Posts by Richard Taylor3

Casey Cook10 said:You're spot on.
Maybe you could tell us which specific document actually gave you that heads-up?

I just got that info from a quick sixty-second chat with a loan officer at the bank—we were talking about Euro loans. Honestly, this whole thing with the Swiss Franc Loans smelled fishy from a mile away... it didn't even make sense to bother walking into the branch.

Casey Cook10 said:I mean, just think about it... how much specialized knowledge is an average client actually expected to have, and why on earth should they be expected to realize that one of the main factors driving the product's price can just change totally at random?

Look, I think every single client needs to sit down and really digest all the loan terms before they sign anything. I remember this one time—I went into my local bank to ask about some specific loan conditions, and honestly, it took me less than a minute to realize exactly what you're talking about here. That realization was the whole reason I decided not to take out the loan at all. I’m definitely not a lawyer or some high-level economist or anything, but even so... all the crucial stuff should be easy enough to figure out if you're looking for it.

Casey Cook10 said:Well, it was so "legal" that even the US Federal Courts ended up deciding it wasn't.
The banks aren't even suing based on that specific argument. I guess you're just talking nonsense here.

The whole thing was basically just a product of the Wild West era we were living through back then. If it weren't for the Swiss Franc situation, this entire sector probably wouldn't be as heavily regulated as it is today.

Up until 2011, these guys couldn't even explain how they calculated interest rates on those loans—not just for the Swiss Franc ones, but for everything else too. People really should be suing over that, but I suppose nobody is pushing them to do it except for AARP.
They only finally cooked up some formulas in 2011, which, honestly, just ended up screwing themselves over in the end.

The bottom line is, you agreed to all their terms, no matter how sketchy they were. You changed your mind later and decided you didn't agree, even though you already signed your name to it.

Walter Thomas18 said:Either him or that Smajo guy, I can't recall anymore.
The bottom line is they played games, thought they were clever, and lost. It reminds me of some user on this forum who was tearing into a service provider because they came after his assets. What did he actually do? He signed up for the most expensive plan just to get the high-end phone at a massive discount—back when phones in those top tiers were ridiculously cheap. But he never even put the new SIM card in a phone; he just kept using his old SIM and his old number. This guy genuinely believed he wouldn't have to pay the subscription fee since he wasn't technically using the new number with the premium plan. He thought he found a loophole to snag an expensive device for nothing. Then, once the collectors showed up, he crawled onto the forum to trash the provider, whining about how they had violated his Constitutional Law and other nonsense. He refused to listen to anyone else's logic because, in his own mind, "he is right."

I guess you could say... business as usual.👍
If you had actually finished typing your post, you probably would have realized what was going on.

Casey Cook10 said:Well, maybe go settle that with the government then, since they seem so willing to play ball with international arbitration while ignoring our own US and EU legal systems...
I guess we should just vote for someone who might actually make us less dependent on the big banks...
They should just go ahead and publish that settlement... along with the deals for JT, ExxonMobil, and everything else for all we care...

Look, I don't have anything to settle with the government—it's enough for me just to vote against the Democratic Party.

Casey Cook10 said:So, they just dropped a single little line in their own newsletter? Wow, what a massive warning right there.
I mean, I guess you have to wonder if they ever actually told their tellers above a certain level to steer clear of those loans. Most of the folks working at the counters probably didn't give a damn...
And the branch managers? Not a chance.

Plus, with how they handled collateral requirements—like not requiring guarantors, for instance—it feels like they were subtly nudging everyone right toward those exact loans.

That’s just not true—Vujcic actually warned people about the dangers of the Swiss Franc Loan multiple times, even on national TV. But I guess nobody was really listening, you know? Everyone was too focused on how low the interest rates were, which was clearly the only thing that mattered at the time. Who honestly cares about a few warnings when money is cheap?

Walter Thomas18 said:The Federal Reserve did react—they warned people against taking out loans with a Swiss Franc currency clause.

Of course you received the equivalent in Dollars; back then, the Dollar was the legal tender in America. That doesn't mean you weren't allowed to buy foreign currency; it just means you couldn't legally use those foreign funds to pay bills in the US. That is why the Swiss Franc was converted to Dollars at the rate on the day of disbursement. Consequently, you pay your annuities in Swiss Francs based on the rate on the day of payment. If the Swiss Franc had dropped, you would have paid fewer Dollars. But it didn't drop; it rose, and our banks had absolutely no influence over that. Anyone who thinks they did is giving our banks far too much importance.
When you take out a loan with a currency clause, you are essentially "betting" on the exchange rate (hoping it stays stable or that the foreign currency loses value). You lost the bet, and now you're blaming everyone else.
If the Swiss Franc rate had fallen, you would have been celebrating. One of the loudest voices in the "Swissman" case was trumpeting about how he screwed the banks because he took out a Swiss Franc loan and used it to close his debt in Dollars or Euros—I can't remember which. He thought he was brilliant, but he turned out to be quite foolish. Later, he claimed he didn't understand what a currency clause meant. Please...

I’m pretty sure that was Aleksic. He actually ended up becoming one of the main leaders of that massive crusade that eventually led to that law where every single taxpayer in the USA had to foot the bill to compensate the banks during the conversion process. It was a pretty slick move on their part—they worked right alongside the Democratic Party to pull it all off perfectly.

