By: beachgolfer62
26/07/2008
11:22 pm |
Message deleted. |
|
By: seabirdauau
26/07/2008
9:27 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hi beachie you should know that if you ask questions here that nobody will answer them!!!!!!
Okay, to be in a position to answer your questions I and You must be fully aware of just what it is we are talking about. There are so many myths, lies and more lies regarding the commonly called CDO or more fully the Collateralized Debt Obligation that it is obvious that few comprehend just what these instruments actually are!
It would assist in you answering your own questions if you read :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col lateralized_debt_obligati on
and information extensions of this site.
Briefly, on a few of your "rambling", there are insufficient local deposits to fund onshore borrowings. Surely you do not mean the NAB borrowed offshore via the "CDO System" to fund local customer borrowing needs. Bank borrowings offshore, due mainly to terms, rates, draw down requirements and currency are an excellent method of funding onshore lending needs at an acceptable profit. Naturally onshore funds are far better profit maker but are subject to fluctuation hence term and rate.
You will read that CDO risks vary as to the tranche established at the outset and in "their" day and age and our "market" were an acceptable risk. For what could go wrong with them as they are supported by what was clearly established excellent security, that is until the market downturn. I believe the NAB's actual exposure, and quite possibly that of a few other "financiers" is actually much higher than provisions indicate but it is opportune to bring this to account while the market holds expectations that such exposure exists.
In todays world financial conditions, that have affected each and everyone of us in one way or another, we tend to center on the high and mighty for our attacks. In fact I would estimate that all of us have made investment errors that have only really come to light on today's market and so have the high and mighty! |
|
By: beachgolfer62
26/07/2008
4:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
beachgolfer62 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hello Seabird, I posted a bit of a spit about the NAB on another yahoo board but would like your opinion on my thoughts.
If the NAB needs to borrow money from overseas and consequently continues to increase rates to cover the cost of these funds why are they investing in what were from day one less than investment grade US loans.
If (as these posts have been saying) the local banks need all of their locally raised funds for domestic lending why invest in what were always high risk CDO's when the rates of return for them would have been surely less than the local rates.
Why provide for 90% of total CDO's value unless
a) The wish to remove the $B1.1 from the next quarterly earnings period and thus reduce their profit so they don't have to answer for their off standard rate increases
b) Give them an excuse to continue lifting rates above RBA movements.
c) Put the $B1. back to profit at a less sensitive time to rate increases (this is done all the time by companies who have too much profit to declare for a specific period)
Surely ASIC should be asking for substantiation of the provision by risk and value detail.
Your opinion please
Oh and my own little conspiracy rave, forcing NAB shares down to enable NAB affiliated or NAB "friendly" org@nisations to buy NAB shares at bargain prices and then whack the $B1.1 back in. |
|
By: contratrad
26/07/2008
10:12 am Yahoo! Profile:
contratrad Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Good morning Seabirdauau,
It's a Fact, that that recently Glen was praising the operations of Australian Banks and NAB's Announcement Yesterday proves that Glen did not know what was going on in the Main, therefore Glen should be looking into things more deeply and seeking more action from A.S.I.C. and A.P.R.A. regarding Investments in general.
Just increasing Interest Rates is not an appropiate answer !
A very concerned,
contra |
|
By: seabirdauau
26/07/2008
9:56 am Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Contra I am also "very concerned" that one with your obvious ability spreads such ridiculous rubbish.
I agree the NAB got carried away but who didn't? Yet you say Glen should have known about the NAB's play when most certainly no person in Australian, other than the NAB itself, knew? Further into your writings you slyly infer that the NAB's problems are to be covered by Glen's interest rate rises and Bank borrowers?
"Shareholders should carry the can" you say. Don't you believe they will? A weight obviously to be divvied-up with share market, the Australian dollar, and what ever?
To lay the blame for everything @ Glen's door is surely hypocrisy. Next you will be blaming him for your increasing waist line! |
|
By: contratrad
25/07/2008
10:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
contratrad Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hello Everyone,
I remember recently ,Mr Glen Stevens praising the operations of Australian Banks.
In light of Todays Announcement by NAB Mr Glen Stevens is once again been proven he is, 'out of touch'. Why should Australians with Loans have to pay for for this misplaced adventure by an Australian Bank ? Bank Shareholders should 'carry the Can' for this 'folly' by NAB and the like. Now, I guess You can see why Mr Glen Stevens approved the raising of Interest Rates by the Banks from last December onwards with the excuse that the RBA had to slow Growth to control Inflation. Well it looks like that the people with Loans have been forced into helping the Banks 'cover their Books'.
Yes, Mr Glen Stevens is 'out of touch' and should be Sacked !
