patrick.net

Robert Sproul says

Call it Crazy says

Unless they go after the 401k's or IRA's....

Of course they will.

That is where the real money is and they have a legal "right" to it as they have "given" you the tax advantages.
I think since the Fed is not buying Treasuries any more and someone needs to buy them and get paid next to no interest, they will push for retirement plans to have treasury bonds in them.

AND the Fed is talking about putting exit fees on bond funds to keep them invested in bonds

http://online.barrons.com/news/articles/SB50001424053111903927604579628353649352222
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101764134
For all the big government types- its for your own good and the good of all

Robert Sproul says

Call it Crazy says

Unless they go after the 401k's or IRA's....

Of course they will.

They keep trying to get my 401K's and investments. When I look at their costs they are a bloody rip off.

Strategist says

They keep trying to get my 401K's and investments. When I look at their costs they are a bloody rip off.

You should lobby your company for a better plan. There are plenty of low-cost providers. Bogleheads has a lot of detail on this.

In any case, it sounds like some of you (not talking about you, Strategist) don't really understand how 401(k)s and IRAs are different from what happened in Hungary and Poland:

corntrollio says

The comparisons to 401(k)s and IRAs simply do not work because they are not mandatory contributions. Most of those alarmist blog posts and op-eds are from people who don't understand how mandatory "private" pension accounts work in those countries.

But Corntrollio, don't you find it a bit unsettling that the Hungarian and Polish governments want control of that money in response to the economic climate? What do you think their reasons are? Is it because they believe they can manage it better than private funds? Or is it possible that they just need access to more funds.... for possible diversion to other areas of the economy?

turtledove says

But Corntrollio, don't you find it a bit unsettling that the Hungarian and Polish governments want control of that money in response to the economic climate? What do you think their reasons are? Is it because they believe they can manage it better than private funds? Or is it possible that they just need access to more funds.... for possible diversion to other areas of the economy?

Don't believe it can happen here in the USA. The government can print all the money it deems necessary. They can mess around with the social security funds, but that's about it.

corntrollio says

Strategist says

They keep trying to get my 401K's and investments. When I look at their costs they are a bloody rip off.

You should lobby your company for a better plan. There are plenty of low-cost providers. Bogleheads has a lot of detail on this.

In any case, it sounds like some of you (not talking about you, Strategist) don't really understand how 401(k)s and IRAs are different from what happened in Hungary and Poland:

corntrollio says

The comparisons to 401(k)s and IRAs simply do not work because they are not mandatory contributions. Most of those alarmist blog posts and op-eds are from people who don't understand how mandatory "private" pension accounts work in those countries.

I have been self employed for for most of my working life. I have IRA's and SEP IRA's with fidelity. My bank keeps trying to get me to move the accounts to them. My wife works for a major corporation where the 401k management fees are very reasonable. Hers is entirely in the S&P index where the fees are very minuscule.
I'll check out Bogleheads...thx for the tip.

turtledove says

But Corntrollio, don't you find it a bit unsettling that the Hungarian and Polish governments want control of that money in response to the economic climate? What do you think their reasons are? Is it because they believe they can manage it better than private funds? Or is it possible that they just need access to more funds.... for possible diversion to other areas of the economy?

Well, you have to think about the system as a whole. The portion they are "seizing" is effectively the portion of our Social Security system that Bush wanted to "privatize" -- in this case, privatize meaning that the contributions are mandatory, but you can manage the investments yourself through 3rd party custodian who makes certain fund offerings. Wall Street was jizzing its pants like a 15-year old over such a possibility, and so were similar companies in Poland and Hungary when these MPF/OFE systems came about.

It seems that they are quite transparently pulling this back into the main budget, but they are also effectively taking on the pension obligations now instead of having them be based on how your investments did. Note that government regulations on MPF/OFE already regulated how much risk you were allowed to take (i.e. the equity caps). I don't think anyone is truly that much worse off here, and the Polish and Hungarian governments aren't even arbitrarily doing the equivalent of changing Social Security formulas, as Congress has done before.

