Posts by Casey Cook10

I mean, what can you even say when the government basically lied to protect the banks over at the European Court of Justice?
I guess we just have to keep suing them until they finally sink

Well, isn't that just great. I guess it's nice to see they're still getting things done even while they're out on strike.
I mean, honestly, I feel like they're causing about the same amount of trouble as they do when they're actually working "normally" anyway.

I mean, there's definitely a conflict of interest going on here, but I guess it’s actually a pretty fascinating look into how things work.

Olivia Davis8 said:So, which part is actually illegal here? Is it the variable interest rate itself? Or is it the fact that they’re tied to the Swiss Franc?

I mean, look at us now—we have plenty of loans in US Dollars that also feature variable interest rates.

Basically, any loan issued before 2011 had its rates set by a simple "bank board decision," which makes them totally illegitimate and grounds for a lawsuit if those rates were ever adjusted.

Michelle Nelson4 said:With Hypo, it was actually for a car—more like a lease if we're being technical about the loan type—back in 2007. The Swiss Franc Loan offer was tied to LIBOR, offering a better rate, but I turned it down. At that time, I also had a mortgage from 2005, also through Hypo, but it was in Euros and tied to EURIBOR.
They didn't terminate my contracts. My interest rate fluctuated now and then, and the exchange rate was just what it was. Unilateral termination sounds like something that would definitely be grounds for a lawsuit.

I'm not saying it was easy to find an offer where the interest rate was defined that way, but the main point is that people were publicly warned about the risks of the Swiss Franc multiple times—it wasn't just buried in some obscure corner of a Federal Reserve bulletin. Since most people didn't have a choice in how the interest was structured, they at least got to choose the currency. And you could certainly find competitive rates.

And honestly, I don't see any fundamental difference in the principle of a loan tied to the Swiss Franc versus any other foreign currency. It's like how for a long time, huge amounts of savings weren't kept in Dollars, but specifically in foreign currencies. Does anyone really think banks are smarter than the general public?

So basically, there was exactly one bank that had a clearly defined reference interest rate written right there in the loan agreement.

The others didn't. And even those people complained when the Swiss Franc LIBOR started dropping. Still, they're being sued, so maybe they were doing something else to make sure their rates wouldn't drop down to 2% or less like they should have based on how the Swiss Franc LIBOR was moving.

Here's an example...

Michelle Nelson4 said:Don't be like that—I actually listened!
You are absolutely right; there were plenty of public warnings stating that the dollar was pegged closely to other major currencies and that taking out loans in a Swiss Franc were significantly riskier.
When I walked into the bank to apply for my loan, they tried to pitch me the Swiss Franc option as being "cheaper," but I told them no thanks—I wanted the more expensive one in dollars. They just gave me this look, like, "Oh, so you're choosing the safe route."

The exchange rate barely moved, even dipping slightly for a while, roughly $2.50/USD—but regardless, I was still paying my monthly installments in dollars, calculated precisely based on the current rate, even if the bank ended up receiving a bit less. My interest rate was tied to Euribor, so as Euribor fluctuated, my interest rate changed accordingly. You really have to read the fine print on what you're signing...

When were you actually pulling those funds, and which bank were you using?
Back when those loans were exploding, it was almost impossible to tell how your interest rate was actually calculated or what benchmark it was pegged to. It felt like it just changed "because the bank said so." Honestly, even five years into my payments, I couldn't get a straight answer from anyone. They didn't even bother coming up with a clear formula for new loans until around 2011.

It’s like everyone just rushed into the hype, listing rates as some kind of Swiss Franc LIBOR plus a fixed margin, then they'd just unilaterally tear up contracts once the Swiss Franc LIBOR hit basically zero.

There was actually a discussion about this earlier in this thread...

Richard Taylor3 said: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.

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

Richard Taylor3 said: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.

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?

Walter Thomas18 said:They could have. But they didn't. That’s why the currency clause remained legal.
If it hadn't been legal, every single bank would have pulled those loans almost immediately to avoid penalties. This is precisely why banks have grounds to sue the government for the damages caused by the conversion process.

Another issue was the interest rates. They could be set at whatever level fell within the allowed range based solely on a "decision from the bank management." Those rates lacked transparency for everyone involved. While those specific contract terms could be overturned in court, the currency clause itself could not.

One positive development is that the interest margin is now fixed for the entire life of the loan. This prevents some member of the board of directors from arbitrarily hiking margins just so they can trigger a profit-based bonus for themselves. Fixed interest margins should have been implemented a long time ago.

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.

Richard Taylor3 said: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?

I mean, if they were acting as the regulators, they probably should've just stepped in and banned that whole practice altogether.
If they had the guts to mess with the entire US economy through one-sided moves—like selling off gold reserves or rushing the transition to the Euro right now...—then they definitely could have stopped this too. It makes me wonder why they didn't, I guess...
I bet you were probably up in arms about that, too.

