Could this happen? Mortgage broking

Exactly the same arguments (a few rotten apples, nothing to see here, we are proactively self regulating, the media is trespassing on private property, warnings have been issued....) before the greyhound inquiry. Turns out the whole cart is rotten and about to be chucked out.

Conservative mob before metadata retention: Nothing to fear if nothing to hide. Not so confident now, is it ?

It's either the bankers or the brokers; makes no difference personally as long as the system is free from corruption and risk due to fraud. Let the inquiry decide and we can revisit the thread after the result...please convey my best to your broker(s).

 

All I can say is we will be waiting a long time because the inquiry is specifically not looking at mortgage fraud. Go back and read the article at the start of this thread. The inquiry is looking at mortgage brokers, so that won't help uncover mortgage fraud by the banks. But then it is specifically not looking at mortgage fraud. So at the end of the inquiry we will be no closer to knowing the extent of mortgage fraud in this country.

 

All or nothing... again. Your arguement reads like....thousands of over speeding drivers will not be caught, hence there should not be any speed cameras on my route.

A RC is definitely better, but since that is not going to happen in a hurry, partial (roughly one third of OO and more for IPs) mortgage cleanup would have to do.

 

Because I said an inquiry is not looking into mortage fraud, now I don't want speed cameras? Your nonsensical analgies are as ridiculous as they are inacurrate. You are arguing there should be more red light cameras to stop speeders. I am merely pointing out the truth that red light cameras can't catch speeders... just becuase I pointed out the truth that an inquiry that is underway is specifically not looking at mortgage fraud doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with the inquiry. It is a mere statement of fact. I have also raised no opinion on whether banks should be investigated for mortgage fraud. Only that the inquiry that you raised as uncovering mass mortgage fraud is specifically not looking at mortgage fraud. It is not a case of all or nothing... that's just you projecting. I merely pointed out that an inquiry into mortgage brokers that is specifically not looking at mortgage fraud is not going to uncover mass mortgage fraud. Like it or lump it, it's a fact buddy.

As an investor in Australia, I don't want any mortgage fraud but we all know it happens. It puts me at risk and I don't like that. I was wondering how an inquiry might find out about mortgage fraud. It wouldn't be easy but I guess it would be possible. Banks should certainly care more about it because it puts them at risk.

I was wondering what powers a royal commission would have above ACCC, ASIC and APRA. I reckon those have enough power to uncover mortgage fraud but need a political kick up the butt to do it. Time for that kick I reckon. What would happen at a royal commission? People would complain and then the banks called in to give evidence? Would you make the complainers immune from prosecution? There was a reporter on ABC who claimed that her bank inflated her salary on loan documents but then she turned around and signed the loan documents. It is actually the applicant who commits the fraud, if they sign loan documents with inflated figures, so that would be tricky for a royal commission. Of course the ABC asked for evidence that the fraud occurred and then withdrew their claim when evidence could not be provided.

That is my problem with this whole story of mortgage fraud in Australia. There are claims it is widespread but where is the evidence?

 

Brokers provide a valuable service for folks like me (long-term portfolio builders/growers) as we need a 'constant' across a constantly changing lender landscape, that can see our 'bigger picture', and ensure we get into loans and lenders that are right for us - strategically!

I know this first hand because you get to a point of 'maximum borrowing' with your non-cross-collateralised lenders/loans, where most lenders start to say no. Brokers help highlight the risks/rewards, and trade-offs between different finance scenarios.

This is an example where the human touch is vital and technology doesn't always 'win'. I.e. I can load some basic details into a site's calculator to find the best lender for "this loan" (the one I'm doing, right now). But it doesn't understand/accept my historical portfolio nor my future (bold!) portfolio growth ambitions! Nor the intricacy of each and every loan; its purpose, whether it is for a buy-and-hold/set-and-forget, a renovator, a flipper, etc.

Too many intricacies for bots to do well. Human brokers will always be needed IMHO; though I do concede those humans might need more regulation and transparency at times.

 

• Name calling as hardly a convincing argument, if anything it is symptomatic of losing an argument. Incapacity or unwillingness to comprehend an analogy does not detract from its accuracy or relevance.
  
• There is enough evidence for ASIC, APRA and the minister to justify an inquiry into mortgage brokers conduct.
  
• Any unsubstantiated defense of fraudulent conduct does raise concerns of active participation in the fraud at worst or self interest at best.
• Curious that so many brokers on this site do not have an issue with an inquiry into fraud and some have even welcomed it, but you are trying to justify a cover up of the fraudulent conduct by saying "banks are doing it too".

You do not need to be a forensic accountant to cross check the application with the supporting documents and the information held with ATO, Medicare and Centrelink.

See what you have done in just one paragraph "All or nothing again".

• Pretended that you support the RC and then immediately given an anecdotal reference to somehow justify that it would be ineffective because ABC has done XYZ.
  
• Used negative connotations like derogatory language (complainers), violent metaphors (a political kick) to actively discourage further posters from associating with anything that you deem inappropriate.
• Blamed the victim (It is actually the applicant who commits the fraud, signed the loan documents).
• Issued a veiled threat (make the complainers immune from prosecution) of prosecution in this case.

