Westpac's $1,000,000,000 AUSTRAC Settlement?, page-272

Yes Flip61 too true (in regard definitions), however the other poster just uses deflection and obfuscation in a never ending argument so best to just humour him.
It is clear to me that the anti bank posters haven't bothered reading any links I provided and are just intent on spreading their own revisionist history.
The real issue with the so claimed "bail out" is the inference that it cost the govt (taxpayers) billions during the GFC which is just plain nonsense and of course would constitute a bail out
Their MO is also to call anyone who dares contradict them rusted on pro bank simpletons as if it is has to be some binary declaration of "bank good" or "bank bad"
Personally I have many issues with banks (only have a small position in WBC from an earlier trade) but I just try and and add some facts when they just use their slogan driven nonsense "truths".
It also seems to me they are confused in regard the bank guarantees during the GFC.
There was a guarantee for deposits implemented to allay retail fears however this guarantee was neither requested, wanted or needed by the majors. That guarantee mainly benefited the smaller banks as there had been significant outflow of deposits to the majors in a "flight to quality" early on in the GFC. The majors were swimming in deposits but the regionals were not in a happy place.
The 2nd Guarantee was the guarantee for wholesale funds so the banks could go to the market using Australia's credit rating which was necessary because that is exactly what other countries were doing starting with Ireland followed quickly by the UK and Germany before Australia and most others. The banking sector did not need this due to a problem with underlying credit but to ensure the banks could continue to access money from overseas investors. Put simply overseas investors could lend funds to a (for example) UK bank with weaker credit quality but with Government backing. The Reserve Bank Governor of the time, Glenn Stevens, said in a later interview:-
"I think that with the wave of governments feeling the need to issue guarantees of various kinds, it was going to prove very difficult – if not impossible – to completely stand aside from that, no matter how strong you felt your institutions were,"
These Guarantees were a commercial deal and priced on a commercial basis (70 basis points for the majors) and were in no way a hand out. In fact the Government made somewhere around 4.5 billion in revenue which I am sure would have covered their administrative costs. The government also never had a call on any of these guarantees.
If someone wishes to call these a "bail out" fine, which of course would also mean that any economic policy which is a benefit to the Australian economy (ergo the banks!) could also be seen as a bail out. So be it..........
I believe the Australian response to the GFC was good in regard ensuring capital was available in our economy however I still do not agree with the generous handouts in what I consider to be the Harvey Norman economy. Gerry Harvey whinged about a downturn in retail sales so the government gave cash handouts to boost the sale of Chinese tvs..... Anyway I digress.......
I think it also worth considering Australia's position in the GFC as clearly we were not affected as much as many other countries. I have copied below some of the comments direct from the RBA website regarding the GFC for those that didn't read the previous link:-
"Australia did not experience a large economic downturn or a financial crisis during the GFC. …………………...
The relatively strong performance of the Australian economy and financial system during the GFC, compared with other countries, reflected a range of factors, including:
• Australian banks had very small exposures to the US housing market and US banks, partly because domestic lending was very profitable.
• Subprime and other high-risk loans were only a small share of lending in Australia, partly because of the historical focus on lending standards by the Australian banking regulator (the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)).
• Australia's economy was buoyed by large resource exports to China, whose economy rebounded quickly after the initial GFC shock (mainly due to expansionary fiscal policy).
Also a large policy response
Despite the Australian financial system being in a much better position before the GFC, given the magnitude of the shock to the global economy and to confidence more broadly, there was also a large policy response in Australia to ensure that the economy did not suffer a major downturn. ……………………."
I have no doubt I will now get a response going on about money laundering, paedophiles, some other obscure rant, or perhaps something about his Candice Warner obsession (imagine if she banks Westpac, heaven forbid!!) but that is it for me on this subject.