Wealth One Prosperity Rate 5yr @ 2.88% | Page 4 | Wealth One Bank of Canada | 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
Wealth One Prosperity Rate 5yr @ 2.88%
September 24, 2021
1:12 pm
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4337
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There were previous discussions that explored how a bank bail-in would work:

Bail ins
Bank Bail-In Regimes Implication for Unsecured Depositors

Depositors will end up whole after a bank bail-in. However, if a bail-in would not be enough to save the bank, then the bank will be liquidated.

September 24, 2021
1:13 pm
canadian.100
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 421
Member Since:
September 7, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill said
No worries re the big banks, they've been around nigh on 2 centuries, give or take, through wars, depressions, massive social & tech changes, etc, (e.g. Bank of Montreal has paid dividends every year since 1829), they'll outlive us all.  

Very true!
I would not say that about WealthOne Bank. Without CDIC insurance they would be unable to survive - they need it to attract clients.

September 24, 2021
1:36 pm
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 7405
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

canadian.100 said

I understood very well what your point was re CDIC.
In regard to your comments re the private sector should have limited free rides - that is true in theory but not the way it works in reality. The big banks would get bailouts by govt in the rare chance they became unstable - but as you well know reality is the govt has bailed out private sector firms for a long time (even before COVID) such as GM and Chrysler ($14 Billion) Bombardier (billions and billions by repayable loans which never were repaid), Air Canada ($6B in 2021 alone), SNC Lavallin (billions in loans) etc. The executives of these firms still seemed to collect big salaries and bonuses while funds for such were effectively provided by Govt handouts - "lines of credit", repayable loans, incentives but a lot of it NEVER gets paid back - yes, it is the taxpayer effectively picking up the tab.
Yes this has been discussed previously and will be discussed again when the next bailout of some big (too big to fail) private sector firm occurs - in the cause of "saving jobs" or stabilizing the economic system, or ensure an essential service or for some other reason which politicians and bureaucrats sell to the public. Wasn't there recently some talk about "govt support" for private sector firm Greyhound when they cut their bus service? Have not heard anything more on that.
Bottom line - the Govt will continue to support/bailout/provide incentives/ or your expression "provide a free ride" to private sector firms which "should be" on their own and shareholders "should" take the hit.  

I'd be interested to know what you think is the solution to this chronic problem. Should the companies you named and others simply be allowed to fail? Should there be credible repayment plans etc.? To be honest, I really don't know. It seems to me that within the sort of capitalism we have created, that these kinds of bailouts are to be expected and will likely continue until or unless we get to the point where the government doesn't have the capacity any more. Every government does it; it's not just a political football. Lots of people don't support tightening regulations. We always end up footing the bill but we have no control. The companies that take handouts and then pack up and leave the country anyway are the worst offenders. Seems to me the concerns about job losses etc are real, and the government knows it will end up supporting these people one way or another, so they gamble on the company's survival. If we somehow curtailed the growth of these companies so that their demise did not have as big an impact, then they probably wouldn't be competitive enough to survive. What's the answer?

It's a very longstanding problem. I remember a federal candidate coming to my door on a very hot summer day about 20 years ago. I asked him about a recent giveaway (can no longer remember details), and asked why his government hadn't put any conditions on it to ensure that it be sued for the purposes intended, and he had no answer. I then offered him a glass of water, which he gladly accepted; that seemed to leave him even more confused! He lost the election.

September 24, 2021
2:35 pm
canadian.100
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 421
Member Since:
September 7, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Loonie said
I'd be interested to know what you think is the solution to this chronic problem. Should the companies you named and others simply be allowed to fail? Should there be credible repayment plans etc.? To be honest, I really don't know. It seems to me that within the sort of capitalism we have created, that these kinds of bailouts are to be expected and will likely continue until or unless we get to the point where the government doesn't have the capacity any more. Every government does it; it's not just a political football. Lots of people don't support tightening regulations. We always end up footing the bill but we have no control. The companies that take handouts and then pack up and leave the country anyway are the worst offenders. Seems to me the concerns about job losses etc are real, and the government knows it will end up supporting these people one way or another, so they gamble on the company's survival. If we somehow curtailed the growth of these companies so that their demise did not have as big an impact, then they probably wouldn't be competitive enough to survive. What's the answer?

