Farmers buy seed to plant, to make a potential gain at harvest time. To do this, farmers exchange money for seed.

Next these farmers plant seeds, nurtures crop – and just before harvest, a big storms sweeps through and destroys their crops.

Now these farmers have lost potential gains from the loss of their crop. They’ve lost time and wages. And they’ve lost their initial investment in the seed.

Bank creates new money to “lend” to a borrower. Tells the borrower to pay for mortgage insurance.

Borrower “defaults” on loan – bank claims loss on mortgage insurance, but doesn’t tell the borrower. In what way did the bank lose any money, like the farmer lost money?

So the bank tries to double-dip” and steal the house off the borrower to “repay” an amount that didn’t exist… Having made gains from charging interest on money the bank creates…

This analogy of the farmer and the bank portrays the concept of risk, investment, and loss. However, there are some differences in the nature of these losses between the two scenarios.

In the case of the farmers, these farmers suffer a direct financial loss. The farmers bank loans still remain unpaid. They’ve invested money in buying seeds, spent time and effort nurturing the crops… And they expected a return on this investment at harvest time.

When the storm destroys the crops, the farmers lose both the initial investment in seeds and the potential gains from selling the crops.

In the case of the bank, the loss is different, or so they say…

Just because banks create new money when they issue loans, does this mean they don’t suffer a loss when a borrower defaults?

Bank’s Expected Gains/Losses

The bank effectively trades the newly created money for the borrower’s promise to repay, with interest. This expected repayment, including interest, is an asset for the bank.

When a borrower defaults, the bank loses this asset on paper. If the bank can’t recover the full amount through a foreclosure sale, it loses part of the principal loan amount it expected to recover.

The bank may also incur costs during the foreclosure process.

While the bank didn’t lose pre-existing money, it loses value from its balance sheet, which is a form of financial loss…Only to economists and bankers – Not to real small town country folk.

If it ain’t in yer pocket, then it don’t exist!

Now for mortgage insurance… That’s a separate agreement between the borrower and an insurance company. Its purpose is to protect the lender (the bank) in case of default. The bank has the right to claim on this insurance if the borrower defaults.

It doesn’t change the fact that the bank suffers a (potential) loss (of a gain) when the borrower can’t repay the loan.

Well, it does, actually. That’s what insurance is for. So the bank doesn’t suffer a loss. Unless, of course, the insurance company is aware of the fraudulent contract, and doesn’t pay out on the bank’s claim?

The comparison of the farmer and the bank shows different types of losses. No matter what economists and bankers claim, the bank’s loss is not real. But the farmers loss is real.

And that is all part of the illusion around banking – you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

And when bankers get caught out, they run and hide under the skirts of external lawyers to chase up fraudulent mortgage claims…

Farmers Bank Loans & Transparency In Banking

The banking system is built on a series of complex agreements, regulations, and practices that can sometimes seem opaque to those outside the industry. Like farmers and farmers bank loans.

When people feel that banks are not being transparent, or that they’re using complex rules to their own advantage, it leads to  distrust and even resentment.

The sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States, which led to the Great Recession, is a prime example of how these feelings can be validated.

Banks should be transparent in their practices and communicate clearly with their customers about farmers bank loans.

When banks, like any other business, use legal representation in cases of disputes or fraud, it’s often a sign of guilt or an attempt to hide.

Like when the bank fails to respond to numerous requests for evidence. Fails to answer questions, or supply copies of fully audited accounts…

The bank refuses to answer. And then hires external lawyers using threats and intimidation to extort money, to “repay” an unsubstantiated outstanding balance.

Just because a bank or a lawyer says something is true, doesn’t mean it is true. And both lawyers and bank staff fail to provide any evidence, in support of this extortion attempt.

Seek Facts About Farmers Bank Loans

By the bank using external lawyers who are uncooperative, it’s understandable to think they’re evasive and hiding something.

In an ideal scenario, a bank should be able to provide documentation and evidence to support its claims… Especially if they’re pursuing legal action to recover an outstanding balance of farmers bank loans.

The lack of such evidence or willingness to provide it suggests the bank’s position isn’t as strong as they claim.

Okay, so the legal process may be complex. And sometimes parties are advised not to share certain information due to legal strategy.

This doesn’t necessarily mean the bank or lawyer is acting in bad faith.

However, withholding evidence and making false or misleading statements can be criminal offenses. The Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) section 408C, pertains to the offense of “Making a False Statement” and it states:

“Any person who, on any occasion on which a person making a statement is bound by law to tell the truth, makes any statement that the person knows to be false in a material particular is guilty of a crime.”

If a bank or its representatives knowingly withhold evidence or make false or misleading statements in a legal proceeding, this could indeed be a violation of the law.

Of course, in order for a bank to be found guilty of such an offense, it would need to be proven in court that they knowingly withheld evidence or made false statements.

Legal Privilege

If a bank isn’t supplying evidence when it is legally required to do so, it could potentially be because they’re aware that the evidence would not support their claims… Or would incriminate them in some way.

There’s other reasons why a bank might not provide evidence with farmers bank loans .. or any others.

For example, they may believe that the evidence is protected by legal privilege. Or bank staff and lawyers may disagree about what evidence is relevant to the case.

Legal privilege generally applies to communications between a client and their legal counsel. It’s designed to protect the confidentiality of those communications.

Are they claiming legal privilege as the reason?

If that’s the case, do they either misunderstand the concept of legal privilege, or they are using it as an excuse to avoid providing information they’re legally obligated to provide.

  • How can supplying fully audited accounts be “legal privilege”?
  • How can not showing “authorisation and verification of entries on bank statements be be “legal privilege”?
  • How can not following their advertised IDR processes, or complying with NCCP act or Corporations Act, or ASIC/ACCC debt collection rules be “legal privilege”?

There are certain situations where legal privilege may apply, but surely the following list don’t fall under legal privilege:

  • providing audited accounts,
  • showing authorization and verification of bank statements,
  • following advertised Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) processes, and
  • complying with relevant laws and regulations like the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, Corporations Act, and
  • debt collection rules.

This is what happens in the real world. …

Farmers learn this “truth: about Farmers bank loans…

Often a little too late…

Strongest Argument Wins

Bankers lie to their lawyers, lawyers lie to the opposing party. Who ever has the strongest argument wins.

Parties to a legal dispute may try to mislead or misrepresent information to gain an advantage, knowing this can lead to an unfair outcome. As we see in Bates v Post Office.

The legal process has intent of being a fair and impartial system. As you long as you, like banks and large corporations, have no individual personal involvement, deep pockets and unlimited time.

For the rest of us, you discover that both parties don’t have an equal opportunity to present their case. And it’s never evaluated based on the facts and the law, as the Courts claim.

If a party’s intentionally misrepresenting information, this isn’t only unethical, but it also undermines the integrity of the legal system.

There are some lawyers and bankers that don’t (knowingly) engage in unethical behaviour. As seen with the UK Post Office scandal, the rest don’t seem to care…

Where large corporations or institutions are involved, it’s difficult and expensive for individuals to receive fair and equal treatment in the legal system.

The power imbalance between large corporations with vast resources and individuals with limited resources and legal expertise, can lead to situations where justice isn’t served.

Even the response to the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 and its aftermath, didn’t lead to much change in the financial system.

Similarly, with the UK Post Office scandal, individuals responsible may not face adequate consequences.

It’s a common criticism of the legal system, where powerful individuals and institutions are often seen as receiving preferential treatment.

Smoke and Mirrors, & Farmers Bank Loans

Things are not as they seem, and deception or misdirection, through obfuscation and duplicity from the bank and lawyers, hides the truth.

This is particularly relevant in finance and the legal system. Where it’s difficult to see through the smokescreen of complex language, opaque processes, and power imbalances.

“What is, Is not, and What is Not, Is”

It’s a challenge to determine what is true and what is false in these situations. Also it’s frustrating and disorienting, much like Alice’s experience in Wonderland, where the rules of logic and reason seem to be suspended.

The key, is to continue questioning, investigating, and advocating for transparency and accountability. As Alice discovers, things are not always as they seem, and it’s important to look beyond the surface to understand the deeper truths.

Stand strong. Demand the bank supplies you the proof of their claim.

Follow the lead of the banks and their lawyers.

Deny everything. Admit nothing. Ask for proof.

Any questions or concerns, use the comments box below – your details won’t be published. Or email us here.