Posted by: mrmortgage | July 4, 2009

Does Kevin Rudd need to turn the heat up on Australian banks to ease the mortgage meltdown?

The big four Australian banks have had it sweet for so long, but have copped a serve from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in recent weeks, as struggling mortgagor homeowners haven’t been getting all the interest rate cuts from the RBA passed on to them.
Obviously the banks are used to having their names dragged through the mud as its becoming an Australian pastime to bag the banks behaviour by Jill and Joe Public. So the Prime Minister has good right to feel that joining in with a quick flurry of words on behalf of Mr and Ms Mortgage can’t harm him in the polls. But it is not going to change the Banks’ motives or behaviour. After all, they have to work in the best interest of their Shareholders, and on that basis you would have to say they are going a great job, if you compare their performance and results against banks in the US or the UK.
But the big four Banks have a privileged position, and banking is a mainstream public service as well as a business, so Mr Rudd needs to deliver effective competition within the Australian Mortgage Industry to create a level playing field. In my view this will mean legislating for an effective mortgage and credit card marketplace, and one with real competition.
Regional Banks and building societies and credit unions, as well as non bank securitised mortgage lenders need some legislation that might be called positive discrimination to level that playing field.
The big four Australian banks [CBA, NAB, Westpac and ANZ] are, obscenely profitable. For example and raked in $9.5 billion in profit in just six months. And this is while there is a global recession? Australia’s banks are among the world’s most stable and profitable and have been for some time.
The Finance Sector Union (FSU)has urged that banks make their lending practises more responsible by suggesting that Australians’ ever-increasing credit card debt is unsustainable; and that linking salaries to peddling high-debt products like mortgages does not serve customers well, especially when it’s to buy shonky and highly geared investment products such as the two tier real estate market in Queensland in the 1990’s and the recent Storm Financial collapse.
Its time for action Mr Rudd, not another verbal bashing. A viable mortgage alternative to the banks is required by all homeowners and home buyers. The current system means that second tier lenders get the customers that the big four don’t want, and this will only increase the gap in profitability between Australia’s big and small mortgage lenders.
Rick Adlam is Mr Mortgage


Responses

  1. Thank you for this article. I am currently taking legal action against the national Australia Bank through the banking ombudsman. The process has been going for 1 year. The national Australia bank created a loan for me whereby three properties were cross collatorised. I wanted to sell one at the start of this current economic crises ( a year ago) but the bank took the action of wanting all of the loan returned. To date, they have lost me one buyer ten months ago plus I have been waiting for settlement on a property for three months. Thatrs three months with a buyer and lawyers waiting for settlement ot occur. I hope sanity prevails before my family is forced into bankrupcy. The bank has not responded to our layer, banking ombudsman or myself.
    Deborah Rhoades.

    • Hi Deborah, Stay strong. I have been in a Similar fight with a big four Bank. In my experience, they have unlimited resources and time, and they know that you don’t. They seem to me to not mind being ecomonical with the truth.
      They also seem to want to do anything but lose a case, regardless of the facts, and may in my view spend money in to burn you off.
      There are few landmark decisions against banks. In particular I did find one concerning the NAB and a professional woman, where the woman got her home back. That case was around 12 years ago, and the judgement made interesting reading.
      I don’t know anything about your circumstances, and I am not a lawyers bootlace, but it seems to me that cross collateralising securities is a bad idea for the client and the desired route for the bank. A better thing to do in my view would be to have different lenders for each property. If you have five properties, five lenders. That way each bank is limited to its own security, and that gives you more control and leverage and options.
      About 10 years ago I helped a client out of a cross collateralised mess with the ANZ. But I found them eager and willing to assist the client out of the mess [and get a non performing loan off the Bank's ledger]. I had at the same time another client with Westpac is a similar mess, where I found that bank to be much less cooperative.
      Times, banks, and bank policies do change. Hopefully you will resolve your dispute with your bank.
      Good Luck

  2. Thank you so much, for your kind reply. The banking ombudsman has been closely following our case and has ordered that the bank comes to a meeting in the next few weeks to setle this issue. We have made a claim for damages against the NAB with the banking ombudsman and have been instructed that the ombudsman is able to ward up to $280,000 in damages. So, we claimed with proof this much.
    Thank you again
    Deborah.


Leave a response

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Categories