# Run on a bank? Can it happen here? It happens now in UK



## alingva (Aug 17, 2013)

HSBC imposes restrictions on large cash withdrawals 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Our personal experience is that retail banking in the UK is about 25 years behind Canada in attitude, and about 10 years from a technology perspective. The prevailing view is that they are doing you a favour. Just walk in and ask ifthe Manager is available....the staff will look at you as if you had two heads. HSBC had been fined for acting as bankers and handling huge amounts of drug monies and terrorist monies. But if you walk in to open an account' or have monies transferred in of say 10,000 GBP they will grill you about where you got the money. It is very, very strange. We dealt with RBC in London, the City branch, some time ago. It was very clear that the customer was not king.

Natwest, a very large UK bank has been down 'hard' a number of times in the past few months...and for days at a time. Depositors could not access funds or have credit card transaction approved. Cheques were not honoured. Even when they came back up some accounts had incorrect balances and automatic payroll deposits did not make it in to the correct account-they stayed in limbo. It was, and it still is, a complete mess. Makes one appreciate Canadian banks..well to a point that is.

There have been several articles published in the last ten days purporting that HSBC cooked the books and grossly overstated their assets to the tune of B55 GBP. Not certain how true this is.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

HSBC has to be one of the worst banks around. Just brutal. Do you really want a video going viral of someone screaming "Give me my money!" at a bank and them saying "NO!"?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

fraser said:


> Our personal experience is that retail banking in the UK is about 25 years behind Canada in attitude


Apparently nothing has changed.......50 years ago I walked into a West London branch of Barclays Bank hoping to replicate my Australian account on a (unbeknownst to them because we never got that far) 'temporary' basis (since I wasn't going to be there permanently)...............after undergoing a mini 'third degree' delivered with a "Who do you think _you_ are to be opening a bank account?" attitude I said "Never mind" and departed.....never to return.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

In the last budget the federal government announced their approval of the bail in, meaning if the bank makes a lot of dumb mistakes and loses money, they get a do over by helping themselves to their depositors' funds.

So, I would say there is a definite danger of a bank run in Canada but only if the people are smart enough to know this, and draw their money out of dodgy banks.

Ha ha ha fat chance. 99.99% will be standing there with a stunned look on their face when they open their bank statement and find their money gone, wondering how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could have allowed it to happen.


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

A run on a bank would typically involve large lines of people waiting to make withdrawals... is that happening? It doesn't sound like a bank run, just an incredibly bad policy. If I was a depositor I would demand to see the teller's employment contract before putting money in to prove that they really work there. Of course I would need two pieces of photo ID from them as well so I can make sure it's the right person. And a copy of the recent bank statements so I can see that they have been receiving a salary. I really hope someone does this.

To avoid misleading anyone who may not have seen the full details of the news last year, the bail-ins in Canada have nothing to do with depositors' money. See the thread about the new RBC preferred share issue to understand what it's really about.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^Total bullshit. (edit: to Rusty) The feds proposed contingent capital, possibly taking the form of the pref shares RBC recently issued.

And no government would be dumb enough to default on deposit insurance when they have the ability to print their own currency.


----------



## MRT (Apr 8, 2013)

Amazing what people deal with. If any bank pulled that with me, they wouldn't get a string of withdrawal requests to figure out what I can or can't take out...they would next receive the transfer request I authorized with another bank, directing all of my accounts to be closed and moved over to the new bank!

but what does this article have to do with 'a run on a bank'? I understand a 'run' to mean a large number of clients all attempting to withdraw a significant amount of funds at the same time, with the worry that the bank will not have adequate cash reserves to deal with the requests.

This article simply deals with 'large' or 'unusual' transactions, which Canadian banking regulations cover as well. I don't know how procedures differ between banks, but I can confirm that one of the big banks are required to fill out a report for any such transaction, notably those that deviate from a client's established pattern of behaviour or that otherwise seem shady, but are NEVER directed to halt any transaction that appears to be legitimate and are expressly forbidden from disclosing that the report is even being filled out. An internal dept will then follow up on matters deemed worthy of further investigation. The most clients are required to do is state a reason for wanting the funds (e.g. brokers and lenders are to capture a stated reason a client wants to refi their mortgage, for example).


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MRT said:


> but what does this article have to do with 'a run on a bank'?


It doesn't. The thread title is sensationalism to get attention.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Walk into a large Canadian bank and demand to withdraw $5,000 to $10,000 from your account and see how that goes.

I've been grilled by Scotiabank trying to withdraw as little as 5k. I'm not kidding, go to your bank and try doing the withdrawal, come back here and post how it goes.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

james4beach said:


> Walk into a large Canadian bank and demand to withdraw $5,000 to $10,000 from your account and see how that goes..


It's a real hassle...........(especially when you've only got fifty bucks to your name)


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> The thread title is sensationalism to get attention.


+1

The OP is a financial planner. He should know better than to post B.S. like that.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Occasionally banks may be short on cash and they may not be able to give you a full request but that is rarely the case.I needed $7000 USD a few months ago and my bank could not give it all to me but they called another branch close to us and got it sorted out. I frequently go to get $5000 -$10,000 Canadian Cash every couple months and never have an issue.


----------



## alex52 (Dec 12, 2013)

*Had no problems with HSBC or other British banks*

I use British banks quite often when I go to the uk, they are on par with Canadian Banks. HSBC in canada is the best bank in this country.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

Weird, my experience with HSBC is quite good so far. They are the only one who is really "global". In the sense that they treat my account in Canada as a native account in other countries. I can get a mortgage and LOC or credit card in another country based on my credit score in Canada. 

But seriously, any number above 3000 and you will get grilled anywhere. Even at forex shops using cash on hand. I think most banks have a daily withdraw limit unless you provide some ID. My HSBC bank said I'd run imto problems if I was withdrawing 10k cad instead of 10k usd the last time I was there. So this sounds like problem due to compliance with money laundering laws.

