If I get my investment money in a few months I'll be looking for somewhere to put it while I wait for the so called Gold crash to come around.... I know rates are low at moment but its too risky holding cash at home in a safe.... Can anyone confirm if ING is safe enough to put big amounts of cash into or not .... Are'nt they part of Deutsche Bank which is on verge of collapse at moment?
Is ING a safe place for deposits?
- Thread starter TheEnd
- Start date
You are asking the wrong question. Try:
Is ING a safe place for withdrawals?
Is ING a safe place for withdrawals?
H
House
Guest
The 'n' in ING is for Netherlands. Deutsche are a German bank.
I've split my cash between 3 of the big banks. Lose a bit in interest but for me it's definitely safer than keeping it all in the one bank. Not expecting anything bad to happen too soon but never know.
Have a look at RAMS and uBank, they were both higher than ING when I checked a few months ago.
I've split my cash between 3 of the big banks. Lose a bit in interest but for me it's definitely safer than keeping it all in the one bank. Not expecting anything bad to happen too soon but never know.
Have a look at RAMS and uBank, they were both higher than ING when I checked a few months ago.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
doesn't a 'crash' scenario already imply all banks affected?
just logic: they bail out eachother upto the degree that the whole of them need central banks new money - thus they can only fail in a simultaneous fashion.
On top of that, a 'crash' scenario may make them just close bank offices and suspend or heavily limit bank transfers. The hope for a lower gold price ending up in nothing to buy it with. Something to ponder about...
just logic: they bail out eachother upto the degree that the whole of them need central banks new money - thus they can only fail in a simultaneous fashion.
On top of that, a 'crash' scenario may make them just close bank offices and suspend or heavily limit bank transfers. The hope for a lower gold price ending up in nothing to buy it with. Something to ponder about...
H
House
Guest
Not necessarily. All banks have different debt levels, liquidity ratios etc so can't see how they'd concomitantly fail.
I'd be very surprised if we saw anything such as bank closures or withdrawal limits being imposed any time soon in Aus. It's far more likely to happen first in the US and when it does, I'll be watching out for the domino effect.
Pirocco, to answer TheEnds question... what would you do with the money? Say it's $100k
Also, in your sig you have 'stack when low'. What's your price definition of 'low'?
I'd be very surprised if we saw anything such as bank closures or withdrawal limits being imposed any time soon in Aus. It's far more likely to happen first in the US and when it does, I'll be watching out for the domino effect.
Pirocco, to answer TheEnds question... what would you do with the money? Say it's $100k
Also, in your sig you have 'stack when low'. What's your price definition of 'low'?
"The higher the gain, the greater the risk".
(from a wise old bank manager in 1955)
(from a wise old bank manager in 1955)
First up, let me put this down here as a disclaimer, because I am far from an expert in banking matters, so you shouldn't rely on my thoughts.
In the world of banking, there are two types of banks. Even though nowadays, it's difficult to tell the difference, and in most cases, a version of a "pure" bank doesn't exist because existing banks have melded aspects from both of the pure aspects.
The first type of bank is a commercial bank, and this is what most people are used to seeing. This type of bank takes deposits from customers, uses the fractional reserve system, and makes loans of that fractionally reserved capital to borrowers. This type of bank, as you would understand based on the fractional reserve system has considerably more loans on the books than deposits (and even then, a considerable portion of the deposits are not actually on hand to cover withdrawals due to fractional reserve). In most cases of bank collapse (please note, I am excluding government mandated bail-in type provisions as seen in Cyprus), the bank collapse occurs because of a loss of confidence in the bank's fiscal position by depositors, who then demand withdrawals from the bank in excess of it's capability to provide those withdrawals OR the bank finds itself in the position of having too many non performing loans on the books, and is unable to continue operations.