We don't know exactly how the MPF/OFE funds were doing overall, so it's hard to say if the Polish government can do better or not. For OFE, they only seized the bond portion, and it's likely the Polish government can provide something similar. For MPF, that might not be the case, but maybe given the risk caps, there's a not all that much difference -- I don't know the Polish or Hungarian equities market very well.

Call it Crazy says

Deposits of more than 100,000 euros ($128,000) at the Bank of Cyprus will lose 37.5 percent in money that will be converted into bank shares, according to a central bank statement. In a second raid on these accounts, depositors also could lose up to 22.5 percent more, depending on what experts determine is needed to prop up the bank's reserves. The experts will have 90 days to figure that out.

This is different. This is about bank insurance. If you have more than $250K in a single FDIC/NCUA account in the US, you also face this risk. If you plan your finances accordingly, this is not an issue.

Strategist says

I have been self employed for for most of my working life. I have IRA's and SEP IRA's with fidelity. My bank keeps trying to get me to move the accounts to them. My wife works for a major corporation where the 401k management fees are very reasonable. Hers is entirely in the S&P index where the fees are very minuscule.

I'll check out Bogleheads...thx for the tip.

Fidelity's plans are not bad -- Schwab, Fidelity, and to some extent TD Ameritrade and ETrade are all trying to compete for customers with Vanguard. If you are investing in indexes, whether through Fidelity's low-cost mutual funds or their low-cost ETFs (that have no commissions), you are probably doing just fine in terms of managing costs. Not sure who your bank is, but it's probably not worth moving from Fidelity to them, no matter who they are -- usually you'll have higher expense ratios and crappier fund choices.

Bogleheads (and certain other resources which I can point you to if you are interested) would have a lot of info on various brokerages you can use for retirement accounts and other tips on managing your funds generally. Vanguard has some very low expense ratios (because it's mutually owned by its funds, so there's no incentive to raise expense ratios), but so do some of those low-cost brokerages these days.

I noticed you mentioned IRAs and SEP IRAs. If you are self-employed, often you can put more money into a Solo 401(k) than into a SEP IRA if you make less than $260K in profits and don't have employees other than a spouse. It's quite easy to set up a Solo 401(k) with any of those providers I mentioned above -- the paperwork is largely checkboxes on an template plan doc.

Strategist says

Don't believe it can happen here in the USA. The government can print all the money it deems necessary. They can mess around with the social security funds, but that's about it.

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Don't believe it can happen here in the USA. The government can print all the money it deems necessary. They can mess around with the social security funds, but that's about it.

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

I predicted this a year ago- we become the buyer of last resort.
http://smaulgld.com/mandatory-retirement-accounts/

Feel good article of the day.

Is anyone else concerned about the super-priority status Dodd Frank gave derivatives? How can a person's deposits be subordinate to debts over which they have no control? Seriously, is there a good reason for this that I'm just not seeing?

turtledove says

Seriously, is there a good reason for this that I'm just not seeing?

Campaign contributions.

turtledove says

How can a person's deposits be subordinate

It is confusing if you continue to think of it as "your" deposit monies.
According to Wikipedia:
"the bank has borrowed $100 from its depositor and has contractually obliged itself to repay the customer according to the terms of the agreement. To offset this deposit liability, THE BANK NOW OWNS THE FUNDS DEPOSITED and the bank shows those funds as an asset of the bank."
This distinction also leaves room for all sorts of shenanigans.
YOU in general are subordinate.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Don't believe it can happen here in the USA. The government can print all the money it deems necessary. They can mess around with the social security funds, but that's about it.

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

That is probably happening now with many mutual funds investing partly in t-bills, especially for seniors who are already retired and have no tolerance for any risk.

turtledove says

Is anyone else concerned about the super-priority status Dodd Frank gave derivatives? How can a person's deposits be subordinate to debts over which they have no control? Seriously, is there a good reason for this that I'm just not seeing?