Casey Cook10 said:I mean, I'm just wondering how the average taxpayer even gets pulled into a legal battle between a client and a bank in the first place, maybe?

Well, look, the Banks actually took the government to international arbitration courts. And since those courts would have almost certainly ruled in favor of the banks, the government ended up settling with them behind closed doors—it was all kept strictly confidential. I mean, why else would they keep it secret? And if you ask me, who do you think covered the losses caused by the government's conversion law? It wasn't just magic; someone had to pay the bill.

fadedfalcon19 said:Let's just hope the Supreme Court and all our other federal institutions—and even the US itself, really—find the backbone to say "enough" to this kind of extortion and shake-down, if only for the sake of the next generation.
The United States has to find the strength to finally put an end to this racketeering, including the kind that seems to be happening right within our own institutional framework.
Honestly, I don't care if half the major banks—or even all of them—go belly up in the process.

Most people already signed off on those deals involving Božić's firm, but it seems like the politicians couldn't care less, and the bankers? They aren't lifting a finger either.

The actual customers—those folks who took out those Swiss Franc loans—never agreed to have the Swiss Franc treated like an American currency, nor do they recognize anything other than the US Dollar as the one and only legal tender on American soil.

Personally, I’m hoping the Supreme Court rejects every single one of your claims for all eternity—just so we can at least salvage what's left after that whole mess was cooked up somewhere back in 2015.

fadedfalcon19 said:Look, the loan was originally issued in US Dollars—well, now it’s all Euros, I suppose. If someone took out, say, $100,000 worth of Swiss Francs and the repayment schedule is set in Swiss Francs, then we're really just talking about buying a commodity and paying for it in installments.
The commodity here is the Swiss Franc.
When you buy something on credit, the seller doesn't just hike up the price later—though, I guess they could choose to lower it if they felt like it.
Nobody forced the banks to act like currency traders or play around with foreign exchange.
In fact, if anything, a bank has a moral obligation to protect the assets people entrust to them.

We really need to dig into where those Swiss Francs actually came from and how the banks even ended up with them in the first place.
I mean, who on earth was offering a 7-$2.75 exchange rate for Swiss Francs when the local exchange offices were only giving 3 or 4?

Look, your loan had that Swiss Franc currency clause, and you happily signed on the dotted line, probably laughing at the people who were choosing loans in Euros. Now, everyone else is stuck picking up the tab for your debt—especially the people who never even took out a loan themselves. It’s almost poetic, isn't it? It feels like pure communism.

briskcanyon12 said:This is exactly my take; I sign off on everything said here, word for word!

I assume everyone is aware of this, but let’s be real: when the political landscape shifted, it handed these institutions a lifeline to cover for their own disastrous decisions. It’s the classic double standard: everyone loves capitalism when it’s time to pocket the profits, but the moment it’s time to swallow the losses, suddenly everyone wants someone else to foot the bill. In this case, we're all paying for them through hiked interest rates and various banking fees, because a bank will always find a way to pass their unplanned expenses onto us.

If the Swiss Franc had weakened or stayed flat with lower interest rates, and the crisis hadn't hit, everyone would have been laughing at the "idiots" who played it safe with Euro-denominated loans, asking, "Why didn't you just go with the Swiss Franc?!" But while the Swiss Franc was weakening and monthly payments were temporarily lower, everyone kept their mouths shut and smirked about how brilliant their choice was.

The sheer scale of human hypocrisy and audacity is truly immeasurable.

Exactly. Honestly, most of the people complaining here really just want every other taxpayer to pick up the tab for their own mistakes. They chased lower interest rates without having any real clue about finance or investing, and now they want a bailout. This whole conversion process is easily one of the biggest screw-ups in American history, and it was pushed through by the Democratic Party, who apparently think this kind of thing is perfectly fine.

fadedfalcon19 said:Look, I don't know about the specific ruling, but the Supreme Court really needs to treat anything that isn't the US dollar as a mere commodity or service.

In the US, we don't have loans in Swiss Francs—everything is handled in US dollars (well, though we use various currencies globally, our domestic standard is the dollar).

The US dollar is the currency here; everything else is essentially just a good or a service (including foreign currencies, I suppose).

Think about it this way: if I buy a car and work out an installment plan with the dealer, the dealer can't just turn around later and say, "Hey, I can sell this car for more now, so I'm raising your price. Your next payment is going up by 10%."
That is what you call extortion—it's an arbitrary price hike on a good or service that has already been paid for or at least agreed upon via installments.

The exact same logic applies to the Swiss Franc or any other foreign currency.

Regardless of whose interests are being served here—there shouldn't be any compromise, even if it means the bank wins or the customers go bust.
You just can't legalize extortion.

If a bank offered Swiss Franc loans, then they were essentially selling a product in installments to someone who wanted those Swiss Francs.
In that scenario, converting those Swiss Francs into US dollars (since that's what the client actually ended up with) was simply a currency exchange service provided by the bank.
The bank offered Swiss Francs at a rate of $1.00, 5 or $2.00 per 1 Swiss Franc, and the client pays back equal installments for the "good" they received (the fact that they swapped that "good" for dollars at the same bank doesn't really change the core issue). Period.

Let's just hope the Supreme Court stays firm and makes it crystal clear that clients shouldn't be subjected to this kind of extortion, regardless of external pressures.

You signed the contract agreeing to the terms. Why should American taxpayers be stuck footing the bill for your bad investment calls?