I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:10:07 +0100, harryagain wrote:

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

AIUI Santander in UK is (financially) separate from Santander in Spain.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:21:20 +0100, PeterC
wrote:

On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:10:07 +0100, harryagain wrote:

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

AIUI Santander in UK is (financially) separate from Santander in Spain.

The UK Santander is covered for about GBP85,000 per person for most types
of accounts by the UK authorities.

On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:32:51 +0100, Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:

The UK Santander is covered for about GBP85,000 per person for most
types of accounts by the UK authorities.

There is something about the FSCS in relation to joint accounts and
how they work with other accounts held by the same people,
individually, with the same organisation. I think you have to make
sure that the sum of all accounts is not over the limit unless you
only want some of your cash back.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 12 May 2012 22:54:40 +0100, Dave Liquorice
wrote:

On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:32:51 +0100, Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:

The UK Santander is covered for about GBP85,000 per person for most
types of accounts by the UK authorities.

There is something about the FSCS in relation to joint accounts and
how they work with other accounts held by the same people,
individually, with the same organisation. I think you have to make
sure that the sum of all accounts is not over the limit unless you
only want some of your cash back.

Each person has a GBP85,000 limit. If a person has a number of accounts
with the same authorised banking group the limit is GBP85,000 in total.

There are details of which banks are separate on the moneysavingexpert
site:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings

For example Santander includes Cahoot and Abbey.

On Sat, 12 May 2012 23:26:47 +0100, Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:

There is something about the FSCS in relation to joint accounts
and
how they work with other accounts held by the same people,
individually, with the same organisation. I think you have to make
sure that the sum of all accounts is not over the limit unless you
only want some of your cash back.

Each person has a GBP85,000 limit. If a person has a number of accounts
with the same authorised banking group the limit is GBP85,000 in total.

ISTR some little gotcha with joint accounts and how the balance in a
joint account contributes to the total. I have a sneaky feeling that
the whole balance counts to both parties not as one might expect 50%.

For example Santander includes Cahoot and Abbey.

Another gotcha...

Just a heads up for people that the FSCS is not quite as straight
forward as it might first appear.

--
Cheers
Dave.

PeterC wrote
harryagain wrote

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

AIUI Santander in UK is (financially) separate from Santander in Spain.

Fraid not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santander_UK

On Sun, 13 May 2012 07:47:59 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

PeterC wrote
harryagain wrote

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

AIUI Santander in UK is (financially) separate from Santander in Spain.

Fraid not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santander_UK


um, oops.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Saturday, 12 May 2012 22:47:59 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
PeterC wrote
harryagain wrote

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

AIUI Santander in UK is (financially) separate from Santander in Spain.

Fraid not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santander_UK

That doesn't seem (to me) to support your "Fraid not" comment. Santander UK is a separate legal entity from Santander in Spain. If Santander in Spain goes bust, that doesn't mean that all the money in the UK can be siphoned out to pay for the losses (well, not without Directors facing fraud charges and probable jail terms).

On Tue, 15 May 2012 04:56:18 -0700 (PDT), Martin Bonner
wrote:

Santander UK is a separate legal entity from Santander in Spain. If Santander in Spain
goes bust, that doesn't mean that all the money in the UK can be siphoned out to pay
for the losses (well, not without Directors facing fraud charges and probable jail terms).

HMG have had lots of problems extraditing convicted UK criminals from
Spain to the UK when they have gone AWOL. We'd have no chance
getting the Spanish to extradite one of their own for a minor offence
like trashing the economy of the Eurozone and nicking UK savers funds.


--

In message
33360381.417.1337082979434.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndm3,
Martin Bonner wrote
On Saturday, 12 May 2012 22:47:59 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
PeterC wrote
harryagain wrote

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

AIUI Santander in UK is (financially) separate from Santander in Spain.

Fraid not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santander_UK

That doesn't seem (to me) to support your "Fraid not" comment.
Santander UK is a separate legal entity from Santander in Spain. If
Santander in Spain goes bust, that doesn't mean that all the money in
the UK can be siphoned out to pay for the losses (well, not without
Directors facing fraud charges and probable jail terms).


There was an item on the radio yesterday about a council pulling all its
money out of Santander because it didn't want to be caught again with a
defaulting foreign bank. One of the chief executives of the bank was
interviewed and asked if UK deposits were ring fenced. He squired and
gave a typical politicians answer (the answer was yes but with a few
caveats)
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Martin Bonner wrote
Rod Speed wrote
PeterC wrote
harryagain wrote

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

AIUI Santander in UK is (financially) separate from Santander in Spain.

