I Am Sick of The Big Banks Not Passing The Full Rate Cut

Hotpotcorn on 02/08/2016 - 15:31

today the rba has cut the rates to a historic low of 1.5% and afterwards commbank announced that they will only cut it by 0.13%….. where is the other 0.12%???!!! what a disgrace! Can any economists here explain to me why the big banks dont usually pass the full rate cut by the RBA or is it just that they are greedy? i am seriously about to switch banks.

and also why make us wait until August 19 to come into effect, when RBA lifts you do it next day!!!! Oh wait forgot the millions your going to make in the next few weeks until you do drop it

Financial

Related Stores

Reserve Bank of Australia
Reserve Bank of Australia

Comments

  • dannyhc on 02/08/2016 - 15:39
    +80

    Banks are not a charity, Usury is now legalised, welcome to debt slavery without any end in sight.

    • RocketSwitch on 03/08/2016 - 09:39
      +7

      That's how the system is designed, to keep people working almost all their lives, so life is designed, from school to get ready to work, to have a debt that would most likely take your whole life to pay off.

      Banks are not a charity, of course, as long as they continue to make billions in profit, but now, all banks won't pass it on, so people won't go looking elsewhere.

      • skyva on 03/08/2016 - 22:51
        +9

        You don't need to go into debt.
        Don't buy an iphone every 2 yrs on a plan, don't buy a new car on a loan. Don't drink booze or smoke.

        Put all your savings into bank shares. By the time you are 40 you will have lots of money.

        Or use debt to your advantage.

        Banks don't borrow from the government so there is no direct connection. Free market rules.

        Oh, and is it just me, or was the RBA interest rate meant to reflect risk: the higher the rate the more risk a govt wouldn't be able to repay. Surely that connection is broken when we consider that the interest rate now drops when the RBA thinks the economy and govt is more at risk now than when rates were higher.

        • wozz on 04/08/2016 - 04:21
          +8

          +1
          Sick of people complaining they can't enter the housing market or they don't have any money, yet every year they get a brand new phone & insist on buying new cars…

        • Powershopz on 04/08/2016 - 08:53
          +21

          @wozz:

          Yes, there certainly are people like this and they should suck it up and work hard or reduce their expectations and entitlements.

          However…

          There is also the fact that buying a house now is 3-4 times more expensive (median house price/median wage ratio) than it was 30 years ago.

        • Slippery Otter on 04/08/2016 - 12:54

          @wozz:

          I'm in my mid 20s and i'm the minority or outsider with my friends or when I socialise wth others. It seems like our generation just wants to have fun whilst it lasts…

        • [Deactivated] on 04/08/2016 - 16:35
          +3

          @Powershopz:

          There were no mobile phones 30 years ago.

          You couldn't get a quad core 1.33 ghz asuseeebook for $300

          You couldn't get a car this safe for $25,000 30 years ago.

          Somethings become cheaper somethings become more expensive.

          Look at the house prices in Asian countries. They're still buying <100 year leases on tiny apartments while earning much less money.

        • ozviewer on 06/08/2016 - 10:51
          -2

          @Powershopz: Nothing much has changed. In 1986 the av wage was $403, now in 2015 it was $1480 (stats here http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/tables/average-weekly-ea… ), so as such, affordability is about equal.Wages in that period have risen by 3.67 times, as such, no real difference in affordability. In 1986 people got by with little luxuries compared to today's wanton desires…..

        • Powershopz on 06/08/2016 - 15:45
          +13

          @ozviewer:

          Yes, things have changed. Lets use your stats and my parents as an example.

          House bought in 1986 for 66K. Annual wage then was 21K. 66/21 = 3.14. So you could say a house costs 3.14 years worth of the average annual wage.

          Same house now sells ~$730K. Annual wage is 77K. 730/77 = 9.48. So you could say a house costs 9.48 years worth of the average annual wage.

          So now it takes roughly 3 times (9.48/3.14) as long to pay off/buy your house as it did back 30 years ago.