But seriously, $3k is way too low as a limit. With hyper inflation and stuff and our currency just devalued by 10%, this ceiling needs to be updated to $5k. Heck a TV is $3k. A good PC is $5k+

Does anyone know if this person has the premier account?


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> It's a real hassle...........(especially when you've only got fifty bucks to your name)


lol


----------



## alingva (Aug 17, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> It doesn't. The thread title is sensationalism to get attention.





GoldStone said:


> +1
> The OP is a financial planner. He should know better than to post B.S. like that.


It is much simpler than that. I read this article about HSBC and after that another one about run on the bank. After I created this post I realized I did a mistake in the title. I went back and wanted to delete the post but someone already replied to me. Sorry for the confusion


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

what about "i feel lucky and i'm going to the track"

http://www.safeandvault.com/index.php/faq/114-safes/706-list-of-safe-manufacturers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

> But seriously, any number above 3000 and you will get grilled anywhere.


Yes that's exactly what I've found too. This seems to be the threshold where it gets very difficult to withdraw cash and I find this totally unacceptable. Back in the 90s it wasn't so crazy to walk in and withdraw 5,000 and if you inflation adjust that's about 10,000 in today's dollars.

So we really should be able to walk into a bank and withdraw 10,000 without any issue, but try doing that and they will practically call the police. You will create a _scene_ trying to withdraw 10,000.

I even had issues trying to *deposit* 5,000 into scotiabank -- this was at the head branch in Toronto a few months ago. Hardly a small inexperienced office. I walked to the teller, swiped my scotia card, and presented 5,000 in new bills that I wanted to deposit. Then started the questions...
- where did this money come from?
- do you have any paperwork to justify it?
- I've got to get my manager

It was _ridiculous_. I'm an established customer, bringing in new fresh bills (they don't look like drug money) and it's none of their business where it came from. In the end the manager came and they agreed to the deposit once I said I'll just take the money elsewhere if you really don't want it.

That's how much hassle you get for a small DEPOSIT. Imagine trying to withdraw it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> what about "i feel lucky and i'm going to the track"


When faced with stupid questions like these I used to tell them "I'm going to the circus" but someone (maybe on here) pointed out that may create even more suspicion under FINTRAC... so now whenever they question why I'm depositing or withdrawing large sums I say that I'm buying/selling a second hand car.

Beware FINTRAC, though there's not much you can do. See this CBC article
FINTRAC collecting too much info on innocent Canadians: Too many files have nothing to do with terrorism or money laundering, privacy commissioner says

FINTRAC probably has a file on me and any of the rest of you withdrawing more than a couple hundred dollars at a time.


----------



## MRT (Apr 8, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Yes that's exactly what I've found too. This seems to be the threshold where it gets very difficult to withdraw cash and I find this totally unacceptable. Back in the 90s it wasn't so crazy to walk in and withdraw 5,000 and if you inflation adjust that's about 10,000 in today's dollars.
> 
> So we really should be able to walk into a bank and withdraw 10,000 without any issue, but try doing that and they will practically call the police. You will create a _scene_ trying to withdraw 10,000.
> 
> ...


oh come on James, that is not so ridiculous. No one is calling the police when clients deposit or withdraw legitimate funds. Exaggeration does not help the discussion 

"back in the 90's" was pre-9/11 and all the hoopla that followed. Also, 'drug money' does not have a particular appearance lol

It actually IS the bank's business to determine where the money came from, because they need to comply with modern 'anti-money laundering and terrorist financing' legislation. Deposits are precisely the point at which illegal funds enter the system to be 'washed', so you will probably face as much (or more) scrutiny walking in with 10k in cash to deposit as you will when you go to withdraw it.

The issue is whether transactions 'make sense' for any particular client when determining if additional diligence is necessary.

So you are an established customer, at your home branch...but do you have a pattern of making large cash deposits? If you do, then the bank staff failed to note that this 5k deposit was not unusual for you and you indeed have every right to be annoyed at the resulting 'scene'; however, if you do not habitually make such deposits, then the bank was LEGALLY OBLIGATED to do additional due diligence when processing the transaction. Asking where the funds came from is an obvious first step, don't you think? 

Making this harder for staff are the smart-mouthed clients who respond with "what do you care? It is my money and none of your business!" (many use much more colourful language)

WRONG.

Let's consider the bank's position: So YOU want to deposit a large sum of cash into MY heavily-regulated financial institution, but it is "none of my business" where it came from? Sorry, but *federal legislation* disagrees with you! 

As for substantiating the source of the funds, staff may just inquire and leave it at that if the response is reasonable...or they may probe further (and even seek documentation) if the explanation doesn't alleviate concerns. It ought to even be easy to prove the source with bill of sale, receipt, contract, gift letter, loan agreement, etc. If it was under your mattress...yeah, you may have some problems.

This is not unique to bank branches. Mortgage lenders are required to reasonably confirm and document the source down payment funds from their clients. Good luck to you if you walk into your lawyer or realtor's office with a briefcase full of cash to complete a transaction. They will turn you away and tell you to come back with a bank draft or certified cheque, leaving the bank to deal with the drama of legitimizing the funds.

Some bank staff may not have the ideal methods for performing these duties, and that is where there is indeed room for discussion and debate, IMHO. There should be no 'scene', and there should be a discrete process that does not embarrass or upset their clients (clearly HSBC in the UK could use some training in that regard).

As for privacy concerns, whether FINTRAC is collecting too much data...sure, absolutely that is up for debate., along with the NSA, the gov't, corporations, etc. who all collect and share way too much of our personal data, often illegally.


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

james4beach said:


> When faced with stupid questions like these I used to tell them "I'm going to the circus" but someone (maybe on here) pointed out that may create even more suspicion under FINTRAC... so now whenever they question why I'm depositing or withdrawing large sums I say that I'm buying/selling a second hand car.