Fraid not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santander_UK

That doesn't seem (to me) to support your "Fraid not" comment.

Corse it does. When it's a wholly owned subsidiary of
Santander in Spain, its clearly not '(financially) separate'

Santander UK is a separate legal entity from Santander in Spain.

Yes, but not '(financially) separate' when its wholly owned by them.

If Santander in Spain goes bust, that doesn't mean
that all the money in the UK can be siphoned out
to pay for the losses (well, not without Directors
facing fraud charges and probable jail terms).

I was JUST commenting on that '(financially) separate' claim.

En el artículo 33360381.417.1337082979434.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@yndm3, Martin Bonner escribió:

That doesn't seem (to me) to support your "Fraid not" comment.

It certainly doesn't. Rod is thick as pig **** and lives in Australia,
so knows the square root of ****-all about UK financial systems. In
fact, he knows the square root of ****-all about anything.

Rod Speed FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

harryagain wrote:

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

a) they're supposedly one of the better Spanish banks

b) They're covered (up to £85k) by the UK Financial Services
Compensation Scheme

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
harryagain wrote:

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

a) they're supposedly one of the better Spanish banks

b) They're covered (up to £85k) by the UK Financial Services Compensation
Scheme


But if it went tits up, I wonder how long you'd wait for your money?

What would happen if it was nationalised & your money siezed by the Spanish
government??

harryagain wrote:

if it went tits up, I wonder how long you'd wait for your money?

Yeah, that could take months

What would happen if it was nationalised& your money siezed by the Spanish
government??

Would that negate the FSCS? No, didn't think so.

On Sat, 12 May 2012 18:09:48 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

harryagain wrote:

if it went tits up, I wonder how long you'd wait for your money?

Yeah, that could take months

When Landsbanki went, we got our money within a few weeks.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 12/05/2012 19:04, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 18:09:48 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

harryagain wrote:

if it went tits up, I wonder how long you'd wait for your money?

Yeah, that could take months

When Landsbanki went, we got our money within a few weeks.

Depends a bit on how much was in it, and how quick you got your claim in
as well... A friend of mine had to wait a best part of a year in the end
IIRC to get all of it out (he got some fairly quickly).



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Andy
Burns wrote
harryagain wrote:

if it went tits up, I wonder how long you'd wait for your money?

Yeah, that could take months

What would happen if it was nationalised& your money siezed by the Spanish
government??

Would that negate the FSCS? No, didn't think so.


But where would the compensation money come from? The Government have
indicated that will not bail out another bank and the most of the other
banks are still counting their losses.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Alan wrote:

Andy Burns wrote

FSCS

But where would the compensation money come from?

In the first instance I'd assume the levy charged to all banks by the
FSA, topped up by whatever assets may remain of the failed institution,
and I assume with the government as a back-stop,

The Government have indicated that will not bail out another bank and
the most of the other banks are still counting their losses.

THE FSCS only kicks in after an institution (or its owners) have been
declared insolvent, so baling out doesn't come into it

Alan wrote
Andy Burns wrote
harryagain wrote

if it went tits up, I wonder how long you'd wait for your money?

Yeah, that could take months

What would happen if it was nationalised&
your money siezed by the Spanish government??

Would that negate the FSCS? No, didn't think so.

But where would the compensation money come from? The
Government have indicated that will not bail out another bank

Bailing out a bank is a separate issue to a deposit guarantee.

And if say the spanish govt nationalised that particular bank
its far from clear that there would be an automatic right to
for a british depositor with the guarantee on their deposits,
particularly if say the spanish govt just decided to not allow
withdrawals for what purported to be a timed withdrawal
restriction with that being purportedly being time limited
in an attempt to stop a run on that particular bank.

and the most of the other banks are still counting their losses.

On 12/05/2012 17:10, harryagain wrote:
I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?


If you are worried, move your money to the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation, who were, until the banking crisis revealed HSBC as
one of the few high street banks with more assets than liabilities,
often criticised as being overly cautious in their investments.

Colin Bignell

On 13/05/2012 11:26, Nightjar wrote:
On 12/05/2012 17:10, harryagain wrote:
I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?


If you are worried, move your money to the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation, who were, until the banking crisis revealed HSBC as
one of the few high street banks with more assets than liabilities,
often criticised as being overly cautious in their investments.

Colin Bignell

Bunch of wimps :-)

In message , stuart noble
writes
On 13/05/2012 11:26, Nightjar wrote:
On 12/05/2012 17:10, harryagain wrote:
I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?


If you are worried, move your money to the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation, who were, until the banking crisis revealed HSBC as
one of the few high street banks with more assets than liabilities,
often criticised as being overly cautious in their investments.

