Australia’s Banks to Hold More Capital for Mortgage Losses – Bloomberg Business

Under rules coming into force on July 1, 2016, the average risk weight on residential mortgage exposures will rise to at least 25 percent from about 16 percent, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority said in a statement. That will increase the capital requirements of the biggest four banks by about A$12 billion ($8.9 billion), according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley.via Australia’s Banks to Hold More Capital for Mortgage Losses – Bloomberg Business.

Bolje sudski RAT sa nego PAKT sa lihvarima

Боље судски рат него пакт са лихварима

Геофинансијски рат је увелико у току. Најмасивније операције Запада се воде против Русије, а најкрвавије против Украјине. Уз то, државе „Нове Европе“ и њихови грађани изложени су операцијама ниског интензитета тј. пљачки путем финансијског перпетуум-мобила осмишљеног у „Старој Европи“. Сад смо туђе слуге у сопственом дворишту, али ускоро можемо постати и подстанари у сопственим становима

Уредно враћаш, а дуг је све већи… Ради се о кредитима индексираним у швајцарским францима. Листу швајцараца предводе Пољаци са 550.000 кредита индексираних у тој валути, следе Румуни (150.000), Хрвати (60.000) и Срби (22.000).

Резултат је видљив. Бивше социјалистичке земље изгубиле су у периоду 1990–2015. немерљив капитал и последично 22 милиона становника. Огромни простори су у великој мери испражњени. Остале европске земље су у порасту за 41 милион становника. Continue reading

Banke u Srbiji nezakonito obračunavaju kamate na kredite

th

ZORAN TASIĆ konsultant firme TS Imperial Clearing House:

Banke nezakonito uzmu 60 odsto više na kreditima

Zarada i troškovi banke sadržani su u kamati, pa je obračun kursnih razlika, zateznih kamata, naknada i provizija protivzakonit

Klijenti banci prilikom otplate kredita daju do čak 60 odsto više novca nego što bi trebalo jer banka u svojoj gramzivosti primenjuje protivzakonite obračune na ime kursnih razlika, zateznih kamata, naknada, provizija i samovoljnog povećanja kamate – tvrdi za Kurir Zoran Tasić, rizik menadžer, ekonomista, sudski veštak, ovlašćeni računovođa i revizor.

“Kršenjem Zakona o obligacionim odnosima banke na kreditu od 500.000 evra građanima neosnovano naplate 340.000 evra”, kaže Tasić.

On je desetak godina radio u Narodnoj banci Srbije, sertifikat rizik menadžera je dobio od banke Goldman Saks u Nemačkoj, a danas se najviše bavi sudskim veštačenjem i specijalizovan je za bankarstvo.banka-banke-krediti-gradani-kamate-prevara-1417478953-595173

Zoran Tasić upozorava da je, prema važećem zakonodavstvu, nezakonito vezivanje dinarske rate za deviznu i obračunavanje kursnih razlika, zatim obračun zatezne kamate pre krajnjeg roka dospeća jer se po zakonu može naplatiti samo posle dospeća, kao i naplata naknada i provizija.

“Sve ovo je kršenje člana 1.065 Zakona o obligacionim odnosima, prema kojem je sva zarada banke sadržana u mesečnim ratama, odnosno u kamati, koja je u njima obračunata. Kamata je, kao i marža u trgovini, stavka u kojoj je sadržana sva zarada i troškovi koje banka ima, što član 15 ZOO reguliše i određuje da banka ne može po dva i više osnova da naplaćuje svoja potraživanja, što znači ako je naplatila kamatu, a jeste u rati koju je odredila, to jedino i može da naplati, a sve ostalo je nezakonito”, jasan je on.

Kolika je želja banaka za sticanjem što većeg profita, pokazuje slika Srbije. Banke su, kako kaže, u poslednjih desetak godina iz Srbije iznele najmanje 30 milijardi evra, dok građani kojima su odobravali kredite jedva preživljavaju spajajući kraj s krajem, a privreda pravi velike gubitke.

Tasić navodi primer klijenta iz centralne Srbije koji je tužio banku zbog nezakonitog ponašanja.

“U slučaju klijenta iz centralne Srbije koji je uzeo kredit od 53 miliona dinara, banka bi ukupno za tri godine naplatila 96 miliona dinara, a po članu 1.065 Zakona o obligacionim odnosima, mogla je da naplati 59,5 miliona. Razlika je 36,5 miliona dinara, što je 60 odsto više od iznosa koji je prema ovom propisu dozvoljen”, navodi Tasić za Kurir list.

