Bank "Bail in" legislation

[zilo]

Not sure how many people are aware of this legislation that was quietly introduced a while back.

It basically says that in the event of a banking crisis (such as the last GFC), that the banks can use depositors' money to keep themselves afloat.

It means that depositors, inc super funds and trust accounts, will be treated as unsecured creditors.

The banks have the power to convert depositors funds into bank shares.

But...the bank will be in trouble so the share price will be collapsing...hmmm?

But wait...we have the $250k guarantee..

Turns out that each of the banks has a set amount that is allocated to each one in their insurance cover.

It turns out that their "cover" will not cover all deposits, so...let's say if your surname starts with "A" you are fine...
But if you start with a "K" the money will have run out and you get...zip

It's a scarey piece of legislation that makes you think just how safe is my cash...and my self managed super etc etc...

here's a youtube link a couple of guys in the know that i stumbled on.

[blueoval]

Just goes to show that it doesnt matter how you tie up your funds, the banks have free reign over whats in it if they need/want it. The system is corrupt to the core.

[PHANTMXR6]

I recall the old saying cash is king...

[Trendseeker]

The Financial Claim Scheme is guaranteed by the federal government, not insurance companies. If a bank fails, the government will reimburse account holders up to $250k of their deposits held with that bank. Even if your name is Zavid Zeffraham.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

The Financial Claim Scheme is guaranteed by the federal government, not insurance companies. If a bank fails, the government will reimburse account holders up to $250k of their deposits held with that bank. Even if your name is Zavid Zeffraham.

I guess you're aiming that at me?

I didn't say it was with an insurance company.

The govt will not reimburse anything...don't know how you think that since bail in is designed to free the govt from doing exactly that.

If you do some more fact searching, you might be shocked at what you uncover.

https://www.adamseconomics.com/post/...gainst-bail-in

[Trendseeker]

It was aimed at your comments, which are based on a legal opinion by Robert Butler who is a solicitor, member of a minor political party, and who achieved a total of 14 votes in his bid for a senate seat. Any publicity is good publicity, right?
I’ll see your YouTube video and raise it by an article by Peter Switzer, a respected economist and finance writer. Don’t you think Ross Gittins or Peter Hartcher would be on to this if it really was a risk?

https://switzer.com.au/the-experts/p...afe-as-houses/

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

an article by Peter Switzer, a respected economist and finance writer./

I can't believe you liberated that nonsense....Switzer is a Murdoch news property spruiker.

John Adams and Martin North are in post 1.

Do you know who John Adams is?...

I am still laughing at the comments at the end of that article you linked...

Here is your link....(you should read them...)

https://switzer.com.au/the-experts/p...afe-as-houses/

.
A private members bill in parliament is before the senate right now addressing the loop holes in the legislation.

.

.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by zilo

John Adams and Martin North are in post 1.

Do you know who John Adams is?...

The second president of the USA. I think his opinion is going to be a little out-dated, don't you?

[Trendseeker]

Originally Posted by zilo

I am still laughing at the comments at the end of that article you linked..

The comments at the end of that article are from a few people who share your idea of a conspiracy. The fact that the publisher allows alternative views to be posted on their website shows they aren’t as biased as you claim.

Your references are a solicitor who wants to be a politician and is trying to be noticed and a salesman for a company encouraging people to buy gold. The same person also suggested digital currencies might be safer than fiat currency in the same article.

If you read the solicitor’s opinion you’ll see from the language that he is suggesting it might be a possibility, not a certainty. No one else has come forward to endorse his view.

You also put forward some nonsense about people with surnames after “K” missing out on their claims - where did you get that idea from?

And if they are changing the wording in the legislation to remove all possible doubt then your conspiracy theory is just hot air. If it was their intention to include deposits in the bail-in they wouldn’t be amending it.

Id also say it is irresponsible to put up nonsense that might influence someone to withdraw their money from the bank and put it somewhere less secure. But no one here is stupid enough to believe that rubbish.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

The comments at the end of that article are from a few people who share your idea of a conspiracy. .

You put the link up with the comments discreditting your author's view.
Sorry it has backfired on you.
Hiding behind a personal attack is quite childish on your part.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

The fact that the publisher allows alternative views to be posted on their website shows they aren’t as biased as you claim..

So...you can read my mind as well as knowing everything about all things ?

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

Your references are a solicitor who wants to be a politician and is trying to be noticed.

He is not a solicitor, he is an economist with a history of being chief of staff to a senator who is now ambassador to the US.

Dunno what planet you are on...maybe your medication needs revision?

maybe your the one who needs to be noticed...maybe go back to posting in the word games thread?

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

and a salesman for a company encouraging people to buy gold. The same person also suggested digital currencies might be safer than fiat currency in the same article. .

Nobody is trying to sell me gold...maybe your porn sites have hijacked your browser?

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

If you read the solicitor’s opinion you’ll see from the language that he is suggesting it might be a possibility, not a certainty. No one else has come forward to endorse his view..

No...it is an "option" for the banks is what he is saying...try to keep up matey

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

You also put forward some nonsense about people with surnames after “K” missing out on their claims - where did you get that idea from?.

I tried to dumb it down as much as possible but you still don't get it.
Not worth my effort to educate you...rather scratch my left testicle.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

And if they are changing the wording in the legislation to remove all possible doubt then your conspiracy theory is just hot air. If it was their intention to include deposits in the bail-in they wouldn’t be amending it. .

err...you really re trolling, or illiterate.
The only reason they are looking at the legisltion is because the author brought it to their attention.
I cannot make things any clearer to you than that....how you wander off into assumptions is bewildering to most people I suspect.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

Id also say it is irresponsible to put up nonsense that might influence someone to withdraw their money from the bank and put it somewhere less secure..

How about you bury your head in a sandpit and don't bother posting any more then?

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

But no one here is stupid enough to believe that rubbish.

.

did you finish high school, were you teached gooder?

[Trendseeker]

I’d try to respond to your comments but most of them make very little sense. You seem to have no clue about the actual basis of the claims in the video, you make stuff up about the FCS and how it is funded, but the one thing you do succeed at is propagating a scare campaign. Robert Butler, the As Good As Gold company director and the blokes on the YouTube video would be very happy with your efforts as a useful idiot.

[Trendseeker]

The article that you referenced in your last post was written by “the chief economist of As Good As Gold”, a company that facilitates the buying and selling of gold. Of course, the point of his scaremongering article was to suggest that people should withdraw their money from the bank and buy.....gold. And his company is here to help.

[zilo]

Trendseeker

You keep resorting to personal attacks rather than coming up with any facts except your bizarre version of paranoia that someone is forcing you to buy gold....you post a link to support your ignorant position then when it backfires on you you sook like a little girl.

Please don't tell me what I don't understand , you really are punching above your pay grade with stupid comments like that.

Makes me think AFF should bring in an award for you..'

"Village Idiot of the month"

Like I said...why don't you keep hanging out in the word association thread where you can keep meditating?

(1300 of your posts are from there i reckon)

[Trendseeker]

Zilo,
There were no personal attacks until you started the name-calling. I questioned the credibility of your references because they are motivated to make an issue out of the bail-in legislation to suit their own agenda rather than out of concern for the safety of deposits in banks.

Let's start with the video.

John Adams said in the video that the government, the RBA and APRA have all stated that deposits are excluded from a bail-in. He also said that banks can change their terms and conditions on loans and accounts. But that isn't news; they have always been able to do that. The banks answer to APRA and they can't use deposits for a bail-in if the RBA and APRA don't permit it.

Martin North states in the video, after interviewing John Adams, that he has his money in the bank and he doesn't think a bail-in with deposits can or will happen. He is saying that it is a non-issue, and he doesn't agree with John Adams that deposits are unsafe in the bank. In an earlier post, you noted that an article I referred to had some differing views posted by commenters at the bottom, and concluded that it discredited the article. Are you going to make the same conclusion about the video because it contains a dissenting view from the interviewer himself?

Now let's look at the article you referenced (https://www.adamseconomics.com/post/...gainst-bail-in).

It was written by John Adams, the same bloke being interviewed in the video. At the bottom of the article it states that "John Adams is a Chief Economist of As Good As Gold Australia".
In his article, he goes into great detail about what could happen with a bail-in and the loss of deposits. He then suggests that there are safer places that people can put their money, and recommends they buy gold. If you look at the website for As Good As Gold Australia (https://www.asgoodasgoldaus.com.au/) you will see that their business is selling gold. So, how better to stir up some business than running around telling anyone who will listen that their money in the bank isn't safe?

