No banks are safe (bail ins, FDIC limits, systemic risks)

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Benefactor
Messages
14,353
Reaction score
4,530
Points
268
Location
Texas
Following the news that TBTF Cypriot zombie banks will steal from depositors rather than go through normal bankruptcy, we heard that Canada was ready to abandon fiduciary responsibility too. Now there are reports that the USA and the UK have an agreement in place to do the same:
More: http://silverdoctors.com/fdic-bank-...limited-cyprus-style-bail-ins-for-tbtf-banks/

Wall Street bankers breath a sigh of relief as their multi-million dollar bonuses are now safe. Instead of losing their jobs when the bank is dissolved in bankruptcy, they are going to get fat on the backs of depositors.

Edit: I found the source document that SD is quoting:
Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions

A joint paper by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England

10 December 2012
...

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2012/nr156.pdf
 
So, we're all unsecured creditors now. Well that sucks. Most of us here grew up believing that our money was simply sitting in the bank, and when they made a loan at higher interest than they paid us, they kept the vig but still allowed us access to our meager little stash. Not so true any more I fear. These days "they" will simply do as they please with our loot and we will shut up and take it....or else.
 
...

Slow bank run... I have been doing that for quite a while now. I get money, I take money OUT of the bank. Some stays in CA$H, some goes to buying gold. Nothing that has happened this year changes my view.

Nor did anything that happened last year, or in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.....
 
Bottom line is that the ONLY safe bank is a depository bank, one where they charge you to safely STORE your money. Of course, that does not mean that the Feds could not steal it anyhow, just like FDR stole the gold from safe deposit boxes. It only means that you have taken one variable out of the equation - gambling by the banksters.
 

Ditto, except Bing (my wife) buys gold, I buy silver. I honestly don't have a single piece of gold; I'm waiting to see my first Krugerrand....
 
I am assuming that the aren't, but just to throw it out there...

Are credit unions any more secure than the regular banks?

Since they do the same thing as banks, but on a more limited scale, I don't see them being much more secure. They can still have bank runs, still freeze your accounts, etc. And they still loan out the money you "loaned" to them for safekeeping. Just a smaller, usually more local bank in my view.
 
re: Credit Unions, I can only speak on these that I have researched myself, and these were Polish ones. I was doing a little research about their statutes, and the largest "union" of Credit Unions there (that all other local CUs are required by law to be associated in), in their statute, had a loophole, that would allow them to invest client funds into "other financial instruments". It is funny, how these three seemingly "benign" words were buried deeply in the statute, yet effectively, it allows them to do pretty much the same funny things with your money, as other banks. And all the rest of the statute, was about how one people save, the other will get credit for housing, and blahblahblah.

No need to say, I've lost all my interest in them right after digging up these three little words. No substantial difference between them & banks, and when the financial system collapses, they will be as leveraged & on a hook as anyone else in financial sector.

So to summarize, I would strongly suggest, to read their statute, and follow up EVERY reference, to a word, rather than assuming that "we all know how Credit Unions work". We don't
 
Last edited:
...
Are credit unions any more secure than the regular banks?

FWIW (from 2008): http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/credit-unions-arent-immune.html

See also: http://www.pmbug.com/forum/f4/bank-transfer-day-74/

And this site for rating banks was recommended to me on another forum a long time ago (in 2009):
 
Actually, our credit unions are safer than banks because of their charters. The first thing that helps is they are limited to a specific geographic or demographic area, which means it is impossible for them to get TBTF. The second thing is that they are non-profit, so they have minimal fees and no motivation to fuck their clients. Third is they cannot use bank funds for anything other than loans; no investing, no gambling, just loans. Fourth is that every member has a vote. fifth is they are limited severely as regards leverage. They cannot lever out twenty and thirty times.

All in all, if one were to be faced with choosing between JPM or a credit union, I would choose the CU every time. I am forced by circumstance to maintain a couple of accounts with BOA and one with Wells Fargo. Both banks fuck me at every turn of the road. The credit union however, is the best banking experience I have ever had. My wife and I bank at two local credit unions, and each one is as good as the other. Given my way, I would move all of my funds in to the credit unions.
 
