Thread: The Whyalla steel works must be saved, at any cost

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

You need to sign up to CA.


As does Mr Pickles.

LOL.
Been there, done that, No thanks.
"Mr. Pickles".

Originally Posted by incisor

somehow i doubt the mua has done anywhere near the damage to australians that the bankers have done over decades.

would love to see that same little light mr abbott constantly referred to shone down the money trails of the bankers and financiers.

bet a bit of it leads back to dodgy union hierarchy as well as all sides of government not to mention big business.....

PS
and i might add that after seeing and hearing their reaction, you would have to be mad not too!

For another time and thread Inc, but I would highly doubt it , I just think the MUA did it without the general publics knowledge.


Cheers Ean

Originally Posted by incisor

it may have a little to do with the continual litany of abuse and mistreatment of customers that seems to be in the news over the last few years..

if "looking after your customers" was what they were doing with respect to the storm financials carry on etc etc etc, i would hate to see what not looking after them leads too!

Dave, for sure there's the bad stuff, but there's bad stuff in just about every organization....BUT, don't you think they do good stuff as well, and more particularly, don't you think the good greatly outweighs the bad,......because there's plenty of business owners & home owners that do.
Whether you believe it or not, I can assure you that if it is possible to help a customer, the Bank will do so,....I know, because that was the Dept I worked in, Customers, Accounts etc,....in trouble,....."non performing" is the word.
Well let me tell you, we worked our butts off trying to help ANY customer that needed it, not only for the customer of course, but for ourself,...the last thing we wanted was for the customer, Account etc to fail,,,,,that was no good for the customer & no good for us. Of course, some customers are beyond help, for NO fault of "The Banks",.....but the press vary rarely are interested in that side of those cases.
I've "been there/done that",....for a long time.
Pickles.

Originally Posted by Pickles2

..NB: Don't believe ALL you hear relative to Banks giving someone a "hard time",.....there's ALWAYS two sides, I know, I've been involved in plenty of stuff. And no doubt, some will blame "The Banks" for the issues the subject of this thread, and yet I read somewhere that a week or so ago, someone put forward a "wonder fix" involving the influx of squillions,........but they never even spoke to "The Banks"!

You must have missed this bit from one of the the article linked to in post #140

While neither Arrium nor its now very active banks would discuss the matter, there is informed speculation the selected banks began withdrawing uncommitted short-term funding from Arrium as early as July last year.

The sorts of facilities we are talking about here include letters of credit and the other short liquidity that are critical to greasing the wheels of commerce. Their removal suggests a level of sustained caution that implies a level of self-serving confection to the anger the bank's have started expressing about the aloofness of Arrium management through its progress to crisis.

Yes there are two sides to every story, here's another side.

The directors of any public company have an obligation to announce price sensitive material to all stake holders equally and at the same time. To not do so leaves them open to legal action by those (if any) disadvantaged by treating one creditor differently to another. Hence it's announcement to the the ASX publicly rather than to the banks privately. The banks were unsecured creditors with no special privileges.

banks are there to look after its shareholders.

No. Again, just us directors of public companies have obligations to treat all stakeholders equally so do directors of banks. Shareholders of banks are stakeholders - so are customers.

Originally Posted by Ferret

You must have missed this bit from one of the the article linked to in post #140



Yes there are two sides to every story, here's another side.

The directors of any public company have an obligation to announce price sensitive material to all stake holders equally and at the same time. To not do so leaves them open to legal action by those (if any) disadvantaged by treating one creditor differently to another. Hence it's announcement to the the ASX publicly rather than to the banks privately. The banks were unsecured creditors with no special privileges.

Not entirely correct.
Doesn't matter whether it's secured lending or not. As lenders, the banks, or any lender, are entitled to regular financial reports, whether that be monthly, weekly, daily, or whatever,...they are entitled to it,...and if they don't view it analyse it etc, then they are truly being irresponsible. And, if as a result of that info, if they see any trendings, whether it be good or bad, then they are entitled to increase or withdraw their funding, as they see fit.
Pickles.

Who would have thought a Tory govt in the uk would nationalise part of any industry let alone steel?
Steel crisis: UK willing to take 25% stake in rescue deal - BBC News

Maybe somebody in Canberra could learn a thing or two?