frantic, "but see the practise of lending money to a business with no assets to cover such losses, is not only dangerous to those that are stakeholders but also to the wider investment community"
ANZ didn't do this, they lent money to a business that had provided assets to secure against the loan.
"So see it as responsible to make sure the ANZ knows a great many peole are angry at both their poor lending practice plus the way they have treated people who honoured their end of the contract."
Opes defaulted on their contracts with their clients, not ANZ, by going into insolvency.
"If they were legal owners they should have at least had some communication with beneficial owners as it does take two sides to make a contract. If I could not pay my bank my credit card payments it is expected I contact them to make arrangements. Should work both ways."
ANZ did meet with Opes, in fact they lent them an additional $95 Million against more collateral to try and keep them afloat. It would have done this in good faith to try and keep the business going. It would have had no way of knowing that there were huge margin loans in the Red that hadn't been called in by Opes.It was only after the Opes directors called in administrators that ANZ appointed a receiver to recover their SECURED debts.
It's just tiresome reading all these posts about how it's all ANZ's fault. I really believe they have acted correctly according to Law, and good business practice.
