Tangerine Sure Takes Advantage of Their Customers - It's no ING! | Page 2 | Tangerine Bank | Discussion forum

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Tangerine Sure Takes Advantage of Their Customers - It's no ING!
May 26, 2016
6:30 pm
SavingIsGood
Member
Banned
Forum Posts: 215
Member Since:
February 18, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There is NO such thing as free lunch. 'No fee' is carrot and stick scheme. EVERY decent and long time in business bank HAS transfer fee for registered products. But I don't see why is that such a big deal. Receiving bank will reimburse you anyway so you are never at the loss. How many times you are going to move your rrsp from bank1 to bank2? And why are you moving it?

Wait until they introduce account maintenance fee, limit number of withdrawals, start charging for cheques. Just wait... in a year or two... This is NOT ING we used to love. This is Scotia...

May 27, 2016
3:39 am
Saver-Mom
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 311
Member Since:
December 12, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yes there are old banks who abuse us with high fees, and newer banks seeking to increase their business who do not charge fees, and who also offer better rates on their HISAs and GICs. Typically if they do not charge a fee to transfer out, they will not cover a fee to transfer in. Higher rates is why we move RRSPs. How often depends on how long we lock them in, the availability of RRSP savings accounts vs only GICs, and the rates on offer. Tang used to act like a new bank, more and more they are acting like an old bank. Older, in this case, is not better.

May 27, 2016
6:21 am
fabafter50
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 177
Member Since:
October 22, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There is NO such thing as free lunch. 'No fee' is carrot and stick scheme. EVERY decent and long time in business bank HAS transfer fee for registered products. But I don't see why is that such a big deal. Receiving bank will reimburse you anyway so you are never at the loss. How many times you are going to move your rrsp from bank1 to bank2? And why are you moving it

WHY AM I MOVING IT?? Seriously?
Because even if I pay the $45 fee I will still make hundreds more at a bank with as little as a .50 higher rate. My chequing is with PC and I don't pay fees for that. When you are living off your investments in this climate of piss poor interest rates there is no choice but to move around and play the game. No brainer.

May 28, 2016
12:43 pm
SavingIsGood
Member
Banned
Forum Posts: 215
Member Since:
February 18, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sure, 0.5% more makes a difference. BUT! are we talking about GIC? Because mutual fund is just that - muddy fund. You cannot say how much you will get next month or year. And having fund X at bank A or bank B does not make a difference as you get 'interest' from mutual fund not from the bank.
And having rrsp in gic is a very BAD idea, unless you locked it up for 20 years with interest of 8% or similar...

May 28, 2016
3:59 pm
2of3aintbad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 317
Member Since:
February 24, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

SavingIsGood said

Sure, 0.5% more makes a difference. BUT! are we talking about GIC? Because mutual fund is just that - muddy fund. You cannot say how much you will get next month or year. And having fund X at bank A or bank B does not make a difference as you get 'interest' from mutual fund not from the bank.
And having rrsp in gic is a very BAD idea, unless you locked it up for 20 years with interest of 8% or similar...

Not sure what is your point. There are no 20 year GICs. As for RRSPs, there are good reasons to invest in GICs. Suppose you make a contribution at the highest marginal rate. If you invest in a 5 year GIC that has at least a positive return compared to inflation, you will come out ahead with no risk. On the other hand, if you want to invest in the stock market for a possible better return, then go ahead, but why do it with your retirement funds, instead of your TFSA or open account? In my opinion, your RRSP is the best place for GICs if you choose to buy them.

May 29, 2016
2:58 am
fabafter50
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 177
Member Since:
October 22, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

As one of many who lost money, $250,000 to be exact,in the mutual fund disaster in which I trusted a big bank with my money, shame on me, I don't do mutual funds ever. I make enough playing the interest game with GIC's, that is my "work" now.
My current RRSP's are safe and sound and making me money so I sleep at night.
Works for me.