A very concerned ,
contra |
|
By: seabirdauau
22/07/2008
9:29 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hey beachie you're so correct. I understand the "young" of today have not been educated to program solutions into their ideas as, with their learning, solutions are always there before them in one form or another. However I had hoped by continually pushing "and just how are we going to do it?" that solutions would be provided and not, as at this time, avoided.
In my opinion People Power is too often accompanied by rebellion and anarchy with the strongest/loudest, and not always the true and just, leading the way. I guess it would be one way of getting rid of the Constitution, as BIG AL promotes, but at the expense of democracy, even tho' it be "our style".
I guess the Greens, Independents and other minority parties offer a curb to party dominance but look what happened to the Democrats. The Country Party is being swallowed up by the Liberals and Labor by the Unions.
Unions = People Power?
Liberals = Business Power?
RBA = Bank Power?
All unproven statements promoted ineffectively and far too often by the inexperienced and unknowledgeable.
We have few leaders in Australia. Most of these are in business and not among our politicians who are only vote chasing backstops.
In these trying financial times the RBA and Glen Stevens are doing an acceptable job and to replace the present system with ASIC and/or APRA is unsound speculation. |
|
By: contratrad
22/07/2008
9:17 pm Yahoo! Profile:
contratrad Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hello Dave,
Thanks for Your 'Two Cents Worth', because I have been very depressed since Yesterday receiving yet another Interest Rate Rise Notice of .15% from my Mortgare provider. Your 'Two Cents Worth' has helped me somewhat after I had broke down in front of my Wife Today !
The Banks (including the 'Rubber Stamp' RBA) and other lenders of this Country seem to be operating like a 'Cartel'.
It is high Time action was taken to stop their Activities and really what should be happening is the Banks should be reducing their Dividends to Shareholders rather than continually 'Whipping' People and Businesses which have Loans.
Rudd and Swan are just not attacking the Banks and other Lenders, enough. Amazing what they can say when ther're in opposition and then how quiet they are when in Government.
And as for Glen Stevens, well he started this Interest Rate Ball Rolling and he should be Sacked.
A still depressed, however slightly improved, Contra, who started this Thread. |
|
By: beachgolfer62
22/07/2008
6:30 pm Yahoo! Profile:
beachgolfer62 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hello Seabird, Unfortunately no politician of any ilk or any house is going to vote himself/herself more accountable.
The poor old GG is just waiting for the republican movement to rattle his/her gilded cage and is also unlikely to move on any changes to the constitution as well.
Your cry for solutions is always heard by me hence my silence from the ongoing discussions.
For the only solution I can think of that will give us the changes we so desperately need is mass people power.
Why otherwise would they listen to us when they have absolute dominance over every aspect of our lives.
We dont have a democracy and we have generally never voted for the candidates of our own choosing as promised in the constitution.
We the baby boomers are generally the only demographic that can see the dangers clearly.
I guess that's what experience will teach you.
The government realises what a pain we are and is hoping we will all die off pretty quickly so they can concentrate on their ongoing corrupt agenda.
The X and Y's aren't interested yet (too much greed of their own) and when they are perhaps the generations following them won't be.
The old divide and conquer and of course as you mentioned the survival of the fittest.
Developed nations have their tribal warfare just like our African brothers.
Governments worldwide rely on fractured citizens to prevent their accountability. |
|
By: seabirdauau
22/07/2008
5:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| or is it Constitution? |
|
By: seabirdauau
22/07/2008
5:42 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
So we amend or change the Contitution?
"Federal Referendums
In Australia, referendums are nationwide polls held to approve government-proposed changes to the Australian constitution. As for an Australian general election, voting in a referendum is compulsory. 44 referendums have been held in Australia as of 2007, of which only 8 have been carried.
The constitution specifies (Section 128) that amendments to itself must be approved by a referendum. A bill containing the amendment must first be passed by both houses of parliament or, in certain limited circumstances, by only one house of parliament. The Governor General must then decide whether or not to submit the referendum to the people (this is done on the advice of the Prime Minister). If approved, it is then submitted to a referendum.
In order to pass a referendum, the bill must ordinarily achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting throughout the country, as well as separate majorities in each of a majority of states (4 of 6). Where any state or states are affected by a referendum then a majority of voters in those states must also agree to the change. This is often referred to as the "triple majority" rule. Prior to the 1977 referendum residents within the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) did not vote at referendums. Since 1977, voters in the ACT and the NT must vote in referendums, however their votes are only counted towards the national total and not against the totals of any of the states.
Residents of Australia's external territories do not vote in referendums as they currently do not have separate representation in the House of Representatives.
When a referendum question is carried, it is presented for the Royal Assent, given in the monarch's name by the Governor-General."