Krugman in NYT has commentary arguing for capital controls today. Disgusting.

http*//www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/opinion/krugman-hot-money-blues.html
 
that is Mish's response, on how Krugman is partially right - but for all the wrong reasons:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/rational-reason-to-panic-hot-money.html


EDIT:

this is quote from Krugman's piece:
WTF?! "fuelled by foreign money"?! Is this guy for real? How possibly a Nobel Prize winner can make such a fucking retarded claim, and openly dishonest one? So Fed and their low interest rates, Affordable Housing programmes, Fannie & Freddie, are all fucking "foreign money" now, yes? Better yet, he contradicts himself in the very next sentence, "WE borrowed in our own currency". This guy is a fucking joke! I will have to remember to NOT listen or read his pieces, just as I've stopped watching anything with "Pierce Morgan" in it's title, to save meself from collecting too much of a negative Karma.

UGH, what a slimy, disgusting, treacherous bastard!
 
Last edited:
Don't know if this is already covered somewhere, just saw it...

SWITZERLAND REVISES 1934 BANKING ACT TO ALLOW BAIL-IN DEPOSIT CONFISCATIONS!



http://silverdoctors.com/switzerlan...g-act-to-allow-bail-in-deposit-confiscations/
 
I'm wondering if the slam down in gold, obviously by people who can afford to take a loss, was intended to prevent a slow or fast bank run they fear, by seeming to take away PM's "safe haven" status right around the time we are also hearing of "bail-ins" and such. I rarely link to my own site here, but it's too much to type again right now, so here's the rest of my take on it.
http://www.coultersmithing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=51&p=4397#p4397
 
It's quite possible the bail-in/"banks aren't safe" message is responsible for the purported runs on physical gold in the GLD, COMEX and LBMA systems (that are also speculated as motivations for the gold smash).

I must say though, that if this was the motivation, it's failing spectacularly as physical is flying off shelves everywhere around the world right now.
 
Event horizon getting nearer?


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...n-tbtf-bank-fails-depositors-will-be-cyprused
 

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...sits-of-over-100-000-may-be-at-risk-1.1384295
 
PMBug,
My good friend for many years lives in Wales and let me know that EVERYONE from Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Great Britain is scared shitless about their bank accounts. My friend owns his own auto customization shop and does quite a lot of work through the course of a year. In addition, many of the jobs he does requires up-front payments for expensive parts, motors, etc. and so he keeps a large amount of operating capital in the bank. His plan is to remove as much as he can, keep it in a "safe place" so that when the seizures happen, he will not be wiped out like every single small business in Cyprus was.

I cannot imagine that happening here, because the entire country woulf burn down. There would be bankers hanging from poles like apples on a tree at the end of a good summer.

He also said that Britain is considering sliding in some new bank regulations such as maximum allowable cash in any one transaction and maximum allowable withdraw at any one time or within a specific time period. These are real time events shaping up across the pond, so I suppose it's fair warning to us.
 
... Britain is considering sliding in some new bank regulations such as maximum allowable cash in any one transaction and maximum allowable withdraw at any one time or within a specific time period. ...

This is already here effectively (not literally). Cash transactions over 10K requiring filing paperwork for the overlords. Banks won't let you withdraw more than a few K in cash on any given day.
 
Most of us here grew up believing that our money was simply sitting in the bank

Hmmmm... it makes you wonder why the government-monopolized school system doesn't teach banking basics, or that there was a time when there was no personal federal income tax.
 
...

Having some genuine FIAT$ / CA$H at home (or even tucked away in the Peru's of the world if you feel it is safe) is not a bad idea either.

As long as the bad guys don't show up...

:doodoo: :doodoo:
 
...

Having some genuine FIAT$ / CA$H at home (or even tucked away in the Peru's of the world if you feel it is safe) is not a bad idea either.

As long as the bad guys don't show up...

:doodoo: :doodoo:

Hmmm, I think I would rather risk the bad guys showing up than allow the fraudsters (Bernie et alia) to rob me blind the easy way.
 
If you can't hold it or see it, then taking it from you will be far easier.
 
Cash eventually will be outlawed for certain transactions and then altogether. Weve digitized ourselves to poverty. No coins, no dollars. Just digits.. and all tracked . For good of course.

Carry on comrades!
 
Holy hell!
What's a man to do???
(Other than stockpile physical metals.)
 
Well, let's summarize:

Don't leave too much of your money in the bank. Bail-ins are the new normal.

Don't leave too much of your money in custodial accounts at a brokerage. Wall Street can rob you blind without legal repercussion apparently (MF Global, et. al).

Don't leave too much of your money in bubble markets (equities, bonds, real estate). High risk pending central banker whims.
 

Continuing that train of thought:

It is probably safer if you owe a bank rather than having a bank owe you so some debt can be good, particularly if never have to pay it back.

If you move your PM's don't use airport baggage claim.

Don't mess with the IRS. :judge:
 
Looks like it's not just FDIC insured deposits that are going to get Cyprused in the great bail-in:
More: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/05/us-sec-moneyfunds-idUSBRE9540UN20130605
 
It is interesting that money is becoming something that you can no longer own, it's more like something that has been loaned to you by the central banks, and if they need it back you have to return it.
 
I believe I saw in this that it won't affect all MM funds, like for example the one my cash is held in for my trading acct at TD Ameritrade. Anyone know for certain?
 
Don't know for sure, but I would guess that money is pooled into one of the "prime funds for institutional investors" mentioned in the article. If you contact TD Ameritrade and ask them, please do let us know what they say...
 
The Fed recently made some noise about increasing bank reserve requirements to avoid a potential bail in:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-down-plan-so-creditors-don-t-shun-banks.html

A few details on the new Fed requirements:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/federal-reserve-liquidity_n_4158388.html
 

Here it comes. Dodd Frank, the law of unintended, or in this case intended consequences. My bank just notified me that if you make more than 6 transfers out of a savings account in the same month, that the account will be closed and converted to a checking account. I wonder at what point they will just say you can't take your money out of a savings account or a checking account. :shrug:
 

More: http://goldsilverworlds.com/money-currency/closer-look-at-bank-bail-ins-black-hole-of-our-system/
 
The savings account transaction rate limit has been around for as long as I can remember - a long time.

The idea was - if you want a checking account, well, have one of those instead. The justification was, well, in a saving's account, the bank needs stability of that as collateral to make money to pay you the interest on it, but has to hold the cash in-hand for checking, however they funge the books.
That one's been around 50+ years I know of, which is why I have both sorts of account, though I keep my FRN's low in all of those - just enough for emergency and daily bread use, a couple months tops.

Liquidity has some value. Lo, these many years back, I was, as always, self-insured, and you don't want to be unliquid if you need to pay. So when I built this building I'm sitting in (well, had it built, then finished it) - I put up the rest of my land, about $175k worth at the time, against a 3 year 26k loan. Even with the overabundance of collateral, that loan took 2.5 months to come through - and the building was done before the money got here - I just didn't want my reserves down too low even for an instant (what good is insurance that can't pay right now?). Of course, I paid that sucker off in a few months - I'm anti-debt - and so am still considered a deadbeat by the bank, since they didn't get to collect their big interest (7%) at a time when the fed had already depressed interest rates considerably (I think mortgages were a lot less at the time, giving me good reason to pay this off quickly).
 



http://www.goldcore.com/Bail-Ins_An...med_At_Future_of_Banking_in_Europe_Conference
 
That graph isn't entirely accurate. For instance, it shows Canada as a "safe" place when they also have publicized a risk of bail-ins.
 
Truth to be told, this while "bail-ins" hoopla, isn't ANYTHING new. It only gets publicity today. But in fact, depositors are NOT depositors, they are unsecured creditors of the bank, as soon as you put anything into "your account".
How else you think they could account for fractional reserve banking, and/or lending indeed - when was the last time, that you have seen your account balance decreased, because the bank has made a loan with "your" deposit money?

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…