Did Mr Rudd mislead the Australian people 2 weeks ago when he said that the Banking System In Australia is Fine", "Best Regulated", "Best Funded", "Rock Solid", no problems and now he wants us to believe that they were under threat, so which is the truth?, and why has the man who said he would level with the Australian people done a back flip.
Now we are told that the banks were on the brink of Collapse!!
- Thread starter Daz
- Start date
Find me a single quote where anyone from the govt says "banks are/were on the brink of collapse".
Then we shall see who is in the truth bending caper.
Then we shall see who is in the truth bending caper.
link please
hi daz
the name of the thread is wrong
as you have put that they are on the brink of collapse.
thats is factually incorrect as we have funder and a form of bank already collapsed.
we currently have funders not in receivership but in liquidation which is further down the track the the brink.
we ahve banks or lenders that are now got their deposit quaranteed but not their debt and we have a regulator that does not know what those debt levels due to
layering.
vanilla finance
and cross lending
so really the whole thing is a regulatory nightmare.
and mr rudd would not have a clue.
but he can speak chinese
that will come in handy not what sure what for but its good to have.
ask a friendly liquidator( and I like them) if its all roses in the garden
and you will hear alot different news
so on the brink
no
some I think are past that point.
they just have not told us
yet
and don't try to get your money out they have frozen that.
I would love this ability to do something like that.
great way to stop trading insolvent keep the money inthe account so you have cash.
the name of the thread is wrong
as you have put that they are on the brink of collapse.
thats is factually incorrect as we have funder and a form of bank already collapsed.
we currently have funders not in receivership but in liquidation which is further down the track the the brink.
we ahve banks or lenders that are now got their deposit quaranteed but not their debt and we have a regulator that does not know what those debt levels due to
layering.
vanilla finance
and cross lending
so really the whole thing is a regulatory nightmare.
and mr rudd would not have a clue.
but he can speak chinese
that will come in handy not what sure what for but its good to have.
ask a friendly liquidator( and I like them) if its all roses in the garden
and you will hear alot different news
so on the brink
no
some I think are past that point.
they just have not told us
yet
and don't try to get your money out they have frozen that.
I would love this ability to do something like that.
great way to stop trading insolvent keep the money inthe account so you have cash.
Don't know where Daz 's message is coming from but I also have the ill feeling that our banks are on the verge of collapse as this morning I received an invitation from my personal banker to an one to one consultation session to talk about investment in the the current climate etc. The way the message was written gave me the impression that they are going to talk us into buying their bank shares. I may have read to much into it but definitely something is not right !
Wondering if anyone has received similar invitations.
Wondering if anyone has received similar invitations.
heres the article ... author Malcolm Farr (from the truth?)
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/money/story/0,26860,24568263-5015795,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/money/story/0,26860,24568263-5015795,00.html
Nothing is rock solid in the banking system in this country and there is only one bank that i naively consider safe ,all the rest i have sold my shares in a while back, that's the problem with television "experts"
they can pump out all the forecasts-variables they want,just makes some up-market economists look better then the other one on the other tv channel ,btw do you have a link to this story..willair..imho..
rudd did the right thing talking up the banks and backing deposits, there would have been big trouble if there was a run on all the major banks
I believe it. In fact I think it was understated.
No deposit guarantee would have meant the banks would have collapsed within days or at least weeks as panicked pundits withdrew their money, and other banks worldwide refused to lend them money. Soon as that caught on, more and more people would follow, and you'd soon have a collapse due to indadequate capital adequacy ratios. Fractional Reserve Banking (wiki it)
The RBA doesn't provide "liquidity" to the banks, and all the other measures that were going on many weeks before that before that for no reason.
You never know how these things are going, often until several years later when it's safer to reveal such details. It's not really safe to reveal such details at the time by any media outlets, and I imagine there are various protections in place to ensure media coverage is held to little or none. Panic begets panic as they say.
No deposit guarantee would have meant the banks would have collapsed within days or at least weeks as panicked pundits withdrew their money, and other banks worldwide refused to lend them money. Soon as that caught on, more and more people would follow, and you'd soon have a collapse due to indadequate capital adequacy ratios. Fractional Reserve Banking (wiki it)
The RBA doesn't provide "liquidity" to the banks, and all the other measures that were going on many weeks before that before that for no reason.
You never know how these things are going, often until several years later when it's safer to reveal such details. It's not really safe to reveal such details at the time by any media outlets, and I imagine there are various protections in place to ensure media coverage is held to little or none. Panic begets panic as they say.
