networkn:
sen8or:
Unfortunately, the "golden rule" with banks applies, he who holds the gold, makes the rules.
Banks are entitled to assess a borrowers ability to repay a debt, be that from a wage / salaried worker or company or anything in between. The financial strength of the company that you own is directly relevant to your ability to meet repayments. Whilst you may draw wages / salary by the means of a normal salaried employee, the relationship is not arms length and you could make the figure read anything that you like, whether or not the company has the capacity to sustain that figure.
Frustrating no doubt, but with the amount of noise being made in the media about irresponsible lending, loan sharks preying on the vulnerable and IIRC even the Aussie banks being held to task about dodgy lending practices, its no surprise that banks are tightening up on their processes.
Sure, but with a 20 year period of time where the company in question has been incorporated, and the salary being paid monthly and for at least 10 years of that, into said banks bank account, no company could sustain that if it wasn't solvent.
I could understand it in a company where a salary had been paid for just a few months...
The issue I had that was more frustrating, was the suggestion of the extended information that said they would require. If it's just them, then I'd consider switching banks, if everyone was going to require it, then I do wonder how anyone who owns a company ever manages to borrow money if they are in complex business situations.
The reality is that in your situation you are the company and the company is you.
Complex situations result in more scrutiny.