So how come we don;t hear about these?

The news always seems to be full about jobs being lost from New Zealand - especially when these are lost through offshoring;  and yet when one of the major Australian banks decides to move 100 jobs this way across the tasman we hear nothing - why is that?

Sure they're only call center jobs - but that didn't stop the outcry when Telecom was involved - so why the media silence this time?  Perhaps because it might upset their doom and gloom slant on the world...

Nothing more to say

Break Fees and Lawyers

Of course the one set of parties that has remained (incriminatingly) silent on most of this debate is the law society and the lawyers;

They could at least have helped clear up the confusion around the legal obligations of the banks preventing them doing what most are currently accusing them of;

However perhaps it is because ultimately it was their responsibility to their client to properly explain those clauses in the contract they were collecting their fees for?

The Break Fee Debate

ITs good to see the banks are hanging tough on break fees - although I'm disappointed in Bill English's proposed pressure on KiwiBank to potentially lower these.

Lets be clear here as there has been a huge amount of morons commenting on this subject when they have no actual concept:

The banks are not making money out of this - there is no margin in the break fee, it is genuine costs relating to the fact that people are wanting to intentionally breach contracts.

In fact the CCCFA (Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003) both means it is illegal for them to make money on the break fee - and (to put another misinformation to bed) sets out how they should calculate the fee.  

There is ambiguity in the law as to which rate the lender should use as their relending rate - If your original contract was for 5 years fixed rate, you are now 2 years in the lender may be relending at the variable, the 5 year or the 3 year rate? However while this is unclear in the law which must be used, it is stipulated in the contract.

Which in the end is much of the point here - how are people legitimately thinking they should be able to walk out of a legally binding contract without paying the other parties costs?  These pillocks are effectively arguing that when the rates were rising the banks should have been able to give the homeowner (EG) $4000 and then say "sorry, but you're back on the variable (3% higher) variable rate now".  Because the fix works both ways.

In the end the risk is 2 ways - if the rates had spiked rather than dropped would you still be complaining about being on a fixed rate?  Furtermore is it the bank that has dropped the OCR? (or raised it initially)?

The only way around it is to either align the term of the fixed rate to the term of the mortgage or go completely variable rate - but I don't see these plonkers actually going for either of these options.  Unfortunatly the nanny state seems to haev won in its efforts to create a nation of whiners that not only thinks they can have their cake and eat it too - but actually have someone else bake it for free in the first place.

 

Revisting Kiwibank (to be done...)

It will be interesting to revisit the question of banks and adequecy given the apparent meltdown in the global financial markets over the past period of time - not least to contrast the movements of this "pillar" in the NZ market versus the exposed international banks; but also versus my pet favorite TSB.  Not least to see whether the inclusion of KiwiBank by the media in the "major banks" categorisation is warranted, as versus the exclusion of both TSB and HSBC from this reporting...

KiwiBank - the safest haven. Tui Ad in the making

I have been intrigued by the rumors being floated recently - mainly seeming to originate from the political left about how Kiwibank is the one safe bank at the moment; especially in this time of sub prime debt.

However putting aside the point that the only registered bank to have previously become bankrupt in New Zealand was the BNZ while it was a Labour Government controlled SOE, I decided to do a bit more digging.

And find that according to the Reserve Banks own data Kiwibank actually has the worst without exception level of capital reserves. Kiwibank only hold 7.2% of Tier 1 assets and 9.5% of Tier 2; in comparison to 14.94% and 15.58% for RaboBank and a huge 17.66% for both Tier 1 and 2 held by the TSB.

Going even further Kiwibank doesn't even have a provision for impaired assets - so despite the current marketing downturn they are providing for no losses due to -ve equity. This is comparison to the smallest provision by any other bank being the ASB at over 3% of profit; with most banks allowing for between 5 - 8%. Personally the bank I would see as most susceptible to housing loan shocks would be the one making absolutely no allowance nor financial planning for it whatsoever...

Also of curiosity has to be the 5.3% of Kiwibanks credit exposure that is across only 13 people?

So really one has to question how the least profitable, lowest profit on assets, lowest capital reserves, no provisions bank is the safe one? But when it comes to political left and KiwiBank it seems logic isn't really necessary - hence why we have the white elephant in the first place.

Vote early and Vote Now

An interesting little meme going on at the moment at Jimungo;
Sign up now at http://pulse.jimungo.com/ and vote in the New Zealand Virtual Election.
Should be a little bit more interesting than the rest of the polls about to swamp us heading into the election; although I doubt any more accurate :D

Connected or No?

At a press conference in Auckland, he has told media that the stories published this week about undeclared donations are "unsubstantiated rubbish" and his party has acted legally at all times.

But if we connect the dots between this funding scandal and the parliamentary funding scandal then his party has only acted legally in a retrospective manner...

Again if we start to look at the chain of behavior it becomes even harder to believe Peters version of events...

"Rich Prick" Prime Minister?

The NZ Herald today reports on John Keys inclusion in the NBR Rich list at a net worth of $50 million. Certainly makes one wonder if the "Rich Prick" can survive this story and the inevitable political scrutiny this will entail - especially in New Zealand's infamous tall poppy environment.

For mime; I certainly hope so. For those that cling to the envious politics of the left - I really have to ask; who is better qualified to show us the way to prosperity - an economics teacher with less reported assets than me? Or the guy going from State House to $50 million with no lotto ticket in sight?

To compare the PM role; the guy who for all intensive purposes has retired and can do this because he wants to for the betterment of others, or the shrew who has had no other career and must desperately cling to power to earn the only living she has ever known?

Which I will admit highlights my main enduring distaste for the politicians of the left (I have different issues with the politics...); is the wonder how those whose endeavors have been confined to the ivory towers of academia and politics can ever relate and actually understand those of us without?

Will Labour still take responsibility for pay rate changes?

(Hattip: NZHerald)

"A new survey of pay rates shows a dramatic deterioration for those at the bottom of the heap, while rates for skilled workers are outpacing rampant inflation."

Historically as New Zealand was undergoing the best ever commodity prices we have experienced, the dairy boom and unprecedented growth Labour was quick to take responsibility for every survey showing an increase in wage rates - especially where this was in the lower income bands.

Why am I not surprised there is deafening silence from them regarding the fact that the predicted issues with their stewardship are being exposed now that the bubble has popped?