No, they’re not. A lot of them don’t even have a degree in anything.
Your personal financial advisor is a person you should be able to trust with your important financial decisions. They guy at the bank handing you a contract to sign is an employee with a script on rails, a manager, and a commission structure.
In a better world it wouldn’t be like that but in a better world I don’t think I’d be going to a bank in the first place.
I mean… They’re salesmen more than trustworthy professionals.
I see your point but the main issue is that nobody should ever trust the seller of anything to give them the info they need.
People should only ever trust trustworthy independent third parties… But those are hard to find.
I really don’t know what the solution is besides getting a better education, and I don’t mean a crap degree, I mean some more tangibile subjects in lower levels of school. I don’t blame them lightly, but people that accept this kind of thing aren’t the brightest.
Having worked at a bank before (in their IT dept
specifically), banks are extremely risk averse (and that extends to all aspects of the bank, from financial risks to HR risks to IT risks), and all of the loan officers I worked with were far more interested in doing their job right than being sales people.
It’s in the banks best financial interest if it’s customers get wealthier because where does that wealth go? Into the bank they already bank at. Banks need to keep a certain amount of deposits in reserve, so the more cash deposited the more money the bank can invest in financial products itself to make itself more money. If all the bank does is mint loans that customers struggle to pay back their deposits will be very low and therefore they’ll make less money.
Also sketchy loans are harder to sell as securities, as security bundles have to have balanced risk profiles both for legal compliance and for investors to be interested. Investors in mortgage backed securities (MBS) aren’t investing in MBSes for insane growth, they’re investing in a relatively safe security to park some cash in as part of their diversification
I’d like to differ. They are the ones selling you this slavery contract and probably don’t mention the impossible to deal with interest.
A bank worker who is not your enemy would suggest you to switch banks or give you a reasonable contract. Of course depending on bank they might lose their job over the last one.
No, it’s mean that the issue is not the workers, but the bankS. Or to be be even more concrete : the system that produce institutions with the function of bank.
Opposing to those workers would not make a change; maybe you could make them fired, and others could take the place, but our choice wouldn’t make much difference compare to those of the employers in the bank industries.
We could argue that opposing to one bank is the same; at most it could bankrupt (ironically), but other bank would take they function.
That why this is the whole industry we shall oppose to, to against one bank, but against all of then. This is why people in revolutionary union organize by industry, and not by firm or professions.
Helping workers in the bank industries getting less hour/day, less harassement and better stability would make the situation where they could diminish or abolish the predation of their employers against others (that are not only customers). We couldn’t expect solidarity from people we are not solidaire to.
This is not about right or wrong, this is about effectiveness.
Bank workers are, at best, getting a small bonus when you sign that mortgage. Your fellow worker isn’t the enemy.
The Nürnberger defense.
Yeah every commissioned salesperson you don’t like is literally nazi ss. Go off, you galaxybrained god.
These are the financial professionals that normal people should be able to trust to make important decisions.
No, they’re not. A lot of them don’t even have a degree in anything.
Your personal financial advisor is a person you should be able to trust with your important financial decisions. They guy at the bank handing you a contract to sign is an employee with a script on rails, a manager, and a commission structure.
In a better world it wouldn’t be like that but in a better world I don’t think I’d be going to a bank in the first place.
I mean… They’re salesmen more than trustworthy professionals.
I see your point but the main issue is that nobody should ever trust the seller of anything to give them the info they need.
People should only ever trust trustworthy independent third parties… But those are hard to find.
I really don’t know what the solution is besides getting a better education, and I don’t mean a crap degree, I mean some more tangibile subjects in lower levels of school. I don’t blame them lightly, but people that accept this kind of thing aren’t the brightest.
Having worked at a bank before (in their IT dept specifically), banks are extremely risk averse (and that extends to all aspects of the bank, from financial risks to HR risks to IT risks), and all of the loan officers I worked with were far more interested in doing their job right than being sales people.
It’s in the banks best financial interest if it’s customers get wealthier because where does that wealth go? Into the bank they already bank at. Banks need to keep a certain amount of deposits in reserve, so the more cash deposited the more money the bank can invest in financial products itself to make itself more money. If all the bank does is mint loans that customers struggle to pay back their deposits will be very low and therefore they’ll make less money.
Also sketchy loans are harder to sell as securities, as security bundles have to have balanced risk profiles both for legal compliance and for investors to be interested. Investors in mortgage backed securities (MBS) aren’t investing in MBSes for insane growth, they’re investing in a relatively safe security to park some cash in as part of their diversification
I’d like to differ. They are the ones selling you this slavery contract and probably don’t mention the impossible to deal with interest.
A bank worker who is not your enemy would suggest you to switch banks or give you a reasonable contract. Of course depending on bank they might lose their job over the last one.
No, it’s mean that the issue is not the workers, but the bankS. Or to be be even more concrete : the system that produce institutions with the function of bank. Opposing to those workers would not make a change; maybe you could make them fired, and others could take the place, but our choice wouldn’t make much difference compare to those of the employers in the bank industries. We could argue that opposing to one bank is the same; at most it could bankrupt (ironically), but other bank would take they function.
That why this is the whole industry we shall oppose to, to against one bank, but against all of then. This is why people in revolutionary union organize by industry, and not by firm or professions. Helping workers in the bank industries getting less hour/day, less harassement and better stability would make the situation where they could diminish or abolish the predation of their employers against others (that are not only customers). We couldn’t expect solidarity from people we are not solidaire to.
This is not about right or wrong, this is about effectiveness.