Cash in the bank.

[overherebc]

Answer needed to settle bar discussion/arguement.

You have 4,000,000 baht in your savings/deposit acc' in Thailand with XXX bank.

XXX Bank goes broke/bust/has to stop trading, whatever.

How much of your 4,000,000 is guaranteed to be yours?

[Jdietz]

Original plan was:

1,000,000

 

http://www.thailawforum.com/thai-deposit-insurance-law.html

 

However this was amended later, so now you keep the 4,000,000 THB (up to 15M)

http://www.thaiwebsites.com/deposits-insurance.asp

 

Soon enough it'll be 1M again though:

However, the original proposals got amended a few years later. We will forego these changes, but below are the latest data as decided by the Thai goverment in April 2016 :

Up to 10 August 2016 deposits were protected up to 25 million baht.
Thereafter, protection will be in place for 15 million baht in deposits between Aug 11, 2016 and Aug 10, 2018; for 10 million between Aug 11, 2018 and Aug 10, 2019; for 5 million between Aug 11, 2019 and Aug 10, 2020; and for 1 million by Aug 11, 2020. 

Edited October 29, 2017 by Jdietz
Amended law

[ubonjoe]

18 minutes ago, overherebc said:

How much of your 4,000,000 is guaranteed to be yours?

All of it until August of 2020. See: http://www.dpa.or.th/ewt_news.php?nid=320&filename=index___EN

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, Jdietz said:

1,000,000

http://www.thailawforum.com/thai-deposit-insurance-law.html

That info is out of date (17 February 201). The plans to lower it earlier were canceled.

 

[overherebc]

So basically looking at how often it changes nothing can be 100% relied on is my take on it.

[ubonjoe]

50 minutes ago, overherebc said:

So basically looking at how often it changes nothing can be 100% relied on is my take on it.

It will not be changed to one million any earlier than August of 2020. If anything they might keep it higher past that date.

Lots of discussion about lowering it to the point where it is now. There are lot of influential people that want the higher amount.

[overherebc]

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

It will not be changed to one million any earlier than August of 2020. If anything they might keep it higher past that date.

Lots of discussion about lowering it to the point where it is now. There are lot of influential people that want the higher amount.

I'm just one of those people that doesn't trust politicians, governments, bankers and investment consultants irrespective of nationality.

If it suits them to change the rules and laws there is nothing really anyone can do about it.

As I said, all countries, not any particular one.

[connda]

On 10/29/2017 at 3:56 PM, ubonjoe said:

All of it until August of 2020. See: http://www.dpa.or.th/ewt_news.php?nid=320&filename=index___EN

This is a succinct statement of the government's faith in the future solvency of Thai banks.  
If predictive, it's not a good omen imho.  But, forwarded in forearmed.  Deposit your funds accordingly.  

[Foozool]

That is promised by government, but let's see if and if it happens how people get their money back. Never forget where you live and how everything works. 

[natway09]

Just spit out which bank it is ?

If it is with one of the so called big 5,,, I would not be concerned

Arguably 5 of the safest banks in the world, certainly if you study their debt to  liability %

[overherebc]

Would it also apply to an overseas currency acc' eg dollars etc in a Thai bank ?

[Suradit69]

On 10/29/2017 at 8:20 PM, overherebc said:

I'm just one of those people that doesn't trust politicians, governments, bankers and investment consultants irrespective of nationality.

If it suits them to change the rules and laws there is nothing really anyone can do about it.

As I said, all countries, not any particular one.

And sometimes the burden of rescuing a bank and/or compensating depositors can be overwhelming even for a supposedly strong economy.

 

Quote

When RBS ran into trouble during the financial crisis, the government had the option to close the bank and let it fail (as would happen to any non-bank business that became insolvent). However, because of its obligation to reimburse the depositors of RBS, the government would have been obliged to find approximately £800bn – greater than the entire national debt at that time, and similar in size to the UK government’s annual tax take. 

http://positivemoney.org/2013/05/two-main-problems-with-deposit-insurance/

[Suradit69]

44 minutes ago, Foozool said:

That is promised by government, but let's see if and if it happens how people get their money back. Never forget where you live and how everything works. 

Apparently in 2007 these British depositors in Northern Rock didn't forget where they lived and how things worked and rushed to pull out their cash.

[Foozool]

22 minutes ago, Suradit69 said:

Apparently in 2007 these British depositors in Northern Rock didn't forget where they lived and how things worked and rushed to pull out their cash.

I'm not British, sorry

perhaps they should consider that. 

We had Enron and Madoff at the Bush time, but they were not count as "insured banks" by government. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Foozool

[Xonax]

In 1997 bank accounts above 1 Million Baht were frozen and that could possibly happen again.

[Time Traveller]

1 minute ago, Xonax said:

In 1997 bank accounts above 1 Million Baht were frozen and that could possibly happen again.

no they were not

[overherebc]

43 minutes ago, Time Traveller said:

no they were not

Perhaps not frozen but there was pressure to stop people buying uk pound at 45/50 to the pound and then back to baht when it hit 80 plus.

