Posts by fadedfalcon19

Walter Thomas18 said:Read through the nonsense you're writing a few times.

Furthermore, you can always back out of a loan, especially before the funds are actually disbursed. You can even do it later—though in that case, you’ll have to settle the remaining principal amount all at once.

It’ll be quite an interesting spectacle to see what the judges ultimately decide. Maybe it won't happen on the Fourth of July, or maybe some other date would fit the mood better:



I just hope the judges don't act like they're above the law—you know, stepping way outside their bounds. But, at the same time, I hope they show some backbone! Nothing's going to happen to them, after all.

It’s going to be quite an interesting ride seeing how our US Federal Courts ultimately rule on this. Honestly, they really shouldn't feel intimidated—not by big international players, nor by those massive banks, or anyone else for that matter. They just need to hold their ground.
I really hope they take the time to think this through and provide some crystal-clear guidance and interpretation, so we can finally understand exactly how these foreign currencies are being treated under the law.

If I were placing a bet, I’d go with this logic: "No one should be forced to pay for goods or services using barter or trade-offs. As long as the actual exchange hasn't taken place, either party should have the right to change their mind—meaning the provider could demand cash, or the buyer (the one who originally requested the service) could insist on paying in standard currency."
And that would be true regardless of any prior contractual agreements where the buyer might have initially promised to provide a different service or some other kind of goods instead.

Let the judges make their rulings and see where we land.

Technically, nobody is forced to trade goods or services for other goods or services—it’s just money, right?

For instance, let’s say I walk into a coffee shop and sit down with the barista to sign and notarize a little contract. We agree that he gives me a cappuccino, and in exchange, I give him two Swiss Francs. Well, even with a signed agreement in hand, I don't actually have an obligation to provide anything other than cash. I mean, I could just say, "Actually, I'm changing my mind, and I'll just pay you in USD instead," because—let's be honest—while he's busy steaming the milk, I might notice the Swiss Franc just spiked to $1667.
But, of course, the barista notices this too, and now he's threatening to sue me!
If I were him, I’d probably just tell him, "Look, we're out of toilet paper, so here is $5.00 and that contract for the restroom."

And honestly, he wouldn't be able to win a lawsuit based on that contract.
On the flip side, the barista also has the right to "break" our deal and demand USD instead, and I wouldn't be able to sue him for that either.

I suppose the only real issue is that once a barter-style exchange like that actually happens... well, I think there's no going back from that.

Olivia Davis8 said:I feel like you’re completely missing the point here. It’s like you’ve never even stepped foot inside a Bank to withdraw cash in USD. You sign a contract for a Swiss Franc loan, you receive those Swiss Francs, and then you pay them back in Swiss Francs. But since you can't exactly walk into a grocery store and pay for milk with Swiss Francs, you have to convert them into USD first. You borrow Swiss Francs, you repay Swiss Francs... and that’s exactly why the interest rates were so much better back then—because the Swiss Franc was basically the gold standard of stability.

Just take a look at your contract. It clearly states you're taking out a loan for a specific amount of Swiss Francs... nowhere does it say you're borrowing an amount in USD...

The only thing being returned is the money; everything else—goods or services—is something you pay for.

Now, sure, goods or services can be returned, but usually only under extraordinary circumstances—you know, things like fraud or severe breaches of a sales contract or legal obligations.

In this context, the Swiss Franc itself is essentially the commodity you're paying for, and the loan is the service provided by the Bank, which also carries a price—specifically, whatever rate the provider (the Bank) and the client (the buyer) agreed upon.

Trying to return goods or demand a refund for a service is pretty much pointless unless there was a massive failure to meet the terms of the agreement.
What gets returned is strictly the money.

I highly doubt that any of these clients ever even laid eyes on actual Swiss Francs—which means they probably didn't have much chance to sit down and weigh their options, like whether they should sell those Swiss Francs, maybe fly over to Switzerland to invest them, tuck them under a mattress, or just leave them sitting in a Bank account.
Instead, everyone basically sold those Swiss Francs right back to that same Bank the very second they got them.

Walter Thomas18 said:You didn't sign anything stating the Swiss Franc exchange rate would remain at $1.00 for the whole repayment period.
Besides, the Swiss Franc was never $1.00 anyway.
If the Swiss Franc had fallen to $0.33, and your annuity was 500 Swiss Francs, you would be paying the Bank $167 every month, not $500. You clearly have no idea what you signed, though I shouldn't be surprised. Nearly 100% of people have no clue what they are signing; they just care about getting that money into their account as fast as possible.

