Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[miket12]

You think the bank will let costs eat into its profit without passing the cost on? You know how insurance works?


Not sure what open banking has to do with reimbursement of scam victims.

None of this is relevant to the discussion at hand.


Paying back scam victims isn’t consumer protection, because they aren’t consumers. Giving all your money Patel Pajeet over the phone isn’t a protected commercial transaction.

Quite simply they are already making excess profits.

Regulation is forcing banks to provide open banking just in the same way that regulation would force them to reimburse scam victims.

Customers to banks are also protected by consumer rights. In NZ, a bank will be prosecuted for breaking the Consumer Guarantees Act in the way it deals with it's customers just as other businesses are. In fact, banks are specifically mention in the Act. Under Law, a customer of a bank is a consumer as they are using services provided by the bank.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Quite simply they are already making excess profits.

Lool. Because they maximise shareholder returns. Guess how they do that? By passing costs onto consumers.

Regulation is forcing banks to provide open banking just in the same way that regulation would force them to reimburse scam victims.

Yes. Laws are laws. They force compliance.

Customers to banks are also protected by consumer rights. In NZ, a bank will be prosecuted for breaking the Consumer Guarantees Act in the way it deals with it's customers just as other businesses are. In fact, banks are specifically mention in the Act. Under Law, a customer of a bank is a consumer as they are using services provided by the bank.

That doesn’t make banks party to transactions made between their customers and a 3rd party. Otherwise it would make banks liable for drug deals and other illegal transactions.

I’m assuming you gave either been scammed or have a family member or friend who has. To argue this doesnt meet the definition of moral hazard is illogical.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Now you could make the argument, like banks do, that the moral hazard is justified for XYZ reasons.

 

[miket12]

Now you could make the argument, like banks do, that the moral hazard is justified for XYZ reasons.

Some rather interesting arguments about moral hazard and fraud. Some argue that at the moment the banks have the moral hazard as they have very little responsibility to cover fraud. Yet, the banks argue that if they did have to cover fraud then they become "victims" of the fraud as they're liable as customers make more risks. I'd love for banks in NZ to invest in APP software to identify fraud as is available elsewhere.

How do you strike the balance between personal and corporate responsibility?

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Some rather interesting arguments about moral hazard and fraud. Some argue that at the moment the banks have the moral hazard as they have very little responsibility to cover fraud. Yet, the banks argue that if they did have to cover fraud then they become "victims" of the fraud as they're liable as customers make more risks. I'd love for banks in NZ to invest in APP software to identify fraud as is available elsewhere.

How do you strike the balance between personal and corporate responsibility?

In this instances I dont believe corporates have any. We have social safety nets. Lose your retirement to a Nigerian prince? Well theres the aged pension. THATS your insurance.

 

[miket12]

In this instances I dont believe corporates have any. We have social safety nets. Lose your retirement to a Nigerian prince? Well theres the aged pension. THATS your insurance.

You understand that in all most every dealing you have with a bank they have a safety net/advantage over you, the customer... and you're prepared to give them another?

You go to the bank to borrow money. They require some sort of security from you such as registering a mortgage on a property or an interest in a vehicle. Otherwise, they want someone who can either repay the loan in full or take over the payments in case you default. Then, if there isn't a guarantor or security, such as a credit card or personal, they charge a higher interest. If it's for a house or a vehicle, they want to see the insurance renewal certificate and part of your agreement with them is while you owe them money, whatever is offered in security must be insured.

Then there's the paperwork just to apply for the loan. Three months' worth of salary reports, and bank statements and every transaction is scrutinised. And, if you're self-employed, revenue statements and asset sheets for the last three years. Then, they'll work out whether you can afford to repay the loan by stress testing your financial position 3% higher than what you're borrowing.

And if your deposit for the house isn't large enough, they'll charge you even more interest.

BUT, what when you deposit money with them and they are effectively borrowing that money from you? Do they give you their financial records? Do you require than they provide you with security over the money they're borrowing, and do they give you greater interest because the money isn't secured over something? Where are there insurance certificates?

In my business, one mistake, and I'm responsible for it. One of their main things they do is charge you fees to transact money, but you think they shouldn't set up systems to detect fraudulent transactions. It's not like they're reinventing the wheel... other countries require their banks to put in place systems to detect fraud or face the consequences... use those systems.