Colin Bignell

Bunch of wimps :-)

Phoned them up today just to see what their raes were (I don't always
trust tables with their bonuses etc

Flexible saver - 0.5% interest ...

that's not a saver, it's a loser account

--
geoff

On 14/05/2012 23:10, geoff wrote:
In message , stuart noble
writes
On 13/05/2012 11:26, Nightjar wrote:
On 12/05/2012 17:10, harryagain wrote:
I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?


If you are worried, move your money to the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation, who were, until the banking crisis revealed HSBC as
one of the few high street banks with more assets than liabilities,
often criticised as being overly cautious in their investments.

Colin Bignell

Bunch of wimps :-)

Phoned them up today just to see what their raes were (I don't always
trust tables with their bonuses etc

Flexible saver - 0.5% interest ...

that's not a saver, it's a loser account

Are there banks that offer better for a similar type of account? From a
cursory wander around some of the other banks' web sites, if you exclude
any introductory bonus, that seems to be about normal, with some
variation up or down in some banks, depending upon the amount invested,
for a fully flexible instant access savings account.

Colin Bignell

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 14/05/2012 23:10, geoff wrote:
In message , stuart noble
writes
On 13/05/2012 11:26, Nightjar wrote:
On 12/05/2012 17:10, harryagain wrote:
I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?


If you are worried, move your money to the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation, who were, until the banking crisis revealed HSBC as
one of the few high street banks with more assets than liabilities,
often criticised as being overly cautious in their investments.

Colin Bignell

Bunch of wimps :-)

Phoned them up today just to see what their raes were (I don't always
trust tables with their bonuses etc

Flexible saver - 0.5% interest ...

that's not a saver, it's a loser account

Are there banks that offer better for a similar type of account? From a
cursory wander around some of the other banks' web sites, if you
exclude any introductory bonus, that seems to be about normal,

I don't think that its something that you can exclude

I took time out today to go for a wander up the high street today

pretty pathetic all round. This thread having come as a bit of a wake up
call, I needed two new accounts. One was with the cheltenham and
gloucester - no internet access, and a little blue book with withdrawals
by cheque only, how quaint. I was led to wonder of they had banks of
desks with young boys with quill pens at the back doing the accounts



with some variation up or down in some banks, depending upon the
amount invested, for a fully flexible instant access savings account.

Colin Bignell

--
Geoff

On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:10:34 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , stuart noble
writes
On 13/05/2012 11:26, Nightjar wrote:
On 12/05/2012 17:10, harryagain wrote:
I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?


If you are worried, move your money to the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation, who were, until the banking crisis revealed HSBC as
one of the few high street banks with more assets than liabilities,
often criticised as being overly cautious in their investments.

Colin Bignell

Bunch of wimps :-)

Phoned them up today just to see what their raes were (I don't always
trust tables with their bonuses etc

Flexible saver - 0.5% interest ...

that's not a saver, it's a loser account

Any rate that is nett less than inflation is a loser (so all of them). To
take income and not lose is impossible.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 13/05/2012 12:26, Nightjar wrote:
On 12/05/2012 17:10, harryagain wrote:
I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?


If you are worried, move your money to the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation, who were, until the banking crisis revealed HSBC as
one of the few high street banks with more assets than liabilities,
often criticised as being overly cautious in their investments.


Yup. I started with Williams & Glynns, who were taken over by RBS. When,
after 40-odd years, I heard they were going to be taken over by
Santander I switched to HSBC. It wasn't too hard and they gave me £75.

Good move. Santander don't have a good reputation.

Another Dave

--
Change nospam to gmx

In message , Another Dave
wrote

Yup. I started with Williams & Glynns, who were taken over by RBS.
When, after 40-odd years, I heard they were going to be taken over by
Santander I switched to HSBC. It wasn't too hard and they gave me £75.

I also started with Williams & Glynns and stayed when taken over by RBS.
I too moved my account when RBS informed me that my account would be
taken over by Santander. Two other people I know have jumped ship when
told about the sale. I wonder how many accounts will be left to transfer

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 13/05/2012 16:06, Another Dave wrote:
On 13/05/2012 12:26, Nightjar wrote:
On 12/05/2012 17:10, harryagain wrote:
I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?


If you are worried, move your money to the Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation, who were, until the banking crisis revealed HSBC as
one of the few high street banks with more assets than liabilities,
often criticised as being overly cautious in their investments.


Yup. I started with Williams & Glynns, who were taken over by RBS. When,
after 40-odd years, I heard they were going to be taken over by
Santander I switched to HSBC. It wasn't too hard and they gave me £75.

