this all stop?
It won't. As long as the primary (and growing) legislative burden and associated risk increasingly falls the the party lending the money and not the party asking for it, it will continue to get worse (or better, depending on where you sit).
Consumer protection in its various forms is a double-edged sword.
But I get some amusement out of taunting bankers like Token Funder with these moral dilemas
I'm a banker. By definition, I can't have a moral dilemma
It's not discrimination against women (or anyone else for that matter).
It's simply a requirement to find out from the borrower if there is anything they know today that will effect their expenses or income in the foreseeable.
Loss of one income for a period (for whatever cause) is the issue, not the cause itself. To give an analogy, the fact that you would arguably be obliged to factor in additional education expenses to a serviceability calculation because a borrower advises they have decided to send all their kids to an expensive private school isn't disciriminating against private education.
^ I understand what you're saying, Toke. But it's all in the application - eg. If someone makes it a habit to ask the women if they intend to get pregnant. It's the asking of that question to determine the provision (or not) of a service that is a little dicey. The schooling status of your kids is not a protected area but sex/pregnancy is.
I agree; I am only interested as a theoretical observer.
Turned out that the bank I rang last week that said 'no' ... well, I hit a new phone person who is incompetant and entered all our details in wrong. This thread made me look back at their online calculator, which (even with a big chunk of our income missing) said yes. I rang back and they were wrong wrong wrong and lo, monies Impressively lax serviceability model too - 4.5x our 'income' with 3 kids.
They very sternly said we had to have saved $1000 in the last 3 months. Erm, ok, we've saved that much in the last week. Is that all?
They're going to have a word to the new phone person.
Impressively lax serviceability model too - 4.5x our 'income' with 3 kids. They very sternly said we had to have saved $1000 in the last 3 months. Erm, ok, we've saved that much in the last week. Is that all?
They're going to have a word to the new phone person.