          Yes this is simple napkin math and you could delve deeper and include interest rates etc but to say nothing has changed is ignorant.

        • boomramada on 06/08/2016 - 21:00
          +2

          @wozz:

          Agree, wise man would say, go get a better job ;)

        • wozz on 06/08/2016 - 22:40
          +3

          @boomramada:

          Lol that's one way… the other way is for people to reduce spending and don't expect to buy dream house in centre of sydney. I was on a very low wage (less than 40k 10yrs ago) when i saved up deposit for first house.. i bought way out west because that's all i could afford, l then slowly worked my way up to better house. Dont have my dream house yet but I know its possible to get there.

        • boomramada on 06/08/2016 - 23:56
          +1

          @wozz:
          These days people want it all. They want their first house to be Taj Mahal in best area with their current job next to their love ones.

        • [Deactivated] on 07/08/2016 - 03:57
          -2

          Are you serious? "Banks don't borrow from the government so there is no direct connection". Who do you think the banks borrow from?

          FYI Banks will borrow at the least risk at the least rate of interest a.ka. the government. Name the last first world country that defaulted on their debt. Oh you have none. Currently governments are simply raising debt to pay debt. If you look at the vast majority of Europe, sovereign bonds are now running at a negative yield. i.e. you now have to pay to borrow money (I look forward to hearing you tell your mortgage advisor he has to pay you now).

          A few posts below somebody mentions house prices and the prices relative to how they were, i.e. 3.14x in 1986 and now 9.48 time currently. Spin that backwards and essentially people who bought there house in 1986 @ 66K are currently earning 77k… simple maths says 30 years on that mortgageis no trouble.

          Are you serious? "Put all your savings into bank shares." The highest P/E ratio companies in the index. The companies that just delivered the biggest losses in the index? I hope you don't actually advise on stocks as a career.

          Are you serious? "RBA interest rate meant to reflect risk: the higher the rate the more risk a govt wouldn't be able to repay" Kind of true, however your thoughtrain doesn't take into account people saving money. God forbid you're one of these people. Having just paid off your 1986 mortgage with less than a years annual salary, chances are you're negatively gearing and shafting society further up the ****.

        • ozviewer on 13/08/2016 - 11:00

          @Powershopz:

          True yes, but in reality, I see it no different. It just depends how keen you are too, I suppose? I worked a 6am-2pm Mon Fri job, also 2 nights working at a block of flats, and Fri and Sat nights at the local pub to struggle my way in to home ownership. I guess the same would be needed to do that now, but not too many people want to sacrifice their own time much anymore either?

      • Tasmaniac on 04/08/2016 - 04:19
        +1

        It's almost as though some guy just showed up in Egypt and told the pharaohs he could outsource the guards and still control the masses, all it would take is "magical gold". It would be so brilliant he would probably call it Demonocracy.

      • onlyletters on 05/08/2016 - 16:26

        House prices increased so high that both you and your partner will need to work for your whole life to pay it off and live the great australian dream.

    • whirlpool_guy on 04/08/2016 - 12:25

      You can make your comment more impactful by using full stops instead of commas :)

  • alabatusa on 02/08/2016 - 15:50
    +7

    Depends on their cost of capital ? is it 100% reliant on Government borrowing?

    • 973728 on 03/08/2016 - 09:56
      +3

      Pretty much. Their Asset Liability Manager has to manage their assets and liabilities and ensure they make a profit of the difference. i.e. if the rate is 2% and they loan money (assets) at 3% and pay interest rates on cash deposits (liabilities) at 1.5%, they make the profit in the margin.

      At a very basic level, cash deposits pay for loans like mortgages etc. The reality is that the funding of long term assets is not done based on short term liabilities, but the mismatch is why they don't pass on the full rate as they then have a cost of hedging the risk of interest rate changes.

      etcetc.

      • RedHab on 03/08/2016 - 11:51
        +11

        At a very basic level, cash deposits pay for loans like mortgages etc.

        At a very basic level. They can lend out around 9 times what is deposited, via a system called fractional reserve banking.