Richard Taylor3 said: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.

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...

Walter Thomas18 said:If you crawled into a cave, then sure, you couldn't hear the warnings. But if you watched TV, read the news, or checked online portals, you absolutely could have been aware. All that does is prove you didn't care about any warnings; you just wanted to sign the contract and get that money into your account as fast as possible.

Even the bank employees themselves were taking out Swiss Franc Loans because they were either careless or simply didn't care what they were signing.

Well, obviously... it was all over the massive billboards.
And Iván Rohatinski mentioned right there in the US Congress where those warnings were supposed to be. I already told you exactly where...

It was basically just the low-level bank staff signing those contracts.
The higher-ups were getting tips.
So, how on earth were the people who were being tipped off supposed to know?

Come on, don't embarrass yourself...
The whole product was broken and compromised from the start, specifically targeted and marketed... Consumers fought back and won their rights in court (including within the European Union).
The fact that certain members of the Democratic Party are shaking things up here at the US Supreme Court is honestly just an embarrassment to the US Judiciary.

I guess you can tell how much influence he should actually have by looking at this...

https://groups.google.com/g/cro-news...sMuR6LQJ?pli=1

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...

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.

Walter Thomas18 said:Interest rates rose because all rates were rising, including savings rates.
Regarding the variable interest rate where changes were made per Bank Board Decision—that was indeed a disaster. But look, if the Swiss Franc had plummeted by 30%, the interest rate would have had to rise above the legal maximum just to keep the debt amount constant. In that scenario, you wouldn't even be able to stay at the same level of debt in USD. Instead, the Swiss Franc shot through the roof, soaring over 40%. If it had crashed that hard, there isn't a legally permissible interest rate in existence that could have offset the loss.

But I guess, whose fault is that? Mine?
The bank really should have figured out how to manage their own supply of those Swiss Francs they were buying with my dollars every single month just to balance their books.

Walter Thomas18 said:Interest rates rose because all rates were rising, including savings rates.
Regarding the variable interest rate where changes were made per Bank Board Decision—that was indeed a disaster. But look, if the Swiss Franc had plummeted by 30%, the interest rate would have had to rise above the legal maximum just to keep the debt amount constant. In that scenario, you wouldn't even be able to stay at the same level of debt in USD. Instead, the Swiss Franc shot through the roof, soaring over 40%. If it had crashed that hard, there isn't a legally permissible interest rate in existence that could have offset the loss.

Wait, which Bank Board Decision are we talking about when it comes to the maximum possible rate???
Back when the Swiss Franc was surging and they were buying it up, LIBOR was basically zero. So, I mean, they just bumped up the portion of the rate that doesn't involve interbank lending...
It's all been laid out already, both in the news and in the US Judiciary...

Don't even try to troll me...

Walter Thomas18 said:Exactly. If the Swiss Franc had "tanked," they would be mocking those who opted for USD or Euro loans instead.

So, after ten years of this nonsense, I guess we’re still stuck listening to the same old nonsense from folks like this.
I mean, if someone is saying this in 2023, they either have no clue what happened or they're basically just a mouthpiece for the big banks.
Let me say this one more time, and really, just this once: the banks protected themselves by using those variable interest rates that they kept hiking without any real logic behind it.
It’s kind of funny, though... when the exchange rate went up, the interest rates didn't drop. They stayed right where they were... or wait, I guess they actually went up? Pretty wild.

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?

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?

What do you mean by "suspended"?
I guess all those proceedings are basically on hold until the Supreme Court of the United States makes their final call.

driftingtinker said:Joe Biden: I'm not signing off on training Ukrainians on US soil

"Look, I'm not behind this idea because I have zero interest in dragging the US any deeper into this war than we already are. We’ve been helpful, we've shown solidarity, and that should be enough. Period. As Commander in Chief, I won't greenlight this. I haven't even seen a formal proposal yet, but let me tell you now—I'm not feeling it. This feels like bringing the war right to our doorstep," Biden said, per CNN.

"I'm telling you right now—let's not go down that road. Now, as for all the stuff people want to donate? That's out of my hands. That's hardware and supplies, which is the administration's call. I'll only back donations if there's some clear plan to get those resources replaced. I can't support gutting our own defense capabilities. American defense comes first. After that... well, nothing else. Then NATO. Then everyone else," he added.

I mean, honestly, we already gave them the gear and let the people in... so I guess they can just go ahead and deal with their own mess now, maybe.

I guess there are some studies out there suggesting that PRP might not actually be any better than a placebo when it comes to treating knees.

Roger Fisher44 said:That’s basically the job description for every politician in Rhode Island.

I mean, some people actually get that picking up trash requires a truck, and trucks need tires and parts and stuff...
But then you have others who just act like it's all some huge burden on the environment.
And they'll go off and spend everyone else's money to study those burdens in places like Nepal or South America...
I bet they probably biked all the way there, too.