The second type of bank is an investment bank, and there are still a few of these left. This type of bank simply acts as an investment manager for deposited funds, and by charging fees, it covers the cost of its operations. There are no loans made by this bank, depositors funds are invested in certain asset classes, usually dictated by choice of the depositor from an available pool of investment options. This type of operation, as you can see (again, I am excluding government mandated bail in provisions) is inherently less risky that deposits held at a commercial bank. Please note, though, that capital invested here may not be protected by any "deposit insurance" type of system, and that capital losses can occur based on the underlying asset class(es) chosen. Only to highlight the difference (this is not a recommendation, please do your own due diligence and research), Peter Schiff operates a pure investment bank: http://europacbank.com/
In the world of banking, there are two types of banks. Even though nowadays, it's difficult to tell the difference, and in most cases, a version of a "pure" bank doesn't exist because existing banks have melded aspects from both of the pure aspects.
The first type of bank is a commercial bank, and this is what most people are used to seeing. This type of bank takes deposits from customers, uses the fractional reserve system, and makes loans of that fractionally reserved capital to borrowers. This type of bank, as you would understand based on the fractional reserve system has considerably more loans on the books than deposits (and even then, a considerable portion of the deposits are not actually on hand to cover withdrawals due to fractional reserve). In most cases of bank collapse (please note, I am excluding government mandated bail-in type provisions as seen in Cyprus), the bank collapse occurs because of a loss of confidence in the bank's fiscal position by depositors, who then demand withdrawals from the bank in excess of it's capability to provide those withdrawals OR the bank finds itself in the position of having too many non performing loans on the books, and is unable to continue operations.
The second type of bank is an investment bank, and there are still a few of these left. This type of bank simply acts as an investment manager for deposited funds, and by charging fees, it covers the cost of its operations. There are no loans made by this bank, depositors funds are invested in certain asset classes, usually dictated by choice of the depositor from an available pool of investment options. This type of operation, as you can see (again, I am excluding government mandated bail in provisions) is inherently less risky that deposits held at a commercial bank. Please note, though, that capital invested here may not be protected by any "deposit insurance" type of system, and that capital losses can occur based on the underlying asset class(es) chosen. Only to highlight the difference (this is not a recommendation, please do your own due diligence and research), Peter Schiff operates a pure investment bank: http://europacbank.com/
MM,
"This type of bank, as you would understand based on the fractional reserve system has considerably more loans on the books than deposits (and even then, a considerable portion of the deposits are not actually on hand to cover withdrawals due to fractional reserve)."
If you look at the latest balance sheets of the Big Four banks in OZ, you will see that the loans outstanding does NOT exceed the deposits.
The banks get their money from 2 main sources, over the counter deposits from a zillion customers, and from the issuance of Bonds, Notes and Debentures from Australian and overseas sources, such as others banks and pension funds, Superannuation funds etc.
The basic principle has not changed all that much in 400 years.
....and most banks have about 10% in 'Reserves', thus ALL banks are very vulnerable to a "Run" that cannot be covered as most deposits are at call, and loans are over maybe 20 years. THAT is the weakness of ALL banks.
OC
"This type of bank, as you would understand based on the fractional reserve system has considerably more loans on the books than deposits (and even then, a considerable portion of the deposits are not actually on hand to cover withdrawals due to fractional reserve)."
If you look at the latest balance sheets of the Big Four banks in OZ, you will see that the loans outstanding does NOT exceed the deposits.
The banks get their money from 2 main sources, over the counter deposits from a zillion customers, and from the issuance of Bonds, Notes and Debentures from Australian and overseas sources, such as others banks and pension funds, Superannuation funds etc.
The basic principle has not changed all that much in 400 years.
....and most banks have about 10% in 'Reserves', thus ALL banks are very vulnerable to a "Run" that cannot be covered as most deposits are at call, and loans are over maybe 20 years. THAT is the weakness of ALL banks.
OC
H
House
Guest
TheEnd said:
Pretty much all- retail, commercial and investment. It's one of the biggest banks... in the world. Although second-quarter profits down some 40% doesn't instill much confidence at the moment.