That seems like a good response. Last year I took out enough cash to buy a car with no questions... of course it was less than my usual monthly spending


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> ^Total bullshit. (edit: to Rusty) The feds proposed contingent capital, possibly taking the form of the pref shares RBC recently issued.
> 
> And no government would be dumb enough to default on deposit insurance when they have the ability to print their own currency.


Quote:

The Government proposes to implement a bail-in regime for systemically important banks. This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital. (Budget 2013 -page 145)

Nothing in there about protecting depositors. 

You prefer to believe press releases. Believe it or not, governments sometimes change their minds and government officials are not bound by statements made by their predecessors to the press years before.

I'm not saying they are going to do a bail in. I'm not even saying someday they might do a bail in. All I am saying is, if they ever want to, there is nothing to stop them.

If you are correct and there is no reason to do a bail in and no chance they will ever want to, I wonder why they put that clause in the budget?

And then, if there ever is a bank crisis, you won't be able to withdraw your money anyway at least not in cash. I'm sure they will give you a cheque but if it fails to clear, you become an unsecured creditor which puts you in a worse position than a depositor.

Checkmate.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

They put that clause in because they want banks to have contingent capital to reduce the chance they will need capital injections from the government. It's learning the lesson from the financial crisis in the US and the eurozone. Providing clear mechanisms for shareholders and creditors to absorb bank losses imposes market discipline and reduces the implied subsidy of government backing.

You selectively quote the government. Theylater clarified:



> Ottawa’s plan to create a safety net for Canada’s banks in the event of a financial crisis would involve a *new kind of investment similar to bonds that will be sold to large institutional investors,* rather than put the deposits of consumers at risk.
> 
> Sources familiar with the government’s plan to create a “bail-in” mechanism for the financial sector, which will give banks access to emergency capital to keep themselves solvent in the event of a major crisis, say the concept is designed to prevent deposits or taxpayer money from being used to stabilize a bank.
> 
> ...



Rusty, your theory supposes that the government is lying when it says that deposits were never to be included in the plan, and really just carelessly tipped their hand in their carefully written budget document that they had plans to raid deposits. Based on their clarification and their actions since then (and before the budget), your theory is not consistent with reality. Sorry Rusty, you're just wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation. The government has no plans to annihilate the Canadian financial system by stealing granny's deposits.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

good lord
if it's just money sitting in a checking or savings account where it is earning diddly, why not just keep your cash in a safe deposit box ?


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Yes that's exactly what I've found too. This seems to be the threshold where it gets very difficult to withdraw cash and I find this totally unacceptable. Back in the 90s it wasn't so crazy to walk in and withdraw 5,000 and if you inflation adjust that's about 10,000 in today's dollars.
> 
> So we really should be able to walk into a bank and withdraw 10,000 without any issue, but try doing that and they will practically call the police. You will create a _scene_ trying to withdraw 10,000.
> 
> ...


I have my own experience with Scotiabank back in 2006 was when I first started doing some serious Poker playing online and back then I would go into my bank and wire Poker Stars /Full Tilt etc money for my account as I didn't like using credit cards on the poker accounts and they would refund my wire fees.I was a client for 2 years or more at this branch , I won a few times $6000 - $10,000 range and had the money wired to me.After about 1 year of doing this the manager called me in and told me that I had 30 days to close my account because I was using it for online gaming and they cited the UIGEA US LAW to me as a reason to do this.Last I checked we lived in Canada but this is why I moved to TD Bank .When I won my $118,000 first place prize in 2010 I printed off the Marketwire press release and sent it to Scotia Legal Department ,if I were doing anything wrong I would not be in a press release .When i went to TD i told them upfront I am a Whale who goes through $xxx,xxx a year in Gambling Deposits and Withdraws and just in past month i got a wire for $99000 ,$48,000 and $50,000 and didn't even get a phone call.You do need to know your customer but you don't tell them how to spend or receive their payments.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Sources familiar with the government’s plan to create a “bail-in” mechanism for the financial sector, which will give banks access to emergency capital to keep themselves solvent in the event of a major crisis, say the concept is *designed to prevent deposits *or taxpayer money from being used to stabilize a bank._

Designed to prevent deposits from being used..............huh?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

What's your question? It's designed to prevent CDIC claims.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Of course they don't have any plans to raid customers' accounts. And I am sure they never will. Unless, you know, they really need the money. And if they do they will give you stock or bonds of the (bankrupt) bank.

They won't even think of doing such a thing unless there is a real grave emergency and there is no other choice.

And they will only do it with full government approval which they will explain to you in full detail - after they take your money.

So you see, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. They only made the change in the law to bring Canadian law into line with Cyprus. But they have absolutely no intention of ever using it.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I can also tell you that if you sell a car or other item for $1000 or more buyer's bank WILL NOT cash the check. You can deposit the check in your own account and get the money, maybe. They will put a hold on it for 5 (business) days which could be a week or 10 days (if there is a statutory holiday).

The check could be bad, or they could stop payment and you will not know for a week or more.

So, I no longer take a check. But, we have already discussed the difficulty of getting your own cash out of a bank in sizeable amounts.

Then there are all the fees and charges. It is getting so it's not worth having a bank account at all. I have closed all but 2 accounts and am thinking of closing them as well.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> They put that clause in because they want banks to have contingent capital to reduce the chance they will need capital injections from the government. It's learning the lesson from the financial crisis in the US and the eurozone. Providing clear mechanisms for shareholders and creditors to absorb bank losses imposes market discipline and reduces the implied subsidy of government backing.
> 
> You selectively quote the government. Theylater clarified:
> 
> ...


It's not a theory, it's a fact. Read the budget for yourself. Of course they have no intention of raiding your account - today. But if they ever want to, they can.

Please excuse me if I don't trust a politician's promise not to do something. I got onto them in 1975. You must be young.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I guess you must be really old to want to stuff your money in your mattress. Are you not similarly concerned about the government deciding to confiscate all your other assets? They don't have any stated plan to do it now, but when they need the money...