Now to your comments about the FCS. In your first post you stated:
"But wait...we have the $250k guarantee..

Turns out that each of the banks has a set amount that is allocated to each one in their insurance cover.

It turns out that their "cover" will not cover all deposits, so...let's say if your surname starts with "A" you are fine...
But if you start with a "K" the money will have run out and you get...zip"

That is not how the FCS works. The banks do not rely on insurance cover for the money to be paid. It is paid by the federal government, and it doesn't matter what letter of the alphabet your name starts with. I've asked you before where you got this idea and you haven't provided an answer. You said in your second post: "I didn't say it was with an insurance company". What are you talking about then?

Where did this issue begin? With Robert Butler, a solicitor from Chatswood and a member of the Citizens Party. Here is a link to their website and his legal opinion: https://citizensparty.org.au/how-saf...s-banks-really

Butler received 14 votes in the last Senate election and he would be keen to raise awareness of his party. One way he is going about this is to provide a legal opinion on what he thinks is a loop-hole in the legislation and create a scare campaign about it. It might win him more votes in the next election. That is his motivation rather than really being concerned about the security of bank deposits.

And to end with the trivia you've raised: you're reckoning of my post count in the Word Association thread is wrong. It is closer to half of what you guessed. But you do tend to exaggerate. I will go back there because it beats conversing with members like you. And you can go back to scratching yourself as you informed us in post 11.

[zilo]

Here you go.... a super long reply post (that nobody reads on forums.)

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

Zilo,
There were no personal attacks until you started the name-calling. I questioned the credibility of your references because they are motivated to make an issue out of the bail-in legislation to suit their own agenda rather than out of concern for the safety of deposits in banks.

Where did I start the name calling?

Cause you were running mouth wide open in post 10

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

John Adams said in the video that the government, the RBA and APRA have all stated that deposits are excluded from a bail-in.

He also says that they are not telling the whole story about particular wording regarding "any other instruments" that could be used, one of which is depositors' funds.....but you choose selective wording to prop up your argument.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

He also said that banks can change their terms and conditions on loans and accounts. But that isn't news; they have always been able to do that.

You don't get it...you didn't listen, this is the whole point...they can change it without notice, including ability to determine daily withdrawal limits like they did in Cyprus......but you're not listening anyway.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

The banks answer to APRA and they can't use deposits for a bail-in if the RBA and APRA don't permit it.

Absolute...complete crap....YES they can...the LAW says they can, they can do it right now.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

Martin North states in the video, after interviewing John Adams, that he has his money in the bank and he doesn't think a bail-in with deposits can or will happen.

No he didn't say that, ....he has done over a 100 videos, he is constantly invited to all the mainstream media for his opinions, he is one of the proponents alerting Australians of the threat of a bail in.
He said he has spread himself over the small instutions in case of a banking disruption.

Geez you make up fantasy stories buddy.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

He is saying that it is a non-issue,

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

and he doesn't agree with John Adams that deposits are unsafe in the bank.

FFS...you really should have a hearing test.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

In an earlier post, you noted that an article I referred to had some differing views posted by commenters at the bottom, and concluded that it discredited the article.

Yes...that is a fact.

The comments are refuting the article, they are precise, to the point and eloquent.

But you know better...you can lead a horse to water as they say.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

Are you going to make the same conclusion about the video because it contains a dissenting view from the interviewer himself?

No because I am too busy watching pigs fly and turning water into wine.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

Now let's look at the article you referenced (https://www.adamseconomics.com/post/...gainst-bail-in).

It was written by John Adams, the same bloke being interviewed in the video. At the bottom of the article it states that "John Adams is a Chief Economist of As Good As Gold Australia".

Okay...so he has a day job....what does your man do?

Oh yeah...he has a job at Commbank..and Switzer is his client...they spruik real estate.....hello....

John Adams has appeared on various radio and TV platforms including on the ABC and currently appears with Martin North on the Digital Finance Analytics Show which is broadcasted via YouTube.