True there is a deposit guarantee for up to $250k but that can easily be reneged with the stroke of a pen or revival of some random archaic law that allows the Gov to swipe your deposits without much notice. They're already planning to impose a depsoit tax- "The proposed levy is between 0.5 per cent and 1 per cent on protected deposits with the level set at $100,000. Presently, banks pay the government a fee to guarantee deposits over $250,000"
If you trust the Gov to save your dollars in an economic crisis/SHTF scenario...
Depending how much it is, ultimate precaution would be to keep some cash at home (in a less obvious place than a safe), some in an independent vault and spread the rest between different financial institutions such as banks or credit unions. Bit tinfoil hatty but just think how lucky a Cypriot with a pile of cash would be had he done that before the blatant theft.
In my completely simpleton and often wrong opinion, the risk to the banking system is not a bank run but a major fall in the property market.
Just as in the US, if property values fall by half then many borrowers will be underwater and the bank will have an enormous pile of impaired 'assets' on their books.
Only thing that makes it more likely Australian banks will survive over US banks is the lack of non-recourse loans in Aus (NR chose his username for a reason
.
In the US if a loan on a property is underwater, the borrower can just hand back the keys and walk away from the loan.
In Australia if a bank forecloses on a mortgage and sells the house, if the proceeds of the sale are not enough to cover the loan, the bank can continue chasing the borrower to pay for the rest.
Read an Australian mortgage if you have one - if you have a home loan in arrears the bank has the right to grab money from any other accounts you may have with them.
Just as in the US, if property values fall by half then many borrowers will be underwater and the bank will have an enormous pile of impaired 'assets' on their books.
Only thing that makes it more likely Australian banks will survive over US banks is the lack of non-recourse loans in Aus (NR chose his username for a reason
.In the US if a loan on a property is underwater, the borrower can just hand back the keys and walk away from the loan.
In Australia if a bank forecloses on a mortgage and sells the house, if the proceeds of the sale are not enough to cover the loan, the bank can continue chasing the borrower to pay for the rest.
Read an Australian mortgage if you have one - if you have a home loan in arrears the bank has the right to grab money from any other accounts you may have with them.
trew said:In my completely simpleton and often wrong opinion, the risk to the banking system is not a bank run but a major fall in the property market.
Just as in the US, if property values fall by half then many borrowers will be underwater and the bank will have an enormous pile of impaired 'assets' on their books.
Only thing that makes it more likely Australian banks will survive over US banks is the lack of non-recourse loans in Aus (NR chose his username for a reason
In the US if a loan on a property is underwater, the borrower can just hand back the keys and walk away from the loan.
In Australia if a bank forecloses on a mortgage and sells the house, if the proceeds of the sale are not enough to cover the loan, the bank can continue chasing the borrower to pay for the rest.
Read an Australian mortgage if you have one - if you have a home loan in arrears the bank has the right to grab money from any other accounts you may have with them.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/11/recourse-mortgages-dont-prevent-housing-busts/
Source: macrobusiness
If you read the Mortgage document, the borrower must keep the home in a saleable condition by keeping it painted, the garden in good order, and repairs carried out. That is the way it used to be anyway, may be different now, but I somehow doubt it.
If not........
If not........
House said:
I'm hoping it will be 10k but it may actually be 20k depending on final share price..... I bought shares at $1.00 each and they're now worth $2.00 each at present but the project isn't finished yet....I may have to ask Ben (GoldPelican) if I can store some cash along with some pms at his GoldStackers vaults in Melbourne....I'm sure if I buy enough metal he will let me store some cash as well?
H
House
Guest
TheEnd said:
Would be mighty prudent to remove such sensitive financial info from the internets
Doubt Ben would acquiesce with that request (insurance, increased risk etc) Worth asking all the same
If you listen to people like Jim Sinclair et al, they indicate that a massive financial reset is coming and nothing will be safe and nothing will be the same after. They also say that if you protect yourself now you'll weather the coming storm.
In Australia's case I believe that the new levy on banks is indicative of the level of guarantee the government will undertake in the future, and it is possible that the Govt will redraw the playing field completely - welcome to forced shares in Australia Pty Ltd.
I also believe that the government and banks will receive advance notice and considering where it all is at the moment, this 'event' is a few years away. (ie. until 'the can' they're kicking down the road, hits the dead-end)
What that means (to me at least) is a couple of more years to get ready for the financial tsunami that could crash onto the shore, which means a few years to get wealth secured, be it in 'good' mortgages (LVR at least 60% and that guaranteed against metals and other real assets), collectables that will gain value or other assets that will not be debased by inflation, or currency revaluation. A few years to get your super sorted into an unassailable SMSF so that it doesn't disappear in a puff of derivative smoke and it is also a few years to get yourself in a position where rising food, water and energy prices will have the least effect upon you and yours.
All of this is a general 'pain in the a' and you can always toss the dice and hope for the best which could mean another x years of the easy life downunder. Personally I don't see 'end of the word as we know it', just a rapacious system that will steal and appropriate and impoverish everyone not in their precious 'elite'.
So with all that said, I'd put cash as 'cash' in a safe place out of the system (why risk it all for 0.8% real gain after tax and inflation and fees ie: 'theft') and as much as I could into gold and silver. If you believe the future could become as dark and dirty as some have prophesied then find a nice little house in a country town and wait out 'the reset' there.
One thing I do believe, is that the world will not end, the powers will ensure the system survives as it is, as long as they can, and the 'real powers' will ensure there is another system in place fairly soon after this one dies.
The trick is to survive until the new king is crowned. Hard to do if the old king has pillaged all your wealth and stolen your crops so render unto caesar what is caesar's, and remove yourself from obvious notice - which means no big piles of digital currency sitting around that they can transfer from you with laws and optimistic economics. Make it hard for them to steal from you.
Must be Sunday night!!
In Australia's case I believe that the new levy on banks is indicative of the level of guarantee the government will undertake in the future, and it is possible that the Govt will redraw the playing field completely - welcome to forced shares in Australia Pty Ltd.
I also believe that the government and banks will receive advance notice and considering where it all is at the moment, this 'event' is a few years away. (ie. until 'the can' they're kicking down the road, hits the dead-end)
What that means (to me at least) is a couple of more years to get ready for the financial tsunami that could crash onto the shore, which means a few years to get wealth secured, be it in 'good' mortgages (LVR at least 60% and that guaranteed against metals and other real assets), collectables that will gain value or other assets that will not be debased by inflation, or currency revaluation. A few years to get your super sorted into an unassailable SMSF so that it doesn't disappear in a puff of derivative smoke and it is also a few years to get yourself in a position where rising food, water and energy prices will have the least effect upon you and yours.
All of this is a general 'pain in the a' and you can always toss the dice and hope for the best which could mean another x years of the easy life downunder. Personally I don't see 'end of the word as we know it', just a rapacious system that will steal and appropriate and impoverish everyone not in their precious 'elite'.
So with all that said, I'd put cash as 'cash' in a safe place out of the system (why risk it all for 0.8% real gain after tax and inflation and fees ie: 'theft') and as much as I could into gold and silver. If you believe the future could become as dark and dirty as some have prophesied then find a nice little house in a country town and wait out 'the reset' there.
One thing I do believe, is that the world will not end, the powers will ensure the system survives as it is, as long as they can, and the 'real powers' will ensure there is another system in place fairly soon after this one dies.
The trick is to survive until the new king is crowned. Hard to do if the old king has pillaged all your wealth and stolen your crops so render unto caesar what is caesar's, and remove yourself from obvious notice - which means no big piles of digital currency sitting around that they can transfer from you with laws and optimistic economics. Make it hard for them to steal from you.
Must be Sunday night!!
JulieW said:
+1