[bazza73]

I see some fairly good arguments for spreading one's funds in Thailand over multiple bank accounts.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

And sometimes the burden of rescuing a bank and/or compensating depositors can be overwhelming even for a supposedly strong economy.

 

http://positivemoney.org/2013/05/two-main-problems-with-deposit-insurance/

 

And the British and other EU member state, governments did something about that. If a bank looks like folding they can now "raid" the accounts of people with more than "x" amount of deposits. 

I think Cyprus already did it - taking large amounts from Russian depositors too!

 

In the UK your covered up to 85k. So approx 3.750 m ThB.  The UK government can dip into the accounts of depositors to fund that - and can do that without any court order.

 

Your money isn't as safe as you think in any EU member state.

[lkn]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

And the British and other EU member state, governments did something about that. If a bank looks like folding they can now "raid" the accounts of people with more than "x" amount of deposits. 

You make it sound so sinister, but this is not a new thing and has been used by companies for a long time.

 

When your business is insolvent, it might be in the interest of the creditors to restructure it and possibly take a loss on the debt (haircut) to have it continue to operate, rather than liquidate it and divide the assets.

 

In the case of a bank, the creditors are people with deposits, though unlike a business, the government will (in most countries) guarantee that even in case of insolvency, you will always get back a certain amount.

 

Though in exchange for this insurance, the government get some extra saying in how to run the bank, like setting capital requirements.

[phitsanulokjohn]

On 29/10/2017 at 8:49 AM, Jdietz said:

Original plan was:

1,000,000

 

http://www.thailawforum.com/thai-deposit-insurance-law.html

 

However this was amended later, so now you keep the 4,000,000 THB (up to 15M)

http://www.thaiwebsites.com/deposits-insurance.asp

 

Soon enough it'll be 1M again though:

 

 

Well at least till 2020,thats far better than the stingy £85k offered by the Uk banks.

[KittenKong]

16 hours ago, bazza73 said:

I see some fairly good arguments for spreading one's funds in Thailand over multiple bank accounts.

 

That applies all over the world.

 

Eggs, basket etc.

[KittenKong]

Bank guarantees sound great but the important question is "will they pay out if banks fail"?

 

I suspect not, at least not fully and to everyone, especially if more than one bank failed.

[hawker9000]

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 4:09 AM, lkn said:

You make it sound so sinister, but this is not a new thing and has been used by companies for a long time.

 

When your business is insolvent, it might be in the interest of the creditors to restructure it and possibly take a loss on the debt (haircut) to have it continue to operate, rather than liquidate it and divide the assets.

 

In the case of a bank, the creditors are people with deposits, though unlike a business, the government will (in most countries) guarantee that even in case of insolvency, you will always get back a certain amount.

 

Though in exchange for this insurance, the government get some extra saying in how to run the bank, like setting capital requirements.

You're comparing apples with oranges.  Banks are a whole different ballgame, and depositors not at all analogous to business creditors.  Bank failures are contagious and can precipitate economic crises, practically overnight, not at all comparable to the failure of even a big corporation.  Depositor faith in banks is a must for a viable modern economy.  That's why the US has FDIC signed into law by FDR in the wake of the Great Depression.    Just since 2010 over 150 banks have gone out of business in the U.S., but not one depositor in an FDIC-covered institution has EVER lost a dime.  Credit unions have NCUA.  Interestingly, there used to be an FSLIC which finally became so insolvent during the 80s, despite taxpayer bailouts, that it was abolished at which time the FDIC assumed its responsibilities.

 

"When your business is insolvent, it might be in the interest of the creditors to restructure it and possibly take a loss on the debt (haircut)"

This is simply NOT the case with banks.  Depositors are NOT the same as business investors, lenders, or partners.  Progressive economies MUST have banks, and depositors only deposit their money IN banks so long as they are regarded as the SAFEST of alternatives (which is why interest on savings accounts is less than just about everything else), and that means SAFE even beyond possible business failure.  We've seen that banks can get away with paying negative interest, and they certainly aren't shy about charging fees, but outright forfeiture/seizure of depositor assets in the event of, let alone to avoid, bank failure is the ultimate no-no.

 

For Thailand to extend its "protection" only out 3 years, is not that inspiring, but only part of a more "sinister" picture which starts to get OT...   IOW, I DON'T have the "faith" a bank depositor SHOULD have.  'One of multiple reasons, especially as a foreigner, I'm not at all tempted to place major assets with a Thai bank, beyond what I actually need to have there strictly as a matter of convenience. 