 

[MaybeTop8]

Public service announcement

View: https://x.com/factaotearoa/status/1844233887284908220

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

With record profits “NZ” banks are making, and then sending across to Oz, they can afford it. For goodness sake, they only following the rest of the world and bringing in open banking here because of regulation… not out of the generosity of their hearts. Unfortunately, banks are mostly interested in the dividend returns to their shareholders…. very rarely are changes made that offer more protection to their customers unless they’re forced to by government regulation or it ultimately increases their profit margins.

There’s already discussions here as to why, when there’s been drops in the OCR of 0.75% and in the wholesale rates the banks pay to borrow money at, that term deposit rates have dropped by the same amount as the OCR, and in some cases more than the OCR, but mortgage rates haven’t. Some people say that the banks have already factored it in to their lending but that’s crap…. according to interest.co.nz, the highest average 6 month term in this cycle was 7.35% in February 2024. At the same time, the OCR was 5.50%. Now, the OCR has dropped down 75 basis points to 4.75% but, again according to interest.co.nz, the average 6 month mortgage term interest rate is 6.8%…. a difference of 55 basis points. While 20 basis points may not sound a lot, but considering that corelogic said in December of last year, the total of mortgage debt in NZ was $354 billion, a 20 basis point change in favour of the banks increasing their margin, means they a making an additional $70,000,000 pretax profit to send across the Ditch. Or, putting it another way, the 20 basis point difference on a $500,000 mortgage for 25 years is $40,000 additional interest over the life of the loan.

Case in point, 6 months ago, we re-fixed at a special rate then re-fixed last month after 25 basis points drop in the OCR but the difference in the special rate the bank gave us was only 10 basis points lower than 6 months ago. In the same time, the one year term deposit rate had dropped 35 basis points.

And if consumer protection is such a terrible moral hazard, why not get rid of all of them? No warranties, no guarantees, no contracts protecting consumers, no lieu’s, no standards. Compliance with all of these increases cost to consumers.

If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em.

Invest in bank shares!

 

[MrFrankWhite]

You understand that in all most every dealing you have with a bank they have a safety net/advantage over you, the customer... and you're prepared to give them another?

You go to the bank to borrow money. They require some sort of security from you such as registering a mortgage on a property or an interest in a vehicle. Otherwise, they want someone who can either repay the loan in full or take over the payments in case you default. Then, if there isn't a guarantor or security, such as a credit card or personal, they charge a higher interest. If it's for a house or a vehicle, they want to see the insurance renewal certificate and part of your agreement with them is while you owe them money, whatever is offered in security must be insured.

Then there's the paperwork just to apply for the loan. Three months' worth of salary reports, and bank statements and every transaction is scrutinised. And, if you're self-employed, revenue statements and asset sheets for the last three years. Then, they'll work out whether you can afford to repay the loan by stress testing your financial position 3% higher than what you're borrowing.

And if your deposit for the house isn't large enough, they'll charge you even more interest.

BUT, what when you deposit money with them and they are effectively borrowing that money from you? Do they give you their financial records? Do you require than they provide you with security over the money they're borrowing, and do they give you greater interest because the money isn't secured over something? Where are there insurance certificates?

In my business, one mistake, and I'm responsible for it. One of their main things they do is charge you fees to transact money, but you think they shouldn't set up systems to detect fraudulent transactions. It's not like they're reinventing the wheel... other countries require their banks to put in place systems to detect fraud or face the consequences... use those systems.

What on earth are you talking about? They have systems to detect scams and customer try still evade them. Again you've gone on a massive ideological rant about the banks, which im not really here for. I get it, you don't like the banks but forcing them to cough up $10B a year for people who 200 years ago would have been eaten by wild animals, isnt going to end the way you think it is.

How fraudsters and scammers are getting more sophisticated in NZ

Economic cost of fraud is believed to be around $10 billion.

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[miket12]

What on earth are you talking about? They have systems to detect scams and customer try still evade them. Again you've gone on a massive ideological rant about the banks, which im not really here for. I get it, you don't like the banks but forcing them to cough up $10B a year for people who 200 years ago would have been eaten by wild animals, isnt going to end the way you think it is.

How fraudsters and scammers are getting more sophisticated in NZ

Economic cost of fraud is believed to be around $10 billion.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Did you actually read the article you posted…. the $10 billion you mentioned wouldn’t be paid by banks because that was total fraud of which $7 to $8 billion was tax fraud.

