UK banks add new clause

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's The Basil Committee again 😎

Get ready for more broken mirrors suckers 😁

He has his own comittee?

Link

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's The Basil Committee again 😎

Get ready for more broken mirrors suckers 😁

He has his own comittee?

Link

🤣🤣Yeah that's IT !!!!!!

a reply to: anonentity

Some economists have predicted a Great Depression to hit between Fall and Winter. All part of the plan. "You will own nothing, and you'll be happy". No doubt our govs are planning for it. We know how much they love a crisis. It will justify gov/military control over our communities, taking supplies, ect., for "the greater good". Pure Communist rule. Not that this will happen but I feel this is what the Criminal Elite wants to happen.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: 2Faced
I speak to a fair amount of people each week about the current state of affairs, but many of them seem to have difficulty connecting the dots.

In a lot of cases, most in the case of things being brought up on this forum, there aren't any connections between the dots. They're just dots.

Sometimes a lot of different things happen in response to the same events, but there isn't a master plan behind it. Nobody is orchestrating things. They're happening because systems are interconnected, or because one organization sees something happening somewhere else and decides to make sure that they're read in case whatever hits the fan sprays a little further than expected.

For example, the origin of a lot of the "shortages" that we're experiencing right now are due to supply chain disruption, which has its origins in shipping containers being stranded in the Shanghai docks due to covid restrictions. This effects one thing, which effects another, which sets of some dominoes elsewhere, and before you know it you can't get your favorite breakfast cereal in 2022.

For example, did you know that there is currently a shortage of certain tampon brands because two years ago several large shipments of the raw materials used in making them were redirected to Chinese factories making PPE due to demand because of covid.

It just took this long for the material shortages to filter through the market and for stockpiles to be exhausted elsewhere.

Oh don't give them ideas

Next we'll see a bitchute video of somebody trying to link tampons to lizards and slavery by some random RussianQ'anon Copelord

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: anonentity

This isn't really new though, it's just a change in the wording for existing rules that they have in place to prevent a run on a bank.

Can you explain how the 'new clause' has anything to do with preventing a run on a bank?
I don't get it.

originally posted by: nonspecific
This is a complete non story.

The clause clearly says that they may choose to impose a limit to the amount of money you can have in your bank account and if you choose to have more there may be a charge.

Its not an issue.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: nonspecific
New unfair Halifax bank account condition — MoneySavingExpert Forum:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com...

You used to receive a percentage of that in return (interest). Now they want to charge you for it , and you think that's fine and dandy?! Don't forget, banks invest everything and make huge profits as is by investing your money.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Im honestly not sure Itisnowagain.

At a quick glance, and as to the information available, it seems the idea is to prevent bank runs from becoming a problem.

Hardly inspires confidence all the same.

if they want to 'prevent bank runs' then why the charge for having too much money in there?

That's not what it is saying though is it.

It is saying that if the situation arises they could implement either a limit or a fee.

If that happened you'd be given plenty of notice and could simply arrange to move to another bank?

The banking system is heavily regulated in the UK, no ones going to have all their money stolen by the banks.

The government would never allow it as that is their job via the taxation we have.

It's honestly a non story.

originally posted by: ancientlight

originally posted by: nonspecific
This is a complete non story.

The clause clearly says that they may choose to impose a limit to the amount of money you can have in your bank account and if you choose to have more there may be a charge.

Its not an issue.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: nonspecific
New unfair Halifax bank account condition — MoneySavingExpert Forum:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com...

You used to receive a percentage of that in return (interest). Now they want to charge you for it , and you think that's fine and dandy?! Don't forget, banks invest everything and make huge profits as is by investing your money.

a reply to: anonentity

...end-of-September reset.

I am reminded of the report concerning the Vatican bank, a month or so ago.

Pope imposes deadline for Vatican to transfer assets to bank
Pope Francis has imposed an Oct. 1 deadline for all Holy See offices and Vatican-linked institutions to deposit their assets with the Vatican bank

ABC News

Get ready folks! Hard financial times are just around the corner.

a reply to: Tarantula777

..because those who are looking after the western economies are the kindest and most humanitarian...

How did you manage to come up with this rubbish? And then turn around and contradict this very statement by condemning the creators of Bitcoin as being criminals and greedy people when the initial sales of Bitcoin and other digital currencies started out with pennies per share trades.

It was full of criminals and greedy people who would have sold their mother for its value to increase.

In essence, both of these peoples are nothing more than carbon copies of each other. Criminals, thieves and greedy people, Bitcoin, fiat currency, stock market, bonds market, futures traders, derivatives traders, buying and selling short sales and on and on. They are all greedy people playing the system to get rich.

The banks are coming up with this strategy for one reason only, to cover their asses and keep their banks from failing, plain and simple. They don't give a damn about you or me.

The Halifax, was originally, a Building Society and not a bank.

One suspects Halifax wants to deter customers keeping too much money in their current, or any other instant access, account.

Does anyone know if any of those customers that received the limit/fees letter also received marketing materials about favourable non-instant access savings products?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: anonentity

This isn't really new though, it's just a change in the wording for existing rules that they have in place to prevent a run on a bank.

Can you explain how the 'new clause' has anything to do with preventing a run on a bank?
I don't get it.

A "run" is where everyone rushes to the bank and draws all of their money out at the same time.

This means that the majority of the bank's assets will then be in the form of debts (People's homes purchase through a mortgage, for example), and if those debts turn out to be bad (like subprime mortgages) then the bank is effectively broke.

By restricting how much money people can take out the bank can ensure that it always has enough money (in people's accounts) to keep it out of trouble in the case of a debt write-down (as happened in 2008).

This is likely in response to UK government rules that force them to have some form of safety net so that they don't need government assistance in the future.

TLDR: Banks need to keep a certain amount of "good" assets (Your savings) in case their investments (homes owned through mortgages) turn out to be "bad" assets.

These clauses mean that they can stop you taking out so much money that they risk going bankrupt.

originally posted by: teapot
The Halifax, was originally, a Building Society and not a bank.

One suspects Halifax wants to deter customers keeping too much money in their current, or any other instant access, account.

Does anyone know if any of those customers that received the limit/fees letter also received marketing materials about favourable non-instant access savings products?

Free banking isn't actually universal. Outside of the UK it can be the exception rather than the rule, lots of banks around the world charge you a fee to have things like a checking account.

Current accounts are traditionally where you keep a smallish amount of money to cover daily expense. You get charged a fee for the account because you tend to use them with ATMs a lot, or to make lots of small transactions with them. Which cost the bank money as they need to pay fees on those, or to access those systems.

If you've got a larger amount of money you should put it in a savings account. These don't have fees because the bank rarely needs to do anything with them.

a reply to: ancientlight

if they want to 'prevent bank runs' then why the charge for having too much money in there?

It's a valid question.

Im not sure the banks will charge people with too much money in their accounts.

Unless of course, it's to offer them some kind of premium account with additional services and facilities.

Because it would simply discourage people from using the bank or depositing monies in their accounts.

best part?
im broke.

best part?
i have no m0ney, but i have things lol.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

The big guys are already into Gold and Silver, the big countries, and even some big banks. Realize that it is the only way to avoid the inflation tsunami, most of the world realizes that as a fungible asset it always will be the "Golden rule" The governments have always hated gold and silver because they can't do much to it. Because those in government will always have a personal stash. They can only deter the common guy from getting their hands on it. If they go digital the black economy will be Metals driven, Jewelry stores are getting ram raided on a regular basis now . When the gangs are raided they always seize large amounts of bullion. So to a certain point, it never went away.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: anonentity

This isn't really new though, it's just a change in the wording for existing rules that they have in place to prevent a run on a bank.

Can you explain how the 'new clause' has anything to do with preventing a run on a bank?
I don't get it.

A "run" is where everyone rushes to the bank and draws all of their money out at the same time.

This means that the majority of the bank's assets will then be in the form of debts (People's homes purchase through a mortgage, for example), and if those debts turn out to be bad (like subprime mortgages) then the bank is effectively broke.

By restricting how much money people can take out the bank can ensure that it always has enough money (in people's accounts) to keep it out of trouble in the case of a debt write-down (as happened in 2008).

This is likely in response to UK government rules that force them to have some form of safety net so that they don't need government assistance in the future.

TLDR: Banks need to keep a certain amount of "good" assets (Your savings) in case their investments (homes owned through mortgages) turn out to be "bad" assets.

These clauses mean that they can stop you taking out so much money that they risk going bankrupt.

The 'new clause' isn't about restricting the amount people can take out....

We've added a new condition that says if it's necessary, due to economic circumstances that affect the banking industry, we may restrict the amount you can have in your accounts either by applying a limit or by imposing a charge.

a reply to: anonentity

That's Just Silly . I can Always take ALL OF MY MONEY out of my Mattress Any time of Day........

a reply to: Itisnowagain

A very open widely interpreted clause that could mean anything.

I wonder what will happen to mortgages? If accounts are frozen then everyone with a mortgage becomes homeless. Or is it just large one off withdrawals that will be blocked? Would that then mean that every house purchase underway where a large deposit sum needs to move will fall through. That will exacerbate any crash massively as the housing market (a large source of tax Renee) puts on the breaks completely.

Forgive me as I’m dipping into this thread, short on time at this current moment and these questions may have been answered. But if not I’ve pause for thought that the complex ripples of a banking freeze may make it unworkable in practice. If we get to that point I see the government ‘printing’ money/giving a line of liquid credit to the banks to prevent turning a crash into a complete collapse of society. Their answer is always quantitative easing.

Of course that precludes the notion that tptb actually want a complete collapse to introduce a reset, whatever that might mean in practice. But I think they’d want to make whatever that shift is as seamless and cheap as possible and the mass protests and probably riots and destruction that would come from a total freeze is probably a wrinkle they’d want to avoid and could jeopardise they’re whole project (if such a project exists).

ETA, I suspect this is more a signal from the banks directed at the government saying if a crash happens you’re going to have to bail us out or face societal collapse from us freezing all assets. I think they’re playing that card.