The first $250,000 is FDIC insured.
As for debts, my understanding is salaries get a priority, followed by secured loans.

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

The first $250,000 is FDIC insured.

Have you taken a look at that the FDIC's balance sheet looks like and how much they insure? Do you really think you'll get all of your $250K back when your bank goes under?

Don't you trust your own government?

bob2356 says

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

That's a nice conspiracy theory and all, but please explain the mechanism by which this could happen and please be specific and make sure you use the words "due process" somewhere.

turtledove says

Is anyone else concerned about the super-priority status Dodd Frank gave derivatives? How can a person's deposits be subordinate to debts over which they have no control? Seriously, is there a good reason for this that I'm just not seeing?

That's actually not accurate. The Bankruptcy Code has given superpriority to derivatives for a long long time. Dodd-Frank did not alter this. I agree that the principle doesn't really make sense.

I believe BofA, Citi, Chase, and Goldman hold more than 90% of all derivatives. In any case, I've moved any money I had in TBTF institutions to credit unions and other places that don't engage in certain behaviors. I encourage you to vote with your wallet. Here is a list of the top 25 commercial banks and their derivatives behavior:

Strategist says

That is probably happening now with many mutual funds investing partly in t-bills, especially for seniors who are already retired and have no tolerance for any risk.

Mutual funds generally meet their mission statement. If their mission statement says they can do this, then they can do it, but if they are doing this without your knowing about it, it's probably a crappy mutual fund you shouldn't be in.

corntrollio says

They're just going to take the money? If that actually happens, I'm pretty sure you will have bigger problems than your IRA being taken from you.

The money would already be worthless at that point, and the economy would have gone to hell. If they want money they can just print it.
The worst they can do is to tax your savings. They could also have a sales tax, so when you spend it, it gets taxed again. That is as good as stealing it. :(
Foreigners trust the USA more than any other country because they have trust in our justice system. They know their money is safe in this country.

Yeah, well, they have contravened our constitution and hundreds of years of rights-of-man tradition and "legalized" Indefinite Military Detention of American citizens without due process.
I don't think they will have to much "legal" trouble if they decide they want to take your fucking money.

Robert Sproul says

Yeah, well, they have contravened our constitution and hundreds of years of rights-of-man tradition and "legalized" Indefinite Military Detention of American citizens without due process.

I don't think they will have to much "legal" trouble if they decide they want to take your fucking money.

Like what you said. Completely, 100% disagree, but i liked it.

About PressTV (owner of the attached article):

"Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis."

Well, if they write it on the interwebs, it must be true.

corntrollio says

You still haven't described the actual mechanism.

They're just going to take the money? If that actually happens, I'm pretty sure you will have bigger problems than your IRA being taken from you.

Reading comprehension problems? I never said anything of the kind, I said

bob2356 says

Absolutely not true. When the bottom falls out of the tbill market IRA's will be required to "invest" a certain percentage in tbills. It can very easily happen.

You even quoted it. Then you come and paraphrase a slightly different version back to me as something more realistic. Gee thanks.

Describe to me an actual mechanism that will prevent congress from doing just that when, not if but when, the debt catches up.

Strategist says

Foreigners trust the USA more than any other country because they have trust in our justice system. They know their money is safe in this country.

Really? I wonder why all that money pours into Switzerland (african dictators bank jurisdiction of choice, there is probably more money from africa in Switzerland than there is money in africa), Singapore, Cayman Islands, Dubai, etc., etc..

That would be the justice system that can freeze or seize your assets, no questions asked, no charges filed, no judgement, no indictment, no evidence nothing? Read policing for a profit sometime, it's easily available on line. Over 80% of people who had their assets seized NEVER were charged with a crime. Did they get anything back. Nope. This doesn't even get into political sanctions the US government is so fond of. Then there doesn't even have to be the charade of suspicion of a crime. Here is the newest Obama trick. http://www.infowars.com/new-executive-order-obama-has-just-given-himself-the-authority-to-seize-your-assets/ A little over the top even for infowars but the basics are correct.