        • grang on 03/08/2016 - 18:27
          +5

          Yes! The real house of cards…. 9x profit. 9x the risk.
          And in the US I believe the multiple is 29… which is why negative property values is so bad for the banks…economy.

          The real problem here isn't the passing on (although I hear your point on profit taking)… The risk is families getting locked in at these low low rates at their MAX borrowing capacity.

          Should the interest rates increase 1% (which is not unexpected)

          • if the base rate is 7%, it is only 1/7 = 14% more than you currently pay.
          • if the base rate is 3.5%, the increase is 1/3.5 = ~29% nore than you currently pay and many won't be able to afford their loans anymore.

          This may not look like much, but the multiple effect of a small increase when the interest rates are this low makes the loan portfolios much more fragile….

        • arescarti42 on 03/08/2016 - 22:53
          +10

          Fractional reserve banking is interesting in theory, but is ultimately a historical relic that bears no relation to lending in the modern economy - Australia doesn't even have a reserve requirement anymore.

          In the modern debt based money system, loans actually create deposits, not the other way around. It sounds crazy but it's true.

          The Bank of England produced a really good bulletin and summary video trying to explain it.

          https://youtu.be/CvRAqR2pAgw
          http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte…

        • megaclix on 04/08/2016 - 00:21

          @arescarti42:
          Thanks for this. This is the type of article that so many of us need to read. Now I finally get interest rates.

        • RedHab on 04/08/2016 - 12:52

          @arescarti42: Good link, thanks for that.

    • Devils Advocate on 03/08/2016 - 12:34

      Central bank isn't government, but you're on the right track.

  • Skramit on 02/08/2016 - 15:52
    +13

    Vote with your feet, it's the only way.

  • Adz81 on 02/08/2016 - 15:54
    +10

    A disgrace?
    Not if you're a shareholder in the bank.
    Calm yer tits.

    • toristo on 02/08/2016 - 19:13
      +14

      Which is most Australians with superannuation…

      • Brianqpr on 03/08/2016 - 09:33
        +10

        Thank you CBA staff. I remember being fed those lines to tell unhappy customers when I worked for them!

        A margin of around 4% (when it used to be around 2%) between the RBA rate and the standard variable absolutely is a disgrace. But they have always got away with it and always will because most customers are too lazy to research other options. The same types that look no further than Sunrise and The Project for their news information.

        Rates around 1.7% lower than bank standard variables are out there for anyone with over 20% equity. That's a saving of $8,500 a year on a $500k loan.

        I moved my home loan away from a big 4 bank several years ago and would never go back.

        • RocketSwitch on 03/08/2016 - 09:40

          Which bank did you go with?

        • Brianqpr on 03/08/2016 - 09:42
          +3

          I went to CUA because they had very good fixed rates at the time. However these are just about to expire and I am again considering my options. Reduce Home Loans has very good rates and is well rated on Canstar. I've also asked CUA what is the best they can offer me in terms of a variable rate going forward.

        • edgar28 on 03/08/2016 - 09:53
          +7

          because bank is not regulated now. Bank should be regulated by RBA during recession to control economy, but not happening due to bank lobbying (corruption)

          When regulated max difference is 2%

        • Reggie74 on 06/08/2016 - 17:48

          @Brianqpr:

          We went with CUA last year & to me they are no better than the big banks. At least CBA passed on 0.13% whereas CUA only passed onto us 0.10%.

        • Brianqpr on 06/08/2016 - 21:56

          @Reggie74:they are not as good as they were, which is why I will be moving on. Their fixed rates are still decent though. It was the fixed rates that attracted me there a few years back. I'm strongly considering Reduce home loans now, great rates.

    • dogboy on 03/08/2016 - 11:03
      -1

      So you are happy for a big company to blatantly fleece the general public so long as you get something out of it? Good old rob from the poor to give to the rich…

      • jenkemjunkie on 03/08/2016 - 20:29

        (profanity) yours, get mine…that's most peoples modus operandi…

      • nikey2k27 on 04/08/2016 - 07:00

        YES

  • dazweeja on 02/08/2016 - 15:58
    +7

    I'm not defending the banks but they increasingly raise money in international capital markets. A domestic rate cut only affects a fraction of their funding sources. But the real reason is that they, erm, want to maximise profits.

    • macrocephalic on 03/08/2016 - 09:37
      -2

      But they are only raising capital internationally because it's cheaper than doing it here. So what you're saying is that they can't pass on the rate cut, because the rates they're getting, which are already lower, didn't drop.

      • jacross on 04/08/2016 - 09:13
        +2

        No they are raising capital internationally because domestic supply isn't infinite. An RBA cash rate of 1.5% doesn't mean the Aus Govt just lends infinite money to anyone at 1.5%. All they are doing to decrease the rate is buying back Aus Govt bonds which increases the available money supply.

        When the RBA says they are reducing the cash rate to 1.5% what they mean is they are targeting an overnight money market lending rate of 1.5%.

        Banks need to source funds from a variety of sources that expect a return.

        Banks have largely brought the perception on themselves over the last 10-15 years by marketing movements that suited them as the direct result of the RBA targeting.

        • entropysbane on 04/08/2016 - 13:27
          +1

          Also, the credit market is actually tight, and investments are not returning what they used to. Hence to preserve any kind of profit margin at all they are unable to pass on the full cut.
          Personally I am surprised that the RBA cut rates. They must be worried that the economy is not doing well. Thing is, they are leaving very little room if things do go really pear shaped.

          I also think the cut is to try and remain competitive with overseas reserve banks in economies that are in an even worse situation than we are. Note the dollar is higher than it was at the last rate cut. Chasing better returns for commodities? Cattle are certainly impressive at the moment, if you have any.

          If you are whining about what it all means for debt, imagine if you are a poor self funded retiree looking at living off interest.

    • Brianqpr on 03/08/2016 - 09:37
      -2

      It's at the point now with the likes of CBA that, if they don't announce a record profit every time, its seen as a failure. Vote with your feet.

  • angelkulit025 on 02/08/2016 - 16:00
    +2

    I guess you have no other choice but to go to other lenders aside from the Big Banks if you want a better rate.

      • ykwon10 on 02/08/2016 - 16:09
        +11

        what are you on about? of course other banks apart from big 4 banks offer investment property loans.

        • mick123 on 02/08/2016 - 16:56
          +10

          @Zfan111222:

          because for 1.3m, if you are a low risk, other banks will happily take your loan. No need to stay with CBA

        • Adz81 on 02/08/2016 - 17:00
          +19

          @Zfan111222: What Mick says, and for me it was the overly dramatic approach to the whole thing. Now though, because you've had a whinge about it, I'm hoping people just neg you to be good sports.

        • CheapskateQueen on 02/08/2016 - 19:53

          @Adz81:
          Lol

        • lgacb08 on 02/08/2016 - 22:05
          +25

          @Zfan111222: because lots of poor ozbargainer comes here to save a penny on their grocery bill like me, don't have a luxury of having own home, let alone a 1.3million investment property to whinge about.

          I don't neg, but find your post very amusing.

        • Doggiie on 03/08/2016 - 21:32
          +2

          @Zfan111222: A Small Loan of a Million Dollars ~ Donald Trump

          Are we seeing some similarities here?

      • cypher67 on 02/08/2016 - 19:20
        +1

        You kinda answered your own question. CBA offer more products, more custom and tailored packages along with a lower risk of the bank going bust or screwing you over long term. They are established and you know what you are getting. If you want a no frills homeloan with the lowest interest rate then the likes of U-Bank are perfect and can save you a bucket of money. Equally the likes of CBA have a larger book and as such will have a higher risk tolerance, they will offer you an interest rate in line with the associated risk of that customer. And to answer why they don't pass on the full rate cut, is they are a business with stakeholders, money isn't free and if you can find a better/equal product for less, knock yourself out!

      • ShrewdOrJustTight on 02/08/2016 - 22:12
        +1

        FYI - UBank is owned by NAB (one of 'The Big Banks')

      • wildstone on 03/08/2016 - 15:20

        Didn't you just answer your own question op? Business is about supply and demand. You whinge about your lender but you have a difficulty going to its competitor. That means they have no reason to be cheaper. Think about it, if they can charge $100 and still get your business, why would they reduce it to $10?

  • Olokun on 02/08/2016 - 16:04
    +20

    I think the bigger question is why hasn't credit card interest rates fallen during this period of falling interest rates.

    • Hotpotcorn on 02/08/2016 - 16:04
      -7

      credit card interest rates doesnt worry me. as i always pay my debt on my credit card on time.

      • mick123 on 02/08/2016 - 16:54
        +13

        so… guess that means you just wanted to rant!

      • ronnknee on 03/08/2016 - 09:15
        +14

        So what doesn't worry you, shouldn't matter for the rest of us?

        • dazweeja on 03/08/2016 - 09:36
          +9

          I sort of agree but if you pay any credit card interest at all, you're doing it wrong. You're effectively borrowing money and if that's your aim, there's much cheaper ways to do it.

        • ronnknee on 03/08/2016 - 09:38
          +4

          @dazweeja: I don't pay credit card interest either. I'm just poking at OP's self-centred attitude.

          OP's concern is why a drop in cash rate isn't exactly equal to a drop in interest rates for mortgage. @olukun is extending that idea to other financial services but OP shows indifference because it doesn't affect him.

        • RocketSwitch on 03/08/2016 - 09:43
          +3

          @ronnknee: Aren't we all self-centered to some degree? We rant when things affect us the most.

          I guess a mortgage is harder to manage and cost more than a credit card. You can avoid the credit card interest.

      • OzzyOzbourne on 03/08/2016 - 15:04
        +1

        Ah good, so it shouldn't worry anyone else either then.

    • tomclancy on 02/08/2016 - 16:51
      +20

      If you're stupid enough to pay 20%+ interest on a credit card a 0.25% drop won't make much of a difference. You'd be better off refinancing the debt to a lower rate. Plus, anyone who pays interest on their credit card helps to fund the cost of my free flights!

      • Olokun on 02/08/2016 - 16:56
        +2

        a 0.25% drop won't make much of a difference

        Yes, but the accumulated change in interest rates over the last few years would.

        • 17833 on 02/08/2016 - 22:15

          Plus whether you pay off your balance fully is a bit irrelevant. It is the principle of the thing, and shows how banks will quietly increase their profit margins of products they can get away with gouging customers, yet be more aggressive with products that have a higher media presence and sensitivity.

    • macrocephalic on 03/08/2016 - 09:39
      +5

      Because CCs are unsecured. You pay the high rates because of the risk, not because it's expensive to find the money.

      That official rates have fallen is a sign that the economy is not doing well, which is even more reason to not lower rates on unsecured loans.

  • davlap on 02/08/2016 - 16:53
    +4

    Of course, they drop savers rates, both immediately after a cut and quietly in between as well

  • whooah1979 on 02/08/2016 - 19:26
    +29

    investment property
    i need to borrow 1.3 million

    heh. an investor whinging about a lender not giving them a better interest rate so that they can maximise their returns.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/08/2016 - 17:36

      Who's greedy now?

    • mooboy on 04/08/2016 - 10:32

      My only regret is I have but one upvote to give…

  • RockyRaccoon on 02/08/2016 - 19:27
    +1

    So the OP is going to switch banks.

    Now if you have a home loan thats going to cost you a lot of fees to transfer.

    So go ahead if you think its worth it.

    Also read the RBA statements. One reason they keep cutting rates is because they say the banks dont pass on the cuts.

    The only ones really being hurt are those with savings as they lose the full cut completely.

    Finally keep in mind is the RBA has to keep cutting rates then we are already in deep poo. So really be very careful in spending as the economuy is tanking

    • pais on 02/08/2016 - 22:56
      +3

      Now if you have a home loan thats going to cost you a lot of fees to transfer.

      Just FYI but exit fees are basically a thing of the past (they were banned on new loans in 2011). Discharge fees exist but only to cover the legal expense that your institution incurs as a result of you discharging the loan, and these are about 250 bucks. Most banks will happily cover your discharge fee from your prior loan (since they'll get it back many times over by winning your business).

      What I'm saying is that it's never been easier and cheaper to switch banks. If you've got a home loan, it's probably worth your time looking at other options every couple of years.

      • macrocephalic on 03/08/2016 - 09:41

        Typically, but some lenders still have high discharge fees. Reduce/MEZY have a $750 fee. Still worth it though - since I save about $1k every year going with them.

      • RockyRaccoon on 03/08/2016 - 09:44

        If you read the OP's other posts they have a $1.3M home investment loan. That would require more costs to refinance vs a residential home loan.

        • pais on 03/08/2016 - 10:43
          +2

          It's really neither here nor there.

          Obviously do the maths for your own particular situation but there are very few scenarios where moving isn't going to pay for itself in 2016.

  • chumlee on 02/08/2016 - 19:27
    +8

    You need to understand how banks get their funding. Funds from RBA overnight cash rate only make up a portion of banks funding. The rest they get from deposits, wholesale markets via bonds, hybrid raisings etc. This type of funding costs more and investors want a reasonable return for their risk. The big 4 have the guarantee of governments AAA rating though which does make it cheaper.

  • momov3 on 02/08/2016 - 20:30
    +38

    You are sick of banks not passing the full rate of interest rate falls.
    I am sick of falling interest rates giving us nothing for our deposits in the bank.
    Think of the retirees with savings who rely on term deposits and bank savings.
    To get a decent return to sustain themselves, they have to invest in the volatile things like shares.
    Meanwhile their money in the banks are being loaned to home mortgagors and investors at lovely low rates. You have the money to borrow, thanks to them, they are getting next to nothing whilst your mortgage interest has just been decreased! It could be worse. You could have been with NAB passing on only 0.10 pts of the interest decrease.
    Or you could be one of the hundred thousands who cannot even afford to buy a home, let alone an investment property.

    • pais on 02/08/2016 - 22:10
      +13

      Think of the retirees with savings who rely on term deposits and bank savings.

      Passive, zero-risk investment doesn't net you cash hand over fist? Colour me surprised.

      Monetary policy is the only tool that the RBA has at its disposal to encourage/discourse investment and spending (i.e. get money flowing in the economy). You're going to see more of it if the economy doesn't turn around and the government of the day continues to chase surplus for the sake of surplus.

      • RockyRaccoon on 03/08/2016 - 07:01
        +2

        As you say

        if the economy doesn't turn around

        Not really the time to invest in shares or other "non passive" investments if you are in retiurement phase

      • entropysbane on 04/08/2016 - 13:35

        Self funded retirees getting well into old age and are on the wind down are better off in low risk investments like interest bearing funds. Usually.
        It is when you are relatively younger that it makes more sense to take a bit of a punt on investments.

    • macrocephalic on 03/08/2016 - 09:43
      +3

      You mean those poor retirees who could buy a house while living on a single income? All that money that young people are saving on their mortgage interest is inflating the prices of the homes that the retirees own.

      • entropysbane on 04/08/2016 - 13:38

        To realise that theoretical wealth they would have to sell, or borrow against and then service the debt.

        i believe the phrase is "asset rich, cash poor"

        see Australian war gen retirees, Aussie farmers.

    • Brianqpr on 03/08/2016 - 10:22
      +1

      Acquiring your now very valuable home for a much smaller multiple of income than is possible now ought to make up for it.

    • serpserpserp on 03/08/2016 - 21:24
      +2

      depo rates just went UP when they cut rates though!

      Also remember you are getting a return on essentially a risk free investment such as a depo in a big 4 bank that requires no skill from you to perform. Yes, "investing" does take time and effort and thus you get rewarded for that when you take an actual "risk".

    • [Deactivated] on 04/08/2016 - 17:41

      or you could be rohingya, or you could be syrian, or you could be swiss, or you could be bill gates, or you could be donald trump. whats the point in comparing.

  • cloudy on 02/08/2016 - 22:10
    +4

    I think I'll just say what everyone is thinking.

    "lol OP"

    • momov3 on 02/08/2016 - 22:14
      +10

      You are too kind. I imagine they would be thinking "Suck it up Princess"…..

  • 17833 on 02/08/2016 - 22:20
    +13

    Have a little thought for those of us that rely on our savings to survive :(

    • b1ackmai1er on 02/08/2016 - 23:18
      +1

      As momov3 says

      Suck it up Princess

      Sentiment goes both ways.

    • Wallyt99 on 03/08/2016 - 07:01
      -1

      It must be so hard not working….

      • 17833 on 03/08/2016 - 07:55
        +11

        Well, to clarify, that statement was reflecting my parents situation. They both have worked all of their adult lives, my dad for over 45 years. They live in a modest house in an outer suburb. They have now retired on their super and work savings, not relying on a govt pension. So yes they are sucking it up, have worked damn hard not to rely on govt handouts, but this side of the coin is not widely commented on, or understood.

      • freakatronic on 03/08/2016 - 08:50
        +1

        Where do you think people get savings from?

        • Wallyt99 on 03/08/2016 - 10:37
          -5

          Not always working fwiw. Most often these days from mum n dad. Just ask Malcolm.

  • charzy on 02/08/2016 - 23:13
    +4

    In the past year there were 3-4 rate cuts. I was with NAB, originally my loan was 4.12, shot to 4.49 then reduced to 4.24 over that period. I moved to ING in the last month @ 3.88 and never looked back.

    • bozbargain on 03/08/2016 - 09:04
      +1

      Never looked back? It's only been a month right? Anything you liked with NAB that you're not getting with ING?

      • charzy on 03/08/2016 - 10:15
        +3

        Only thing that I think is a perk with NAB was the QFF points. However I'm not a spender, so I'm not going to spend more on my amex to get QFF. 2% cashback on ING paywave was preferred over QFF, but that's ending soon. Was good while it lasted.
        Otherwise ING just ripped NAB in terms of everything. $195 package fee vs $395. ING also include some random $30 mortgage loan bonus for last month that they didn't even tell me, so I'm happy with that. I read from an article that they give you back 1% cashback on your mortgage repayments or something like that up to $30 a month to a max $360 a year.
        For credit card wise I've just activated my Citibank signature with rewards and no yearly fee.
        For overseas purchases I have 28 degrees, which I should be using more often as NAB charge me a 3% 'international fee' when paying for things in AUD like foodora/deliveroo because their transaction centres are situated overseas, while I never had that issue when using my CBA credit cards.

        On another note why I don't like NAB is that they jacked up my wife's second property when we were negotiating rates with the mortgage retention team.
        This happened during negotiations, not even after settlement with ING, so that was the final straw for me with NAB.

        • bozbargain on 03/08/2016 - 11:44

          Cheers, makes sense.

          as NAB charge me a 3% 'international fee' when paying for things in AUD like foodora/deliveroo
          I noticed this as well when I booked a flight directly with the carrier on their .com.au site (priced in AUD) - complained about this to NAB via online banking, was refunded the fee within a day. That never happened in my many years with ANZ.

        • charzy on 03/08/2016 - 12:44

          @bozbargain:

          Wow really?
          I paid for a tuition course that was 11.5k. Was charged 3% of that as the centre was based in London despite going through an aussie site.
          In the end I got a refund from the tuition course and not the bank.

        • lethalmoney on 03/08/2016 - 13:21
          +6

          @charzy - ive just been on the phone for an hour with ING as a result of this post… I was paying 4.77 with Westpac… did some research (yea, lazy in the past) and i've been getting pooched.

          Forms just rolled in and im on the move to 3.79% (plus possible pending cuts from RBA news) and half my current fees. Still have all the same extras (just no linked credit card).

          Cheers mate.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join