PM Turnbull demands big banks to pass on full rate cut

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has demanded that the banks pass on the cut.

PM Turnbull demands big banks to pass on full rate cut

After the big four banks refused to pass on the full 25 basis points rate cut on Tuesday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has demanded that they pass on the full rate cut.

The CBA passed on 13 basis points, Westpac cut 14 basis points for some of its home loan customers, NAB passed on 10 basis points across its mortgage book and ANZ has announced it will cut its standard variable rate by 12 basis points.

However, Mr Turnbull said the cuts were not enough. He warned the banks that they operate with a social licence from the people and that they risk exposing themselves to further calls for a Royal Commission.

"It's not my job to manage the banks or tell them how to manage different products because they've all got different risk profiles and so forth, but it is absolutely clear that they have made a conscious decision not to pass on the full extent of the rate cut, and they should have done that,” said Mr Turnbull.

Labor leader Bill Shorten has indicated his intent to keep the pressure on the Government to hold a Royal Commission into the Financial Services Sector.

What do you think? Should the big banks have passed on the full rate cut? Should a Royal Commission be held into the Financial Services Sector?

Read more from www.afr.com
Read more from www.abc.net.au

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    PIXAPD
    4th Aug 2016
    10:00am
    Banks are being attacked because they didn't pass on the recent rate cut onto customers, and that is a scandal, but Banks are not in the charity business. However the greater scandal is the credit card debt, worth around $32 billion, that is the real scandal. Sure, the Banks and other Lenders give credit, and some charge what can only be called usury. I owe nothing myself, no debts, that's the teaching for Christians, because the rich rule over the poor and the borrower is slave to the lender; this was true in ancient times and proved to be so true today. Indeed the Banks might be a scandal, but those who owe them are the greater scandal.
    Queensland Diva
    4th Aug 2016
    10:16am
    Your holier than thou attitude does you no favours. You're saying that anyone who has a mortgage is a greater scandal than the banks??? I know many Christians who are in this situation. Get over yourself.
    PIXAPD
    4th Aug 2016
    10:21am
    As I said so I repeat.... 'the rich rule over the poor and the borrower is slave to the lender'...also 'you shall be the head and not the tail' and 'owe no man anything'....that's it
    Scrivener
    4th Aug 2016
    11:33am
    How much money did Hockey give the banks - money they didn't even ask for? The banks have no fear of the Government, they are the Government. Turnbull has less clout than the media. where is Mr. Fixit? Potato heads rule. It is all so hopeless in this country now. Maniana - lets party and consider all this too hard stuff tomorrow!
    Old Man
    4th Aug 2016
    11:45am
    I agree PIXAPD that credit card rates are disgusting. The rates were market based when Bankcards were first introduced in the 70's but in a rush to sign up as many users as possible, marketing people went too far. Cards were offered to everyone without any credit checks, whether a person was old enough or even if the person was still alive. The result was that a high number of debts were unrecoverable and had to be written off. The higher rates were then introduced to cover the losses and have continued to the present day.
    PIXAPD
    4th Aug 2016
    12:41pm
    The way to go is to... OWE NOTHING.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    1:19pm
    Owe nothing, and don't buy a home Pixapd? Just bludge on taxpayers for your retirement (including rent assistance), and then beat your chest and criticize those who are supporting you because you were either too lazy and indulgent or too dumb to acquire a home and some assets.

    I gave you the benefit of the doubt, conceding that some full pensioners getting rent assistance have suffered crisis or trauma or spent their lives caring for others - but they don't display such arrogance and contempt for the people who are supporting them.

    I incurred debt, and if I hadn't, I wouldn't be a self-supporting retiree today. I wouldn't have been able to put my kids through university, because rising rent would have crippled me. Incurring debt allowed me to pay a minimal amount towards housing costs while the kids were at their most expensive stage, and catch up later.