Rusty, I think you're pathologically afraid of a banking failure. That's fine. I think you should be more responsible in spreading that fear on the internet. You're doing a lot of harm to people who may not be able to assess what you're saying in the light of everything the government has said. You are not presenting a balanced view of the facts.


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

If they can change the rules any time they want (which they can), how does this announcement affect that in any way? If they planned to do this wouldn't they keep it quiet so that people don't have time to withdraw their money in advance? Oops, I think I just started a conspiracy theory


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

fatcat said:


> good lord
> if it's just money sitting in a checking or savings account where it is earning diddly, why not just keep your cash in a safe deposit box ?


No can do without breaking the law. Taking money out of circulation is ilegal


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I have no issue with the bank putting a hold on a deposit cheque until after it clears. Absolutely no surprise there and a very reasonable approach


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

lonewolf said:


> No can do without breaking the law. Taking money out of circulation is ilegal


I don't think that's right. What about people who collect bank notes?


----------



## underemployedactor (Oct 22, 2011)

It's perfectly legal to take money out of circulation. In fact the govt encourages it with the endless issues of commemorative circulating coins (eg the recent War of 1812 series) they fully expect these to be hoarded and even sell circulating sets specifically for collectors. I suspect it is a revenue generating proposition for them. It costs about 3 cents to make a quarter, but if you choose to take it out of circulation, you still have to pay the full face value, so the govt is up 22 cents.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Does anyone know if my crisp $2 bills are worth more than face value yet?


----------



## underemployedactor (Oct 22, 2011)

If it's one of these, then I would say yes.

http://colonialacres.com/product/22...radar-bcs-certified-cunc-64-original?ref=1086


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

andrewf said:


> Rusty, I think you're pathologically afraid of a banking failure. That's fine. *I think you should be more responsible in spreading that fear on the internet. You're doing a lot of harm to people who may not be able to assess what you're saying in the light of everything the government has said. You are not presenting a balanced view of the facts.*


I don't normally do this, but I have to repeat and emphasize this quote to stress the point.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Not sure on the withdrawal side but last year I sold a car for 12K cash. Went to my bank branch and deposited without any issue. I mentioned it was from the sale of a car but before they had asked me anything.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This is what the Economic Action Plan 2013 (budget) stated:

_The Government intends to implement a comprehensive risk management framework for Canada’s systemically important banks. This framework will be consistent with reforms in other countries and key international standards, such as the Financial Stability Board’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions, and will work alongside the existing Canadian regulatory capital regime. The risk management framework will include the following elements:

Systemically important banks will face a higher capital requirement, as determined by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

The Government proposes to implement a *""bail-in"" regime *for systemically important banks. This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank *depletes its capital*, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the *very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital. This will reduce risks for taxpayers*. The Government will consult stakeholders on how best to implement a bail-in regime in Canada. Implementation timelines will allow for a smooth transition for affected institutions, investors and other market participants._

It is a little muddy..........what exactly are the reforms of other countries would be followed, given what occurred in other countries...............and what "liabilities" the bank would have to convert to cash, after it depleted it's own capital.

If the "taxpayer is protected"...........the "bail in" doesn't refer to government injection of cash, so which bank investors did they have in mind?

The government's later clarification contradicted itself, by saying the changes were designed to protect against the seizure of deposits. Do Canadians need protection against having their deposits seized?

To me.............it seems that the government intended to introduce a bail-in for deposits, but backed away due to public backlash. It isn't the first time the government has floated an idea and then backed away. They did it previously when they proposed changing GIS qualification rules to include assets..........rather than income only.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

No, that's just for people who haven't been paying attention. The government has been mulling contingent capital (convertible debt instruments that automatically convert to capital once certain triggers are reached) for years, before the budget speech was even produced. They have never talked about using deposits, *because that would be insane*. Gold nuts and bloggers seized on this sloppily phrased passage to scream "ZOMG SECRET GOVT PLOT TO STEAL YOUR CASH!!11!one!1". Great click bait, and you can probably con a few people to pay for your newsletter that way or to buy some overpriced gold.

The whole point of this exercise is to provide an extra layer of private capital that would explicitly be at risk before any government intervention. So these creditors would take a hit before the government would have to step in to guarantee deposits. No sane person should believe any other possible interpretation, because it would be insane for the government to simultaneously have a deposit insurance corp and a publicly stated plan to use deposits to bail-in banks. They are mutually exclusive policies, and would be a legal nightmare.

Please note, I am no fan of this government, but I feel compelled to set the record straight on this one.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The government proposal is to force the banks to issue high risk debt and pay the high risk premium to investors?

Maybe they will expand on this plan in the upcoming 2014 Budget.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

The confusion of those who misunderstand the government's use of the "bail-in" (either deliberately or ignorantly misunderstanding it, despite the government clearly saying it's not the same thing as what occurred in other jurisdictions) reeks of the same type of argument used by those who would easily dismiss evolution because it's referred to as a "theory".

The government of Canada has not allowed banks to dip into client deposits to cover shortfalls. Period.
Anyone saying otherwise is wrong.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

It is important to first understand the background to this issue. When many systematically important banks were bailed out with taxpayer money in the credit crisis, often times preferred share holders, bond holders had their investments intact. Even common share holders were not completely wiped out. This is a problem because important banks in the future will take risks in the expectation that they will get bailed out. That's where bail-ins come in. In a financial crisis, at some point, preferred shares, for example, will convert to common stock, recapitalizing a bank and hopefully the government will not have to bail out the bank.

Sure, the budget document was sloppily worded. But as soon as the hysteria broke, Finance Minister explicitly clarified that "certain liabilities" does not include insured deposits.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

An analysis of both the vague budget announcement, and the later "clarification" by the Finance Department.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/04/jim_flahertys_cyprusstyle_bank_rescue_plan_walkom.html

The CDIC deposit protection is mentioned several times in the budget and the clarification. It is set at a limit of $100,000. It does not cover amounts over $100,000 or mutual fund types of deposits.

Converting shares to equity........isn't as simple as it sounds. Holders of contingent capital would need to be advised of the risk and paid a premium for accepting the risk.

Having read the budget, the clarification, and some articles of discussion on the plan..........I still believe it was the original intention to provide for a Cyprus bail in structure, and that it was later retracted by "clarification".

At the end of the day, the best proof of the original intentions.......may very well be if the plan was ever implemented.

To date.........I don't think it has.

The question then becomes.........without this added "protection"..........what is the current status on the seizure of capital.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Sags, I'm sorry, but that belief is not based on reality. 

By the way, RBC recently issued contingent capital bonds at a yield of 4%, with the issuance well over-subscribed. A bit of a premium, but hardly earth-shattering. Logically, the cost of capital on convertible debt would be somewhere between that of common equity and pref shares or senior bondholders.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

CDIC limits are $100k but understand that a married couple can have $300k of savings in an institution that would be covered. His, hers, and joint accounts would each have the insurance coverage.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

fraser said:


> CDIC limits are $100k but understand that a married couple can have $300k of savings in an institution that would be covered. His, hers, and joint accounts would each have the insurance coverage.


Not to mention subsidiary companies, of which the big 5 banks have at least 3 (the bank, a trust company and a mortgage company) to add up to 9. Never mind TFSAs and RRSPs, each of which are unique persons for another 2 each = 4. A total of 13 possible insured accounts with each of RBC, BNS, etc.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

You know, just a few years ago this discussion would have been absurd. It would have been impossible for any well regulated bank in any civilized country to lose a single dollar of depositors' money. The bank would have been shut down as soon as their liabilities exceeded their assets by one single dollar.

But we have had the examples of Iceland, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, England and the United States to show us that these days the old rules do not hold water. The unthinkable has become thinkable, and the impossible possible.

Where will it end? I would have breathed a sigh of relief if I had read a story about how the government is tightening supervision of banks and financial institutions to prevent them from making risky investments and losing money. Instead I read how the law is to be changed so that, if they do, they can be bailed out at someone else's expense.

Followed by assurances that they will never actually do such a thing. They just want a law on the books that they will never use because.... well I don't know why they would want it if there is no circumstance in which they would use it.


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

It's always possible for a bank to lose depositors' money if it's above the deposit insurance limits. No one has made a real promise otherwise and many people in well-regulated banking systems are nonetheless careful to spread out their money. In the US there are dedicated brokerage services that will automatically send your cash to hundreds of different banks if necessary. Not unthinkable, not impossible.

One might also debate whether Iceland, Cyprus, Greece, and Ireland were well-regulated. I would hope for smaller losses than they had but anything is possible.

If things go really badly the government won't limit themselves to doing things they have hinted at in press releases years ago. They will do anything that they feel is necessary.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> But we have had the examples of Iceland, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, England and the United States to show us that these days the old rules do not hold water. The unthinkable has become thinkable, and the impossible possible.


I don't think it was unthinkable. And it's not really all that surprising that tiny economies with huge financial sectors ran into trouble when their banks went bad. The real surprise from your list is that the US let their banks run so wild. England's bank failures were closely related. The first four were conspicuously risky to anyone paying attention. All that said, only in Cyprus has a depositor lost any money.




> Where will it end? I would have breathed a sigh of relief if I had read a story about how the government is tightening supervision of banks and financial institutions to prevent them from making risky investments and losing money. Instead I read how the law is to be changed so that, if they do, they can be bailed out at someone else's expense.


The government does regulate banks pretty strictly, through OFSI, and capital standards have been rising since the crisis. Part of which is the regulation requiring banks to raise contingent capital. You make it sound like the banks will steal that money if they need to be bailed in. Those buying the contingent capital are being paid to explicitly take that risk, with a risk premium above senior notes.



> Followed by assurances that they will never actually do such a thing.


Utter nonsense. Coco has explicit automatic triggers for conversion to equity.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

richard said:


> If things go really badly the government won't limit themselves to doing things they have hinted at in press releases years ago. They will do anything that they feel is necessary.


This. However, governments are interested in firstly not being lynched by an angry public whose deposits they just pinched despite also guaranteeing said deposits, and secondly in being re-elected. Which is why if Canada experienced a financial crisis severe enough to not only trigger contingent capital to convert to equity, but for banks to still be illiquid, the government will do as the US did, and bail them out using borrowed or printed money. Because no one is going to boot them out of office for printing money in a financial crisis.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I believe if deposits ever get get pinched it will be because of the IMF or something forcing it and not the government doing it on its own.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't see how the IMF could force that. I also don't see how the IMF would believe it to be a good idea to nuke the financial sector (destroying Canadians' trust in the financial system). Unless the IMF is bent on destroying Canada?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

fatcat said:


> good lord
> if it's just money sitting in a checking or savings account where it is earning diddly, why not just keep your cash in a safe deposit box ?


Is it still legal to put cash in a safety deposit box?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm not aware of any law against putting cash in a SDB.


----------



## ban (Nov 1, 2012)

Pluto said:


> Is it still legal to put cash in a safety deposit box?


Always was, always will be...


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

So if you believe there may be a run on the banks here what would you do? Take all your cash out? Cash out and invest in something else?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Buy bank shares. Much safer than deposits.


----------



## MRT (Apr 8, 2013)

fatcat said:


> good lord
> if it's just money sitting in a checking or savings account where it is earning diddly, why not just keep your cash in a safe deposit box ?


no CDIC insurance (for the truly paranoid)?


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I don't see how the IMF could force that. I also don't see how the IMF would believe it to be a good idea to nuke the financial sector (destroying Canadians' trust in the financial system). Unless the IMF is bent on destroying Canada?