It's a very longstanding problem. I remember a federal candidate coming to my door on a very hot summer day about 20 years ago. I asked him about a recent giveaway (can no longer remember details), and asked why his government hadn't put any conditions on it to ensure that it be sued for the purposes intended, and he had no answer. I then offered him a glass of water, which he gladly accepted; that seemed to leave him even more confused! He lost the election.  

Loonie - your points are spot on! Unfortunately there are no easy answers and I am not going to write a long response about what I think the answer is.
Your point about employees being laid off and the govt would have to support them is not always the case - SNC Lavallin threatened they would move out of Canada if they were not granted the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement) - and their employees would lose their jobs - it was determined that these skilled employees would have positions at similar firms in Canada. They would not end up unemployed. Another example I think of is in regard to the restaurant employees who lost their jobs during Covid closures - a large number of these people moved on to other jobs outside of the hospitality field and that is why the restaurants are now struggling to find replacement staff as the departed staff are not interested to come back to their old restaurant jobs. My friends in the resto and bar business tell me they cannot get staff.
Also, I know we are not supposed to talk politics here but politics is a big factor - these big companies are big donors to the political parties so the govt in power feels they owe it to the donor firm to support them - because they want their party to continue to receive political donations. Anyways I could write more but I will not. So Loonie I do agree with the bulk of your comments above.

September 24, 2021
3:17 pm
smayer97
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 453
Member Since:
September 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

@Bill Thanks for the clarification of what is and is not included.

I found more specific info here:
https://www.cdic.ca/what-happens-in-a-failure/resolution-of-large-banks/resolution-tools-for-d-sibs/bail-in/bail-in-backgrounder/how-bail-in-works/#Included

It does mean...shareholders beware.

September 24, 2021
3:22 pm
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 7405
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It's great when other jobs are available because of the skill of their employees, but maybe some of these companies deserve to die.

It's very interesting how the restaurant employees and PSWs and nurses have in many cases vanished lately. I do wonder where they are going and why they didn't go there earlier if it's more attractive. There seem to be vacancies all along the line. In my mother's retirement home, there has been huge turnover, from the recreation director to the maintenance guy. But where did they go?
I know that many people who were in a position to do so decided to retire. Perhaps that created the impetus for a domino effect.

I think the impact of places closing down varies a lot with type of business, location etc. In one-industry towns, the impact can be huge. Many don't recover or take a very long time to do so.

As far as I know, Greyhound has not received any incentives and has no plans to return. I believe they were talking about helping smaller local transportation companies fill the gap with smaller vehicles? The service is needed, so I would support that IF there was a viable business plan.

It's not just the political donations. It's the lobbyists! There are limits on political donations, but as far as I know there are no limits on lobbyists' spending. My MPP tells me there are essentially parties with food and alcohol pretty well every day of the week for MPPs to attend, sponsored by lobbyists who want a piece of their minds. (This was before covid.)

September 24, 2021
4:04 pm
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2594
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Unions, too, (often via quasi-political organizations activated when elections are coming up - e.g. check out Working Families Ontario as just one of many examples) spend a lot of their own money supporting jobs for their members and other gov't policies they want. It goes much further than just gov't handouts to companies, this support of various companies, industries, areas. Always been money behind the scenes, always will be, nothing can be done.

September 24, 2021
5:15 pm
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4337
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Loonie said

It's very interesting how the restaurant employees and PSWs and nurses have in many cases vanished lately. I do wonder where they are going and why they didn't go there earlier if it's more attractive. There seem to be vacancies all along the line. In my mother's retirement home, there has been huge turnover, from the recreation director to the maintenance guy. But where did they go?
I know that many people who were in a position to do so decided to retire. Perhaps that created the impetus for a domino effect.

I suspect there are many reasons for those workers to not return.

Online, instead of in-person, schooling could be one. Someone now has to stay home and ensure the children spend the day doing their remote learning.

As The Pandemic Recedes, Millions Of Workers Are Saying 'I Quit' describes one restaurant worker who, after being laid off, realized what he was missing of his family by working 50 to 60 hours a week. He decided not to return and is trying to find a 40 hours per week job.

According to Hotels And Restaurants That Survived Pandemic Face New Challenge…, some of restaurants had been relying on seasonal foreign workers! COVID travel restrictions has made it more difficult to bring such workers in.

September 24, 2021
5:57 pm
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 7405
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Covid has made a lot of people pause and take stock of their lives and their goals. That's a good thing.

September 24, 2021
8:49 pm
Norman1
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4337
Member Since:
April 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can see some parents worried about their university-aged children working in a restaurant as well.