    Yes, credit card rates are disgustingly high, but don't condemn the victims of that scam. Point the figure of blame where it belongs. And get off your soap box and recognize that you are beholden to the taxpayers of Australia. You have NOTHING to skite about.
    PIXAPD
    4th Aug 2016
    1:33pm
    AS I said..... The way to go is to... OWE NOTHING...don't have any debts
    particolor
    4th Aug 2016
    3:45pm
    I owe nothing either ! But am considering a Credit Card now as Mingy Puss Turnbull is to Lousy to give Pensioners 2 BOB !! :-( :-( :-(
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    4:52pm
    Credit cards have no security backing so attract a high interest rate if you don't pay them off by the due date. Convenience comes at a big cost if you are using them to fund your lifestyle. One has only to look at one's credit card statement to see how much that balance will cost you if you don't pay it. If you don't accept the interest rate and conditions simply don't use your credit card.

    Owing money is only good if you earn more on the money you borrow than you pay in interest.
    4b2
    4th Aug 2016
    10:15am
    As if the Banks will listen to Mal, no one else does. He will change his mind as soon as the puppeteer tells him. Bring on the Royal Commission into the financial industry and introduce a super profits tax.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    3:48pm
    Big business 'owns' this government. Follow the money trail and it is clear.
    Old Man
    4th Aug 2016
    11:10am
    Back before Keating deregulated the banks, the only way they could gouge borrowers was in the way interest rate movements were handled. When the RBA increased interest rates, the adjustment was made the next day for borrowers and the end of the month for investors. Likewise, in the event that the RBA reduced rates, investors accounts were adjusted the next day and borrowers adjustments were held over until the end of the month. Now they can do whatever they choose and if we don't like it we can change banks. Banks are quite happy to lose customers because we all need to bank somewhere and they reason that what they lose on the swings, they pick up on the roundabout. Like all businesses, they like to make profits for their shareholders but really, enough is enough.
    Avatar
    4th Aug 2016
    11:26am
    The govt already has the means to encourage the banks to comply but they are too scared to use it. All the govt has to do is to stop its regulatory support for the banks and the banks will find that their credit ratings with Moody's etc, going down.
    Old Man
    4th Aug 2016
    11:47am
    Whilst your idea has merit Avatar, the result may well be that banks will have to pay a higher rate for offshore borrowings and we all know who will bear the cost of that. No, not the shareholders.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    3:50pm
    Labor left reform legislation for the Abbott government but it was torn up and thrown into the bin so that banks could do as they liked. They have. This will only end when we have LEGISLATION with severe fines attached to it.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    4:54pm
    The more the banks are regulated the more it will cost to borrow money.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    9:10pm
    That's an assumption not backed by sound reasoning.
    Scrivener
    4th Aug 2016
    11:27am
    A Royal Commission be held into the Financial Services Sector should have been held before the GFC. The GFC was foreseen by several economists and they were ignored. If not then, when? If not now, why not?
    Bletch
    4th Aug 2016
    11:29am
    Is my blood boiling No It is more like the volcano in Bali most likely.
    The RBA puts the interest rate down and the banks do not comply, OR they put it down by 1/2 OR they wait 1-2 months to put it down OR they do all three
    BUT if the interest rate is raised then they pass on the full rate WITHIN HOURS!
    People should walk to the nextr bank who cares about their customers b eause the major banks could not care less!
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    3:51pm
    The banks are protected by the government so they do as they like.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    11:35am
    Don't know why people are unhappy. Turnbull did shake his finger at the banks just like he did for the just passed scandal. Isn't that enough?
    The real question to ask as this coalition government continues to REFUSE to legislate is 'how much election funding are the big banks providing for coalition coffers'. And there you have your answer!
    Old Man
    4th Aug 2016
    11:50am
    Be fair Mick, Swan also told us that he was "keeping a close eye on the banks". That achieved about the same as Turnbull is achieving.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    1:18pm
    Fair comment but then we have had another (several) atrocities since then. When does one act? That is my issue: the 12th of never!
    Labor actually left office with legislation there to make the banks more accountable but one of the first decrees from Tony Abbott was to repeal this. Turnbull is just following the script.

