Wrap story in todays SMH

[likewow]

Hi Peter,

I dont think governments ban things to 'avoid hassles', As a member of society i would hope the governments that represent us would make decisions with a bit more gravity than that and im suer they do. There are lots of industries that have an unethical element that are taken advantage of by opportunist operators that arent banned by governments (car sales, building industry for starters but just about everything)

And im sure if wrapping is banned on a larger scale, they would leave existing wrap agreements in place to as to not disdvantage either party in the transaction.


When was the decision made that the thred wasnt a discussion on wrapping in general? Sorry, i must have missed it.

Hi LW

Because it is unfortunately open to abuse by those "Henry Kaye" types who would rip off their mother if they could.
So the Gov in these states ban it to avoid the hassle. Just because a gov bans something doesnot mean it is automatically wrong. Until recently the NSW gov banned water tanks on homes. Unsafe. Now is it essential to have one.


But wrapping has a role to play. It is suitable to help those who the banks will not touch get a start

I.E. I have cousins who lost everything in a failed billards business including their home and declared bankrupt but essentially paid everyone back. They now cannot find finance to start again and hence wrapping would help.

Also I wonder how Yuchs other clients would feel if wrapping was banned and she gave up and closed the contracts with them?

"OK you own 25%. Get a loan for 75% and pay me out and it is yours. If not I am forced to sell and you get 25% of the share. Would a bank help them out?"

Overall the issue here is the unfairness of the article, not a debate on wraps. There are threads elsewhere that do that.

Peter 147

 

[likewow]

Likewow, if I owed you money, wouldn't you say I had an ethical responsibility to repay you ?

Of course Sim, every transaction has mutual responsibilty . But i dont think its that simplistic. There are certain circumstances that cloud that issue, like an inability to meet those repayments and the fact that the majority of wrappees wouldnt be the sharpest knife in the draw, financially, legally or otherwise.

Lissy,

I apologise for my comment 'bottom feeders' which was inappropriate. But the point i was trying to get across is that most (but not all) wrappees are from the lower socio-economic demographic.

edit:

Heres an intersting article from NSW Fair Trading:

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/corporate/publications/ftr36.pdf

 

[Aceyducey]

Likewow,

Your knowledge of the wrapping area is clearly zero.

Transactions of the vendor finance type are illegal is SA due to the government targetting other types of predatory finance. The laws did not relate to wrapping, which is only illegal as a byproduct of the phrasing of the law.

In WA wrapping is NOT illegal. It's a misapprehension by people who haven't done any research.

The doc you quote from the NSW department of Fair Trading was made without consultation with wrap professionals - lawyers, accountants or people engaged in the business. Hence it's a knee-jerk publication and contains several flaws and inaccuracies.

As you have no experience of knowledge of wrapping I find your posts on the topic not only incorrect in most particulars but very tiresome.

Aceyducey

(who has spent time researching wrapping & spoken directly with wrappers!)

 

[Freeatlast]

hmm...

Of course Sim, every transaction has mutual responsibilty . But i dont think its that simplistic. There are certain circumstances that cloud that issue, like an inability to meet those repayments and the fact that the majority of wrappees wouldnt be the sharpest knife in the draw, financially, legally or otherwise.

If you are talking about inability to make re-payments, in fact many wrappers are MUCH MORE LENIENT that a standard bank or financial institution.....

How many banks would provide small repairs to your newly purchased home free of charge ? How many banks would visit you personally if you were having a hard time, and, saying, OK, when you are in a better position, you can catch up on your payments ?

Lissy,
I apologise for my comment 'bottom feeders' which was inappropriate. But the point i was trying to get across is that most (but not all) wrappees are from the lower socio-economic demographic.

So, you like to generalise ?? You will find that there are a LOT of wrappees out there who know what they are doing, and, use wraps as a service, just like a bank loan..... in fact, in some cases wrap finance is cheaper than what the person can get "outside"

Please, if you are going to make statements and claims about wraps, I suggest you do your homework first..... and I don't just mean looking at some "messiah"'s website, and/or SMH....

Wraps, like ANY industry have some shady people in them, but the majority are doing the right thing by their clients....... If you do not wish to do any PROPER study on this issue, then I kindly suggest you leave it alone.....

Cheers

 

[geoffw]

I apologise for my comment 'bottom feeders' which was inappropriate. But the point i was trying to get across is that most (but not all) wrappees are from the lower socio-economic demographic.

In fact, my understanding of Rick Otton's methodology is that he targets high income people who have trouble getting finance from legitimate sources- perhaps people who have arrived from another country, people with a blemish on their records, or people who have not used credit before. There's plenty of people in those sort of categories on a good income- though lo doc loans may be filling in some of that need.

