Judge Perram

Discussion in 'Living Room' started by Pumpkin, 18th Aug, 2019.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. Pumpkin

    Pumpkin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    734
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Judge roasts ASIC bank crackdown

    The fact that the consumer spends $100 per month on caviar throws no light on whether a given loan will put the consumer into circumstances of substantial hardship. Nor for that matter does knowing that the consumer spends $500 per week on basic food items.” Justice Perram said.

    Do you agree?
     
  2. ellejay

    ellejay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,972
    Location:
    Kimberley and NZ
    Yes absolutely. I figured ASIC are completely useless and this confirms it once again Perhaps this judgement will free them up to investigate the many serial con artists who use their companies to rip people off and destroy lives, or will those issues just continue to be 'civil matters?'
     
  3. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    14,950
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    I thought it was a bit rich for the judge to comment that the mortgagor could just tighten up on their discretionary spending but gave stupid examples. If many have scraped into a loan at max LVR, it may be a toss up between Netflix or free to air or Telstra vs low cost carrier and own phone.
     
    Pumpkin likes this.
  4. willy1111

    willy1111 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    216
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Generally it is a change in circumstance that pushes consumers into hardship, think job loss, health issues impacting ability to work, etc and not having a back up plan for these contingencies, ie no buffers or income/trauma insurance.

    The detailed focus on consumer spending pushed by ASIC is ridiculous and I whole heartedly agree with the judge on that basis.
     
    MWI likes this.
  5. MWI

    MWI Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Jul, 2017
    Posts:
    930
    Location:
    Lower North Sydney NSW
    There's a difference between discretionary spending and on-going bills we need to pay.
    Water, rates, food, insurance etc are bills and some bills will always need to be paid.
    Then there's discretionary spending such as more expensive meat or alcohol or gym or holidays etc... can be adjusted by us, by humans, surely we have been given a brain to use in such matters.
    Hence I agree with the judge I don't wish for a nanny state/world for someone else to tell me how I am to spend on discretionary items, and hence use that assumption against my future loans.
    I can buy less expensive, start walking instead of paying for gym membership, etc...
    Surely we can have faith in our thinking that some of us would make the right choice?
     
    Pumpkin likes this.
  6. Sackie

    Sackie Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    13,426
    Location:
    Bondiliciously Beachy
    Shoulda been 50 million fine to ASIC.
     
  7. Pumpkin

    Pumpkin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    734
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I agree with the Judge.

    My youngest brother used to live be with me. He is 15 years younger.
    He used to buy all branded stuff, dined out and couldn’t even pay his phone bill.
    20 years on, he is now a father of three, and just bought a commercial lot. (Living with parents so no need to buy house, yet)

    So yeah, a mortgagee can meet his/her mortgage payment if he’s/he puts their minds to it. “It’s not what you earn, it’s what you save”!