If Canada got into big debt and banking trouble requiring external help, then the IMF or whatever may force the government to do something. Back in the early 90's we were heading in the direction of IMF help before we decided to get serious about our debt and deficit problem.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

We are pretty far away from that scenario.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> I don't see how the IMF could force that. I also don't see how the IMF would believe it to be a good idea to nuke the financial sector (destroying Canadians' trust in the financial system). Unless the IMF is bent on destroying Canada?


It depends how you look at it. If you are a banker who sees his bank as an ongoing business that must be nurtured and protected so that it can continue to thrive for the rest of your life and beyond, you will do business one way.

If you look at it as a means to enrich yourself and retire a billionaire in a few years if you cut a few corners you will do business in a completely different way.

There have always been sharpies and chisellers in Canada and elsewhere but the authorities kept them in check. Now they seem to regard a bank blowup as a possibility that must be planned for.

This is what I mean by the old rules no longer holding water. There was a time when the prospect of banks going broke because of bad investments, would have led to regulations aimed and preventing such risky practices. Now the idea seems to be, to let the bank blow up and bail them out with the public's money.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If bank failures started happening and the financial system was collapsing, I would take out as much cash as I could get my hands on........and run to the grocery stores buying everything I could carry.......before the stores shelves got cleaned out or the money was worth nothing.

A few years ago, the price of rice skyrocketed........and it was no big deal for most people.

But the store shelves around here got cleaned right out of those big bags of rice. I asked a Chinese friend and she said they eat rice with every meal.......breakfast, dinner and supper, so the Chinese were hoarding as much rice as they could.

If people react that way.........with a little price scare on rice........it would be full out panic time if the banks started to fall.

A pretty good book that I read when it was first published............The Last Canadian by William Heinz in 1974.

A little ahead of it's time.........given the later popularity of Stephen King and today's zombie apocalyptic scenarios.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2775873-the-last-canadian


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think that was mostly irrational. Like the Italians rioting because the price of pasta rose from 20 cents a meal to 30 cents...

And if we are talking about bank failures, are we talking about a worse scenario than the US in 2008?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I think that was mostly irrational. Like the Italians rioting because the price of pasta rose from 20 cents a meal to 30 cents...
> 
> And if we are talking about bank failures, are we talking about a worse scenario than the US in 2008?


Good question. I guess Lehman, Bear Stearns and the others didn't seem like "banks" to me. More like a financial investing entity.

Even so.........we did take a couple thousand out of the bank in cash..........just in case.

If a couple Canadian banks started appearing really shaky..........I would take out a lot more.........just in case.

Better safe than sorry.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The point is, there was a time not so long ago that top banking officials, and government officials, in Canada and in other civilized countries, believed it was important to prevent risky banking practices and to protect the public from dodgy banks even if it meant lower profits.

The new paradigm seems to be that the slick trick, the quick fix and the gimmick are the main things and if these things result in a bubble that pops, the taxpayers and depositors are good for the money.

I'm not saying there will ever be a bail in, bail out, bank run or financial collapse. All I am saying is, the banks and the government will be ready.

The public, not so much. Maybe a few hipsters who follow the financial news and forums like this one will see it coming but 99% of the public will be taken by surprise, and I do mean taken.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Except the government is regulating banks and restricting their activity in ways that reduce profits in order to increase their stability... And is it not good that banks and governments have a game plan in the event they become undercapitalized, and a solution that does not require governments to step in to make depositors whole or inject capital? That is the whole point of requiring banks to raise contingent capital, as the banks have begun to do.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

How could they become undercapitalized? Under previous regulations which stood us in good stead for more than 100 years, banks were audited regularly and if they became undercapitalized even by one dollar, they were put into the hands of a receiver.

No depositor or creditor lost under this system. The stockholders and bond holders of the bank might lose but that was the chance they took when they invested, and is the reason for bond ratings and security analysts.

If a bank officer or board member acted honestly they might lose their job at worst. But if they were guilty of fraud or theft they would be sent to prison.

This system did not break down, it was abandoned. We have seen the results in other countries. I wonder if Canada will join the modern age.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Bankruptcy law is not quite so neat and tidy. Do you think it is feasible for insolvent banks to be put in creditor protection while it restructures?


----------



## liquidfinance (Jan 28, 2011)

fraser said:


> Our personal experience is that retail banking in the UK is about 25 years behind Canada in attitude, and about 10 years from a technology perspective. The prevailing view is that they are doing you a favour. Just walk in and ask ifthe Manager is available....the staff will look at you as if you had two heads. HSBC had been fined for acting as bankers and handling huge amounts of drug monies and terrorist monies. But if you walk in to open an account' or have monies transferred in of say 10,000 GBP they will grill you about where you got the money. It is very, very strange. We dealt with RBC in London, the City branch, some time ago. It was very clear that the customer was not king.
> 
> Natwest, a very large UK bank has been down 'hard' a number of times in the past few months...and for days at a time. Depositors could not access funds or have credit card transaction approved. Cheques were not honoured. Even when they came back up some accounts had incorrect balances and automatic payroll deposits did not make it in to the correct account-they stayed in limbo. It was, and it still is, a complete mess. Makes one appreciate Canadian banks..well to a point that is.
> 
> There have been several articles published in the last ten days purporting that HSBC cooked the books and grossly overstated their assets to the tune of B55 GBP. Not certain how true this is.



Hmm I will take my UK bank any day thankyou. Completly free. Never had bad service. Can pay anyone who banks with any other bank and they will get the money same day. Non of this Interac bs. The UK is 10years behind Canada in technological terms yet for some reason in Canada there is still a need for cheques....

What a complete bs thread.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> How could they become undercapitalized?
> 
> Under previous regulations which stood us in good stead for more than 100 years, banks were audited regularly and if they became undercapitalized even by one dollar, they were put into the hands of a receiver.
> 
> No depositor or creditor lost under this system ...


I'd suggest you brush up on the history of bank failures ... Canada alone contradicts this.

The Home Bank of Canada was brought down in 1923 - not by an audit nor by the directors that were informed of the issues years before the failure but by a letter to the Minister of Finance. At the time of the failure, Home Bank's assets were estimated at $2.7 million versus liabilities of $15.5 million.