 

[Freeatlast]

Geoff,

In fact some wrappees choose to wrap instead of lo-doc as the interest rate is lower.....

 

[geoffw]

Geoff,

In fact some wrappees choose to wrap instead of lo-doc as the interest rate is lower.....

OK, thanks for the clarification

 

[Freeatlast]

not all wrappees are "stupid"

We have one wrap customer on a good wage etc, high income, and has bought several properties through us....

We asked him, why do you wrap, when clearly you could get a bank loan ? The answer :

"The best deal I can get, due to past history issues, outside is 14% p.a. you guys charge 9.5% "

We do not add on price wise too much, and, on day of settlement, he had contractors in painting the house, and putting in a new picket fence......


Suffice to say, wraps, to many people is just another finance tool out there, like 1st & 2nd tier lenders.......

It's the illinformed/ lazy / etc... that need some protection..... from themselves.... and some naught people out there posing as wrappers.......

In Yuch's case I'd say, she has bent over backwards to be kind to these people, and, they are milking the situation for what it's worth.... i.e. FREE RENT.....

 

[Lofty]

We have wrapped houses to four clients. One to a single income person on $70k and the other three to couples with household incomes very close to $100K. They sure don't look to "lower socio economic" to us!

I guess it just wouldn't be much of a story if they weren't our beloved "battlers".

Cheers, Paul

 

[yuch.]

Some consumer advocates out there kept using the word "battler" to describe wrappees, now my question is what is the definition of "battler"?

 

[Aceyducey]

Yuch,

See: http://www.anu.edu.au/andc/ozwords/May_2004/battler.html

The common thread (as the article concludes) is that 'battler' refers to a person 'that struggles hard for a livelihood, and who displays enormous courage in so doing'

From time to time it has been used in context of referring to the lower class or working class in Australia - and has also been used to refer to good-for-nothing itinerants, prostitutes and successful wealthy people. It does not always have positive connetations & often a 'battler' is used in a derogatory sense.

The term does not inherently reference or define the level of livelihood struggled for or the type of courage displayed.

Thus the term 'battler' essentially refers to just about anyone you want to use it to refer to - good, bad, rich or poor.

Technically Bill Gates qualifies as a 'battler' as he has struggled hard and displayed enormous courage in building Microsoft.

The term is essentially meaningless by definition and retains power only when used in an emotive context.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Francesco]

Current battlers

Both wrapper and wrappee can on occasion qualify as the 'battler'.

However, current organised interests, eg judicial processes, due processes, free public assistance and legal services for wrappees and concerted media leaning to support the wrappee more probably qualifies the wrapper to be the modern 'battler', the Howard 'battlers'.

 

[geoffw]

Both wrapper and wrappee can on occasion qualify as the 'battler'.

I associate with a lot of wrappers- they are neither privileged nor battlers. Just high school kids working at Subway

 

[yuch.]

Letter to SMH and response from the managing editor

Hi all,

We sent a letter to SMH on 07/03/05 regarding the article "Danger hits home" by John Garnaut. We also got the response from SMH today.

The original letter to SMH is attached here as well.

The response from SMH is very disappointing. Below is the summary of the response from the managing editor.

• In a relatively short story of around 550 words it is not possible to include an enormous amount of information.

• The information in the article "Danger hits home" was either given by my wrappee (name withheld) or contained in the wrap contract.

• The managing editor believes that MG could have contradicted John Garnaut during the phone interview.

• The managing editor believes that MG made it clear to John Garnaut that MG sold the property to my clients.

• The managing editor believes that my clients are under the impression that the house is MG's and the "Letter of Offer" to terminate the contract was signed by both MG and myself.

• Finally, the managing editor believes that the comment "wrapping is illegal in WA" is correct, because that's the title of the media release published by WA Dept. of Consumer Affairs.


I am very disappointed with SMH that they were not able to have the facts in the article because it was only a 500 odd words article, but they did make the space to promote Nil Jenman's book.

According to the managing editor, John Garnaut got the information from my clients and their wrap contract, provided by my clients. The contract stated on the front page that, Yuchun Chen is the vendor of the property. So how can they not know that MG is not the vendor of the property? This makes me wonder if SMH did this on purpose to discredit MG just simply because MG was the president of VFA.

He was accusing MG of not contradiscting John Garnaut during the phone interview. Well, MG did contradict him, but John Garnaut chose not to tell the truth/facts. The truth is John Garnaut was put on the speaker phone and I told him that I am the vendor of the property.


I gathered from the response email that:

• John Garnaut does possess a copy of Sale of Contract for the original sale of the property, provided by the Strakers. On the front page of the contract, it clearly states that the Vendor is Yuchun Chen.

