I don't like investing in mutual funds for that very reason: they take too long to unload and they charge you fees. Would rather deal with ETF's or individual stocks. At least individual stocks don't take as long to unload. You are right that everyone needs some emergency cash as long as it's actually used for that purpose and not the big screen TV or vacation fund
Truth is most people in 2014 don't know their way around this century. Your post clearly shows you don't get what modern banking is about. You criticized the name of the bank and then responded to my post without recognizing the irony. Apple is one of the most trusted brands in the world today, the same was true for Blackberry until a very short time ago. Both of these serious companies have non-traditional names. You shouldn't judge a bank (or any other company) by it's name; especially when you clearly demonstrate bad judgment.
Yeah! You're absolutely right! What do I know...LOL! You sound exactly like all the other really 'knowledgeable' guys with no money of their own who are constantly trying to 'advise' me about how to manage my assets. Funny. I don't pay any attention to them either, and you know what? After all these years, I'm still doing pretty damn well on my own! But you're right. I clearly don't get what modern banking is about. LMFAO!
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Somebody with minimum balance who uses their debit card and does simple transactions should not be using ING.
i can think of another company named after a fruit................done pretty good over the years.I'd rather eat a tangerine not bank with one
Seriously who came up with this name. I know they want to be different and distinct but naming yourself after a fruit does not exactly inspire confidence in managing money.
"A rose by any other name still smells as sweet."I'd rather eat a tangerine not bank with one
Seriously who came up with this name. I know they want to be different and distinct but naming yourself after a fruit does not exactly inspire confidence in managing money.
Try to remember that the 'real' bank - ING, one of, if not THE biggest retail banks in the world by revenue, is not the owner of this entity anymore...then ask yourself why. Then ask yourself why one of Canada's largest FI's bought it in the first place, and what it's actual purpose is within their corporate portfolio and national strategy. When you finally understand THAT, then we can have a more balanced conversation. Until then, I can't help you.
The name is irrelevant as long as your deposits (up to $100K) are backed by the CDIC and most banks are. Doesn't mean that the bank cannot go bankrupt and lose your money, but that is a small risk. If you're going to criticize Tangerine, then Walmart Financial should also give you the jitters.I'd rather eat a tangerine not bank with one
Seriously who came up with this name. I know they want to be different and distinct but naming yourself after a fruit does not exactly inspire confidence in managing money.
In contrast (rather than asking myself hypothetical questions), I RESEARCHED why the ING Group sold ING DIRECT Canada to the Bank of Nova Scotia. It turns out that the ING parent company had badly exposed themselves to bad debt in the European defaults and the mortgage crisis. They were forced to take a costly bailout package from the Dutch government at over 6% interest. In order to pay off this massive loan, ING sold off most of their insurance properties (remember when ING Insurance became Intact?) and some of their most profitable foreign subsidiaries. ING DIRECT Canada was sold because it was valuable and the Dutch parent needed the money...almost like an addict pawning their jewellery. When this type of transaction happens, it's the seller not the property sold that is questionable.
Not quite. ING Direct Canada was not sold so much for its value/profitability, but because it was not a sustainable asset for the parent in the Canadian market which was in fact rapidly losing value. Better to offload and hedge the overarching debt strategically than watch the asset's value deflate to nothing. So this being the case, why would BNS buy it?
You've just refuted your own point. Obviously your version of events is NOT THE CASE as you so clearly proved.
Think Blue. Think. I didn't refute my own point. Why did BNS buy ING Direct Canada if it was quickly depreciating in value? It's not a long term acquisition in its current form/format. It's meant short to mid-term as a marketing device to gather new business prospects across the low income demographic, that can later be transferred to BNS upgraded product portfolio which is much more profitable as revenue generation tool. How else can you suddenly capture the attention of a broad target group with high potential for fee revenue who already sees you as undesirable when compared to other competitor service providers like TD, RBC, et al? It's a ploy and much of the initial acquisition costs and ongoing losses can be written off to the corporate insurance underwriters backing the temporary entity. Nothing more than the FI equivalent of B&S. The end game is gathering a large new portfolio of suckers who think they're getting a good deal. Can you say Amicus Bank?
I think I've been pretty clear about what happened and everything I said can be looked up in independent articles for those who care. If some people insist on making random and imaginary claims, there's not much I can do about it.
*sigh* <face palm>
It's a shame you can't see the big picture of global banking strategy. Enjoy your Fisher Price account. Just don't act all indignant when the BNS marketing machine starts targeting your home phone and mail box.