The US has dropped from 34% of worldwide foreign direct investment in 2000 to 17% in 2014. A 50% drop is not exactly a ringing endorsement by any measure I can come up with.

Ironically the real money flowing into the US from overseas is illegal. If you aren't a US citizen the US is a great place for money laundering or tax evasion. The general agreement among international bankers is 80-90% of the international money laundering and tax evasion is done in the US by US banks.

Want to open a bank account in Panama or pretty much anywhere else you would actually want to bank overseas? Good luck. You need stacks of paperwork documenting every aspect of where the money came from, where it will be going, along with reference letters that will be checked, letter of good standing from your bank along with several years of banking history, a worldcheck screening, not only for yourself but if it's a corporate account then all of this for all corporate officers. Then wait 3-5 weeks while it is all verified. Been there, done that.

Want to open a bank account in the US if you are a foreign national? Have 2 forms of ID and 15 minutes you will be on your way, No questions asked. What's the catch? Without a ss # the bank gets to keep all the interest. Nice deal, that certainly encourages banks to get to know their foreign depositors. I very much doubt a suspicious activity report has ever been made on a foreign account holder. You can set up by email. You can do it as a corporation. You can do it as a trust.

But wait, there's more. Want to incorporate an anonymous shell company to stash all your rubles,pesos,rimbi earned through hard work and frugal living? Easy peasy in the US. Pick a state where the corporate officers can be hidden, then have at it. What if your home government wants information? Yea right. The good luck with that. The US wants detailed information from every government around the world on US citizens money abroad, but doesn't reciprocate at all. If you aren't a major arms dealer without cia sanction or a political figure that pisses off the state department you are safe as in your mothers arms.

bob2356 says

You even quoted it. Then you come and paraphrase a slightly different version back to me as something more realistic. Gee thanks.

Except that you were lazy and didn't describe the full mechanism.

bob2356 says

I never said anything of the kind

I don't know what "Pretty much every single time in history a country runs out of money through taxation it simply grabs the citizens funds" means if it doesn't mean just confiscating them. You still keep your money even if the tax scenario changes. Anyone who currently uses a Roth account should be aware of the risk that tax law changes -- people who know about taxation have been talking about this for ages.

bob2356 says

Describe to me an actual mechanism that will prevent congress from doing just that when, not if but when, the debt catches up.

It's called the way our government is structured. This is not confiscation in any way shape or form because Congress has the ability to change taxation. Again, if you think confiscation is really a real risk, you should put your money where your mouth is. The reality is that there would be many many more bigger problems before any real confiscation could ever happen in this country.

bob2356 says

Want to open a bank account in the US if you are a foreign national? Have 2 forms of ID and 15 minutes you will be on your way, No questions asked.

This is bullshit. My buddy is a dual citizen living abroad, EU and USA, and he had a shitload of trouble trying to open a US account. The new regs post-9/11 have made this harder and harder. My friends in the US trying to open foreign accounts have had similar roadblocks, of course.

bob2356 says

Then there doesn't even have to be the charade of suspicion of a crime. Here is the newest Obama trick. http://www.infowars.com/new-executive-order-obama-has-just-given-himself-the-authority-to-seize-your-assets/ A little over the top even for infowars but the basics are correct.

Except that there are definitely standards for determining what "material support" means, due to terrorism cases having a similar standard -- this is not an "Obama trick" because similar laws have been on the books for a while. There are also executive orders that are similar for Iran and Syria. In any case, Congress can always overturn those EOs and hasn't chosen to do so.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Foreigners trust the USA more than any other country because they have trust in our justice system. They know their money is safe in this country.