 

[macahoom]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

You're comparing apples with oranges.  Banks are a whole different ballgame, and depositors not at all analogous to business creditors.  Bank failures are contagious and can precipitate economic crises, practically overnight, not at all comparable to the failure of even a big corporation.  Depositor faith in banks is a must for a viable modern economy.  That's why the US has FDIC signed into law by FDR in the wake of the Great Depression.    Just since 2010 over 150 banks have gone out of business in the U.S., but not one depositor in an FDIC-covered institution has EVER lost a dime.  Credit unions have NCUA.  Interestingly, there used to be an FSLIC which finally became so insolvent during the 80s, despite taxpayer bailouts, that it was abolished at which time the FDIC assumed its responsibilities.

 

"When your business is insolvent, it might be in the interest of the creditors to restructure it and possibly take a loss on the debt (haircut)"

This is simply NOT the case with banks.  Depositors are NOT the same as business investors, lenders, or partners.  Progressive economies MUST have banks, and depositors only deposit their money IN banks so long as they are regarded as the SAFEST of alternatives (which is why interest on savings accounts is less than just about everything else), and that means SAFE even beyond possible business failure.  We've seen that banks can get away with paying negative interest, and they certainly aren't shy about charging fees, but outright forfeiture/seizure of depositor assets in the event of, let alone to avoid, bank failure is the ultimate no-no.

 

For Thailand to extend its "protection" only out 3 years, is not that inspiring, but only part of a more "sinister" picture which starts to get OT...   IOW, I DON'T have the "faith" a bank depositor SHOULD have.  'One of multiple reasons, especially as a foreigner, I'm not at all tempted to place major assets with a Thai bank, beyond what I actually need to have there strictly as a matter of convenience. 

 

 

It would help people like me understand your post a lot better if it wasn’t littered with acronyms.

Very annoying!

 

OT? IOW?

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, macahoom said:

OT? IOW?

 

Off topic. In other words.

[BernieOnTour]

3 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

You're comparing apples with oranges.  Banks are a whole different ballgame, and depositors not at all analogous to business creditors.  Bank failures are contagious and can precipitate economic crises, practically overnight, not at all comparable to the failure of even a big corporation.  Depositor faith in banks is a must for a viable modern economy.  That's why the US has FDIC signed into law by FDR in the wake of the Great Depression.    Just since 2010 over 150 banks have gone out of business in the U.S., but not one depositor in an FDIC-covered institution has EVER lost a dime.  Credit unions have NCUA.  Interestingly, there used to be an FSLIC which finally became so insolvent during the 80s, despite taxpayer bailouts, that it was abolished at which time the FDIC assumed its responsibilities.

 

"When your business is insolvent, it might be in the interest of the creditors to restructure it and possibly take a loss on the debt (haircut)"

This is simply NOT the case with banks.  Depositors are NOT the same as business investors, lenders, or partners.  Progressive economies MUST have banks, and depositors only deposit their money IN banks so long as they are regarded as the SAFEST of alternatives (which is why interest on savings accounts is less than just about everything else), and that means SAFE even beyond possible business failure.  We've seen that banks can get away with paying negative interest, and they certainly aren't shy about charging fees, but outright forfeiture/seizure of depositor assets in the event of, let alone to avoid, bank failure is the ultimate no-no.

 

For Thailand to extend its "protection" only out 3 years, is not that inspiring, but only part of a more "sinister" picture which starts to get OT...   IOW, I DON'T have the "faith" a bank depositor SHOULD have.  'One of multiple reasons, especially as a foreigner, I'm not at all tempted to place major assets with a Thai bank, beyond what I actually need to have there strictly as a matter of convenience. 

 

That was the theory.

Now back to the practice... just check, how EU law was changed in recent years in the the wake of the Cyprus and Greece crisis.

[lkn]

4 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

You're comparing apples with oranges.  Banks are a whole different ballgame, and depositors not at all analogous to business creditors

Well, all the stuff you write about trust and such does not really change the fact that banks are businesses and they can go bankrupt if they are insolvent.

 

The government backed insurance is what gives people trust in banks, because it makes people believe that it is risk free to deposit (up to a certain amount) in the bank, so even when banks are careless (as they were ~10 years ago) it doesn’t harm their credit line (people depositing money with them).

 

And there have certainly been bank failures where depositors lost uninsured funds, the post I was replying to even mentioned the incident in Cyprus from ~4 years ago.

 

Anyway, I don’t think we really disagree, as both of us seems to understand what banks are and the role they play, but since you phrased your comment as a rebuttal of my post, I felt obliged to respond…

[hawker9000]

On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 4:02 PM, macahoom said:

 

It would help people like me understand your post a lot better if it wasn’t littered with acronyms.

Very annoying!

 

OT? IOW?

Ever heard of Google?

 

'EXTREMELY common acronyms here on TV, BTW.   (ThaiVisa; By the way.   )

 

[Chivas]

I would say nothing despite the links. As a farang hoping to recover 1 baht I'd put your hope somewhere between bob and no.  You got no chance in my opinion and you'll tie yourselves up indefinately with lawyers fees

Edited November 15, 2017 by Chivas