Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Al
writes
Nor do I expect them to. Nor did any normal soul expect BCCI to go bust,
given that the BoE had licenced them.

I think you'll find that the bank of England had *not* licensed them as
a Bank and had refused to do so on at least one occasion. They were a
"Licensed Deposit Taker" (I think that's the right phrase). That in
itself would have sent alarm bells wringing with me, not sure about the
rest of you.

You are, of course, right about the nature of BCCIs licence, but one wonders
whether the man in the street is worried about the difference when the B is
BCCI was for 'Bank', even though they weren't licenced as such.

Not that it matters: the BCCIs books were repeatedly certified as 'true and
fair' by Price Waterhouse having obtained assurance from the BoE that such
certification was appropriate (this according to testimony to the US
Congress.)

Why should such certification be any more meaningful to Lloyds' customers
than BCCI's? Why is the FDIC needed in the US if regulatory certification
is 100% good?

And, I put it to you that BCCI being an LDT would not have set alarm bells
ringing with you, because you did not then know that status. Nor do you
know now which banks are similarly licensed today, though I dare say it
won't take you long to find out.

This is all very long a convoluted but it comes down to my original
assertion: while it is unlikely that XYZ bank will go bust, it is not
impossible and therefore is a risk.
--
Al

In message , Al
writes
And, I put it to you that BCCI being an LDT would not have set alarm bells
ringing with you, because you did not then know that status.
Actually I did but that's neither here nor there.

Nor do you
know now which banks are similarly licensed today, though I dare say it
won't take you long to find out.

This is all very long a convoluted but it comes down to my original
assertion: while it is unlikely that XYZ bank will go bust, it is not
impossible and therefore is a risk.
But less of a risk presumably than storing money elsewhere. And
managing without some sort of bank account these days is pretty much
impossible I would imagine.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:03:56 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , k
writes
Arriving back in the UK from the USA requires me to
find a cash dispenser.

Requires? I know both countries have some strange laws but I've never
heard of that one

If I took a taxi ride and didn't pay, isn't that still against the law?

Eh? You said....

Arriving back in the UK from the USA requires me to
find a cash dispenser.

I was questioning that. and still am.

Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Al
writes
And, I put it to you that BCCI being an LDT would not have set alarm bells
ringing with you, because you did not then know that status.

Actually I did but that's neither here nor there.

Fairy nuff. Were your alarm bells loud enough to motivate you into warning
people away from BCCI? There's a bit of a libel hazard there, I should
imagine!

Nor do you
know now which banks are similarly licensed today, though I dare say it
won't take you long to find out.

This is all very long a convoluted but it comes down to my original
assertion: while it is unlikely that XYZ bank will go bust, it is not
impossible and therefore is a risk.

But less of a risk presumably than storing money elsewhere.

Agreed, if one has confidence in the system supposed to aid in the
assessment of those risks, ie, signed-off accounts, regulator's licenses
and the like.

Of course, if the quantification of that risk can be 'end run' by simple
fraud, things get much more complicated. When the auditors and regulators
are complicit, then the stage is set for the kind of rancour that followed
BCCI's fall.

Presumably the BoE didn't act because our spooks were using BCCI to follow
the Bad Guys. Moral question: is it okay to prop-up a failed bank thus
guaranteeing deposit makers will be hurt harder later in order to follow
those bad guys?

And
managing without some sort of bank account these days is pretty much
impossible I would imagine.

Not in the black economy. Every now and again I come across reports of faces
who have never claimed welfare, don't have bank accounts and just don't
appear in official records. Everything is paid for out of pocket.

I understand that a/c payee cheques can be cashed at 90% of the face value
at third parties. (For those who don't know, cheques marked 'a/c payee'
cannot ordinarily be cashed at a counter, but must be presented to one's
own bank.) How this works, I don't know: do they open an account in the
name on the cheque? Present it at overseas banks that treat them as bearer
instruments? Tippex out the name? Do they have a perfectly legal
arrangement where they are outsourced the right to accept those cheques as
long as they comply with ID requirements?
--
Al

In message , Al
writes
Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Al
writes
And, I put it to you that BCCI being an LDT would not have set alarm bells
ringing with you, because you did not then know that status.