    4th Aug 2016
    11:51am
    A more equitable way for the banks to deal with the RBA's asinine decision would be to pass on half (at most) of the rate cut to mortgagors and use the other half to host term deposit and savings accounts. Miles of smiles!
    RogerA
    4th Aug 2016
    10:31pm
    Hmmm, Fast Eddie is one of the very few respondents aware of the depositors. There a lot of whinging, led by Malcolm T (who should know better), about banks failing to pass the rate cut wholly on to borrowers. What about us lenders who have money in term and savings deposits? Interest rate we get is always falling, it seems. Give us a break!
    Happily retired early
    4th Aug 2016
    11:54am
    More waffle from waffle bull. A royal commission into the banks is long overdue. If we can have a Royal commission into unions, let's clean up all corruption in the banks, political parties and insurance companies it costs us all heaps anyway.
    There is obviously reasons why the Liberals don't want to have a bank inquiry.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    3:53pm
    I agree. Bring it on.
    The Librarian
    4th Aug 2016
    11:56am
    "It's not my job to manage the banks or tell them how to manage different products because they've all got different risk profiles and so forth, but it is absolutely clear that they have made a conscious decision not to pass on the full extent of the rate cut, and they should have done that,” - can't have it both ways Malcolm. If its not your job to tell the banks how to manage themselves then shut up on the issue. Just a vote getting gambit - possibly a by election coming up ?
    Oz
    4th Aug 2016
    11:57am
    Politicians are mortgage belt toadies
    *Imagine*
    4th Aug 2016
    12:16pm
    RBA rate and Deeming Rate
    I am throwing MT's quote back at him.
    re-quote:
    The Prime Minister and the Treasurer (CEO and CFO of Australia) must pass on the complete RBA rate cut to their customers (pensioners deeming rates) and if they are not prepared to do it, as appears to be the case, then they should explain very clearly to the Australian people, their customers, why they have not done so.
    They should be fully accountable and it is up to them. They are big institutions, they operate with a very substantial social licence, and they owe it to the Australian people and their customers to explain fully and comprehensively why they have not passed on the full rate cut and they must do so.

    If the Prime Minister and Treasurer do not act to reduce deeming rates in line with the RBA rates, then they will be at risk of being deemed arrogant hypocrites.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    3:55pm
    Dare I use the the term "Not suitable" to describe the PM?
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    5:29pm
    Deeming rates have noting to do with what interest rates banks offer but are worked out on what the powers that be think you should be able to earn on your money. Many retires earn a lot more than the deeming rates whilst others do a lot worse.
    *Imagine*
    4th Aug 2016
    7:19pm
    Old Geezer, 'the powers that be' (RBA) determine interest rates. We who have a little put aside expect to earn at least the RBA set amount of interest. The Govt. assumes that we are able to get that rate of return, and pension income is related to that assumption (50c reduction in pension for each $1 deemed to be earned). When the bank rate changes, then to be fair, the lending and investment rates also change. If the people in charge of the Government believe that banks MUST pass on interest rate changes in full to borrowers, then any reasonable person should expect the Government to do likewise with deemed earning rates.
    OK so some people, not too many in 2015/6 financial year, can do better than 1.5% but with 40% safe (cash or term deposits) and 60% in higher risk and hopefully higher return investments, most pensioners WILL be affected by lower interest rates. Hence, I would argue against your point that "Deeming rates have nothing to do with what interest rates banks offer but are worked out on what powers that be think you should earn on your money." I would suggest that 'powers that be' know, or should know, exactly what returns a pensioner can expect, but that, like the banks, they want to conserve as much for themselves as possible. I maintain the point that what is good enough for the banks is good enough for the Government and Mal's outburst is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.
    Not a Bludger
    4th Aug 2016
    12:19pm
    The big banks are a fundamental underpin to the whole of our economy as well as our retirement incomes from superannuation.

    They are also all amongst the best in the world.

    Malcolm should leave them alone and go and find a real problem and do something about it - he hasn't for the last 11 months, but I suppose one can live in hope.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    5:30pm
    I agree let the banks do their banking and the PM put his effort into running the country.
    KSS
    4th Aug 2016
    12:24pm
    This is yet again a biased article aimed squarely at pushing the "bash Mr Turnbull" and "Royal Commission for banking" barrows. Nothing more.

    Why else would you not report that yes the bank have not passed on the full amount to borrowers but they HAVE increased the interest rates to savers. In most cases the amount they have 'kept' is about 0.05% to cover their costs of higher offshore borrowing as Old Man suggests. I see no recognition that interest rates on savings have gone up and that is a good thing surely?