I know this won't stop the conspiracy theorists, but those of who are actually involved in these things weren't worried about a run on deposits. The primary issue was that global liquidity was being skewed by those jurisdictions that had passed guarantees, raising the prospects of international capital raising becoming more difficult/expensive than it already was.
The fact that a bunch of poorly capitalised banks in Europe got govt backing wasn't going to create a line of pensioners out the front of CBA withdrawing their cash so they could enter into Euro-denominated term deposits in Germany.
Anyway, still waiting for the evidence that Rudd or another govt rep. stated that the banks were on the brink of collapse
hi token
no it does not effect the euro/ german markets but what it did do was drive the capital out of the non secure funds and into the euro bond markets.now if you understand the bond market and banks leveraging this is exactly what was required.
so it did what the bank backers wanted
the trouble is that in doing that it also dragged out the capital out of the funds that needed it to fund the markets here
and you can't have your cash and use it as well.
what mr rudd did not understand or did but didn't wish to tell us is that those same cash is what the banks here leverage off.
and thats the reason for the freeze.
as long as the return against risk was a equilibrium its was fine but if you throw the risk reduction on one side bank deposits that throw the risk out on the other side.
so the money flows to the items that have lower risk bonds that are bank bonds that are use to leverage so banks can lend out more.
if this makes sense.
its not an easy thing to understand unless you put it on a white board.
now the deposits and the bonds have nothing to do with aust banks issues at the moment.
the big issue is they are holding lots of product with a value that is not close to being true value and as such they will fall over as they come to roost.
and I think that we need to know who has lent to who and who is pasted there use by date.
no it does not effect the euro/ german markets but what it did do was drive the capital out of the non secure funds and into the euro bond markets.now if you understand the bond market and banks leveraging this is exactly what was required.
so it did what the bank backers wanted
the trouble is that in doing that it also dragged out the capital out of the funds that needed it to fund the markets here
and you can't have your cash and use it as well.
what mr rudd did not understand or did but didn't wish to tell us is that those same cash is what the banks here leverage off.
and thats the reason for the freeze.
as long as the return against risk was a equilibrium its was fine but if you throw the risk reduction on one side bank deposits that throw the risk out on the other side.
so the money flows to the items that have lower risk bonds that are bank bonds that are use to leverage so banks can lend out more.
if this makes sense.
its not an easy thing to understand unless you put it on a white board.
now the deposits and the bonds have nothing to do with aust banks issues at the moment.
the big issue is they are holding lots of product with a value that is not close to being true value and as such they will fall over as they come to roost.
and I think that we need to know who has lent to who and who is pasted there use by date.
Are these the same rating agencies who rated all those US junk bonds as AAA ?
Hmmmm....me thinks this is rubbish...as David has pointed out Aussie banks are among a select few that are AA+ rated.
Westpac reported a $3.9 billion profit with bad debt provisioning of $931 million.
The chances of a collapse among the majors is not very small....why because the govt. acted decisively to prevent the crisis of confidence that happened in Europe. Further, our banks have been fairly conservative...even with Centro they did not pull the plug and cause collapses....because they know if they do then it does have others panick.
The real risk now is in the credit flows for non banks ...i.e. consumer and commercial credit. The govt. is not going to do anything here!
So if you hold commercial properties .....the moral of the story is don't default! Also commercial rates are not moving done. This is the greatest area of risk. Unless you are signifcant player like Centro....watchout!
Cheers
Sash
Westpac reported a $3.9 billion profit with bad debt provisioning of $931 million.
The chances of a collapse among the majors is not very small....why because the govt. acted decisively to prevent the crisis of confidence that happened in Europe. Further, our banks have been fairly conservative...even with Centro they did not pull the plug and cause collapses....because they know if they do then it does have others panick.
The real risk now is in the credit flows for non banks ...i.e. consumer and commercial credit. The govt. is not going to do anything here!
So if you hold commercial properties .....the moral of the story is don't default! Also commercial rates are not moving done. This is the greatest area of risk. Unless you are signifcant player like Centro....watchout!
Cheers
Sash
Doesn't look like Westpac is on the brink of collapse.
http://business.theage.com.au/business/westpac-profit-hits-forecasts-20081030-5bmr.html
http://business.theage.com.au/business/westpac-profit-hits-forecasts-20081030-5bmr.html
We have a developer that owes us quite a few thousand. he has two major development sites on the go. He subdivides 10-20 lot sub-divisions, builds homes and sells. he had all his eggs with the NAB....
