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

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.

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...

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.

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

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..

Look, let’s not pretend we don't know what happened here. If everything had actually been handled by the book, people wouldn't be walking away with winning court rulings right now. Think about it—you take out a $120,000 Swiss Franc loan, you dutifully pay it down for eight years (on a twenty-year term), and somehow, you end up owing more in Swiss Francs than the day you signed the papers—not to even mention how much worse it looks when you convert that back to USD. "By the book," my foot. We weren't even considered creditworthy enough to get a standard USD loan, but suddenly, miraculously, we were perfectly qualified for a Swiss Franc loan? It just doesn't add up. IF YOU HAVEN'T FILED A LAWSUIT YET AND YOU DIDN'T CONVERT YOUR LOAN, YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED TO DO SO. I filed mine, and I won. My only real regret is that I didn't jump on it sooner to cover the first part of the claim. Honestly, the process wasn't even that long—it took about two and a half years from filing to actually getting paid. Plus, you don't have to worry too much about massive upfront costs, because the lawyer's fee ends up being covered by the settlement itself.

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.

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.

I took out a Swiss Franc loan back in 2005, mostly because at the time, my Bank wouldn't even give me any other options; it wasn't some greedy move to chase lower interest rates, there just weren't any alternatives on the table. But well, what happened, happened. Now, I’m just looking for what’s rightfully mine—just compensation for the damage done, nothing more. Honestly, if the Democratic Party had stayed in power, this whole mess probably would have been settled ages ago, but the current administration is too tied up with the banks and doesn't want to rock the boat. When you factor in the corrupt judges who seem to be in the pockets of these big financial institutions through every means imaginable, the whole situation becomes pretty obvious. So, I filed my lawsuit against the Bank, and I plan to sue them for every single cent I can, because I truly believe justice will eventually prevail.

SUE THEM.

I took out a loan about two years ago. At the time, I had to clear my overdraft, dump some cash into the account, and actually trim down the principal because I wanted everything settled in USD. You’ve got to borrow based on what you can actually afford. Back then, a Swiss Franc loan was way cheaper than anything in Euros.

You should never have even factored in paying it back in dollars. If you borrow Swiss Francs, you pay back Swiss Francs...

I remember this professor once told me—always take out a loan in whatever currency you get your paycheck in.

It’s just like buying a car—don't go picking up a ride that costs more than what a guy making minimum wage pulls in.

Everyone had a choice in this. It feels like the government is just buying time in court, dangling a little hope that maybe someone won't end up footing the bill.

Dr. Dexter said:Everything was strictly legal at the time. Later, under pressure from you debtors, the laws were amended to allow for conversion—all in that classic "socialist" style where everyone shares the burden. Your own mistakes are being footed by the taxpayers, and now you have the audacity to ask them for even more. Your shamelessness knows no bounds, and I sincerely hope the Supreme Court rejects every single one of your claims.

If everything was so perfectly legal, how is it that people who DIDN'T convert are winning their cases in court? The courts have already ruled that those unfair contract terms—specifically the Swiss Franc currency clause and those unilaterally variable interest rates—are invalid. Those of you arguing otherwise should probably look into some legal precedents. As for the conversion itself, it remains a point of contention only for the banksters who refuse to hand back stolen money and protect their precious bonuses. This has been proven countless times through calculations provided by certified court experts. Unless, of course, the experts are also part of some grand socialist conspiracy.

Building on that supposed "legality" of banking practices, those who took out loans in Euros back then are also filing lawsuits because the banks unilaterally changed their interest rates. Unfortunately for the Euro holders, they haven't seen much litigation, likely thanks to shady operators like you.

And finally, can you provide a single shred of evidence to support the claim that taxpayers have paid for anything related to this Swiss Franc mess? Bohaček, is that you?

frozencanyon14 said:Look, let’s not pretend we don't know what happened here. If everything had actually been handled by the book, people wouldn't be walking away with winning court rulings right now. Think about it—you take out a $120,000 Swiss Franc loan, you dutifully pay it down for eight years (on a twenty-year term), and somehow, you end up owing more in Swiss Francs than the day you signed the papers—not to even mention how much worse it looks when you convert that back to USD. "By the book," my foot. We weren't even considered creditworthy enough to get a standard USD loan, but suddenly, miraculously, we were perfectly qualified for a Swiss Franc loan? It just doesn't add up. IF YOU HAVEN'T FILED A LAWSUIT YET AND YOU DIDN'T CONVERT YOUR LOAN, YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED TO DO SO. I filed mine, and I won. My only real regret is that I didn't jump on it sooner to cover the first part of the claim. Honestly, the process wasn't even that long—it took about two and a half years from filing to actually getting paid. Plus, you don't have to worry too much about massive upfront costs, because the lawyer's fee ends up being covered by the settlement itself.

You're talking nonsense. After 8 years, you are certainly owing less than 120,000 Swiss Francs if you are looking strictly at the principal. Secondly, you clearly don't distinguish between principal and interest. When you add them together, the total debt can indeed be higher than the original principal amount. But that applies to everyone, regardless of whether they took out a USD, EUR, or Swiss Franc loan. Unless you took out an interest-free loan, the total debt will remain above the initial principal after your first payment (or annuity, since most chose annuities anyway).

fadedfalcon19 said: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.

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.

Let me try to wrap this all up— YOU ALL NEED TO SUE IF YOU DIDN'T CONVERT THOSE LOANS!
Don't fall for that nonsense about how American taxpayers will end up footing the bill if you take action against the banks. Honestly, if you sue the banks, all you're really doing is cutting into their unfairly gained profits and shrinking those massive million-dollar bonuses they hand out to their executives. People are winning these lawsuits in droves. I actually know a few people who went through it—anyone who sued while holding an unconverted Swiss Franc loan came out on top. One acquaintance of mine walked away with $300,000 in damages... just think about how much money is being illegally drained from the economy this way. But what’s truly heartbreaking isn't the money—it's the families who have been absolutely devastated and left without a home because of this. And the worst part? The people hit hardest probably won't even sue because they're just struggling to make ends meet as it is. If we actually lived in a functional rule-of-law nation, this would be handled automatically, and everything taken would just be returned to you.

The other day I was reading about how Silicon Valley Bank collapsed over in the US—and get this—just days before the crash, they were still handing out regular bonuses while facing catastrophic losses, leaving everyone else completely broke. Don't be naive.

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.

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...

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.

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.

fadedfalcon19 said: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.

You are writing nonsense and insisting on it. If you write a lie five times, it doesn't become the truth.
You borrowed a specific amount in Swiss Francs, and you must return that exact amount. You agreed to a Swiss Franc currency clause (it wasn't prohibited, despite what is written or the fact that many don't understand what it means), which means you accepted the risk that comes with it. If the exchange rate for the Swiss Franc had fallen to $0.33 per 1 Swiss Franc, you would have paid back exactly at that rate, not the initial one. Why are you lying or talking about something you clearly have no clue about? When I see what you write, I start to believe some people truly have no idea what a currency clause means. They need a guardian.

Walter Thomas18 said:You are writing nonsense and insisting on it. If you write a lie five times, it doesn't become the truth.
You borrowed a specific amount in Swiss Francs, and you must return that exact amount. You agreed to a Swiss Franc currency clause (it wasn't prohibited, despite what is written or the fact that many don't understand what it means), which means you accepted the risk that comes with it. If the exchange rate for the Swiss Franc had fallen to $0.33 per 1 Swiss Franc, you would have paid back exactly at that rate, not the initial one. Why are you lying or talking about something you clearly have no clue about? When I see what you write, I start to believe some people truly have no idea what a currency clause means. They need a guardian.

You’re honestly acting like you don't get it—we borrowed CHF (nobody is arguing that part), the value of the CHF shot through the roof, and during that SAME PERIOD, the bank kept hiking interest rates (in my case, FOUR different times!!!). And you're telling me that was fine and legal? Well, in our corrupt system, they actually say it isn't. The proof is in the sheer number of people who sued their banks and actually won.

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN: if you haven't sued your bank yet and you were stuck with a non-convertible loan, you better do it, because you're almost certainly going to win.