UK pensions

[Jip99]

14 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

 

You said as much in another thread and I still don't buy it. It makes zero sense to me that HSBC UK cannot transfer directly to Bangkok Bank Thailand (and/or vice versa) without using a correspondent bank, proof of that claim will be needed before I think it's evenly remotely correct or true. International bank transfers are not like mobile roaming agreements where the two banks have to first agree to be connected via international transfer systems, you know better than that. 

 

 

I don’t care whether you buy it or not - it is fact.

[simoh1490]

39 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I don’t care whether you buy it or not - it is fact.

Post proof, then it'll be fact, until such time it's opinion only!

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

Post proof, then it'll be fact, until such time it's opinion only!

HSBC do not appear on  Bangkok Banks list of correspondent banks for international transfer

 

http://www.bangkokbank.com/BangkokBank/BusinessBanking/BusinessSolution/TransferingFunds/ReceivingFunds/Pages/default.aspx

[Jip99]

6 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Post proof, then it'll be fact, until such time it's opinion only!

 

As a former director I have already posted proof.

 

The £35 charge from Nat West that they subsequently refunded.

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

As a former director I have already posted proof.

 

The £35 charge from Nat West that they subsequently refunded.

Jip I don't want to argue with you but all I've seen you post in that other thread is the same excerpt from the HSBC web site that I posted and it it is far from being proof of what we're debating here. If you want to beat your chest on this, go for it, but until you post proof, you just saying it is so doesn't make it a fact, not even if your real name is Stuart Gulliver! I shall not post again on this subject until I see explicit proof that funds transfers from HSBC UK to Bangkok Bank, always use a correspondent or intermediary bank.

[Jip99]

51 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Jip I don't want to argue with you but all I've seen you post in that other thread is the same excerpt from the HSBC web site that I posted and it it is far from being proof of what we're debating here. If you want to beat your chest on this, go for it, but until you post proof, you just saying it is so doesn't make it a fact, not even if your real name is Stuart Gulliver! I shall not post again on this subject until I see explicit proof that funds transfers from HSBC UK to Bangkok Bank, always use a correspondent or intermediary bank.

 

Stuart Gulliver, I wish.  ?......I was only a local director..

 

Up to you simoh, but my transfer of £11,900 Baht arrived at Bangkok Bank as £11,865. (I don’t pay the standard £4 HSBC charge).

 

The £35 nibble was from Nat West.

 

HSBC can no longer remit direct to BKB.

 

Tbe agent for BKB is Nat West,

.

 

End of....... try it by all means, but. I am simply trying to save other expats incurring the £35 charge.

 

Note; take the Baht rate offered by HSBC and a 500 Baht charge will be incurred for the payment routing via HSBC, Thailand plus the usual 0.25% etc charged by the Thai recipient bank.

 

Transferwise is beginning to look an attractive option..

[simoh1490]

17 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

HSBC do not appear on  Bangkok Banks list of correspondent banks for international transfer

 

http://www.bangkokbank.com/BangkokBank/BusinessBanking/BusinessSolution/TransferingFunds/ReceivingFunds/Pages/default.aspx

Sorry that I had overlooked your post and not seen it until now. I agree that the list gets us much closer to the proof I was looking for so thank you for posting it. The questions now are, why do two banks need that relationship when they both have an international presence and both use SWIFT for international transfers? The second and more obvious question is why BB wouldn't have a relationship with HSBC and is that HSBC global or just HSBC UK, anyone?

[rockingrobin]

3 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Sorry that I had overlooked your post and not seen it until now. I agree that the list gets us much closer to the proof I was looking for so thank you for posting it. The questions now are, why do two banks need that relationship when they both have an international presence and both use SWIFT for international transfers? The second and more obvious question is why BB wouldn't have a relationship with HSBC and is that HSBC global or just HSBC UK, anyone?

The 2 banks would need accounts with each other to transfer the actual funds. The SWIFT system is only a messenger service and as far has I am aware (but could be wrong) does not move the monies

[simoh1490]

13 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The 2 banks would need accounts with each other to transfer the actual funds. The SWIFT system is only a messenger service and as far has I am aware (but could be wrong) does not move the monies

I don't agree the two banks would need accounts each other, if you said they would both need to be members of SWIFT I could agree to that however.

[rockingrobin]

8 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I don't agree the two banks would need accounts each other, if you said they would both need to be members of SWIFT I could agree to that however.

How would the monies move from bank A to bank B

[transam]

11 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

How would the monies move from bank A to bank B

With a keyboard...

[simoh1490]

15 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

How would the monies move from bank A to bank B

SWIFT is owned by its members who reap the rewards, pay the bills and realise any profit from the SWIFT system.  Each one has a unique code or account ID which identifies individual banks hence the underlying messaging system is simple enough, it therefore follows that members are able to transfer funds amongst themselves, providing they are actually members.

 

We know for certain that both HSBC UK and Bangkok Bank are members of SWIFT because they both have active SWIFT codes that can be successfully used when transferring to and from those banks via other banks.

 

So why would two members of SWIFT who readily have the capability to transfer funds between each other, would benefit financially from doing so (profit) chose not to allow settlement between each other, I'm looking for the answer to that question rather than simply saying they don't have accounts set up - I don't have an account set up with Bangkok Bank but I'm willing to bet I could write a cheque payable to Bangkok Bank and it would get deposited to their account. EDIT TO ADD: I believe settlement is a function of BIS, to which all banks belong.