    Let's not forget that interest rates are at historic lows. If people are truly struggling with a mortgage that depends on a 0.1% decrease may be those people should seriously consider whether they should have that mortgage at all.

    As for the credit card interest rates I agree they are very high. However, they are one of the easiest fees to avoid. Pay your credit card in full each month and there is no interest to pay. Put simply if you can't afford to pay it off, you can't afford to have the card.
    Radish
    4th Aug 2016
    12:44pm
    If people lived within their means there would not be the problem with credit cards.

    We never had them when I started out in the workforce..we managed not to get into debt and we did not spend more than we earnt.

    Learn to go without!
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    3:57pm
    The issue is fairness as opposed to greed KSS. You would be aware that the banks get 'free' money given to them as they only pay the official cash rate for their funds. So why bother to take more every time the government tries to adjust the economy? And you wonder why people bank bash.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    5:22pm
    I agree if people lived within their means and saved for those unforseen expenses then they wouldn't need credit cards. Yes learn to live without.

    Dam I wouldn't get all those reward points and get a free flight every year either.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    5:25pm
    Mick the banks hardly ever borrow at the official cash rate for their funds. They pay whatever the going rate is on the world markets. If it is high they offer better rates for depositors and if it is low they offer lower rates to depositors.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    9:45pm
    My understanding is that the going rate is around 1.3%? And mortgages are around 5.3%?
    Yeah depositors make up a part of the funding model. Many get 0.2% interest on deposits.
    You wonder why people think banks are not too hard up.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    10:38pm
    Mick One bank is offering me a line of credit at 4.5% which I could use to buy their shares and get a dividend of 10.90%. I could also write some calls and pick up the equivalent of at least another couple of dividends per year. That a return of over 20% using the banks money at 4.5%. So the pensioner provides the money and gets a return of 0.2%, bank gets 4.3% and I get 15.5% plus on the pensioner's money. Now all I have to do is work out the best time to buy those bank shares.
    Radish
    4th Aug 2016
    12:42pm
    How can the PM "demand" the banks to do anything!
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    1:16pm
    He can't to a bloody thing. He's just talking crap again, as usual.
    KSS
    4th Aug 2016
    1:18pm
    He can't; anymore than Mr Swan could.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    3:59pm
    Not too hard to LEGISLATE Eddie but when you are 'owned' by election funding business you cannot bite the hand which feeds you. The coalition's problem! So you let the crooks continue to be crooks.
    PIXAPD
    4th Aug 2016
    12:48pm
    On another note, for retirees, it is UNWISE to take your Super and bank it...better to leave it in the Fund where it earns far more, just saying.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    3:59pm
    That's what they want....but you have a point.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    5:19pm
    Leaving it in the bank is just lazy investing as the banks then use that money to make the money you should have made yourself on that money.
    franky
    4th Aug 2016
    1:11pm
    I'm not an economist,, Banks are there to make money, do you agree.... full stop The government regulates, Still they have to do something to make more money, do you agree..
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    2:05pm
    Yes, I, for one, fully agree, but how many BILLION do you consider a "fair" profit? The question assumes you are not a shareholder, politician, employee, or getting kickbacks of any sort.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    4:00pm
    We all play by the rules. Big business thinks that it does not need to do this and the banks just laugh at Turnbull when he wags the finger.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    7:52pm
    Thanks a lot for getting to us after we have answered, franky. If you don't want an answer or aren't interested in it don't ask a question.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    9:47pm
    Steady Eddie. Sorry. Looking for the smilies.
    jamesmn
    4th Aug 2016
    1:14pm
    turnball does not want a royal commission into the banks he is as shifty as the banks he wants to remember he does NOT have the numbers to stop there being one or for any mater anything the liberals want to try and push through labour only needs 1 person to cross the floor with the independents turn balls days are numbered we will end up with a royal commission into the corrupt banks.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    4:01pm
    Turnbull and his government are controlled by big business. If they do not do what they are told they get no more political donations. So they do nothing to upset businesses like the big banks.

    4th Aug 2016
    1:27pm
    Maybe the fault lies with the Government and Reserve Bank which should NOT be reducing interest rates. Some very eminent economists have put forward rational and well-supported arguments why doing so can only hurt the economy, and it cannot serve the objectives it's claimed to pursue.

    People are NOT increasing borrowings because of lower interest rates. They are paying down debt and consuming less because incomes are falling, investors are worried, young folk fear the future. We need to restore confidence. Rising interest rates mean more money for savers to spend and more incentive for the young to save (thus reducing retirement costs). More money to spend means higher business profits which means more jobs and more tax revenue. It makes a lot of sense to me. Far more sense than letting the rich hoard billions in tax havens while battlers struggle in retirement and the powers-that-be cry about there not being enough money to pay the national debt (because the tax dodgers hoarded it all off shore!)
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    4:05pm
    Your post is perfectly correct Rainey but when you have a PM who is using offshore Tax Shelter then you are not going to get other than a blind eye and never a fix.
    And yes low rates are a problem because they do not put a price on capital.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    5:17pm
    Interest rates in Australia are too high and need to be cut to stop the Aussie dollar appreciating and making our economy uncompetitive with overseas countries. Until overseas interest rates rise our rates will remain low and could go lower. A higher dollar means people will simply buy more overseas and go on overseas holidays thus taking money out of our economy. OK savers get more money with higher interest rates but where will they spend it? eg I needed a new pump a few weeks back. Cost in Australia $650 so I imported same one from China for $61.00 including freight. With a higher dollar that item becomes even cheaper.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    9:51pm
    When capital does not have a return on it then the system fails to function properly and savers are hurt. Helicopter Ben Bernanke found that out and other governments are trying the same thing and will get the same results. Eventually the whole system will collapse. Well done guys!
    I can't wait for tariffs to come back. The US is already talking about that, but as usual poor old Australia will be the last to act.
    Anonymous
    9th Aug 2016
    12:04pm
    What a dumb statement, OG. Falling interest rates are driving the dollar HIGHER. Our dollar is high because our economy is in better shape than that of most other nations. Do we really want to DESTROY our economy and our lifestyle just to push the exchange rate down?
    double j
    4th Aug 2016
    1:28pm
    I agree with imagine , why cant the government act first and cut deeming rates as a show of good faith, Further more why am I charged 13% from the ATO when I enter into a payment agreement and I enter into the payment agreement because I cant pay my tax in one lump sum. The ATO should reduce the interest rate they charge by the same amount as the RBA reduction . Double J
    Adrianus
    4th Aug 2016
    1:44pm
    It's politically trendy to bash the banks. The statement by Turnbull is just that. He is appeasing the masses, while at the same time realising that the banks are doing the right thing by their shareholders and the economy. Rather than cutting all lending rates by 25 basis points they are using some of the margin to increase deposit rates. Lending rates are that low now that borrowers are not effected by a .25% drop. However, an increase in deposit rates can see more money circulating.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    2:09pm
    This is EXACTLY what this punce is doing, trying to kiss the bums of the majority and trying to show him strong he is. Bloody hypocrite!
    Adrianus
    4th Aug 2016
    5:54pm
    I wonder how many people realise that we are asking for our politicians to bash the banks? They become more popular when they bash the banks. Collectively we are so stupid. A RC into the banks will run for 2 years and prove nothing. If there is a problem with our banks then it should be fixed.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    9:52pm
    So the coalition "bashes" banks? I thought it was more of a token gesture. What else would you expect? Never any legislation to control well understood crooked behaviour.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2016
    7:46am
    What is crooked behaviour? It is very subjective and for some people if they lose money they blame the banks no matter what.

    If there is a problem with our banks and not people bashing banks because of external market forces causing them to lose then it should be fixed ASAP. Not in 2 years time after a RC that proves little but cost zillions.