Good move. Santander don't have a good reputation.

Another Dave


Can't find any better interest rates, so I stay with the devil I know.
Yes, I was with Williams & Glyn. No yellow line outside can you believe!
Good old days

On May 12, 5:10*pm, "harryagain" wrote:
I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

There are two schools of thought; the gov't permitted fiction, the
reality.

The gov't permitted fiction for USA UK Spain etc banks is that
emergency accounting changes permitted Balance Sheets to suspend Mark-
to-Market. This in turn means that any bank can fiddle the "Stress
Tests". This is all about preventing cascading bank bailouts, run on
banks and absolute financial collapse.

The reality is the market knows banks are not particularly well
capitalised, recovery of substance is elusive, so losses have to be
realised in a waterfall fashion. Essentially Germany knows the system
is stuffed, it is a case of 1) pouring a concrete floor under the bank
losses via fiddling accounts and 2) letting losses be occured &
recapitalise repeatedly over a decade.

The political reality is actually more important than the financial
nonsense.
People will only vote for a certain amount of "hardship" per unit
time, in effect voting themselves benefits into perpetuity - which
clashes with eventual need for financial balance. Thus eventually the
system will fail, because it has to. No gov't can do that which is
necessary, because it would never see office again. Ironically it will
be other countries gov't that eventually force a solution when their
political & economic cost is too great.

I think it is 10yrs for a credit bubble to resolve, but in the
meantime they want housing to continue as before - because without a
Housing-ATM & Housing-Consumerism there is no economy. We lost it,
regaining it is via declining labour rates but that misses the problem
of simply too many people for the global economy. Insufficient job
creation to meet birth rate, which will result in a standard of living
shear at some point, and unsustainable benefit & public sector bill.


For liquidity reasons, do use multiple banks - borrowing large sums
for a few months is not cheap if you are waiting for a payout. This is
particularly true where the money may be needed at short notice.

On May 12, 7:47*pm, "js.b1" wrote:
On May 12, 5:10*pm, "harryagain" wrote:

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

There are two schools of thought; the gov't permitted fiction, the
reality.

The gov't permitted fiction for USA UK Spain etc banks is that
emergency accounting changes permitted Balance Sheets to suspend Mark-
to-Market. This in turn means that any bank can fiddle the "Stress
Tests". This is all about preventing cascading bank bailouts, run on
banks and absolute financial collapse.

The reality is the market knows banks are not particularly well
capitalised, recovery of substance is elusive, so losses have to be
realised in a waterfall fashion. Essentially Germany knows the system
is stuffed, it is a case of 1) pouring a concrete floor under the bank
losses via fiddling accounts and 2) letting losses be occured &
recapitalise repeatedly over a decade.

The political reality is actually more important than the financial
nonsense.
People will only vote for a certain amount of "hardship" per unit
time, in effect voting themselves benefits into perpetuity - which
clashes with eventual need for financial balance. Thus eventually the
system will fail, because it has to. No gov't can do that which is
necessary, because it would never see office again. Ironically it will
be other countries gov't that eventually force a solution when their
political & economic cost is too great.

I think it is 10yrs for a credit bubble to resolve, but in the
meantime they want housing to continue as before - because without a
Housing-ATM & Housing-Consumerism there is no economy. We lost it,
regaining it is via declining labour rates but that misses the problem
of simply too many people for the global economy. Insufficient job
creation to meet birth rate, which will result in a standard of living
shear at some point, and unsustainable benefit & public sector bill.

For liquidity reasons, do use multiple banks - borrowing large sums
for a few months is not cheap if you are waiting for a payout. This is
particularly true where the money may be needed at short notice.

Good little essay that. It puts in a nutshell what I suspect.
ie, We're f****d.
It was Bliar wot dun it.

harry writes:

On May 12, 7:47=A0pm, "js.b1" wrote:
On May 12, 5:10=A0pm, "harryagain" wrote:

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

There are two schools of thought; the gov't permitted fiction, the
reality.

The gov't permitted fiction for USA UK Spain etc banks is that
emergency accounting changes permitted Balance Sheets to suspend Mark-
to-Market. This in turn means that any bank can fiddle the "Stress
Tests". This is all about preventing cascading bank bailouts, run on
banks and absolute financial collapse.

The reality is the market knows banks are not particularly well
capitalised, recovery of substance is elusive, so losses have to be
realised in a waterfall fashion. Essentially Germany knows the system
is stuffed, it is a case of 1) pouring a concrete floor under the bank
losses via fiddling accounts and 2) letting losses be occured &
recapitalise repeatedly over a decade.