Really? I wonder why all that money pours into Switzerland (african dictators bank jurisdiction of choice, there is probably more money from africa in Switzerland than there is money in africa), Singapore, Cayman Islands, Dubai, etc., etc..

Those who put their money in Swiss banks do so from a need for privacy. The anonymity afforded by Swiss banks is perfect for dictators, corrupt politicians, drug dealers and the rich who have not paid taxes.
From what I understand that is starting to change, as it should.
But yes, Switzerland is the most secure. If your money is legal, USA would be the best as it offers a diverse range of investments along with a justice system that will protect your assets. Western Europe is good too.

bob2356 says

The US has dropped from 34% of worldwide foreign direct investment in 2000 to 17% in 2014. A 50% drop is not exactly a ringing endorsement by any measure I can come up with.

It will continue to drop as developing countries in Asia, South America and Eastern Europe need a lot of capital for development, and are willing to offer excellent returns to foreign investors.

Strategist says

along with a justice system that will protect your assets.

From everything except the justice system. Many people have lost their money to the justice system without be charged or convicted of anything. What if your legal money rental property has a tenent grow a couple pot plants in the cellar and the local cops seize your house and sell it. Don't tell me it can't happen, examples of abuses abound. There are police forces that count on something like 25% of their budget from confiscations. Again, go read policing for profit if you think you money is safe. That's just at the police level. Get into the national security level and it's a lot worse.

Strategist says

It will continue to drop as developing countries in Asia, South America and Eastern Europe need a lot of capital for development, and are willing to offer excellent returns to foreign investors

Excellent, thanks for confirming what I said.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

along with a justice system that will protect your assets.

From everything except the justice system. Many people have lost their money to the justice system without be charged or convicted of anything. What if your legal money rental property has a tenent grow a couple pot plants in the cellar and the local cops seize your house and sell it. Don't tell me it can't happen, examples of abuses abound. There are police forces that count on something like 25% of their budget from confiscations. Again, go read policing for profit if you think you money is safe. That's just at the police level. Get into the national security level and it's a lot worse.

That would be scary, but I have never hear of that happening in So. Cal.
Any examples?
I have heard of them confiscating cars, but a landlords property?

Strategist says

but a landlords property?

One notorious case (happily resolved in favor of the landlord, after 100s of thousands in defense costs):
http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-property-seizure
Also:
"homes in Philadelphia are routinely seized for unproved minor drug crimes, often involving children or grandchildren who don’t own the home."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all

Robert Sproul says

One notorious case (happily resolved in favor of the landlord, after 100s of thousands in defense costs):

http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-property-seizure

Did you catch the part where the tweksbury police get 80% of the proceeds.

Strategist says

I have heard of them confiscating cars, but a landlords property?

There have been cases of people having cash to buy a car confiscated. http://jalopnik.com/5913416/cops-can-confiscate-money-and-property-from-law-abiding-citizens

at least this guy eventually got his cash back after the cops lied through their teeth. most people don't.

google it, there are plenty of cases to choose from.

Robert Sproul says

Strategist says

but a landlords property?

One notorious case (happily resolved in favor of the landlord, after 100s of thousands in defense costs):

http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-property-seizure

Also:

"homes in Philadelphia are routinely seized for unproved minor drug crimes, often involving children or grandchildren who don’t own the home."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all

All my tenants are extremely well to do with high incomes. Never ever had a problem with any of them. But you never know.
What about insurance? I am fully insured with landlord insurance, umbrella policies and every tenant has renters insurance. Does that help?

bob2356 says

at least this guy eventually got his cash back after the cops lied through their teeth. most people don't.

Be sure to read the part about how only the police statement is allowed, not the person having their property confiscated. Orwell?

Strategist says

What about insurance? I am fully insured with landlord insurance, umbrella policies and every tenant has renters insurance. Does that help?

My understanding as a landlord is if there is illegal activity the insurance policy is null and void, but that would be state to state. Good luck getting an insurance company to pay off a confiscation.

Strategist says

All my tenants are extremely well to do with high incomes. Never ever had a problem with any of them. But you never know.

Your worry would be their spoiled druggie kids.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

I have heard of them confiscating cars, but a landlords property?

There have been cases of people having cash to buy a car confiscated. http://jalopnik.com/5913416/cops-can-confiscate-money-and-property-from-law-abiding-citizens

at least this guy eventually got his cash back after the cops lied through their teeth. most people don't.

google it, there are plenty of cases to choose from.

I'm not too worried about my cars. In the last 20 years I have got one parking ticket. I do have a few rentals in high end areas and a bunch of vacant lots. If some idiot decides to do drugs on a vacant lot I could be in trouble.
I'll have to talk to my insurance agent. :(

Strategist says

Does that help?

The poor are always more vulnerable than the well-to-do…..so far.
As has been said; the future is here, but not evenly distributed.

Robert Sproul says

Strategist says

Does that help?

The poor are always more vulnerable than the well-to-do…..so far.

As has been said; the future is here, but not evenly distributed.

If they confiscated a landlord's home for someone doing drugs, no landlord would want to be in the business. The motel example above had a history drug abuse and the owner was accused of not doing anything about it. The rest of the examples were for cars.
I would not get too worried.

corntrollio says

Don't really understand the hostility. I quoted what you said, and it's a fair reading of what you said.

No. I've been talking laws forcing ira's to buy tbills. I've put up the quote, you've put up the qoute, it doesn't say anything about confiscation. The issue of confiscation was a seperate example about a totally different issue. You rolled it all together. I'm STILL waiting for what mechanism would prevent congress from doing requiring IRA's to by tbills.

corntrollio says

He wanted to open brokerage accounts. Schwab and Fidelity gave him a lot of shit about this, and I forget who else. I know one of the hangups was that he didn't have a US address, and they gave him a lot of shit for this. He considered using mine until he decided to give up entirely because the whole process was getting out of hand with other hangups.

I suspect you gave your mother's address as your address, so that's how you made it work so easily.

What does a brokerage account have to do with the issue and why would you even bring it up? It's hard to open a brokerage account living in NYC. We were talking about standard issue checking accounts, personal or corporate. The point was banks in rest of the world do a lot of due diligence before opening a checking account, banks in the US do none.

I use a mail forwarding service as my permanent address. They open, scan, and email as well as trashing anything not official. At this point it's a couple emails a month. I also have a us phone number that forwards a call anywhere in the world. Set both up online years ago without ever talking to a biological. Why your "buddy" couldn't do this is hard to understand.

corntrollio says

then I read the actual Executive Order.

So did I. The question still stands, what were the specific actions that constitute "material support" outlined against each person named. Nothing, nada, zip. Just boilerplate because I'm the president and I said so. You would think that that at least what they did would be outlined. Never mind any sort of due process of law.

You need to reread Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The supreme court said it was ok to prosecute under the material support statute. It was a narrow ruling limited to first amendment grounds that the court specifically said "future applications of the material-support statute to speech or advocacy" may not survive First Amendment scrutiny in the ruling. A supreme court ruling that a prosecution may go forward is a long, long way from a carte blanche to issue executive orders.

corntrollio says

Trying to equate this EO with in res cases by abusive local police doesn't really work.

Why is the federal government seizing your assets with no due process of law any different from police seizing your assets with no due process of law?

Strategist says

If they confiscated a landlord's home for someone doing drugs, no landlord would want to be in the business. The motel example above had a history drug abuse and the owner was accused of not doing anything about it. The rest of the examples were for cars.

I would not get too worried.

How about someone's building being seized for renting to a perfectly legal business?

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/federal-506499-jalali-property.html

Strategist says

I'm not too worried about my cars.

These aren't people's cars. These are people going to buy a car and having the money seized at a traffic stop. The very act of legally carrying cash is an indication that an illegal act was performed to get the cash. Even if you have documentation saying otherwise. Catch 22.