    How do you legislate against market forces?
    ex PS
    6th Aug 2016
    12:40pm
    Malcolm will verbally bash the banks but do nothing. It has all been prearranged, he or his controllers would have gone to the banks and explained that Malcolm has to talk tough in order to get the voters back on side. They would also have explained that the banks do not have to worry as the government has no intention of cutting off its'donation supply. It's called politics.
    Simply put they will put up with a bit of trash talk in order to avoid being put under scrutiny.
    But don't worry, if the banks make a fuss Malcolm will be their with a limp lettuce leaf to administer the appropriate punishment.
    HarrysOpinion
    4th Aug 2016
    3:42pm
    "Banks are not in the charity business"- That is true, PIXAPD, but, the banks must not carry on their business with unconscionable conduct as they have in the area of financial investment advise and deceit through their employees and agents. in areas of Insurance. Income Protection etc,etc. The banks have a lot to answer for, in particular for the losses retiree investors have suffered where the investors have been deceived. Also, banks offering Credit Cards structuring terms and conditions 'by definition' to gouge fees upon fees from of customers.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    9:53pm
    If you look at the size of their profits you could hardly call a charity business. I should be so lucky.
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    4:59pm
    I agree with the banks only passing on some of interest rate cut as they are now operating in an economic climate worse than that of the GFC and are being prudent in protecting their assets and their returns for their shareholders. Many retirees are bank shareholders so if the bank's price falls significantly then the government will have more people assessing welfare as the old age pension.
    KerryC
    4th Aug 2016
    5:33pm
    Banks are more interested in providing profits to their big shareholders than they are in the growing inability of younger people to afford dwellings in this housing market and the resultant negative impact on employment.

    When interest rates is 1.75% and banks are charging 17-19% on credit cards, they are doing nothing but price gouging. And it is the poor who are most affected, those that cannot afford cash so live on the never never of credit cards. The 1% get more while the 99% get less and less.

    Banks are thumbing their nose at Mr Turnbull. His party opposed Labor's 2010 legislation to re8in in this collusion of the major banks not to pass on the full cut.

    They think because LNP won the election they don't have to worry about an inquiry into their inequitous practices. BRING ON THE ROYAL COMMISSION!
    Old Geezer
    4th Aug 2016
    5:38pm
    Other than pay lots of people lots of money the carry it out I can't see what a Royal Commission will achieve myself. Many people lose money and look for people to blame when they themselves were to blame. If the GFC hadn't happened then we would not be having this discussion but people got greedy and thought the party will go on forever instead.
    Anonymous
    4th Aug 2016
    8:01pm
    A Royal Commission into banking operations may very well show (NOT PROVE) as little wrong doing as would a Royal Commission into politicians' overly generous salaries, but still, it would possibly be better than doing nothing at all which the government is VERY good at. Lazy bloody slugs!
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    9:56pm
    My wife and I own a few shares in one bank. Return is good but not brilliant. And there are some pretty big risks going forward too: bad debts if people walk away from their mortgages in future, no growth in the businesses, increasing costs, less fees.
    I am not condoning the behaviour of banks but just stating the risks from an investor's point of view.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2016
    7:41am
    Mick the most risky investment to me is having money in the bank. After tax and inflation it rarely makes a return. Done well out of my CBA shares I bought for $5.40 when they floated. If that money was still on deposit it would have hardly moved in value. With the bank shares instead it makes nearly as much in dividends a year plus it's now worth many multiples of $5.40.
    Adrianus
    5th Aug 2016
    7:51am
    Bonny, you are wise and have done very well, using the old time honoured principle of "time in" rather than timing. You have done very well to pay only $5.40. I don't recall them going under the opening price of $6.00?
    Old Geezer
    5th Aug 2016
    3:04pm
    I bought mine before they listed as a shareholder of the CBA.

    Check out the history of the CBA on this site
    https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/shareholders/managing-your-shares/faqs.html

    4th Aug 2016
    5:35pm
    Pixapd, great advice, wish there were more of those in these columns, owe nothing and you can't get in trouble, anybody who got a credit card has to have bricks for brains.
    ex PS
    6th Aug 2016
    12:45pm
    It is all in how you manage them, we have had a Credit Card for twenty years, we get cash reward cards worth about $250.00 a year and have paid exactly $0.00 in interest in all that time.
    Pay the full outstanding bill at the end of the month and it will work in your favour.
    jackyd
    4th Aug 2016
    6:13pm
    The bank's put the cashed up senior share holders first before the cash strapped young family homeowners.
    Of course when the RB takes interest rates the other way it's full on for both young and old.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    9:57pm
    Because they are less likely to default on loans. Understandable.
    jeffr
    4th Aug 2016
    6:44pm
    Business is Business and Love is Bullsh*t.that is the Banks philosophy but they forget to add
    ""Do Not Be Greedy as it comes back to bite you"hopefully with a Royal Commission.