The parents may offer to cover an extra $10,000 of university expenses this year so that the child doesn't need to work in a restaurant and possibly catch COVID.

September 24, 2021
8:56 pm
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 7405
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill said
Unions, too, (often via quasi-political organizations activated when elections are coming up - e.g. check out Working Families Ontario as just one of many examples) spend a lot of their own money supporting jobs for their members and other gov't policies they want. It goes much further than just gov't handouts to companies, this support of various companies, industries, areas. Always been money behind the scenes, always will be, nothing can be done.  

I'm glad that employees have an avenue to express their concerns and needs. Otherwise, it would be entirely one-sided.

September 24, 2021
9:00 pm
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 7405
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Norman1 said
I can see some parents worried about their university-aged children working in a restaurant as well.

The parents may offer to cover an extra $10,000 of university expenses this year so that the child doesn't need to work in a restaurant and possibly catch COVID.  

Lucky is the student who has such generous parents! I was not so lucky, and still find it hard to get my head around parents who are willing and able to shell out at the drop of a hat.

Students don't have to work in restaurants, however. There are lots of other part time jobs, but they like the tips.

September 25, 2021
4:35 am
savemoresaveoften
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 719
Member Since:
March 30, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Loonie said

Lucky is the student who has such generous parents! I was not so lucky, and still find it hard to get my head around parents who are willing and able to shell out at the drop of a hat.

Students don't have to work in restaurants, however. There are lots of other part time jobs, but they like the tips.  

Different generations think different. I wont say those parents are wrong.
But are the kids today more "protected" than previous generations, for sure. Are they less dependent ?, I would say yes too. But again its the change in society value and what is deemed proper as society evolves.

September 25, 2021
6:53 am
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2594
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

We're way wealthier than years ago, that's changed all aspects of society. Even the wealth of many new immigrants is way different than previous generations of poor immigrants. Now it's routine for parents to pay for university, was not a possibility before. Thus of course their kids are more protected, less independent (I think you meant, savemoresaveoften, no?), it's all a function of our wealth.

September 25, 2021
9:03 am
gicjunkie
Ontario
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 490
Member Since:
November 7, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

What's this thread supposed to be about? I can't remember.

September 25, 2021
9:41 am
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 7405
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There have always been wealthy people sending their kids to university. Before government-sponsored student loans came in in the 1960s, that was basically the only group that went except for scholarship students.

The number of students needing and receiving student loans has been constantly increasing, as is the amount of money borrowed.
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/canada-student-loans-grants/reports/cslp-annual-2018-2019.html

Lots of parents who couldn't or would dole out 10K supplements to avoid student employment.

September 25, 2021
10:01 am
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2594
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Exactly, the wealthy have always gone, now the middle class (roughly 70% of Canadians identify as such) can send, or at least help send, their kids to post-secondary too, % of Canadians with post-secondary degrees way up from decades ago.

October 5, 2021
6:27 am
RetirEd
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 154
Member Since:
November 18, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Back to Wealth One - From my early posts in this thread to today, we see plenty of warnings to not trust everything employees tell us. And especially web sites, which are rarely up to all the latest changes or offers!

In Wealth One's case, even their locations are years out of date. When I ask for information that can affect penalties for me, including from Revenue Canada, I try to get the same info from three people and get their names. If possible, I try for written hard-copy information.

My 1.88% one-year term with them is nearing its end. I plan to soon see if the very helpful staffer in Richmond who sold it to me (but was contradicted by their corporate customer service line) is still there, and what he can tell me about their future offerings.

Meanwhile, I'm still looking for a good place to put the cash...
RetirEd

October 5, 2021
10:12 am
HermanH
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 208
Member Since:
April 14, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I've found a couple of staff members from Markham to be quite helpful, even if my account is registered in Vancouver. Try Patrick Moon or Yan Liao, 1-866-597-3668

I had some snags and W1 mis-understandings during transfers and they were quite willing to back-date the transactions to the actual date of arrival so that I maximized the interest. Very helpful and responsive. I would give them an A- rating, at this time.

October 9, 2021
9:25 am
Loonie
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 7405
Member Since:
October 21, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here is an explanation of the closing of the Markham branch. Apparently it occurred April 2021 and may have been covid related.
It appears, although not completely clear, that the office at Sheppard and Yonge in Toronto has retail services.

https://wealthonebankofcanada.com/SharedContent/documents/Markham-Office-Move.pdf

No permission to create posts

Please write your comments in the forum.