Just how do you intend to proceed? |
|
By: dharvey_au
22/07/2008
10:00 am Yahoo! Profile:
dharvey_au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
The reason rents are up besides cost pressure from interest rates is the the returns only a couple of years ago for land lords were poor. When the federal govermnent changed the super rules and people could top up with no penalties and with added incentives Land Lords were selling their investment properties and putting the cash into super. So there was and is a restriction in supply of rental properties as a result. So the rents go up!
Folks for my two cents worth.
I think Glen Stevens is fairly arrogant!
More regulation of the Finacial sector is being called for. Lack of regulation in the USA is not working as an example. The people that suffer is the small person. Democratically elected govenments should be about protecting the small and vulnerable this includes regulating the finicial sector when it obviously not able to do it self.
Dave |
|
By: contratrad
21/07/2008
10:17 pm Yahoo! Profile:
contratrad Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hello Al,
Great Posting ! Yes ,Using Interest Rates to control Inflation, just does not Work !
'Blind Freedy' can see that and what is needed is more control of Lending by 'a beefed up ' A.S.I.C. and A.P.R.A. however when I look at A.S.I.C. there are many problems there presently and these need to be sorted out.
A very concerned,
contra |
|
By: seabirdauau
21/07/2008
10:08 am Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Old ancient Chinese philofficer Confusion say:
"uuaitch heytee heyuuai tchohellee aitcheeay epeeoheff seaarghayepee"
Which roughly translated from Cantonese to:
" WAWHOC ". |
|
By: almurrie1@y7mail.com
21/07/2008
8:14 am Yahoo! Profile:
almurrie1@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Guys
How would you respond to the latest from the ANZ bank chief who wants a half a percent increase from the RBA. We shall see how much credence there is in the proposal that Glen is only there to look after his mates in the banking system. This will be proven if the rates go up again at a point in time when ordinary Australians will be forced to sell the family home because they can't make the payments any more. They will create a subprime mess in Australia if they keep going.
The reason for the increase? Oil increases and rent increases. Then Swann pipes in with a plea to the unions not to go for wage increases, while EVERYTHING except for fruit and veg, which hardly is a great proprtion of spending, goes UP more than inflation.
Rents have gone up because interest rates have gone up, and oil is out of anyone's control so how the hell do they think that an interest rate rise will make any change. Except for puting prices up so another rate rise would be necessary. Can you see my point. This is what Reynard is alluding to, that existing methods are not working and we need to try ANYTHING to see if it works rather than keep punishing the mortgage and credit holders. And rewarding the rich at the same time that have got savings. The government obviously wants high inflation so it can look good. Think about it. If 0 inflation and interest is 2%, the get didly squat out of taxes. If inflation is 6% and intest rates are 8%, the same result of 2%, but the number of dollars paid in tax is significantly more. Hence they can gloat about a thriving economy, a trillion dollar economy, etc and that they need a pay rise to do this, but hey everyone else needs to show restraint. It makes me sick. So we spit the dummy and say sack the RBA because it is just not working for the average punter.
Restricting loans and stopping the RBA from pumping up inflation by giving money to the banks is my answer. Make the banks lend their deposits tax breaks for deposits.
Al |
|
By: seabirdauau
20/07/2008
9:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
foxy read back in history I made some constructive ideas as well as criticism. However as I am not in favor of sacking the RBA or young Glen what is the need to provide "some thought at least".
What gives me the sesaitchonetees is a post lacking in detail that receive a response requiring answers yet no answers are provided. This make me sure that the original post was made with little for-thought as to implementation necessary to put the ideas into practice.
Do you intend to respond with answers as to how your thoughts are to be promulgated? Or just respond in kind as per your last post? |
|
By: reynard2008@y7mail.com
20/07/2008
8:29 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reynard2008@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
good - some thought at least
you wanted some changes and ways to attack the situation - i gave you some
NOT doing anything means more of the same and a downward spiral into debt and inflation
the RBA is not elected, represents its own interests and those of its owners (the banks) and is not the slightest bit motivated by what is good for the electorate, only by what is good for the banks. the assumption is that what is good for the banks is good for the rest of us, and this is very badly wrong.
they MUST be replaced by an org@nisation that is accountable. under the constitution, that means to the electorate. unless we have a direct election of the RBA it therefore mens a politician who must face his employers. why is the RBA exempt? it should not be.
once we get accountability, we stand a chance of getting transparency. then we can progress. the point is that the RBA controls interest rates and the currency - and neither belong to a private org@nisation. |
|
By: seabirdauau
20/07/2008
6:23 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
foxy okay so we do away with the RBA and Glenn first up for that is the topic under discussion and we are left with?
Next we "revert back to the constitutional arrangements" and just what is an acceptable process, how long will it take and what happens meantime?
Reduce the money supply from 18% to zero over what time frame and by what action? Stop offshore borrowing, reduce credit facilities, cease imports ..........?
"Publish accurate statistics". Why? Surely reliable statistics may only with luck advise what is going on but do little to solve any problems.
