Media blackout as the European Commission orders 11 countries to implement bail-in laws (ie confisacation of saver funds)

[Jom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23001847

Took me about 3 seconds googling "BBC news bank recovery and resolution directive". Hopefully this ridiculous thread and the claims it makes can sink to the second or third page now.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23001847

Took me about 3 seconds googling "BBC news bank recovery and resolution directive". Hopefully this ridiculous thread and the claims it makes can sink to the second or third page now.

Anyway the article you posted is highly missleading and downplays the seriousness of the issue. It was hardly on the front page either.

[Aanker]

So it's not a media blackout, more a case of 'I'm upset because the media doesn't think this is as important as I think it is', which is fine, but don't jump to conclusions regarding 'the media' based on that alone, since they're usually interested in printing whatever keeps most people - apparently not you in this case - interested.

[Jom]

Anyway the article you posted is highly missleading and downplays the seriousness of the issue. It was hardly on the front page either.

So now that sources have been shown to be reporting on it, you're still complaining because they're not taking it as seriously as you'd like, or they're not leading with big alarmist headlines?

How about Yahoo picking up two Reuters articles: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/eu-banks-w...1.html#LvpeQBi and https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/28...r-bank-rescue/? Yahoo has an Alexa rank of 5. Is that big media enough for you?

[Lysimachos]

Talk about paranoia.

First of all, this isn't exactly a new development. When a directive is passed, there's always a date at which it takes effect and until which member states have to implement it. If a member fails to implement a directive in time, it takes direct effect as far as it is specific enough. Therefore, it could probably already have been employed since January 1st even in those countries that failed to implement it. Something that's already been in effect for months is not very exciting to report.

Secondly, this is hardly as serious as you're trying to make it appear. The "little guy" is not going to be affected, he doesn't have accounts with more than 100k € in them.

[Aikanár]

Good evening gentlemen,

I see you're enjoying yourselves, which is what we like to see you doing. However, just a reminder, personal references are off-topic outside the administrative forums and such of a negative or pejorative nature will be singled out in particular, which is a nice way to say that you'll receive a love letter from me carrying warning levels for the next one in this thread.

Yes please, do consider this a warning.

Thank you for your courtesy, gentlemen.

[paleologos]

...Exactly.

I congradulate you on seeing the merit in my post.
There is however one objection that I have with the title of this thread.
It says "(ie confisacation of saver funds)".

The reality is that under the latest laws bank depositions are not considered "savings" but investments.
And if the bank goes bust then it is proven a bad investment and just like it happens with all bad investments the investors loose money.

My opinion is that this is an extremely exploitative law because in any real investment the investor is allowed and entitled to know the risk and expect a profit proportional to the risk.
This does not happen with the law in question.

The law is also potentially very detrimental to the stability of the banking system in any eurozone country except Germany as if depositors start worrying about the "health" of the bank that has received their savings there would be -in a very good likelyhood- a bank run.

But what are you going to do?
In the current situation the banks that are considered of minimal risk aare those located in Germany.

[alhoon]

Claims media black out.

Posts media source.

I sincerely hope you realize that the important fact here is not whether there are news reports about it but that if a bank busts because of wrong management choices, the clients shoulder the cost.
Thankfully, I don't have money in the bank, but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned. It sets a very bad law.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Talk about paranoia.

First of all, this isn't exactly a new development. When a directive is passed, there's always a date at which it takes effect and until which member states have to implement it. If a member fails to implement a directive in time, it takes direct effect as far as it is specific enough. Therefore, it could probably already have been employed since January 1st even in those countries that failed to implement it. Something that's already been in effect for months is not very exciting to report.

Secondly, this is hardly as serious as you're trying to make it appear. The "little guy" is not going to be affected, he doesn't have accounts with more than 100k € in them.

2 months.

I congradulate you on seeing the merit in my post.
There is however one objection that I have with the title of this thread.
It says "(ie confisacation of saver funds)".

The reality is that under the latest laws bank depositions are not considered "savings" but investments.
And if the bank goes bust then it is proven a bad investment and just like it happens with all bad investments the investors loose money.