The $5.45 million the gov't of Canada paid out to depositors *did not cover the deposits*. 

Had the directors either merged or wound up the bank in 1916 or 1918, when they knew about the issues - there would have been no depositor losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Bank


Both Northland Bank and Canadian Commercial Bank failed in 1985, when CDIC only covered $60K per eligible deposit account - so I'd expect there would be some lost deposits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northland_Bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Commercial_Bank


Between 1980 and 1990, twenty-three banks or trust companies failed. 

If they weren't bought up or merged with, any deposit accounts over the CDIC limits would have lost money. Note that prior to 1983 the CDIC limit was $20K per eligible deposit account and then it was raised to $60K.

Incidentally - CDIC has dropped their coverage in 2005, the covered amount was changed from per eligible deposit account to per depositor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation 


Cheers


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

"Had the directors either merged or wound up the bank in 1916 or 1918, when they knew about the issues - there would have been no depositor losses."

That is the point. That is what I am saying. If banks are honestly run, or if they are audited regularly and put into receivership when they get in trouble, the losses are small and the damage to the country's financial system is negligible.

Receivership is not bankruptcy. A receiver's job is to sort out the firm's finances, and decide how best to deal with the situation. It may mean reorganizing a company and starting fresh, it may involve a takeover by another firm, or it may mean the company is wound up.

There is no question of a bail in, bail out, or other financial shenanigans in a conservatively run system. Only if you are playing fast and loose with other peoples' money, do you need to worry about who is going to bail you out when the system blows up.

Your post proves my point. Yes, there have been failures of financial institutions but they did not bring down the economy. I doubt most people ever heard of most of them. This is the way a properly run financial system works. Failures are small and easily contained, they do not wipe out the public's savings, destroy thousands of jobs and bring down the whole economy


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Large banks have structured themselves in a way that they can not be allowed to go bankrupt in the traditional sense.

Due to their huge (off balance sheet) derivative arrangements, large banks are inter-linked such that one party failing causes a cascade of failures across the country and globe. For instance if JPM were to fail, the first that would happen would be that RBC fails due to JPM defaulting on a ton of large contracts (derivative counterparties). And once RBC fails the other big banks fall like dominos. Deutsche Bank fails as they are huge counterparty to JPM & RBC, etc.

Thus the banks have really put a gun to our heads. I don't think people understand this. *They are holding our nations hostage*... see, we really can't let them fail and they know this.

Also due to the above, 99.99% of investors figure that large banks can not ever fail, and they invest accordingly and put their "trust" in large banks. As a result small banks lose business, and in fact American regional banks have been decimated since 2008. Large banks in turn don't have much reason to do traditional banking activities like lending to small business, so they simply buy up treasuries, hoard them, and other safe securities.

Economic activity remains stagnant. Banks don't lend, and there is no alternative to the big banks since they have a gun to our heads. It's a very unwholesome situation


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I also forgot to mention that modern large banks are very much *unlike* traditional, old-school banks. They are involved in a lot of leveraged capital market speculation, hedge fund activities, prop trading, and other high risk gambling activities. Derivatives trading, derivatives innovation, all kinds of ridiculous crap.

This is not what traditional banks used to do, but this is the bread & butter of all banks now. And they engage in these activities because the depository arms of the bank have access to unlimited bailout funds (central bank lending) which give them a life line for their gambling activities.

The proper thing to do is to outlaw banks from doing this gambling together with traditional banking. The traditional banking should be separated out. The leveraged speculation / investment banking must be completely separated into an arm that doesn't get access to central bank facilities... it would have to survive with its own capital & equity. That will help solve this mess.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

I look at it this way. How much of the risk capital can the bail in eligible debt they sold cover? Billions vs trillions of derivative risk. Gross exposure becomes net exposure when your counterparty fails and it is this scenario which we must use to figure out how to secure your assets. At the moment, I don't think any bank have sold enough bail in eligible debt to cover derivative exposure. So in the event of a failure your deposits are still at risk. and whether or not cdic will be able to ensure your deposit will depend on which bank failed as cdic's fund is puny.

Sure, gov can print cash, but not before panic and run on the bank starts. Look at usa as the most recent example. Money printing is not something that can be switched on instantaneously and the consequences is evident in everyday staple item's inflation rate.

I am not trying to spew fear. I believe I am just one of many who used to not care about all this, but went from, nah it'll never happen to omg I can't believe this stable country did this. Look at Poland and what they just did today. There's definitely a weariness and alot more skepticism in everyone's mind nowadays. With more fickle people, it is prudent to take measures for protection wince everyone else is now more fickle.

When etrade reported losses in 2007 2008, the big whales did not think about deposit insurances or gov guarantees. They yanked their assets from that brokerage against all reason. In game theory it make sense. If you leave your deposit, you have 50% chance at being collateral damage. If you yank your fund, you have 0% risk. So you yank your fund.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

james4beach said:


> I also forgot to mention that modern large banks are very much *unlike* traditional, old-school banks. They are involved in a lot of leveraged capital market speculation, hedge fund activities, prop trading, and other high risk gambling activities. Derivatives trading, derivatives innovation, all kinds of ridiculous crap.
> 
> This is not what traditional banks used to do, but this is the bread & butter of all banks now. And they engage in these activities because the depository arms of the bank have access to unlimited bailout funds (central bank lending) which give them a life line for their gambling activities.
> 
> The proper thing to do is to outlaw banks from doing this gambling together with traditional banking. The traditional banking should be separated out. The leveraged speculation / investment banking must be completely separated into an arm that doesn't get access to central bank facilities... it would have to survive with its own capital & equity. That will help solve this mess.


My point exactly. Until excess leverage and speculation are controlled by regulators there will be a danger of a financial collapse. If this is unacceptable, then the innocent will be robbed of their savings to save the system, rewarding the speculators in the process.