Hungary Votes on Loan Refund Law as Lenders Face Mounting Losses

Hungary Backs Loan Refunds as Banks Face Mounting Losses
By Zoltan Simon Jul 4, 2014 6:32 PM GMT+0300

Viktor Orban, Hungary's prime minister.

Photographer: Akos Stiller/Bloomberg
Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister.
Hungarian lawmakers approved a law forcing banks to refund borrowers on charges deemed unfair on as much as $28 billion in outstanding loans.

Parliament, where Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s coalition has a two-thirds majority, approved the law by a vote of 184 to 1 with 2 abstentions. The legislation voids exchange-rate margins used on foreign-currency loans and declares unfair unilateral changes to consumer credit going back as far as 2004, except where banks prove otherwise.

Orban, re-elected in April to another four-year term, has pledged to phase out foreign-currency loans to households and to force banks to share the burden. Payments on the loans, mostly denominated in Swiss francs, soared as the forint plunged after the 2008 financial crisis, leading to rising rates of defaults and delinquency.

“This was a historic day that may be the start of a new era,” Orban said at a factory opening in Pilisborosjeno, outside of Budapest. “The era of fair banks may follow.”

The financial industry faces a loss of as much as $4 billion as a result of the law, according to the central bank. That doesn’t include the cost of converting as much as $16 billion in foreign-currency loans into forint, which the government plans to do later this year to rid the country of mostly Swiss franc-denominated mortgages. Continue reading

Shareholders’ Quest for More Transparency in Company’s Political Expenditures

PoliticalSpending091314

If you own a share of a company, how much information about the company are you entitled to? That is the question embedded in the debate over a proposed Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would force publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending to their shareholders.

As of this month, a 2011 petition to the SEC proposing the rule has received more than 1 million comments — most of them in favor of the mandate. Supporters of the rule, some of whom demonstrated outside the SEC last week, say that’s the highest number of public comments ever submitted in response to a petition for a SEC rule. That level of public engagement, the proponents say, means the agency must stop delaying and implement the proposal. They also say that as hundreds of millions of dollars flood into politics through anonymous “dark money” sources, the rule is more needed than ever.

 

If adopted, the proposal, written by law professors, would codify and standardize disclosures shareholders have long been requesting from various companies. Those requests have been among the most common proposals at annual shareholder meetings. At the same time, major institutional investors such as the New York state and city pension funds have used their shares to press companies to disclose their political expenditures.
Thanks to that pressure, the Center for Political Accountability reports “almost 70 percent of companies in the top echelons of the S&P 500 are now disclosing political spending made directly to candidates, parties and committees,” and “almost one out of every two companies in the top echelons of the S&P 500 has opened up about payments made to trade associations.” The center calls that a dramatic increase from a decade ago when “few, if any, companies disclosed their political spending.”

In early 2013, the SEC placed the proposal on its regulatory calendar, signaling that the agency would be moving towards a formal rule to make such disclosures a legal requirement rather than a voluntary act.

However, major corporate lobbying groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed comments opposing the proposal. Those lobbying groups represent corporations that would have to disclose their political spending under the new rule — including the budget spent on those lobbying groups themselves. Following the pressure from those groups, the SEC removed the proposal from its calendar.

In combating the proposed SEC disclosure rule, business groups are making a constitutional argument, claiming imposing disclosure rules only on one type of entity — publicly traded corporations — violates the First Amendment. In a 2012 Georgetown Law Journal article, two of the lawyers pressing for the SEC rule countered that claim.

“The court’s First Amendment analysis has long given the SEC considerable deference in the development of rules that provide investors with information necessary to facilitate the functioning of securities markets,” wrote Lucian A. Bebchuk of Harvard University and Robert J. Jackson Jr. of Columbia University. They noted the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision reaffirmed the right of the government to mandate disclosure of political spending.

Though the complex legal arguments are important, this all comes back to the aforementioned question: Should shareholders have the right to know how their money is being spent? That question will ultimately be contingent on the answer to an even more fundamental question: Is the government going to side with shareholders or management?

On the merits, it should be an easy call. But a political system dominated by big money rarely is motivated by the merits of an argument. It is anyone’s guess how or whether the SEC will act.

ABOUT DAVID SIROTA David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado.

ABOUT DAVID SIROTA
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book “Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now.” He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado.