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

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.

Casey Cook10 said: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

What you're writing is complete nonsense. Nobody was giving out "tips." At most, someone might have advised someone else that it wasn't a smart move (for the same reasons cited by the Federal Reserve).

Why would it need to be on a billboard? For most people, even that wouldn't have been enough. They'd just complain that nobody warned them personally.

No one in America could have predicted the Swiss Franc would surge like that. No one. Anyone claiming otherwise is foolish because they're giving our banks far too much credit. What happened with the Swiss Franc had nothing to do with our domestic banks, so there was no possibility of some insider "tip." It was just common sense and logic: if you absolutely must borrow, do it in the currency you receive your paycheck in.

The courts issued populist rulings under pressure from politicians (who love populist measures because they secure votes, while costing them nothing since they play around with either public funds or someone else's money).
Speaking of courts, they've ruled on everything from finger-pointing to absurdities. They've handed down all sorts of ridiculous decisions.

Richard Taylor3 said: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.

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."

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?

Yes, it was on TV several times. And in the papers. But nobody gave a damn.
I know of a case where someone took out a Swiss Franc loan to buy TWO apartments, even though they actually had enough cash on hand. Then, later on, everyone acted shocked when that person struggled to meet the monthly payments.

The first and most basic rule is: don't take out a loan if you already have the cash. But apparently, many people think they're smarter than everyone else and ignore expert advice.

Casey Cook10 said: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

🤦
US courts have ruled on all sorts of nonsense, from accounting tricks and shady dealings to property grabbing on the coast and the "adoption" of children from the Congo...

Like I’ve said many times before—everything regarding the interest rates was handled poorly. If the banks had just taken the hit to their profits and compensated the borrowers, it would have been perfectly fine.

fadedfalcon19 said: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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

🤣🤣 You’re calling other people stupid? That is the absolute peak of ignorance right there.
Do us all a favor and actually put in some effort to learn the subject before you come in here barking about things you clearly don't understand... you and Richard Taylor3
don't have a clue what's actually going on.😒

I’m just hoping this whole mess either disappears or those interest rate clauses get wiped out soon so we can finally put this nightmare behind us.

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?

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...

Timothy Mitchell29 said:🤣🤣 You’re calling other people stupid? That is the absolute peak of ignorance right there.
Do us all a favor and actually put in some effort to learn the subject before you come in here barking about things you clearly don't understand... you and Richard Taylor3
don't have a clue what's actually going on.😒

I’m just hoping this whole mess either disappears or those interest rate clauses get wiped out soon so we can finally put this nightmare behind us.

A masterclass in refutation. This post is absolutely overflowing with arguments.🤣

Walter Thomas18 said:🤦
US courts have ruled on all sorts of nonsense, from accounting tricks and shady dealings to property grabbing on the coast and the "adoption" of children from the Congo...

Like I’ve said many times before—everything regarding the interest rates was handled poorly. If the banks had just taken the hit to their profits and compensated the borrowers, it would have been perfectly fine.

That’s spot on. The thing is, 99% of these debtors weren't actually struggling with an extra 1% or 2% on their interest rates; their real nightmare was the exchange rate volatility between the Swiss Franc and the Dollar, coupled with the plummeting value of those properties in USD. If it wasn't for that specific combination, nobody would even be bringing up the interest rates. The rates only popped up on everyone's radar because that double whammy pushed people into such a massive financial hole that they had to turn over every stone to find a way out, which is how those details eventually surfaced.

Anyone can fall into a financial hole; there isn't exactly a law against having bad luck with money.