Well, look, nobody can be legally forced to pay for goods or services using other goods or services (and yes, that includes foreign currencies)—it has to be money, specifically USD or EUR.

The Bank offered a service to lend Swiss Francs at a specific price, and I am paying for that service—or that "banking product," as the banks love to call it—exclusively in USD/EUR based on the agreed-upon rate.
There is no changing the price of the service—the product the client is paying for.
I’m certainly not paying with any other kind of counter-service or goods (including a foreign currency).

The Bank can only demand the return of those Swiss Francs if there's a severe breach of contract caused by the client's malicious intent through their own exclusive fault.
And if a client does the right thing and notifies the Bank that, say, they lost their job and won't be able to make payments for a while, that isn't a reason to terminate the agreement either.
It's especially not a reason to terminate if the client's failure to pay was actually triggered by the Bank's own actions—perhaps as a way to later squeeze clients out of their real estate and assets.

If the Swiss Franc had fallen to $0.33, I would still be paying according to the initial agreement at a price of, say, $1.00.
In any case, that same Bank bought back those very same Swiss Francs they lent out the very second they could at a price of $1.00, and they could have sold them for 7-$2.75.
The banks never once suggested, nor did they advise clients to try selling those Swiss Francs themselves at perhaps a more favorable rate, giving the client the choice to either sell them back to the Bank at $1.00 or hold onto them to pursue their own interests.

Conversions into USD/EUR should only happen if it’s actually more favorable than the original terms of the Swiss Franc loan.
Banks must return extorted money.

By the way, I have this nagging feeling—though I could be wrong—that the big banks made their absolute highest margins from the folks they were lending to at $1.00.

I mean, I highly doubt anyone actually asked the bank to just hand over a pile of Swiss Francs so they could go out and buy USD themselves, or maybe fly off to Switzerland to chase interest rates there.

It seems much more likely that everyone just sold those borrowed Swiss Francs back to the exact same bank at $1.00 in exchange for USD deposited right into their accounts.

Then, the bank could just turn around and sell those same Swiss Francs again at something like 7-$2.75.

The banks probably had a rougher time when they were borrowing Swiss Francs at $2.25, because then the same bank would end up buying back those very same Swiss Francs from the client at $2.25, without being able to flip them for a significantly higher price later on.

Olivia Davis8 said:You bought something back when it cost three bucks, and now it costs $2.00... I don't know how hard this is to wrap your head around. You took out a Swiss Franc loan, not a USD loan. That means if you borrowed 10,000 Swiss Francs, you owe exactly 10,000 Swiss Francs, regardless of what that actually costs you in the end. It could have just as easily happened that the Swiss Franc dropped to a single dollar..

Look, I bought a house for 50,000 USD, and now that house is worth 100,000 USD. Does that mean I suddenly owe the Bank 100,000 USD just because the market value went up? Of course not. I still owe exactly 50,000 USD. I took out my loan in USD, so I dodged the whole currency headache entirely, but I think you get the point.

I borrowed dollars and I paid back dollars. My dad borrowed Euros, used his dollars to buy those Euros, and paid them back. You guys chose the Swiss Franc, and nobody stopped you from just tucking those 10,000 Swiss Francs away in a drawer. You paid them $10, and then a few years later, they were worth 60,000 USD..

I know a guy who had an aunt sending him 300 Swiss Francs every month into his account (he lost his parents early on). He never touched a cent of it. In the end, he ended up sitting on a mountain of cash because the Swiss Franc shot up. He had savings held in Swiss Francs..

Well, sure—but only based on the price we actually agreed upon for the entire duration of the loan repayment period for that good or service.
If the Swiss Franc had plummeted to $0.33, I’d still be paying my Swiss Francs at the $1.00 rate, assuming that's what we shook hands on—and honestly, it's entirely up to the seller's good nature if they decide to give you a discount or not.

Now, canceling a contract and asking a seller to take back the goods or services—well, that really only applies if the client is solely, and I mean exclusively, at fault, or perhaps acting in bad faith by failing to pay for what they received.

Olivia Davis8 said:Look, anyone who took out a Swiss Franc loan was essentially just paying back Swiss Francs. You weren't actually handing over USD every month; you were just using your monthly paycheck to buy whatever chunk of Swiss Francs was needed to cover the payment. If the whole thing had flipped the other way, I doubt people would have complained nearly as much...

The thing is, the Swiss Franc is basically a commodity—it’s something I pay for or settle my debt with every single month at the set price $1.00 (or maybe even lower!) until the loan is gone, regardless of what the current market rate for the Swiss Franc happens to be.