This is what he had to say to me last week.
The Nab rang him about five weeks ago and told him they were:
1. Changing his LVR to 65% from 75%.
2. Re valuing his sites.
3. Freezing his $500,000 line of credit.
Becasue he was one of their "bigger" clients and therefore a higher risk.
The vals came in way below - he did not tell me how much but at a conservative guess- 10-15%.
He therefore, lost his LOC completely, and then lost all his equity.
Now to make matters worse, he had three contracts out on three of his OTP's. All three have fallen through AT SETTLEMENT because the bank has re-nigged on the pre-approval of three different clients. I have no idea if this was becasue the val on the OTP's had dropped considerabley or whether it had to do with new lending requirements.
So where we have FHB's coming into the market.......how are the vals going to hold up and how are they going to get through the new lending criteria?
I have already had this happen to me with a contract on an IP already.
Any of you with millions of debt with one bank should watch those lines of credit.
Regards JO
This is what he had to say to me last week.
The Nab rang him about five weeks ago and told him they were:
1. Changing his LVR to 65% from 75%.
2. Re valuing his sites.
3. Freezing his $500,000 line of credit.
Becasue he was one of their "bigger" clients and therefore a higher risk.
The vals came in way below - he did not tell me how much but at a conservative guess- 10-15%.
He therefore, lost his LOC completely, and then lost all his equity.
Now to make matters worse, he had three contracts out on three of his OTP's. All three have fallen through AT SETTLEMENT because the bank has re-nigged on the pre-approval of three different clients. I have no idea if this was becasue the val on the OTP's had dropped considerabley or whether it had to do with new lending requirements.
So where we have FHB's coming into the market.......how are the vals going to hold up and how are they going to get through the new lending criteria?
I have already had this happen to me with a contract on an IP already.
Any of you with millions of debt with one bank should watch those lines of credit.
Regards JO
Josko,
It is not as dire for us smaller investors....in fact we are less of a risk!
Your developer friend has been noticed as he probably owes our friends at NAB over a $1m. There are risk management triggers within banks based on the size of your borrowings....this is why is structured my loans in such a way that no one bank would loan me more than 600k!
I currently owe less than 650k..and have this spread across 3 banks. So it will be a while before they come find me! There are literally thousands of other investors who owe more than me!
This is what I have been harping on about....but if this is happening...yes you do need to look over your shoulder once you hit the magic $1m mark!
By the way I have also spread my offsets across different banks. That is also why I am taking titles back and paying down loans as I have too much in cash...this way they can't lock my securities...if some nuffy in some bank panics!
It is worrying this is happening though!
Cheers
Sash
It is not as dire for us smaller investors....in fact we are less of a risk!
Your developer friend has been noticed as he probably owes our friends at NAB over a $1m. There are risk management triggers within banks based on the size of your borrowings....this is why is structured my loans in such a way that no one bank would loan me more than 600k!
I currently owe less than 650k..and have this spread across 3 banks. So it will be a while before they come find me! There are literally thousands of other investors who owe more than me!
This is what I have been harping on about....but if this is happening...yes you do need to look over your shoulder once you hit the magic $1m mark!
By the way I have also spread my offsets across different banks. That is also why I am taking titles back and paying down loans as I have too much in cash...this way they can't lock my securities...if some nuffy in some bank panics!
It is worrying this is happening though!
Cheers
Sash
We have a developer that owes us quite a few thousand. he has two major development sites on the go. He subdivides 10-20 lot sub-divisions, builds homes and sells. he had all his eggs with the NAB....
This is what he had to say to me last week.
The Nab rang him about five weeks ago and told him they were:
1. Changing his LVR to 65% from 75%.
2. Re valuing his sites.
3. Freezing his $500,000 line of credit.
Becasue he was one of their "bigger" clients and therefore a higher risk.
The vals came in way below - he did not tell me how much but at a conservative guess- 10-15%.
He therefore, lost his LOC completely, and then lost all his equity.
Now to make matters worse, he had three contracts out on three of his OTP's. All three have fallen through AT SETTLEMENT because the bank has re-nigged on the pre-approval of three different clients. I have no idea if this was becasue the val on the OTP's had dropped considerabley or whether it had to do with new lending requirements.
So where we have FHB's coming into the market.......how are the vals going to hold up and how are they going to get through the new lending criteria?
I have already had this happen to me with a contract on an IP already.
Any of you with millions of debt with one bank should watch those lines of credit.
Regards JO
Similar threads
