It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
justwokeup
reply to post by hotel1
The UK deposit guarantee is £85,000 per account, per financial institution. That is the upper limit of what the government guarantees to pay you back if your bank goes bust. Anything over that amount you most likely wont see again.
Thus if you have more than that you should have it apportioned to different banks (remembering to check that they are really separate, not subsidiaries of a single bank).
Thats what should happen. Banks dumb enough to mismanage into bankruptcy should collapse and be bought by better banks. Although as has been proved in 2008 what will happen is that the government will rescue the bank with taxpayer funds. Protecting those who invest in it and transferring the risk portion of banking risk/reward to the taxpayer.
Jukiodone
reply to post by St Udio
Interesting if not doom laden analysis but I wonder what you base your predictions on?
There is a new "bail in" procedure ratified by the European Parliament for struggling European Banks but this is to ensure the Banks' BondHolders ( i.e the people who own the equity in the Bank) take the first hit when a Bank wobbles rather than the taxpayer.
monkofmimir
if they tried this I would tell them that if they don't give my money back I'm closing my account and then if they still refuse to return it, it is clearly theft and I might be able to get the law involved.edit on 2512014 by monkofmimir because: (no reason given)
25 Jan 2014
As a responsible bank we ask our customers about the purpose of large cash withdrawals when they are unusual and out of keeping with the normal running of their account. Since last November, in some instances we may have also asked these customers to show us evidence of what the cash is required for. The reason being we have an obligation to protect our customers, and to minimise the opportunity for financial crime. Large cash transactions have inherent security issues and leave customers with very little protection should things go wrong, by asking customers the right questions, we can explore whether an alternative payment method might be safer and more convenient for them.
However, following feedback, we are immediately updating guidance to our customer facing staff to reiterate that it is not mandatory for customers to provide documentary evidence for large cash withdrawals, and on its own, failure to show evidence is not a reason to refuse a withdrawal. We apologise to any customer who has been given incorrect information and inconvenienced.
www.newsroom.hsbc.co.uk...
In short, there will be a three-day suspension of domestic renminbi transfers. There will also be a suspension, spanning nine calendar days, of conversions of renminbi to foreign currency.
Something is very wrong in China at the moment. Banks’ apparent need to conserve cash, coming just weeks after the last incident, looks ominous.
MidnightTide
Well don't want to alarm people, but
China Halts Bank Cash Transfers
In short, there will be a three-day suspension of domestic renminbi transfers. There will also be a suspension, spanning nine calendar days, of conversions of renminbi to foreign currency.
Something is very wrong in China at the moment. Banks’ apparent need to conserve cash, coming just weeks after the last incident, looks ominous.
www.forbes.com...
Want to stop a bank run, just shut down the banks. This to me is a stopgap measure to keep funds in their hands, the end of the month default is looking more real by the day.
Earlier, we debunked an alarmist Forbes story about halted cash transfer by PBOC decree, which was erroneous along various lines all explained previously, not in the least that the actual announcement had first appeared some three weeks ago. And despite the kneejerk reaction of some of our more fatalist readers and not to mention the general public, the reality is that China has more than enough real problems (Trust Equals Gold being at the forefront) and certainly does not need to add imaginary, made up ones, conceived only with the intention of generating conflated ad revenues through click-baiting headlines. Which is why we commend Forbes for, better late than never, pulling the story even without providing an explanation of how this story appeared in the first place. Because where the article once was, there is only a 4-0-Forbes now: