Aikhme wrote:canonical wrote:Aikhme wrote:canonical wrote:
I think I understand mansplaining now.
Don't worry! A lot of people are baffled! Imagine explaining to someone who has no clue that money doesn't exist and is created artificially. People are also under the allusion that Australian Banks are strongly regulated. let me tell you that they are NOT more regulated than the Banks in Cyprus or other EU countries. Edited by Aikhme: 18/5/2016 11:16:17 AM ...whoosh..BTW There are so many things wrong with your doomsday scenario. 1- a fall from 500K to 350K is a 30% drop, not 20%. This is at the upper end of the scare campaign. The only way this is conservative is if you mean that you heard it from a conservative commentator. 2- the idea, that the banks will come after home owners for more money, who are making their payments, just because their home value drops is very unlikely. As you say the bank ultimately has to sell at a loss! Why not just keep on taking the interest payments for 20 years? You may like to elaborate on the farmers example.... farms usually involve much larger business loans, its quite a different situation. 3- then you refer to the proposed changes 'for existing properties only' ?!? 4-..... ultimately, where you take most discussions....you make this into something against 'ethnics. ?!? =; No I used a 20% reduction which is perfectly feasible in any scenario. Banks will not accept unsecured loans. They will harass to secure their position which means they will Harrass you to make a lump sum payment, sell assets or they take matters into their own hands. Once the loans are not secure, they are considered bad non performing loans and that effects their borrowing power and liquidity. It's what banks would rather do. Sometimes, better to cut your losses. That is how they see it. Edited by Aikhme: 18/5/2016 05:28:23 PM No, your hypothetical house was worth 500k and sells for 350k...that's a 30% drop. Even 20% is very unlikely. You have no evidence that an Australian bank would force a default on a home owner who was keeping up with payments - ie making the bank money - you tried to use the farmer example but dont know enough about it to know the difference farm businesses and average homes. Your comments show you are confused as to whether the changes will affect existing investments. You inexplicably link the policy to ethnic profiling!!! WTF? Yesterday you were trying to tell us that 10 million Australians have negatively geared investments - you then back tracked to 'more than a million'. ..... You keep getting the details wrong...why would anyone trust you to know ' how the banks see it'? =; =; =;
|