Some time ago I drew your attention to the Bail in provisions of the
IMF & the G20 governments to which Australia is a signatory.
The link below is about a man in Italy who suicided after his $100,000
of savings were taken to save the bank.
There is also a link to a BBC article on the same matter.

Isn't it remarkable that none of the financial reporting in this country
has not breathed a word about what is happening in Europe.

http://tinyurl.com/h92gshc

Interestingly it remarks that Credit Unions are not available to
Bail Ins, but that is being considered in Europe.
When I asked a Credit Union here about Bail Ins I could not get an answer.

When I have mentioned this matter to others, the usual reaction was
one of disbelief. When challenged my MHR waffled on about legislation.
However International treaties do not need ratification legislation.
Frankly I do not trust the banks or politicians.

I've been reading about this for some time, but then I get all of my financial news on-line as the main-stream media don't want to publish a lot of stuff particularly the manipulation of precious metal prices through the use of derivatives and high frequency trading. I just wonder how many people realise that many of the commercial banks have been fined billions of dollars for illegal activities in the last couple of years over things like foreign exchange dealings and LIBOR I think that most of the population are totally ignorant about what goes on in international finance. Perhaps ignorance is bliss.

Bazz,

"Some time ago I drew your attention to the Bail in provisions of the
IMF & the G20 governments to which Australia is a signatory."
Yes you did. And I drew your attention to the fact that the claims were incorrect. How secure savings are is a matter for national governments, and was not affected by the G20's bailin agreement.

The man who suicided in Italy was a bondholder not a depositor.

I'm not sure what the current situation is in Europe, as there are conflicting reports.
But in Australia your money is safe, though banks here are unlikely to fail anyway.

According to the Citizens Electoral council web site

http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2014_06_11_Bail_In_G20.html

The bail-in legislation was a fait accompli. As a member of the G20 we were a signatory to the passing of the law. This may be wrong information, but I do wonder if there was a large enough crash with a number of banks involved whether there would be sufficient funds available from the deposit insurance fund to cover all the losses, and that's where the bail-in might become essential if a bank were to be saved. I understand also that the USA, the UK and even New Zealand have this law passed. Further research may be necessary where Oz is concerned.

The credit union one is interesting because most if not all credit unions keep the money in a bank.

So are they an unsecured creditor on the books of that bank that would possible be the question to ask.

If they are do they have an exemption to the money being seized?

snake, the CEC are a group of conspiracy nutters who think Obama works for MI6.
Claims they make should not be regarded as evidence that something's true.

Aiden said;
But in Australia your money is safe, though banks here are unlikely to fail anyway.

Fine keep saying that that that that !
Anyway from what I have been reading some overseas banks have been
unloading their debts (which includes deposits) on to derivative
companies. So when it all goes ts up the bank just says oh please
go & see so & so derivative company, not ours anymore.

Of course I do not know if local banks have done that.
I suspect that they are relying on the $250k guarentee.
If the government can buy enough plastic it could just print enough notes to cover it.

Aiden, it did not matter in Cyprus that it was bond holders, they
took the depositors money to repay the Greek bond holders.
Actually I think they would take anything in sight.

Anyway to sum up as far as the likes of me are concerned we could be skimmed.

It's all good emotional stuff, this banking business, ain't it.

It is vitally important not to let facts interfere with a good bank-bashing tale. Or if you must use facts, make sure you don't understand them - that way you can be emotional, and wrong, at the same time.

>>...a man in Italy who suicided after his $100,000 of savings were taken to save the bank.<<

Actual details of the "savings" are scant online. But it would appear that he invested in a bond that was "subordinated debt", and therefore riskier than other forms of investment. Under the terms of the arrangement he made with the Bank, his money would only be paid back after other debtors had been paid. What is missing is the extent of the risk that he took - i.e. what was the face value of the bond, what was the interest coupon etc. Most people with $100,000 to invest take note of the level of risk that they are undertaking.

I suspect that there will be an investigation into the circumstances of the sale of the bond - who sold it, what did they tell him etc.

So unless your savings are similarly invested in junk, Bazz, I suggest that you stop worrying, have a nice cup of tea and put your feet up.

Meanwhile, try not to write stuff like this.

>>Anyway from what I have been reading some overseas banks have been
unloading their debts (which includes deposits) on to derivative
companies. So when it all goes ts up the bank just says oh please
go & see so & so derivative company, not ours anymore.<<

Read through it again, and tell me who are the "some overseas banks", and who are the "derivative companies" that you refer to. Otherwise, we might just get the impression that you are passing on sensationalist conspiracy-nut stories, just for the fun of it.

Baz You need to keep away from conspiracy sites, we do not need mass panic.