Banks really ought to explain themselves to the people who entrusted them with those Swiss Francs—their actual property—and justify why they were trading around with it.
And if it turns out the bank was using money from American savers to buy up Swiss Francs—basically swapping USD for Swiss Francs because they thought they could profit from a spike in the currency—then those banks need to answer to their depositors and the courts, because predatory practices like that are straight-up criminal.
Instead, they should probably take that money and invest it back into the community—you know, things like schools, daycare centers, universities, roads, and basic infrastructure.

Those folks who took out their Swiss Franc loans at the rate of $1.00 have been paying them back at that exact same rate throughout the entire term.
Honestly, they played it smart—props to them, really.

Now, those who borrowed at the $2.25 rate? Well, they’re repaying their Swiss Francs at that specific price point. If the banks decide to be generous and lower the rate, that’s entirely up to them, I suppose, but they aren't obligated to do so.

The bank shouldn't be hiking up the price or unilaterally tearing up a contract if the client is staying current with their payments.
And look, if someone falls behind because interest rates spiked or the value of the Swiss Franc shifted, that shouldn't give the bank an excuse to cancel the deal.
What should happen is a reset—basically, declaring the contract valid based on that original agreed-upon rate and interest for the Swiss Francs. Then, if the client *still* fails to pay after that, maybe then the bank can step in and demand the Swiss Francs back.

If the bank itself is the reason a loan goes into default, then our US courts simply shouldn't let them get away with terminating those contracts.

Raising interest rates on foreign currency loans just isn't right—it feels like a retroactive price hike on a service mid-stream, which, if you ask me, borders on extortion or outright racketeering.

As for domestic currency like the Dollar or the Euro—I'm not entirely sure, I guess there might be some special regulations that allow for adjustments within certain limits.

Walter Thomas18 said:What kind of nonsense are you peddling regarding the Swiss Franc? I truly hope you don't actually believe the garbage you just typed, and that you're only spouting this drivel out of pure bitterness.

Well, personally, I’m holding out hope that the USA and the Supreme Court can find the backbone to look at this whole mess and finally put an end to this kind of extortion and shake-down—even if those responsible try to hide behind layers of complex morality or legal technicalities and whatnot.
It isn't even really about my own situation, per se; it’s more about making sure future generations have some semblance of stability in our institutions.

The same logic applies to any service, right? For instance, if I rent a car and we agree on $20 a day—say, for a 10-day trip—the rental agency can't just turn around and say, "Hey, I could rent this car for $40 now, so let me be a pal and give it to you for $30 instead."
But, theoretically, a seller *could* say, "You know what, I know we agreed on $20, but I want to be fair, so how about $10?"

And that's exactly how it works with banks and the Swiss Franc. Either clients bought the currency (Swiss Francs) or they took out a Swiss Franc loan. In either scenario, the seller—meaning the service provider—should only be able to adjust the price or the payment terms in a way that favors the client compared to what was originally agreed upon.

For example, if a client bought or borrowed Swiss Francs at a rate of $1.25, the provider (the bank) can only choose to lower the price during the repayment period if they feel like it—but they absolutely should not be allowed to raise it. Of course, they aren't obligated to lower it, but once they do drop the price, those become the new terms, and they shouldn't be allowed to hike them back up again.

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.

Richard Taylor3 said:You signed the contract agreeing to the terms. Why should American taxpayers be stuck footing the bill for your bad investment calls?

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?

If someone keeps their Swiss Francs in an American bank, that bank isn't supposed to be playing around with them or lending them out—it’s basically just being held in custody, right?
The bank agrees to hold onto those funds—which, granted, is totally in their interest—but they really need to understand that the whole point is simply to keep them safe.

It’s the same logic for anyone who wants their Swiss Francs to actually be invested where they were originally earned—meaning they'd trust the specific investment firms and banks located within the Swiss Confederation to handle things properly.

In the US, I suppose banks and other financial institutions should really only be acting as custodians for Swiss Francs and other foreign currencies.

rowdyraven292 said:The Supreme Court's recent ruling on those converted loans was pretty disappointing, but honestly, nothing is settled yet. I'm still holding onto a lot of hope that the Supreme Court will eventually make the right call. Most of the judges seem to agree that consumers really should be entitled to that payout!

Just a heads-up: the statute of limitations hits in June this year! If you haven't filed suit for your non-converted loans yet, you seriously need to move fast... success is looking very likely!

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.