Customers try to evade banks fraud detecting systems? Why? Because they want to be defrauded?

 

[Worried2Death]

Did you actually read the article you posted…. the $10 billion you mentioned wouldn’t be paid by banks because that was total fraud of which $7 to $8 billion was tax fraud.

Customers try to evade banks fraud detecting systems? Why? Because they want to be defrauded?

And who was getting eaten by wild animals before, scam victims? That's you Mike

 

[MrFrankWhite]

And who was getting eaten by wild animals before, scam victims? That's you Mike

People get mad if I use the R word

 

[MaybeTop8]

One for the wizard, who likes to crow about the polls - and given this is a taxpayer union poll he can't complain it's biased. It is, but to the far right

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

One for the wizard, who likes to crow about the polls - and given this is a taxpayer union poll he can't complain it's biased. It is, but to the far right

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

In Gregan voice: ‘8 more years’

Coalition still have the majority… and I said I don’t put much weight on polls but it’s clear the coalition hasn’t imploded and been hasn’t been as unpopular as you all predicted.

 

[marv.]

In Gregan voice: ‘8 more years’

Coalition still have the majority… and I said I don’t put much weight on polls but it’s clear the coalition hasn’t imploded and been hasn’t been as unpopular as you all predicted.

it’s hardly as though anyone else is even offering any kind of pressure.

“As for who the country prefers as their prime minister, Christopher Luxon remains out on top with 27.7%, despite a big drop of 5 points in support.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has had a bump in support, rising 4.3 points to 16.9%, while Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick is in third place at 9.9%, rising 2.7 points.”

greens are a shitshow currently and all labour really have going on is whinging and immature social media posts. not to mention hipkins already had a crack and kooked it.

my guess is as the economy starts to straighten out and life gets easier, a few more boxes will get ticked for luxon and national will win the next election.

if labour can pull a rabbit out of the hat last minute like they did with ardern, they might have a shot though.

otherwise who realistically could anyone hope to do a better job?

 

[MaybeTop8]

In Gregan voice: ‘8 more years’

Coalition still have the majority… and I said I don’t put much weight on polls but it’s clear the coalition hasn’t imploded and been hasn’t been as unpopular as you all predicted.

More just a reminder not to put too much stock on one poll really

 

[MrFrankWhite]

What amazing coincidence NZ achieved its first female Defence minister, Chief of Army and Navy Captain all at the same time, and all on their own merits.

Collins became New Zealand’s first female defence minister after the centre-right National Party was victorious in last year’s general elections.

In June, Major General Rose King was appointed chief of the country’s army, becoming the first woman to lead a branch of the military.

About 20 percent of New Zealand’s uniformed military personnel are women.

New Zealand defence chief slams ‘misogynistic’ trolling over ship sinking

New Zealand Defence Minister Judith Collins says sinking of HMNZS Manawanui has nothing to do with captain’s gender.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Garry Saloon]

In Gregan voice: ‘8 more years’

Coalition still have the majority… and I said I don’t put much weight on polls but it’s clear the coalition hasn’t imploded and been hasn’t been as unpopular as you all predicted.

There's a lot of sunk cost in terms of how people say they are going to vote. A drop of this much is actually pretty significant. Seriously what has improved under National? They're wrecking the place. Ruining the healthcare system deliberately in preparation for privatisation. Their claims of no effect on front line services has been confirmed as a lie they told for power. The twenty buck tax cuts has disappeared into most people's budget. Luxon is profiting from a law he changed and has said hey. He's rich. Suck it up. The only thing getting better is inflation cooking, which is totally in line with global trends, same as when it was running hot. And job security is terrible. Inflation is bad when you have a job. Everything is terrible when you don't. NZ First is corrupt as fuck and it shows. Literally what is going well unless you are racist and like that they remove Te Reo wherever they can and otherwise bash and scapegoat māori. This government is good for bosses and landlords, not workers, renters, and people who want their first house.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

In Gregan voice: ‘8 more years’

Coalition still have the majority… and I said I don’t put much weight on polls but it’s clear the coalition hasn’t imploded and been hasn’t been as unpopular as you all predicted.

Bottom of the economic cycle, freight operators already starting to see a marginal tick up.

 

[MrFrankWhite]

One for the wizard, who likes to crow about the polls - and given this is a taxpayer union poll he can't complain it's biased. It is, but to the far right

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

@MaybeTop8 when they’re describing politics..