My opinion is that this is an extremely exploitative law because in any real investment the investor is allowed and entitled to know the risk and expect a profit proportional to the risk.
This does not happen with the law in question.

The law is also potentially very detrimental to the stability of the banking system in any eurozone country except Germany as if depositors start worrying about the "health" of the bank that has received their savings there would be -in a very good likelyhood- a bank run.

But what are you going to do?
In the current situation the banks that are considered of minimal risk aare those located in Germany.

Yes and that is in one of the articles as well, that is is legally considered the bank's money and it is not something people are aware of. When people put it in the bank they think of it as their money, but in reality it only becomes theirs when they make a withdrawal.

I sincerely hope you realize that the important fact here is not whether there are news reports about it but that if a bank busts because of wrong management choices, the clients shoulder the cost.
Thankfully, I don't have money in the bank, but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned. It sets a very bad law.

+1

So now that sources have been shown to be reporting on it, you're still complaining because they're not taking it as seriously as you'd like, or they're not leading with big alarmist headlines?

How about Yahoo picking up two Reuters articles: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/eu-banks-w...1.html#LvpeQBi and https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/28...r-bank-rescue/? Yahoo has an Alexa rank of 5. Is that big media enough for you?

Argue semantics whilst your funds are confiscated then. No need to enter a thread with personal attacks when I just brought up a warning about what will happend when the next bank goes bust.

[Jom]

2 months.


Yes and that is in one of the articles as well, that is is legally considered the bank's money and it is not something people are aware of. When people put it in the bank they think of it as their money, but in reality it only becomes theirs when they make a withdrawal.


+1


Argue semantics whilst your funds are confiscated then. No need to enter a thread with personal attacks when I just brought up a warning about what will happend when the next bank goes bust.

Ignoring my two links that completely debunk your "media blackout" theory, then?

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Ignoring my two links that completely debunk your "media blackout" theory, then?

Ignoring the whole point of the topic then? Saying it is a media blackout is fair. The cover is pitiful at best.

[Jom]

Ignoring the whole point of the topic then? Saying it is a media blackout is fair. The cover is pitiful at best.

Yahoo has an Alexa rank of 5. What more do you want?

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Yahoo has an Alexa rank of 5. What more do you want?

Nobody gets their news from MSN, why would they get them from Yahoo? I am not impressed.

[Jom]

Nobody gets their news from MSN, why would they get them from Yahoo? I am not impressed.

I'm willing to bet a decent proportion of those millions who visit Yahoo who make it the fifth most visited site on the internet are using it for news.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

I'm willing to bet a decent proportion of those millions who visit Yahoo who make it the fifth most visited site on the internet are using it for news.

I am betting the 99% of those who use Yahoo use it for their e-mail service.

[Gaidin]

Yahoo isn't a news site so much as a distributor. Let's not confuse them with the Times now.

[Lysimachos]

2 months.

What are you trying to say? Two months is the usual time a member is given by the commision before further actions of the infringement procedure are taken. But the directive has been in effect and implemented by all except for those eleven members since January 1st.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I sincerely hope you realize that the important fact here is not whether there are news reports about it but that if a bank busts because of wrong management choices, the clients shoulder the cost.
Thankfully, I don't have money in the bank, but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned. It sets a very bad law.

Alhoon we both know that how a thread begins and is framed affects the discussion. This thread has been framed in the conspiracy theory style, and is worthless. Adar, by contrast, has an excellent discussion of the facts here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...8#post14600518

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Alhoon we both know that how a thread begins and is framed affects the discussion. This thread has been framed in the conspiracy theory style, and is worthless. Adar, by contrast, has an excellent discussion of the facts here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...8#post14600518

It is not framed in conspiracy theory style. That is a blatant lie. Nothing in it is conspiratorical. There has been no claims made not backed up by the articles themselves. It has also already happened in Cyprus. Stop lying and leave this thread.

[Lysimachos]

It is not framed in conspiracy theory style. That is a blatant lie. Nothing in it is conspiratorical. There has been no claims made not backed up by the articles themselves.

Actually, the allegation that "the media" is keeping quiet about it, because it would be "hugely unpopular legislation if it was made public", is not backed up by the articles and has conspiracy theory written all over it.