• My clients told John Garnaut that MG sold the house to them.

• John Garnaut was informed by me during the phone interview with MG that the property sold to the Strakers is owned by me.

• John Garnaut was informed during the phone interview that I was not MG's business partner when I sold the property to my clients.

• The “Letter of Offer” was signed by both MG and myself.

• John Garnaut learned our side of the story during the phone interview without the specifics.

• John Garnaut understood that I am the vendor of the property, but did not bother speaking to me about the matter.


Any normal person can see the discrepencies and would put in a bit of effort to find the truth. And yet, the journalist from one of the most widely circulated newspaper in Australia couldn't be bothered? Well, if MG was the vendor, then why did I need to sign the "Letter of Offer"? And why my clients have been contacting me for the past 3 years?

As for the WA wraps being illegal, he implied that John Garnaut didn't even bother reading the content of that media release. If the news article we read in the SMH is only 10% correct..., hmmm this is scary...

 

[Freeatlast]

Yuch,

Sorry to hear you aren't getting very far with the SMH.... The media is just a mouthpiece for people who can type, and, have already formed opinions about a sunject BEFORE they start writing an article....

The only time SMH would really make an effort was if there was a letter from you lawyer advising of impending legal action......

The fact that they let Jenman in to whip up even more of a frenzy, makes me smell a "SETUP" from the very beginning.....

Good Luck, and, I hope you fry the SMH......

Scott

 

[perky29]

Yuch,
Maybe time to see what the lawyers say in regards to libel. I read the letter you sent, and it is extremely clear and concise.

 

[Aceyducey]

Yuch,

I'd agree with speaking with a lawyer regarding libel.

I reckon you have a shot at it given the response of the editor.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[michaelg]

Hi,

We weren't able to reproduce the response before because it had a copyright notice - however we asked for permission to reproduce the response on public forums and have been given approval - so here's the actual response...

From: "Reader Link" <[email protected]>

Dear Michael,

Recently you contacted ReaderLink. Your interest in the newspaper is
appreciated.

The following information outlines the Herald's response:

Dear Mr Gruber,

Thank you for your correspondence of March 7 which related to a story
by John Garnaut ``In a bind as wrap finance hits home'' published in the
Sydney Morning Herald on December 24, 2004.
You raised several points in your lengthy email.
You must understand that in a relatively short story of around 550
words it is not possible to include an enormous amount of extraneous
information.
Mr Garnaut spoke to you before the publication of the story. The
information about the transation was either given by the Straker family or
contained in the wrap contract. You had the opportunity to contradict
this information at the time of the interview with Mr Garnaut but chose
not to do so.
In fact, during the interview you made it clear to Mr Garnaut that you
were involved in the original sale to the Strakers. The Strakers were
under the impression that it had been your house and the ``letter of
offer'' to the Strakers, which terminated their contract, was signed by
both you and Ms Chen.
The WA Department of Consumer and Employment Protection website
continues to state that ``mortage wrapping is illegal in WA''.

Sam North
Managing Editor
The Sydney Morning Herald & The Sun-Herald

As Yuch pointed out before the reporter was specifically told that the property is Yuchun's. Also take note of how they verified the Western Australian error. The original media release can be found here

If the editor had actually READ the article they would have found...

Consumers considering providing finance through a mortgage wrapping arrangement should be aware that it is illegal in Western Australia without the appropriate license. To provide this type of credit to WA consumers they must be licensed as a credit provider and comply with the Consumer Credit Code.

I am scratching me head as to understand exactly what process is done to verify facts at SMH, but I think I've just been given some idea.

Comments welcomed

Regards
Michael

 

[quiggles]

Two comments, Michael. No, Three.

SMH largely panders to preset prejudices. No retraction or apology is going to undo any damage caused.

Lawsuits cost money and are reported by the papers. If you lose the suit the impression to the public will have been that the report was truthful. BTW you want defamation which is far easier to prove than libel. Probably both.

I am reminded of a situation in a book of short stories called "No comebacks" by Fredercik Forsythe. A person libelled by the newspaper assaults the reporter and when the trial gets to court, changes his plea to guilty, with an explanation that is not only totally slanderous and defamatory, but can be freely reported in other papers as court proceedings. Of course, bacuse it is fiction, the judge recognises exactly what's happening and dismisses the assault case without penalty. Porbably not worth the gamble.

Best wishes

 

[silas]

Hi we have just been through a different but similar thing with SBS. We had our Solicitor write to them stating the inaccuracies in their story and asking for various responses from destroying the tape to making an appology. They have come back not accepting liability but agreeing to some of our requests enough for us to be happy. The cost of this was not too great and the consequence is that they will probably not use the story again at least with the inaccuracies.