The political reality is actually more important than the financial
nonsense.
People will only vote for a certain amount of "hardship" per unit
time, in effect voting themselves benefits into perpetuity - which
clashes with eventual need for financial balance. Thus eventually the
system will fail, because it has to. No gov't can do that which is
necessary, because it would never see office again. Ironically it will
be other countries gov't that eventually force a solution when their
political & economic cost is too great.

I think it is 10yrs for a credit bubble to resolve, but in the
meantime they want housing to continue as before - because without a
Housing-ATM & Housing-Consumerism there is no economy. We lost it,
regaining it is via declining labour rates but that misses the problem
of simply too many people for the global economy. Insufficient job
creation to meet birth rate, which will result in a standard of living
shear at some point, and unsustainable benefit & public sector bill.

For liquidity reasons, do use multiple banks - borrowing large sums
for a few months is not cheap if you are waiting for a payout. This is
particularly true where the money may be needed at short notice.

Good little essay that. It puts in a nutshell what I suspect.
ie, We're f****d.

There are plainly problems related to hard facts like population levels
and food and energy supplies.

But having millions under-employed or unemployed (probably billions
world wide) can only make things worse. They could be doing useful
things, contributing in some way to human society, and a few might even
come up with workable schemes to contain the problems.

How you achieve that, I don't know, and I don't see anyone other than
dogmatists who claim to know the answer.
I suspect that the best systems are those which don't try too hard to
alter human nature but rather to work with it. Which leaves out fascism
and communism, except in very limited form.

Something has to be done with the money system, though.
It's largely smoke and mirrors, a matter of who is prepared to believe
what (and somehow money is always found for important things like a
war) but the conventional cures destroy productivity, jobs, and lives.
Which is fine, if you're rich and powerful, but could hardly be
described as 'the greatest good for the greatest number'.

It was Bliar wot dun it.

One man in one small island with a small population was able to destroy
the entire world economy.

And it happened before, when British socialists pushed interest rates
up to unsustainable levels in the U.S. as well as here (or was it the
other way round?).
Just as well that the U.K. had Thatcher to set things right.

I heard that Soreass fella tell the BBC that the Greeks were just
expecting a free lunch.
He himself apparently made his billion by betting against the ERM, no
doubt putting in quite a lot of work.
If 10,000 per hour was his rate, and he slaved for 10 years at that
rate, he would have 'earned' his money, but I don't believe that was
the case.
No, his was a free lunch.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

js.b1 wrote
harryagain wrote

I wonder how safe your money is in Santander these days?

There are two schools of thought; the gov't permitted fiction, the
reality.

The gov't permitted fiction for USA UK Spain etc banks is that
emergency accounting changes permitted Balance Sheets to suspend Mark-
to-Market. This in turn means that any bank can fiddle the "Stress
Tests". This is all about preventing cascading bank bailouts, run on
banks and absolute financial collapse.

The reality is the market knows banks are not particularly well
capitalised, recovery of substance is elusive, so losses have to be
realised in a waterfall fashion. Essentially Germany knows the system
is stuffed, it is a case of 1) pouring a concrete floor under the bank
losses via fiddling accounts and 2) letting losses be occured &
recapitalise repeatedly over a decade.

The political reality is actually more important than the financial
nonsense.

People will only vote for a certain amount of "hardship" per unit
time, in effect voting themselves benefits into perpetuity - which
clashes with eventual need for financial balance. Thus eventually the
system will fail, because it has to. No gov't can do that which is
necessary, because it would never see office again. Ironically it will
be other countries gov't that eventually force a solution when their
political & economic cost is too great.

I think it is 10yrs for a credit bubble to resolve, but in the
meantime they want housing to continue as before - because without a
Housing-ATM & Housing-Consumerism there is no economy. We lost it,
regaining it is via declining labour rates but that misses the problem
of simply too many people for the global economy. Insufficient job
creation to meet birth rate, which will result in a standard of living
shear at some point, and unsustainable benefit & public sector bill.

That doesn't explain why the US unemployment rate bottomed at
4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate and the
participation rate at an all time historic high, just before the clowns
were allowed to completely implode the world world financial
system again.

For liquidity reasons, do use multiple banks - borrowing large sums
for a few months is not cheap if you are waiting for a payout. This is
particularly true where the money may be needed at short notice.

On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:47:47 -0700 (PDT), js.b1 wrote:

snip

For liquidity reasons, do use multiple banks - borrowing large sums
for a few months is not cheap if you are waiting for a payout. This is
particularly true where the money may be needed at short notice.

Yes - I've now had to use 4 separate banks to be on the safe side.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway