I don't see why "~44.5% of NIM" is the best metric, if they have brought down operating costs, have positive NPAT, and at a time when market conditions are tough.
But in the presentation, they seemed to be promoting the benefits of unsecured being far superior to secured?
But now we're cutting down on unsecured, to focus on secured.
But the example would not be accurate any more. Maybe the market conditions changed, so unsecured costs more in terms of losses and funding costs.
I don't see why "~44.5% of NIM" is the best metric, if they have...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 5 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
