AARP (and related discussions on Swiss Franc loans) (II)

The thread has gone quiet... looks like we’re hitting that statute of limitations window.
PayPal has started running those ads again—you know the ones—targeting people looking to buy up unfiled claims.
Has anyone actually managed to collect what they're owed through the court system? I mean, how long did the whole ordeal take from start to finish? I know this question has popped up before, but it feels like it just disappeared into a void without any real answers...
It would be honestly wonderful if someone who’s already navigated that legal circus could jump in here and share what their experience was like.

There’s actually a decent amount of lower court rulings out there where people successfully sued their banks over those old Swiss Franc loans and won their money back. AARP regularly posts updates on these kinds of verdicts.
That said, we haven't seen a single decision yet regarding the appeals sitting up at the Supreme Court.
We’re all just waiting for a ruling to come down on some of these specific cases.

I'm really hoping a decision hits before the statute of limitations runs out! If it doesn't, consumers will basically have to take the gamble and file suit themselves.

The tricky part is that if you sue before the deadline and the Supreme Court eventually rules against the idea of getting overpaid amounts back, plaintiffs might have to withdraw their lawsuits and cover the bank's legal fees.

But hey, if a ruling comes through quickly after the deadline—since things have been dragging on forever at the Supreme Court—those legal costs shouldn't be too bad, maybe around $2,200 for attorney fees.

Just wanted to circle back on this one and see if anyone might know... has anyone actually seen a lawsuit involving a Swiss Franc loan go up against Zajednica za bankarstvo?

It’s just about an unconverted loan, nothing's overdue, no extensions, no collections or anything... seems like it should be a pretty straightforward situation, so I'm just not sure what to expect out of it...

Carl Roberts3 said:Just wanted to circle back on this one and see if anyone might know... has anyone actually seen a lawsuit involving a Swiss Franc loan go up against Zajednica za bankarstvo?

It’s just about an unconverted loan, nothing's overdue, no extensions, no collections or anything... seems like it should be a pretty straightforward situation, so I'm just not sure what to expect out of it...

Those unconverted cases win 100% of the time.

Every single week on the AARP Facebook group, you see someone posting about how they finally won a lawsuit against one bank or another—you know, specifically regarding those non-converted Swiss Franc loans. It’s all over the place. Some people get their money back almost instantly, while others are stuck waiting two years just to see the payout. But honestly? If you're holding onto one of those non-converted loans, you really ought to consider suing... because, well, the wins are definitely there.

Carl Roberts3 said:Just wanted to circle back on this one and see if anyone might know... has anyone actually seen a lawsuit involving a Swiss Franc loan go up against Zajednica za bankarstvo?

It’s just about an unconverted loan, nothing's overdue, no extensions, no collections or anything... seems like it should be a pretty straightforward situation, so I'm just not sure what to expect out of it...

I certainly have.

Alright, looks like the odds are super high, thanks everyone for the input...

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

You took out a Swiss Franc loan, and your principal was always denominated in Swiss Francs. They didn't increase the actual amount of the principal in Swiss Francs.
The second mistake you made was opting for the Swiss Franc in the first place—you clearly thought anyone taking out loans pegged to the Dollar or the Euro was an idiot. If you had just gone with a loan tied to the Euro, you wouldn't be in this mess. It is an undeniable fact that the Federal Reserve warned against taking out loans tied to the Swiss Franc because they defend the exchange rate between the Dollar and the Euro, yet plenty of people ignored those warnings.
The only thing that was indisputably wrong with all these loans—whether they were in Dollars, Euros, or Swiss Francs—was that interest rates were subject to the whims of bank executives. The Federal Reserve should never have allowed that. As for the currency clause, there is nothing to debate there. It was legal, regardless of what anyone claims.

Exactly. I took out my loan about two years ago. Back then, the exchange rate was hovering somewhere around 7.34, if I recall correctly. Fast forward two years, and it had climbed to 7.53450. I insisted on sticking strictly to Dollars, regardless of whether the interest rate was 0.1 higher. Now that everything has shifted over to the Euro, looking back makes me wonder. If I had just gone with the Euro from the start, my principal which sat at $135 would have been just $138. Basically, instead of thirty years of payments, I would have spent those first two years just covering that tiny gap in the exchange rate and the interest. Man, where was my head at?

My parents were in the same boat back then. They played it safe and took out their loan in Euros. Meanwhile, my godfather decided to go all-in on a Swiss Franc loan because the interest rates looked so much more attractive at the time. My parents finished paying theirs off without a hitch, but he’s still struggling to keep his head above water because the value of the Swiss Franc shot up almost twofold. I can still hear him bragging about how the Swiss Franc was the smarter move just because the interest was lower...

Walter Thomas18 said:You took out a Swiss Franc loan, and your principal was always denominated in Swiss Francs. They didn't increase the actual amount of the principal in Swiss Francs.
The second mistake you made was opting for the Swiss Franc in the first place—you clearly thought anyone taking out loans pegged to the Dollar or the Euro was an idiot. If you had just gone with a loan tied to the Euro, you wouldn't be in this mess. It is an undeniable fact that the Federal Reserve warned against taking out loans tied to the Swiss Franc because they defend the exchange rate between the Dollar and the Euro, yet plenty of people ignored those warnings.
The only thing that was indisputably wrong with all these loans—whether they were in Dollars, Euros, or Swiss Francs—was that interest rates were subject to the whims of bank executives. The Federal Reserve should never have allowed that. As for the currency clause, there is nothing to debate there. It was legal, regardless of what anyone claims.

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.

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.

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, 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.