G20 about to steal your money in the bank with removal of the bank garantees

derry

G20 about to steal your money in the bank with removal of the bank guarantees.

Yes the G20 has made it that all bank deposits will be simple shareholders at with no bank grantees for All G20 members and their side kicks like ROI ,Holland Belgium Greece you name it . So if you got €100,000 in Irish bank soon if the bank goes belly up you will join the line of creditors and be lucky to get €1000 euros back

The gombeens in the Royal Oireachtas 26 county Provisional Irish Government didn't tell you that one was coming down the pike m

http://beforeitsnews.com/banksters/2014/11/the-money-in-your-bank-account-was-stolen-this-morning-2435038.html?utm_source=direct-b4in.info&utm_medium=verticalresponse&utm_campaign=&utm_content=beforeit39snews-verticalresponse&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2Fagdh


Also bear in mind many EU countries it is illegal to have more than ~€10,000 cash so if they find more than that they confiscate from you. How soon before the gombeens do that to the Irish peoples

Derry

BoJack Horseman

derry wrote: »

G20 about to steal your money in the bank with removal of the bank guarantees.

Yes the G20 has made it that all bank deposits will be simple shareholders at with no bank grantees for All G20 members and their side kicks like ROI ,Holland Belgium Greece you name it . So if you got €100,000 in Irish bank soon if the bank goes belly up you will join the line of creditors and be lucky to get €1000 euros back

The gombeens in the Royal Oireachtas 26 county Provisional Irish Government didn't tell you that one was coming down the pike m

http://beforeitsnews.com/banksters/2014/11/the-money-in-your-bank-account-was-stolen-this-morning-2435038.html?utm_source=direct-b4in.info&utm_medium=verticalresponse&utm_campaign=&utm_content=beforeit39snews-verticalresponse&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2Fagdh


Also bear in mind many EU countries it is illegal to have more than ~€10,000 cash so if they find more than that they confiscate from you. How soon before the gombeens do that to the Irish peoples

Derry

What will you be doing about this outrage OP?

Is it enough to make you want to no longer live in a G20 nation?

Is this why Putin left early?

hmmm

derry wrote: »

G20 about to steal your money in the bank with removal of the bank guarantees.

Make up your mind, do you want taxpayers to guarantee banks or not.

What do you mean that no-one told you this was coming? Governments have spent the past 6 years trying to figure out how to make sure that taxpayers aren't on the hook when banks go bust in future. Have you been paying any attention at all?

Nody

First of all it's not illegal to have more than 10k in cash; you need to declare it when crossing borders and have a valid explanation where the come from to prevent illegal money to be shifted around.

Secondly; they are not stealing your money but removing what was an artificial bank support by guaranteeing that if the bank went belly up you would still have the money left. This meant that the banks got more money and the taxpayers had to pay in case the bank went belly up (this was also part of what made funds rush to Ireland at the start of the bank crisis as the government promised to cover all the money). Now instead of throwing the money at any bank you actually need to take a basic interest in how a bank is performing and why rather than simply expect everyone else to pay you instead if things go wrong.

marienbad

Is'nt this just going back to where we were before the whole debacle kicked off ?

And in hindsight that bank guarantee maybe wasn't such a good idea after all ?.

ART6

Nody wrote: »

First of all it's not illegal to have more than 10k in cash; you need to declare it when crossing borders and have a valid explanation where the come from to prevent illegal money to be shifted around.

Secondly; they are not stealing your money but removing what was an artificial bank support by guaranteeing that if the bank went belly up you would still have the money left. This meant that the banks got more money and the taxpayers had to pay in case the bank went belly up (this was also part of what made funds rush to Ireland at the start of the bank crisis as the government promised to cover all the money). Now instead of throwing the money at any bank you actually need to take a basic interest in how a bank is performing and why rather than simply expect everyone else to pay you instead if things go wrong.

And spreading savings between banks to minimise the risk -- including investing some in a Swiss bank account. Both are easy to do. Foreign bank accounts have to be declared to the revenue and any interest recorded in tax returns, but it is not a big issue. In any case, the new regime of EU stress tests for banks should, in theory, make the deposit guarantees irrelevant.

