IBOs and Amway potential clients, please ask your upline diamond or platinum show you the fruit on their tree. Keep these things see their (business) financial statements. This is actually a common practice in real business. When a friend of mine sold his business a couple of years back, he made three year’s worth of tax returns to show potential buyers.
My friend showed his business and personal fees, because the potential buyer needed full disclosure, and it was provided by him. As as I know far, not one single bigger pin has ever shown their business financials. In fact, if it made certain bigger pins look good, why wouldn’t they would like to “show their fruit”.
They certainly don’t mind showing off gemstone rings, elegant clothes, sports cars, and the like. What many IBOs hardly understand is that extravagant vehicles and other playthings are not proof fruits on the tree. We don’t know who owns the things they demonstrate on a slide show. I could go take pictures of mansions and sports cars, and suggest to them from a stage, but it doesn’t imply I own them.
It has been talked about that some gemstones may rent cars or extravagant homes and try to imply they own these items. Some diamonds, possibly many diamonds in the past have lied or embellished the truth about paying for everything in cash, including their vehicles and homes. We also know that some diamonds are in debt but simply make an effort to portray an excessive lifestyle. Some diamonds may have a substantial income, but it doesn’t mean they may be financially free and able to live a jetset lifestyle that many portray. It is an illusion, possibly to be able to attract new potential customers into the business. So yes, let us start to see the fruits on the tree actually. Will there be any fruit?
HBA urgently demands Bank Negara repeal this clause to avoid banks from getting the upper hand to victimize unsuspecting borrowers. Banks must not be able to unilaterally vary the interest if the customer had not defaulted on his responsibilities under the loan contract. Banking institutions may say that they can not invoke/exercise the said clause normally. But, covenanted terms and conditions are binding upon both parties.
- Efficiency Architecture Firm
- Tell me about a time when you delegated a project effectively
- The end of 1 time period and the start of the next occupy the same place on a timeline
- Is there probation from Philippine Immigration on one-way fares
Nowadays, law companies undertaking banks’ work have to purchase standardized pre-printed forms from banks. The price varies from RM150-RM350. Would printing cost be so expensive or are banking institutions making a revenue or “mark-up” from such sales to lawyers? Such “expenses” are nevertheless passed down to customers/ debtors as disbursements. Couldn’t a “soft copy” be produced available to law firms to look at and printing at their own cost and expense? Printing charges are only limited to RM50 as approved by the Bar Council. Another grave injustice to debtors is the allocation of monthly payments towards the arrangement of principal and interest, as this isn’t disclosed anywhere in the Loan Agreements or even in the Standardized Template.
To illustrate a real-life example, we had a complainant who required a 20-year housing loan about six years back. After diligently paying his loan for five years, the complainant assumed that the main amount outstanding should only be about 75% of the original amount. There have to be greater transparency on how the allocation of monthly repayments for interest and primary is done which must be disclosed in the loan agreement. Moreover, the allocation must be done on the “straight-collection basis” so, after paying five out of a 20-year housing loan, the principal outstanding must be 75% of the initial amount.
HBA calls for banks to keep considering cognisant of their debtors’ hardship and protect the eye of their debtors instead of just concentrating on profitability. Without the customers and debtors, banking institutions won’t have any earnings to show. HBA also calls on Bank Negara to continue the close monitoring of banks to ensure that they don’t take the benefit of borrowers. The battle of borrowers against banking institutions is akin to David vs Goliath. Timely intervention from Bank Negara is required to balance the size of power.
These are just my observations from a lifetime of viewing Democratic and Republican politicians. And those 3 million people were in CA. Trump got 4 million votes in CA while Hillary got 7 million. Republicans fear that the government has too much control over companies. What the Republican doesn’t want is a big, obese, and lethargic central government.