This is not going to happen in Canada any time soon but if it does, you will get no warning. Besides what you already have.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Causa, if you think that way, you should own exactly zero financial securities of any kind. Companies are all interconnected, not just financial companies. If you think the financial sector will collapse like a series of dominoes, non-financial companies will also collapse due to their (and their customers') inability to secure financing. Poof, and we're back to rubbing sticks together to keep warm.

Of course banks have not yet issued enough contingent capital. They just started. I'd like to see over time the government ramp up the contingent capital requirements, but baby steps are fine with me to demonstrate to the industry and observers that contingent capital is not the end of the world. Eventually, and ideally, the whole bank capital structure will be contingent capital in successive levels of seniority, with only insurable deposits guaranteed by the government, and then only once everyone else in the capital structure is diluted away to nothing.

Bailing-in creditors is a much more effective way of handling insolvency. The new owners can decide whether they want to continue to operate the business or to liquidate and recoup what they can. No protracted bankruptcy proceedings. All companies should be structured this way.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

"Bailing-in creditors is a much more effective way of handling insolvency. The new owners can decide whether they want to continue to operate the business or to liquidate and recoup what they can. No protracted bankruptcy proceedings. All companies should be structured this way. "

That's all right if you are one of the big shots getting bailed in. If you are one of the suckers whose money vanished you may have a different opinion.

I would rather decide for myself what to invest my money in, and it won't be in worthless bonds of a bankrupt badly run bank.

In the meantime a locally run credit union probably is the least likely to take you to the cleaners.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Umm, okay. No one would force you to buy such bonds. I think you just had a reading comprehension fail. Keep in mind that the people who get hurt are firstly shareholders. As it should be. And bondholders should be at risk of loss, too, if they lend it a poorly run firm.

Credit unions have failed in the past and will do so again. So far when one runs into trouble it gets rolled into another to form a larger CU. Eventually TBTF applies there as well.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm thinking of the Greek bail in where depositors funds were taken and they were given in return, bonds of the bankrupt banks that had no value and could not be sold for years.

I know that can't happen in Canada, you have already pointed out that certain government officials have promised it won't. If we are going to go by government promises I would prefer to go by the ones that predate the last budget. Unfortunately government promises are not enforceable and can be changed at any time.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You mean like deposit insurance?

As I made explicit in my post, deposits should be at the top of the capital structure of banks. That means for deposits (even uninsured deposits) to be at risk would require negative equity enough to wipe out common equity, preferred equity, contingent capital and senior bondholders. You will not find many bank failures in history where assets were so impaired.

Greece never used bail-ins. You are confusing it with Cyprus, a tax haven for misappropriated Russian oligarch/mafia wealth with an insignificant economy, no control over its currency, an overgrown financial sector, and banks structured with no significant equity or bondholders to absorb losses. 

You seem to desperately believe there is a government plot to annihilate the financial sector, decimate the Canadian sovereign's credibility and credit rating by seizing insured deposits. I'm not sure what motivates this belief, but it strikes me as utterly bizarre and divorced from reality and historical events either in Canada or abroad.


----------



## Causalien (Apr 4, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Causa, if you think that way, you should own exactly zero financial securities of any kind. Companies are all interconnected, not just financial companies. If you think the financial sector will collapse like a series of dominoes, non-financial companies will also collapse due to their (and their customers') inability to secure financing. Poof, and we're back to rubbing sticks together to keep warm.
> 
> Of course banks have not yet issued enough contingent capital. They just started. I'd like to see over time the government ramp up the contingent capital requirements, but baby steps are fine with me to demonstrate to the industry and observers that contingent capital is not the end of the world. Eventually, and ideally, the whole bank capital structure will be contingent capital in successive levels of seniority, with only insurable deposits guaranteed by the government, and then only once everyone else in the capital structure is diluted away to nothing.
> 
> Bailing-in creditors is a much more effective way of handling insolvency. The new owners can decide whether they want to continue to operate the business or to liquidate and recoup what they can. No protracted bankruptcy proceedings. All companies should be structured this way.


You must not look at this as a one way street. Anyone who invest in financial entities today will need to weigh this risk. The fact that the smart, paranoid and risk averse investors have all now been tuned into this new risk means you now have a smaller population who just blindly do what is told, which means increased fickleness. It is a new formula that needs to be considered. To blindly say that we should trust the politicians and the bankers is as stupid as blindly mistrust them. Most of the people will do what is contractually obligated of them, until it hits their money, and then the next level of pain until it hits their fight or flight pain point where they start worry about self preservation. 

Just like the banks executing the "Know your client" maneuver. I recommend people to "Know their bank". I for one have spent considerable amount of time going over bank's books and have strategically allocated my assets based on my findings. It's not riskless in the event of an apocalypse, but it is good enough to have layers of failure based on risk factors so I will have time to maneuver when the riskier layers fail. Money is your time. Money lost = time lost. It doesn't take too much time to safeguard your money/time, so why not do it?


----------



## richard (Jun 20, 2013)

Causalien said:


> I believe I am just one of many who used to not care about all this, but went from, nah it'll never happen to omg I can't believe this stable country did this.


The lesson isn't that "a stable country can do this", it's that those countries weren't stable. Sometimes the risk is appropriate and sometimes it isn't. You can avoid that risk 100% of the time if you want but it's better if you can figure out when it's not really a big risk.


----------



## dBII (Mar 12, 2013)

That is bizarre James. You don't have that "fresh out of rehab" look by any chance? I withdrew about $60000 in $12000 segments over a 5 month span and TD never batted an eye.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

You are right, I meant Cyprus.

There isn't any big plot to defraud the public. There are lots of little plots by crooks and chiselers. We used to have a government that protected us from them, now we are heading toward a government that protects them from us.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Never had an issue with $5k, sometimes 6K at CIBC from both CAD and USD accounts.

Nor have we had any issues in transferring multiple amounts of $100K from our cibc accounts to other financial institutions.


----------

