facthunter Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 The Banks contribute to their funding and he who pays the Piper calls the tune. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Should we all forget that the Commonwealth bank was government owned. The government decided to do away with pensions, which we had payed for since Australia was formed. The government also decided to sell the Commonwealth bank. It was touted as being a good investment for the mums and dads, to provide an income in retirement. The exact same thing happened with Telstra. Now I have an investment in the bank and Telstra and the general concensus of opinion seems to be that I should not get any income from them. Of course if they are forced to pay billions in fines as some people seem to think they should, two things will happen. I will not get a dividend, but you are not worried about that. The government will not be able to take extra taxes from the bank because of massive profits, that didn't occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 And the ones who caused it will get a golden parachute. The CEO and Board should be held responsible. It's their task to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen and they are well paid for the job. Howard was clever selling the people a bank they already owned. Pensioners superannuants, invested in it. It was a while before it cut even and some lost money many who could not afford to.. The NAME is now trashed, It's lost the trust of everyone. I've been with it since I was 3 years old, and watch it's performance with utter dismay. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth lacey Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 common and wealth don't go together common ie average Australian will never have wealth, wealth ie means the wealthy will never know what common or normal is ,the commonwealth bank only looks after the wealthy shareholders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 on the original topic....Greens are ... Tree hugging dangerous idiots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 on the original topic....Greens are ... Tree hugging dangerous idiots... Yeah... as opposed to all those other dangerous idiots who don't prioritise the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Yeah... as opposed to all those other dangerous idiots who don't prioritise the environment. The environment is not the problem, its the other stupid policies they espouse with no knowledge that makes them dangerous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Red, I will be changing my Combank as will others who are worried about their ethics. That's one way the market adjusts. I've weathered the past problems and have been there since I was 3 years old. My loyalty doesn't matter to them when I try to sort out problems. That sort of stuff has long gone. Staff incentives are not in the interests of the customers, only the bank. Yes there are superannuation funds that have them in the folio. There are also Superannuation funds that only have ethical investments, and they seem to be doing OK. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth lacey Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Hi Red in was not denigrating the mums and dads share holders , most would not have large amounts invested , I do not have shares in combank, I was in business for twenty years plus and no banks were that helpful, I put my spare cash into industrial property years ago and it has worked for me and I am retired ,my inference was that the big end of town always wins, and us ordinary folk put up with the losses harder also the banks top management are taking us all for a ride snouts in the trough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Our society has avoided revolution by responding to the grievances of the masses. It's time to punish the overpaid Banksters, not the shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 the name may be trashed, but over the years it has been a good investment, but that may all be gone now if it has to pay billions in fines. The other banks have not done as well, but they still perform better than the likes of BHP and Santos. What really annoys me is the obscene salaries and perks of CEO and directors. One company I have a few shares in pays its directors more than all the shareholders combined. Sadly it is too worthless to sell and we get glowing estimates of how well it will do in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I haven't been following the money laundering scandal nor the financial performance of which (or should that be witch) bank, but it appears they will be contributing nicely to their shareholders with a $9.88bn cash profit (excludes extraordinaries) - not sure if it includes any provision for fines in the money laundering case. @red750 - you should be OK for your car rego this year, as "The rise in profit has allowed the Commonwealth Bank to increase its payout to shareholders from a total of $4.20 last financial year to $4.29 in 2017." May contribute to that electrcicity bill, too.. So, it looks like the treasury is in for a bumper season - profits to tax and fines to rake in... Oh - and to bring things back to topic, Combank seems to star (from Commonwealth Bank in legal tussle over climate change - BBC News): " Australia's Commonwealth Bank has just announced bumper profits, but it is also embroiled in a legal tussle over how much it tells shareholders about its exposure to climate change. Two shareholders are taking the bank to court, claiming it has failed to properly disclose investment risks associated with the environmental problem." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I liked Paul Keating but I will never forgive him for selling the Commonwealth bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I hate P Keating, took us to poverty levels with his self induce recession, & stupidly high interest rates. Three weeks wages to pay the mortgage, spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Paul Keating is one of the greatest politicians this country has ever seen. He was a true conviction politician; prepared to lose government and his job for what he thought was right for the country. And that's exactly what happened. Most others will bend and go with the flow just to stay in power, but not Paul. The things he was howled down over, eg; the recession we had to have and the banana republic comments - history has proven him right. If it wasn't for the economic reform he introduced (and continued on by John Howard), we would be a banana republic now. Who before him had the courage to do all that? Billy big ears, Gough, Mal Fraser, Andrew Peacock - all hot air. A lot of people criticize Keating, but he was one of the few who had the balls to walk the walk. Look at the boom and bust economic figures before the Keating/Howard reform era and compare them to the figures since. Look up the date of the last recession. It was Paul's, a long, long time ago. He told us then that it was necessary to break the inflation/recession/bust cycle. His policies worked. We haven't had a recession since, and inflation hasn't been worth mentioning since the 90's. If we had even a handful of politicians of the calibre of Paul Keating, Australia would be in a far better place. One of the truly great Australians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Couldn't agree more. Of course, if you had a mortgage then and ended up paying 18%, you probably didn't enjoy living through that particular era. But yes, brilliant politician and PM. Plus he had the best insults of any MP... this is a good collection - The collected insults of former PM Paul Keating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I had a mortgage at the time. A variable rate loan which started at 17% and went to about 19 or 20 in the end. When it dropped well back to about 14%, I was still paying 17%. The bank informed me that their version of variable rate loan meant it could only vary up from the original figure. So it was goodbye Westpac, hello Suncorp and haven't looked back since. Don't you just love banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Looking here: United Kingdom Interest Rate | 1971-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar if you hit the max button, you will see UK interest rates were touching 15% at around the same time as Aus rates were around that rate (not the commercial mortgage rates). The global economy was suffering at the time and IIRC, Hawke/Keating floated the AUD as their first major economic reform necessary to stop is receding into oblivion; the recession we had to have was tough for homeowners, especially, but I wouldn't say because Aus has had a good ride since, it is entirely because of Keating's foresight. He certianly paved the way for smoother blips rather than stopping the cycle, but Aus has been the benefactor of a prolonged/protraced commodities boom and it was helping plug gaping holes in other sectors of the economy that made the numbers look good and allowed fiscal flexbility to sheild things like unemployment (still stubbornly higher at 5.6% than OECD averages, tough in the context of Aus, low), interest rates, etc. When with current commodity prices, possibly with the exception of oil, there is money to be made - it's just not the total upward trajectory that was from around 2005 or thereabouts. But I do agree.. he is a polly with more integrity than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Willidoo. What if anything did the feather duster "Andrew Peacock" ever do. He certainly never became PM as the others did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 And I expect you to like the Mad Maggie the UK had to endure, shut down the teaching colleges, so no more qualified minors in the UK to call " fire in the hole", only laborers. She really was good for the southern half of England but the North, she must have hated for some reason. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Willidoo. What if anything did the feather duster "Andrew Peacock" ever do. He certainly never became PM as the others did. I think he went to a few parties. Other than that, an entirely forgettable opposition leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 He might have paid for the deluxe level of photo coverage in No Idea and Momens Monthly. Yes, people do pay to have their pic in the mag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Having been born and bred in Southern England I can understand the comment about mad Maggie. Southerners always thought the Northerners were village idiots. I didn't wake up to this until I was in the army serving with Scots, Geordies and Yorkshiremen and realised they were the same as us Southerners, except they were not so far up themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Australian Constitution 01/01/1901 Part IV Both Houses of Parliament 44. Disqualification Any person who: is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or Hold the phone. Now Barnaby's a Kiwi. Funny how the 2 Greens had to resign & everyone else is going to the high court. Total BS. Nearly half the country was born elsewhere & probably most of them have no idea if they are citizens elsewhere. Its time to fix this antiquated rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 Quite complex thing to change. When you do(if you do) it won't be retrospective. You can't make retrospective laws unless you are corrupt. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now