Rightwing

They don't know want they are doing, making up rules as they go along.

No wonder the shoe shiners and taxi drivers will be telling us what stocks to hold.

hmmm

Rightwing wrote: »

They don't know want they are doing, making up rules as they go along.

6 years they've been discussing this.

andrew

I can only find stuff on conspiracy sites about this, but even then those sites still note that regular deposit insurance schemes, which typically cover sums up to about €100,000, will still be in place. So it's not an issue for most people. If you have over €100,000 in a deposit account, chances are you're incredibly rich so I don't see what the problem is with a bail-in, when the alternative is taking the money from considerably poorer tax payers in the event of a collapse.

And even if what I just said is wrong, OP's post would still be wrong and an abuse of the definition of the word 'steal'.

robp

andrew wrote: »

I can only find stuff on conspiracy sites about this, but even then those sites still note that regular deposit insurance schemes, which typically cover sums up to about €100,000, will still be in place. So it's not an issue for most people. If you have over €100,000 in a deposit account, chances are you're incredibly rich so I don't see what the problem is with a bail-in, when the alternative is taking the money from considerably poorer tax payers in the event of a collapse.

And even if what I just said is wrong, OP's post would still be wrong and an abuse of the definition of the word 'steal'.

I think you would find many very ordinary people nearing retirement would have those sums in bank accounts without being rich but you are right the broader story is a non issue.

ressem

Wasn't this always the case?
In the case of a bank going bankrupt, there was supposed to be a hierarchy of creditors.

I don't know what the new scenario is that the OP is referencing, but there have been suggestions that in future, after the shareholders capital has been wiped out, that large depositors and senior bondholders would become the new shareholders, not the taxpayer.
More like what happened in Cypress.

Does this turn the PLC into a credit union though? The WSJ suggests that the new unwilling owners will be dissuaded from raising capital, seeing it as further diluting their chances of restoring their deposits.

And will businesses, credit unions have to get used to cycling their money around multiple banks (recent irish credit union regulations already compel this) or will intermediary bank services be created that promise to automate this, spreading short term bank deposit throughout europe in the same way a pension fund is supposed to.

Scofflaw

ressem wrote: »

Wasn't this always the case?
In the case of a bank going bankrupt, there was supposed to be a hierarchy of creditors.

I don't know what the new scenario is that the OP is referencing, but there have been suggestions that in future, after the shareholders capital has been wiped out, that large depositors and senior bondholders would become the new shareholders, not the taxpayer.
More like what happened in Cypress.

Does this turn the PLC into a credit union though? The WSJ suggests that the new unwilling owners will be dissuaded from raising capital, seeing it as further diluting their chances of restoring their deposits.

And will businesses, credit unions have to get used to cycling their money around multiple banks (recent irish credit union regulations already compel this) or will intermediary bank services be created that promise to automate this, spreading short term bank deposit throughout europe in the same way a pension fund is supposed to.

Hmm....cloud banking? You have one aggregate account 'interface' like Banking 365 with a company which allows you all the retail banking functions - but the company isn't a bank, and doesn't hold the money, which is spread out across a variety of banks for maximum safety. To you, though, it just looks like one account.

I'm sure you could already do this if you're wealthy, but the idea that it might spread to the ordinary bank customer is kind of interesting.

Anyone have an investor gagging to get into the next wave of banking?

cordially,
Scofflaw

So if the bank goes belly up they take my savings....
If the bank goes belly up do I get to keep the money they lent me???

hmmm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm....cloud banking? You have one aggregate account 'interface' like Banking 365 with a company which allows you all the retail banking functions - but the company isn't a bank, and doesn't hold the money, which is spread out across a variety of banks for maximum safety. To you, though, it just looks like one account.

Sounds like a money market fund which is very popular amongst corporates and high net worth types.

sbsquarepants

marienbad wrote: »

Is'nt this just going back to where we were before the whole debacle kicked off ?

And in hindsight that bank guarantee maybe wasn't such a good idea after all ?.

It wasn't really guaranteeing aunty nelly 5 grand that caused the problem though was it, it was more uncle seanies 30 odd billion that fúcked us over. The deposits of ordinary people should of course be protected.

We also took the investors funds into our "guarantee" that was foolish in the extreme.

No one would have said boo, had it just been deposits

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

So if the bank goes belly up they take my savings....
If the bank goes belly up do I get to keep the money they lent me???

No, they'd sell your debt.

FreudianSlippers

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It wasn't really guaranteeing aunty nelly 5 grand that caused the problem though was it, it was more uncle seanies 30 odd billion that fúcked us over. The deposits of ordinary people should of course be protected.

The problem was way more complex than that.

There was, effectively, systemic cross-collateralization which meant that the failure of one bank would pretty much automatically mean the immediate failure of another. I don't agree a blanket guarantee was the right thing, but in a pinch and against a deadline I can see how they came to that conclusion.

What I don't think anyone expected was for Anglo to effectively **** on the whole situation by abusing that guarantee.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, they'd sell your debt.

Hardly seems fair now does it?
They lose my money yet still expect to be paid back?

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly seems fair now does it?
They lose my money yet still expect to be paid back?

Sorry, who said anything about fair?

Your contract with them is likely very clear about risk and loss and yet you sign up to it - both for a current/savings account as well as a loan.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sorry, who said anything about fair?

Your contract with them is likely very clear about risk and loss and yet you sign up to it - both for a current/savings account as well as a loan.

Just highlighting the mind-set of "You owe me a 100 it's your problem, you owe me a 1000 it's our problem, you owe me a 1,000,000 it's my problem"

Screw the general dude on the ground again

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

Just highlighting the mind-set of "You owe me a 100 it's your problem, you owe me a 1000 it's our problem, you owe me a 1,000,000 it's my problem"

Screw the general dude on the ground again

Nobody forced you to take out the debt.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nobody forced you to take out the debt.

I'm sure that you are not meaning but your posts are of that passive aggressive douche nature.

General points being made nothing individual. I don't have unsustainable debt, just love how when large people lose their money on gambles into banks they must be covered but the prudent person saving gets punished

Valetta

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure that you are not meaning but your posts are of that passive aggressive douche nature.

General points being made nothing individual. I don't have unsustainable debt, just love how when large people lose their money on gambles into banks they must be covered but the prudent person saving gets punished

It's really no different to any other business going bust.

Debtors will be chased for the full amount, whilst creditors will have to wait and see if there are any scraps left to fight over.

Valetta

Valetta wrote: »

It's really no different to any other business going bust.

Debtors will be chased for the full amount, whilst creditors will have to wait and see if there are any scraps left to fight over.

Yes except this is a change in policy, not the default.
Banks run on trust of those saving, the entire system is built on that trust.

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

We also took the investors funds into our "guarantee" that was foolish in the extreme.

No one would have said boo, had it just been deposits

Eh, we didn't, the shareholders lost out.

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

So if the bank goes belly up they take my savings....
If the bank goes belly up do I get to keep the money they lent me???

If the bank goes belly up they take your savings [but the deposit insurance will cover €100k]
If you go belly up you take the money they lent you.

You probably have the better side of the deal here.

sbsquarepants

Is that 100k insurance not being scrapped, or am I taking this up wrong?

Scofflaw

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is that 100k insurance not being scrapped, or am I taking this up wrong?

Not as far as I've ever heard. The thinking seems to be to bail in the very cash-rich, protect the cash-poor, and cause the people in between to spread their deposits across the system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conorh91

Scofflaw wrote: »

...and cause the people in between to spread their deposits across the system.

People with multi-hundred thousand cash deposits are the "in between"?

I doubt there are more than a handful of multi-millionaires in Ireland with hundreds of thousands on cash deposit.

The only significant depositors of that nature in the banking system would be large retailers and mortgage drawdowns.