Edited November 6, 2017 by simoh1490

[transam]

I wrote a check from my UK bank to pay into a Thai bank when in LOS, they said they send it to the UK to verify it, took about a month..

[rockingrobin]

11 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

SWIFT is owned by its members who reap the rewards, pay the bills and realise any profit from the SWIFT system.  Each one has a unique code or account ID which identifies individual banks hence the underlying messaging system is simple enough, it therefore follows that members are able to transfer funds amongst themselves, providing they are actually members.

 

We know for certain that both HSBC UK and Bangkok Bank are members of SWIFT because they both have active SWIFT codes that can be successfully used when transferring to and from those banks via other banks.

 

So why would two members of SWIFT who readily have the capability to transfer funds between each other, would benefit financially from doing so (profit) chose not to allow settlement between each other, I'm looking for the answer to that question rather than simply saying they don't have accounts set up - I don't have an account set up with Bangkok Bank but I'm willing to bet I could write a cheque payable to Bangkok Bank and it would get deposited to their account. EDIT TO ADD: I believe settlement is a function of BIS, to which all banks belong.

I think the answer lies within SWIFT's mandated Relationship Manager Application, which require the receiving institution to declare who can send them messages 

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

I think the answer lies within SWIFT's mandated Relationship Manager Application, which require the receiving institution to declare who can send them messages 

Quite possibly, but it still doesn't answer the question why, unless this is a FATCA/money laundering related issue and the refusal of one bank to work with another as a result.

[rockingrobin]

20 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Quite possibly, but it still doesn't answer the question why, unless this is a FATCA/money laundering related issue and the refusal of one bank to work with another as a result.

This may be of interest

https://www.swift.com/insights/news/rma-and-rma-plus_managing-correspondent-connections

[scottiejohn]

I understand that the Annual "triple lock" increase will be 3% next year, is that so and when do the increased payments start? Is it the 7th of April 2018 or some other date?

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

59 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I understand that the Annual "triple lock" increase will be 3% next year, is that so and when do the increased payments start? Is it the 7th of April 2018 or some other date?

The effective date for the increase will be the 06.04.2018.

[scottiejohn]

16 minutes ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

The effective date for the increase will be the 06.04.2018.

Thank you for the date and can you also confirm please if it will be 3%?

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

8 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Thank you for the date and can you also confirm please if it will be 3%?

A 3% overall increase applies to everyone who reached state pension ago after April 2016. People who retired earlier than that are paid according to the old system of "basic" and earnings-related pension. For this group, the basic pension will also increase by 3pc in April 2018, to £126 a week. The "additional" element of the old state pension is only increased by CPI inflation, not the full triple lock.

[scottiejohn]

5 minutes ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

A 3% overall increase applies to everyone who reached state pension ago after April 2016. People who retired earlier than that are paid according to the old system of "basic" and earnings-related pension. For this group, the basic pension will also increase by 3pc in April 2018, to £126 a week. The "additional" element of the old state pension is only increased by CPI inflation, not the full triple lock.

 

I qualify for pension in March next year (2018) and am just working out the Maths for claiming on due date or waiting till the 3% increase date which you have now confirmed for me. My understanding is that I am locked in to the rate on the date that I ask for my pension to start and not my actual pension qualification date.

 

Thanks again

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

9 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

 

I qualify for pension in March next year (2018) and am just working out the Maths for claiming on due date or waiting till the 3% increase date which you have now confirmed for me. My understanding is that I am locked in to the rate on the date that I ask for my pension to start and not my actual pension qualification date.

 

Thanks again

I am assuming that you are residing in Thailand or another country where annual pension increases are not paid. If this is the case then you are correct in assuming that the date you first receive the pension payment will determine the rate at which it is paid rather than your pension qualifying date. Even if you reside in a country where UK pension increases are not paid, providing you don't apply for your pension, it's value will continue to increase annually as a deferred status pension until such time as you draw it.

[overherebc]

Has there been a change to the way the 'old age' pension from UK is sent to Thailand?

It seems to take much longer than before at times even considering local holidays etc.

Someone mentioned it now goes through another bank after leaving UK, they suggested it might even be a USA bank.

Confused.

[simoh1490]

Citi Bank in Ireland is the main bank used for global distribution of pensions for the US Social Security payments and the UK State Pension.

[transam]

1 minute ago, overherebc said:

Has there been a change to the way the 'old age' pension from UK is sent to Thailand?

It seems to take much longer than before at times even considering local holidays etc.

Someone mentioned it now goes through another bank after leaving UK, they suggested it might even be a USA bank.

Confused.

If you have sorted to have it paid in LOS they use Citi Bank...Takes about 4 days...Mine arrives every forth  Thursday..

[overherebc]

10 minutes ago, transam said:

If you have sorted to have it paid in LOS they use Citi Bank...Takes about 4 days...Mine arrives every forth  Thursday..

So it's every month and not every 28 days=13 payments a year.

Just clearing up points from the usual bar discussion/arguement.

Edited November 15, 2017 by overherebc

[transam]

4 minutes ago, overherebc said:

So it's every month and not every 28 days=13 payments a year.

Just clearing up points from the usual bar discussion/arguement.

28 days.....= 13 payments...

[overherebc]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

28 days.....= 13 payments...

Cheers.

Just won a pint. ?

[transam]

1 minute ago, overherebc said:

Cheers.

Just won a pint. ?

I will watch the mailbox with anticipation....

[lungbing]

Every 28 days, so one month in the year you get two payments, one near the start of the month and one at the end.