May 29, 2016
4:34 am
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9232
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Good for you, fabafter50. It's tough to experience and admit to such a significant loss.

I think the important thing is to figure out how to live with what you've got. If it's not too late, find some more sources of income if you need to. There is a lot that one can do to improve one's situation if the mind and body are still OK, other than taking more risk.

If you don't have enough, mutual funds and stock markets will not be any help as you can't afford the risk and may have nothing to put in them anyway.

If you do have enough, you won't need them, but it is a real choice if you want to try it. Only the people who do have enough should consider taking those risks.

Nobody should ever have to listen to the line that goes "you will have to take more risk to reach your goals". If you think about it, it makes no sense at all, as more risk means, by definition, that you are not assured of meeting those goals but you risk losing much of what you have!

it would be much better if they'd say, "let's look at some ways that you can live within your means or increase your sources of income." But they won't make any profit from doing that!

It's easy to forget, especially for younger people, that mutual funds are a relatively recent invention. Access to the stock market for people who are not wealthy is also a recent invention. All of this came up in the 1970s as the investment houses and corporations realized there was a population with access to cash that they had not yet tapped.
Mutual funds were the answer, enabling smaller investments in individual companies without buying impossibly small dollar amounts of individual stocks. All they had to do was convince us that it was good for us.sf-confused
Some of them worked, some of the time. Even I bought a mutual fund of stocks in the 1980s! I held it one year, made 13%, and decided that was enough for me.
But some people lost money. For most of them, it was too risky a choice.

May 29, 2016
6:33 am
xxxx
Member
Banned
Forum Posts: 338
Member Since:
June 29, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

fabafter50 said

As one of many who lost money, $250,000 to be exact,in the mutual fund disaster in which I trusted a big bank with my money, shame on me, I don't do mutual funds ever. I make enough playing the interest game with GIC's, that is my "work" now.
My current RRSP's are safe and sound and making me money so I sleep at night.
Works for me.

I would be interested to know which mutual fund that was? Was it a highly speculative type? Could you share that information? Did that fund ever recover or did you sell it when it was at the bottom? Many times mutual funds do recover as long as you do not panic and sell it at the lowest value - which is the worst time to sell. While many things tanked in 2008, most had recovered by 2010 if one had just held on.

May 29, 2016
6:48 am
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3903
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mutual funds came to Canada in the 1930s, started being sold widely to "average" within a few decades. I remember my Dad talking to a door-to-door mutual fund salesman (probably Investors Group or whatever it was called then) in the late 1950s or early 1960s.
I'm still baffled why anyone would think someone else, especially a stranger, is going to help them make money, unless there's something in it for the latter.

May 29, 2016
8:05 am
xxxx
Member
Banned
Forum Posts: 338
Member Since:
June 29, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

That is what I also thought Bill - mutual funds have been around for a long time - are not a recent invention at all. Of course the number and variety of mutual funds expanded a lot over the years- and now ETFs have done the same.
I think my parents had one of the original mutual funds called Commonwealth (putting perhaps only a few hundred dollars in it - but all dividends were reinvested for perhaps 40? or 50? years which bought additional units through the ups and downs. When it was ultimately cashed, it yielded a surprisingly huge return at the end. For sure they would not have bought this from a door to door salesman - can't believe why people would ever do that.

May 29, 2016
8:13 pm
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9232
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mutual funds may have existed earlier than I remember, but the big push to popularize them happened in the '70s/'80s. They became very accessible, every bank was pushing them, and they were heavily promoted at that time.

I don't recall anyone coming door-to-door with them at my house in the '50s or '60s. I remember the Fuller Brush salesman, the Encyclopedia salesmen, vacuum cleaner guys, Avon ladies, the ice man (yes, I was alive before we had a refrigerator!) and the Jehovah's Witnesses. We didn't buy any of it except the ice! Trying to bring home a large block of ice, especially without a vehicle, is not recommended!

No permission to create posts

Please write your comments in the forum.