The above psychological traits manifest in almost all your positions including NG, CGT, mortgage fraud, company tax cuts, trust distributions etc. Others also oppose it, but are forthright about self interest if not down right proud of it.

This discouragement of any investigation are standard responses of almost all the corporate criminals (remember RC into child abuse) which any RC or it's terms of reference would be more than capable of accommodating.

• Horse pulls the cart, not the other way around. Inquiry or investigation yields the evidence, because if the evidence is available why would you conduct an investigation.
  
• Look at the sequence of events preceding the inquiry into greyhound industry, to understand when and why is an inquiry conducted .

 

+1 for this, at the moment there is no possibility for mortgage brokers, or new financial planners to give any, even limited personal tax advice. I personally am eligible to be a CTA, but I have no way of getting the one year's tax experience.

 

Simon, you don't need to be a CTA to give tax advice, but a tax agent (or solicitor with a practising certificated). CTA is just a marketing tool, like CPA, but gives no authority to do anything.

 

@Terry_w the one year experience also applies to becoming a registered tax agent. At least that's what the Tax Practitioner's Board told me about a year ago. Happy to be wrong about it!

 

One year required if you have the relevant educational requirements . Otherwise it's 8 years experience in the last 10.

 

York is right

There is a flow diagram here 0458 Do you meet the qualification & experience requirement to be registered as individual tax agent

 

Labeling an analogy as ridiculous is not name calling. You claim that name calling is not an convincing argument and then start calling me names in this post. Losing the argument are you?

Please point to once instance where I have defended fraudulent conduct. What did I actually say? "As an investor in Australia, I don't want any mortgage fraud but we all know it happens. It puts me at risk and I don't like that." Stop spreading lies.

1. where have I stated I have an issue with an inquiry in fraud?
2. how am I trying to justify a cover up of fraudulent conduct?
You are blatantly lying now and I am calling you out on it. What you have done here is create a strawman here to argue against. Why don't you argue against what I have actually said?

"ACCC, ASIC and APRA. I reckon those have enough power to uncover mortgage fraud but need a political kick up the butt to do it. Time for that kick I reckon."

Der. That is me calling for an investigation into mortgage fraud. Why do you insist on twisting the truth in order to form an argument?

Not at all. That is just another one of your lies. I stated "I was wondering what powers a royal commission would have above ACCC, ASIC and APRA." and "What would happen at a royal commission?" none of those statements indicate support for a royal commission.

Wrong again. I simply asked a question. Any assumptions you have drawn from that question are yours, not mine. You seek to represent my views but you are falling very wide of the mark.

- I meant no offence by using the term complainer. If a person has been wronged by the banking industry and lodged a complaint with a royal commission, I see the term complainer as a description, not a judgement call.

- as far as the political kick up the butt goes, are you saying that ACCC, ASIC and APRA are doing a fine job and don't need the government to encourage them to investigate mortgage fraud? Me saying they need a kick up the butt to do their jobs is me supporting an investigation into mortgage fraud. It is a metaphor, not a veiled threat.

Now you are condoning mortgage fraud? I thought you were against it?

Wrong. I simply asked a question. If a person who is a witness at a royal commission admits to breaking the law, should the royal commission make them immune from prosecution or should they make the recommendation the person be prosecuted? It's interesting, since you are so keen on a royal commission, that you can't answer a simple question. Instead you resort to name calling and label me as violent. Dude! I just answered a question.

It's interesting that your standard response is to cry self interest. I challenge you to point in any way where I have defended mortgage fraud. Be honest, what I have I actually said? Lets tackle your lies 1 by 1:
- I have described the current CGT concession as overly generous and something that needs review. That's not defending it.
- I have described mortgage fraud as wrong and stated that it puts me at risk as an investor. That is not defending mortgage fraud.
- I have not defended or supported company tax cuts, I merely corrected an incorrect assumption that you made about revenue dropping if company tax cuts were implemented.
- Show me one statement I have ever made about trust distributions.

Again, I challenge to you point to one post where I have discouraged an investigation into mortgage fraud. That's right, I haven't. In fact, I have called for ACCC, ASIC and APRA to investigate mortgage fraud. Accusing me of being a corporate criminal will not change this fact.

You have a choice. You can be honest, and argue what I have actually stated. Or you can resort to name calling, false accusations, blatant lies and misrepresentations and strawmen like you have done in this post. I would have thought if your position was valid or true, you would not resort to these tactics but that's your choice I guess. I don't mind either way, but if you keep lying and misrepresenting the truth, I will call you out on it every time.

 

You guys are wasting your life debating with each other!

 

Spot on, although 1 poster seems genuine and the other a troll.

 

I'm on holidays and there is nothing on tv

Ya. But which is which?

 

Then do something constructive, go for a run, much more of a mental challenge

 

I am multitasking. But you are right. Looks like you get last right of reply @Skilled_Migrant, so make it a good one. I'm out.

 

Seriously?

Man; you have become the newly elected President of the Offended Club with that one.

 

I think Skilled_Migrant might have been triggered, SJW's have created an entire industry around being offended. They are always worth a laugh.