Aiden & Pericles

Thanks for your comments which I think hit the mark on these blogs.

This is why I try to be careful about making concrete statements and like to attribute any such comments to the people who first made them or reference where I found the information. I also said that "This may be wrong information" and "I understand that......." Which hopefully lets me off your hook !

Yes, well I for one have read the document that Australia signed up
for courtesy Wayne Swan.
It is not restricted to deposits or bonds.
No doubt there is the usual hierarchy of assets.
So far as I know Bail Ins have been applied in Cyprus, Portugal,
Spain and Italy.
It is an IMF document that establishes the Financial Stability Board.
It appears to be an attempt to establish an orderly legal process for
the seizure of funds held by the banks customers.

The problem with trying to wash it all away by saying it is all a
conspiracy web site production is that even the Bank of England
Governor has written about his reservations on the scheme.
Before you turn around and ask for sources, I gave them a year or two
ago so go back on here and search yourself or try google.

Good post. Thanks for sharing this and keep working with like this post.
http://www.slideshare.net/ChristinaLorence/best-essays-for-good-grade

Although Aiden thinks the CEC is a group of conspiracy nutters, but gives no real reason for holding that opinion, there is a discussion given by two representatives of that organisation on youtube here -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SNoc4cW-sU

I don't presume to make any comment except to say that while they may be biased in their opinions, they at least give some evidence of what officials have said in relation to bail ins and what steps other countries have taken. It does appear that definite legislation has to be passed here before it can be made legal, but even then there is doubt, because there is some suggestion that banks here don't need it, as we are actually lenders to the bank when depositing and the risk remains with us.

As I said before, further research is necessary.

Snake said:
there is some suggestion that banks here don't need to have legislation.

I have not heard that suggested previously.
If that is true then why did Wayne Swan sign up for it ?
Might be that if Australia signed up the bank directors could avoid
any responsibility. It was the law you know !
From what I read the Financial Stability Board decides on the amount
that they need to skim off.
I don't think the banks have any say in it.

I know that many find it impossible to believe that Australian banks
could get into such dire straits.
I am reminded of what my father-in-law told me that during the
depression he lost access to his money. He could not get any of his
money out of the bank. He did not say how long that went on.
He did not say if he lost any money.

If/when it hits the fan it would be a very foolish person who would
say that Australian banks could not be seriously affected.
Australian banks have very high housing loan levels.

I doubt if anyone knows how the banks risks are distributed.

I've been trawling through the internet looking for evidence that actually says incontrovertibly, that bail-ins will be applied in Australia should there be a failure of any banks here. There are many suggestions that there might be, but the only thing I am sure of is that no one is sure.

Snake;
I just watched that video to which you referred.
I think Aiden's comment on the CEC is misplaced.
What they said complemented what I had read elsewhere.
I had never heard of CEC previously and as they showed the documents
etc it should be easy for Aiden to go and look them up and show us
where it is all conspiracy based.
I am sure the banks will agree with him.

I was interested to hear the bit about the Bail-in-able bonds that
the banks are selling at higher interest rates. The speakers raised
the question as to whether the Super funds are buying them.
If so I think it would be reasonable for contributers to ask their
fund that question.
An additional question is if the FSB does not get enough from the
Bail-in-able bonds do they then go after the rest ?
Another question I have tried to get an answer to is are credit unions Bail-in-able ?

It is alright for some to poo poo the whole subject but this is real
serious stuff. We all have interest in this.

It may be safe if MPs say they are thinking about Bail-in. It will become dangerous when election promises are made against it.

Too late Nick, Wayne Swan signed the first part of the IMF/G20
agreement in 2013 in St Petersberg and the confirmation in Brisbane
in 2014 and just recently signed the rules agreement last month.

Bazz and snake,

At the moment I can't find the CEC's allegation that Obama works for MI6, though I've definitely seen it so I'm wondering if they took the pages down. I did find them making similar claims about Rudd though: http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=articles&id=kevin007.html
And you only have to look at their press releases to see that they think almost everything's a British conspiracy (controlled by the Royals). http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=main.html
If you read a few of those you'll notice that they're strongly protectionist and very anti-environment. Though not all their policies are bad, as they do recognise the importance of nation building.

The G20 agreed to toughen banking restrictions to reduce the chance of a bank failing. That's what Australia signed up to, and it does not put depositors' money at risk.

The Financial Stability Board monitors makes recommendations about the global financial system. That's all. It has no power over how our banking system operates.

Hmm , s 3.3 of Appendix III Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions”.
This allows assets to be contributed without consent by interested parties.
Of course, our honourable members can do anything such as use Super funds, give knighthoods to Prince Philip or take helicopter rides.
As James Cook gave everything to George III personally then your account is the monarch's anyway , just as your house is.