Build reserves of a non money nature! Gold? Oil? Iron ore? ............. or Trees, Wheat, Barley, Oats? .......... Just what do you mean?
"cease imports" Already covered.
Lower the value of the AUD against the Euro and the Yen? How? Why these two currencies? Sell our resources for sweet BA, reduce the viability of the financial system, argue with every nearby Tom, Richard and Harry, destroy our reputation in every market place and discussion venue in the world?
"Taxation needs to be increased." To provide for what? Make the poor poorer. Completely destroy individuals buying power and thereby industry. Increase reliance on handouts?
"and so on". What? This is a comment usually left to politicians.
And while this is all going on how do we survive until we receive the benefits of your last action that says "then we can look at inflation/interest rates, government expenditure, welfare, subsidies etc".
What an unsettled Country we would quickly become should we be saddled with this mess of mysteries. |
|
By: reynard2008@y7mail.com
20/07/2008
5:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reynard2008@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
seabird - i have only said that reverting back to the constitutional arrangments is the first step. after than comes policy.
the second step would be to cut the increase in M3 which is currently running at 18% - to zero.
the third step would be to publish accurate statistics like inflation and unemployment
the next step would be to adopt a policy of building up reserves of a non money nature
imports need to be cut
the A$ needs to be lower against the Euro and the Yen
taxation needs to be increased
and so on
then we can look at inflation/interest rates, government expenditure, welfare, subsidies etc |
|
By: seabirdauau
20/07/2008
10:30 am Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
BIG AL should you go back in history to the days when this board commenced you will find that I disagree with replacing the RBA and it's leader for I doubt any resultant body/person being sufficiently adequate to improve the current situation.
In this day and age most any RBA regimen would face extreme difficulty in the management of its responsibilities and, using the age old age, would be unable to satisfy all the people all the time. Yet the RBA is doing no better or no worse than its counterparts in many other places in the world.
Hence I continually ask for replacement suggestions so that I/we can consider these possibilities.
However these suggestions are few and far between or so unrealistic or unrelated to the QUESTION that they are hardly worthy of consideration.
The primary offering has been to place the RBA's powers in the hands of a minister of the crown. Now, on the surface feasible, but when considered closely, a frying pan into the fire suggestion.
Unfortunately little else has been put forward.
And if you aren't one of them I apologize however recent postings to the RBA topic have included a number of newbies who, on the face of it, appear to be attempting to change the direction of the discussion. This I believe we can do without. |
|
By: almurrie1@y7mail.com
20/07/2008
12:45 am Yahoo! Profile:
almurrie1@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Thankyou Seabird
Obviously you are not impressed with the status quo either, but have you anything to contribute or think about besides blanket dishing. Where are your wonderful ideas to make a difference?
Al |
|
By: seabirdauau
19/07/2008
7:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
seabirdauau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Just who comprises you bunch of stuffer-uppers?
foxy, BIG AL, ralph, bruke? Who else?
If I only knew it would make the board interesting as I would then be in a position to ignore you sick morons.
Get a life. |
|
By: reynard2008@y7mail.com
19/07/2008
2:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
reynard2008@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| excellent contribution ralph - bruke will be delighted you have returned and keeping up your usual standard |
|
By: raphael_cendrillon
19/07/2008
12:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
raphael_cendrillon Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| More losers talking drivel. Yahoo needs to flush this whole forum down the toilet and start again, but I'm sure you floaters would stick around... |
|
By: almurrie1@y7mail.com
19/07/2008
10:10 am Yahoo! Profile:
almurrie1@y7mail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Reynard
This "total nutter" was making the point that High Court challenges are more than an expensive waste of time concerning the constitution, when the constitution itself (and the entire taxation base) is invalid. See how long you remain free if you challenge it and don't pay taxes. How do you think those who have set up their own seperate kingdoms have fared. The whole point of the push to become a Republic (that the pollies won't like me mentioning), is to introduce a constitution that could NEVER be challenged. Lets face it the legal system rejoices at the amount of money spent in this area, and doesn't want it to dry up, so they are the blockers at the moment. Think that all the law courses would be changed, all the barristers would have to learn about law all over etc. I am being real guys, you just don't get it yet. Personally, I like the queen, don't get me wrong, and can't see the point in changing yet. It is just that most Australians live in a perpetual fog of ignorance and this is allowing all sorts of happenings. For example 68% of Australians think their Super went up last financial year! The Reserve Bank system is great for creating wealth, but it is based on a belief of perpetual growth, and this is simply impossible to sustain. The rice and the chessboard scenario. Eventually there would be no space on earth to store all that printed green stuff. The total collapse (pray never to happen in our lifetime) will see us start all over bartering. White man - when the last fish is dead and all the trees are gone, will you be able to eat your dollars? (Old Native American saying)
Al |
|