John has had a diverse career to date which includes being a former economic advisor to Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos, a management consultant with a big four accounting firm, a public servant working for various Commonwealth and NSW Government Departments and agencies as well as a corporate director for several not-for-profit organizations.
​
John is a qualified economist with an economic bachelor’s degrees from the University of New South Wales and an economics honours degree from the University of Wollongong. John also holds corporate governance qualifications from the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Governance Institute as well as project management via Prince 2 certification.
​
He sounds a bit dodgey doesn't he Trendseeker?

Now...what course did you do at University?

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

In his article, he goes into great detail about what could happen with a bail-in and the loss of deposits. He then suggests that there are safer places that people can put their money, and recommends they buy gold. If you look at the website for As Good As Gold Australia (https://www.asgoodasgoldaus.com.au/) you will see that their business is selling gold.

He mentions that gold is safer than money in the bank and he is right.
If you research the cash ban legislation, that these guys are also alerting people to, then you would realize that there is a banking conspiracy in play, right now.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

So, how better to stir up some business than running around telling anyone who will listen that their money in the bank isn't safe?

Like you're running around saying it is?

yet you have no credibility or credentials to assert your position, they do.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

Now to your comments about the FCS. In your first post you stated:
"But wait...we have the $250k guarantee..

Turns out that each of the banks has a set amount that is allocated to each one in their insurance cover.

It turns out that their "cover" will not cover all deposits, so...let's say if your surname starts with "A" you are fine...
But if you start with a "K" the money will have run out and you get...zip"

Clearly you have no idea that each ADI has had an apportionment of the guarantee that will be exceeded by the value of deposits in the event of a downturn....I could explain it to you but I still have my other testicle to scratch...and this post is so long that noone is reading this far down.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

That is not how the FCS works.

Well on planet earth it does, in your fantasy anything goes I suppose.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

The banks do not rely on insurance cover for the money to be paid. It is paid by the federal government, and it doesn't matter what letter of the alphabet your name starts with.

The banks pay for the financial claims scheme by way of a premium to the federal govt.
It is a form of insurance policy no matter what you call it, the FCS is underwritten by the govt.
The govt has determined a maximum payout per ADI (per policy if you will)
An ADI is a group...for example Westpac/Bank of Melb/St george all share the maximum ADI payout.

So If you think 250k in Westpac then 250K in Bank of Melb is the way to go......Nope....you lose cause it's the same ADI.


Now that isn't too hard to read is it?

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

Where did this issue begin? With Robert Butler, a solicitor from Chatswood and a member of the Citizens Party. Here is a link to their website and his legal opinion: https://citizensparty.org.au/how-saf...s-banks-really

yes it did begin there....because they were there when a senate bill was passed in a sitting that was snuck in ...much like the CASH BAN bill.

A legal opinion by a solicitor is a legal opinion.

A legal opinion by someone who owns a Ford in a Ford forum?

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

Butler received 14 votes in the last Senate election

yeah...but he has a law degree and you do not.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

and he would be keen to raise awareness of his party.

that's what they do.....but of course you insert it to defame him.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

One way he is going about this is to provide a legal opinion on what he thinks is a loop-hole in the legislation and create a scare campaign about it.

He "thinks" ?

You think he didn't hit the legal books and seek advice before arriving at a formal legal opinion?

A position that a senate committee are taking notice of?

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

It might win him more votes in the next election.

I hope so, because he is performing an invaluable service to the community.

But of course you are looking at anything in a defamatory slant.

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

That is his motivation rather than really being concerned about the security of bank deposits.

prove it...?

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

And to end with the trivia you've raised: you're reckoning of my post count in the Word Association thread is wrong. It is closer to half of what you guessed. But you do tend to exaggerate.

What...you bothered to count them all?
You actually know exactly? Or are you exaggerating?
I stopped after 12 pages.....

Originally Posted by Trendseeker

I will go back there because it beats conversing with members like you. And you can go back to scratching yourself as you informed us in post 11.

That is fantastic news....nice chatting with you
Enjoy the rest of your day!

[PG2]

Originally Posted by zilo

...

That is fantastic news....nice chatting with you
Enjoy the rest of your day!

aaaaaand on that note, this thread is closed.