    4th Aug 2016
    7:59pm
    anybody believing a royal commission will bring lower interest payments has to have rocks in their head, reading these columns most have.
    MICK
    4th Aug 2016
    9:59pm
    So why bother posting your normally vile content on this website? If you think that this website is unsuitable go elsewhere. Dare I say 'go back to where you came from'?
    jeffr
    4th Aug 2016
    10:25pm
    A Royal Commission would not be about interest rates it would be about HONESTY in doing business. Sadly lacking within the banking sector and many other businesses which are supported by this self interest government.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2016
    7:08pm
    labor union organiser micky, truth is I got no debts, I believe in paying up front and your political whinging in these columns are becoming a joke as for jeffy, if you don't like your bank get another one, so easy.
    jeffr
    5th Aug 2016
    11:28pm
    Problem is HeemskerK9 all the banks are blessed with the same GREED. They use own staff disguised as ADVISORS to give DISHONEST advice. They charge GREEDY fees for late payment, for services such as mortgage completion etc:etc:. The public has NO CHOICE as all payments of any kind end up through the banking system.This includes THE CAYMAN ISLANDS.

    I believe in Liberalism....nothing to far right and nothing to far left. Sadly this does not work.It is either GREED GREED GREED or UNIONISM UNIONISM UNIONISM.

    And you Heemmskerk9..I also have no debt,I also pay up front but I do BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY AND HONESTY
    ex PS
    6th Aug 2016
    12:59pm
    A Royal Commission would not be about setting profit margins or lowering interest rates, it would be about making banks act ethically as in not pushing its' own products knowing that they will probably not make a profit for the buyer or not treating people honestly.
    In effect creating a culture of providing client satisfaction rather than deliberately ripping them off for a quick profit.
    For example I had a bank representative phone be this morning in regards to a Term Deposit Account that is due to expire, wanted me to roll it over into another Term Deposit Account @ 3%. When asked why I would want to do that when the Deeming rate was %3.25, she couldn't provide an answer or an alternative. This was because the alternative couldn't be provided by the bank she represented.
    There are plenty of other businesses that would have provided that alternative regardless of the fact that they would not have benefited directly it's called customer service and it is not a wasted opportunity it's called building customer confidence.
    Strummer
    5th Aug 2016
    7:12am
    Now that's what I call getting tough!
    PIXAPD
    5th Aug 2016
    9:31am
    The wise OWE NOTHING.... they have NO DEBTS...that's it
    Adrianus
    5th Aug 2016
    9:40am
    Debt and risk are a part of life.The wise control their debt. The unwise have debt control them. In many cases it would be prudent to enter retirement with very little or no debt.
    PIXAPD
    5th Aug 2016
    10:26am
    Debt is only part of life if a person becomes a slave to the lenders, which borrowers are...'slaves'...because the rich rule over the poor and the borrower is slave to the lender.
    Adrianus
    5th Aug 2016
    10:37am
    In your example then BHP is a slave to its lender, having raised debt for shareholder distributions. So too, Donald Trump knows what it is like to be a slave.
    Anonymous
    9th Aug 2016
    12:07pm
    Pixapd claims to be a full pensioner getting rent assistance.

    Doesn't that show what not embracing GOOD DEBT leads to?

    The smart among us embraced sensible debt and OWN OUR HOMES and have other assets as a result.
    teuchter
    5th Aug 2016
    1:07pm
    https://realitieswatch.com/complete-list-of-banks-ownedcontrolled-by-the-rothschild-family/

    This is the real problem,all other bs is just a smoke screen.
    Anonymous
    9th Aug 2016
    12:05pm
    You got that right, teuchter. Pity so few get it.
    Scrivener
    8th Aug 2016
    12:15pm
    Silly Malcolm setting up a tea party for the Banks - better to send their CEOs straight to jail now and then require them to earn a 'get out of jail' card with real work for the community.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles