When brokers say they will get you a "loan" and they won't charge you anything, then they are obviously working for the banks as they get a commission. I can't see how the banks can say that the brokers were not working for them or on their behalf. Have I missed something?

 

ED:  Spot on PT,  but the Prime Minister has hasn't yet worked out who pays commission to the brokers.  He is a smart man, so he obviously has not been briefed by Treasurer Joe Hockey, on the Banks ignoring the fact they have a very important responsibility to ensure ID Verification under the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financial Act 2001.  Banks ask Brokers to sign a Statutory Declaration to Verify the Borrower and collect personal financial details and ID documentation.  Banks must comply with those legal requirements.  All Brokers must sign the STAT DEC and then hand the document over to their Bankster Masters.  

Since the Banks pay the Brokers for this particular task (and other things) then the Broker is indeed the Agent of the Bank.  More importantly Banks are passing on their own statutory obligations onto the Broker Agent.

The Commission structure places the brokers in conflict of looking after interests of the proposed bank client and that of the Bank Masters.  If you look at the Schmidt case in VIC, the Judge states the idea of the conflict and the fact of the Broker being the Agent of the Bank.

At least three cases, demonstrate some Judges have caught on to this Agency issue.  Will ASIC take a case to court and test this as well?  Hopefully not, as they would stuff it up and err on the side of their Bankster Mates.  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.