Actually I did but that's neither here nor there.

Fairy nuff. Were your alarm bells loud enough to motivate you into warning
people away from BCCI?
No, as I didn't know anyone who deposited with them.

To be honest, though, the only reason I'd heard of them was because they
were cited in a lecture I attended as an example of a Licensed Deposit
Taker, rather than a bank. It just struck me as odd but only in
passing.

There's a bit of a libel hazard there, I should
imagine!
Really? Er, why? :-)

And
managing without some sort of bank account these days is pretty much
impossible I would imagine.

Not in the black economy. Every now and again I come across reports of faces
who have never claimed welfare, don't have bank accounts and just don't
appear in official records. Everything is paid for out of pocket.
I just wonder how people manage in such a way. What do they do when
they have to cash a cheque or pay for something by post? I suppose
they never do such things.......

I understand that a/c payee cheques can be cashed at 90% of the face value
at third parties.
I've seen shops offering such a service but don't know much about how
they work.

A bit of thread drift here.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message , Al
writes

So there is some cost
associated with keeping lots of sterling with me.

50 quid is lots? Perhaps you had better consider earning a living instead of
galavanting. Whatever: there is no additional cost to keeping 50 quid with
you beyond the cost imposed with keeping your passport and return ticket
with you. Except the three seconds it takes to put the dosh with the
passport, of course.

Well, as I live in the USA it's not a "return" ticket. And perhaps you
missed the part where I said I was operating in many potential
currencies. On this occasion I'd have need closer to £100 than £50 for
the taxi.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Adrian
writes
Don't all black cabs now take credit cards?

I've no idea. And my trip was way out of range for a black cab.
--
Roland Perry

In message , k
writes
Arriving back in the UK from the USA requires me to
find a cash dispenser.

I was questioning that. and still am.

I was required to find a cash dispenser by my circumstances (as well you
know - going for dead horse flogger of the week, are we?)
--
Roland Perry

Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Al
writes
Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Al
writes
And, I put it to you that BCCI being an LDT would not have set alarm
bells ringing with you, because you did not then know that status.

Actually I did but that's neither here nor there.

Fairy nuff. Were your alarm bells loud enough to motivate you into warning
people away from BCCI?

No, as I didn't know anyone who deposited with them.

tease Oh, so if it goes titsup.com without anyone you know being involved
that's okay is it?! /tease

To be honest, though, the only reason I'd heard of them was because they
were cited in a lecture I attended as an example of a Licensed Deposit
Taker, rather than a bank. It just struck me as odd but only in
passing.

There's a bit of a libel hazard there, I should
imagine!

Really? Er, why? :-)

One might accidentally note them to be an improper bank rather than a proper
LDT. 'Bank' in the common vernacular can arguably be construed to cover the
functions of an LDT, particularly when it's part of the name. Calling them
'improper' could therefore be argued as libellous.

And
managing without some sort of bank account these days is pretty much
impossible I would imagine.

Not in the black economy. Every now and again I come across reports of
faces who have never claimed welfare, don't have bank accounts and just
don't appear in official records. Everything is paid for out of pocket.

I just wonder how people manage in such a way. What do they do when
they have to cash a cheque or pay for something by post? I suppose
they never do such things.......

I cash cheques all the time, but only as a convenience to my custards who
don't have wads on them at the time; in every case, I've been asked
beforehand if I'd prefer cash. As for paying things by post, I honestly
can't remember having to do so more than once in the last five years, and
then only because it was less inconvenient than the alternative.

I understand that a/c payee cheques can be cashed at 90% of the face value
at third parties.
I've seen shops offering such a service but don't know much about how
they work.

A bit of thread drift here.......

Agreed. ulli and utl removed.
--
Al

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 at 23:41:12, Al wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , Al
writes
You are willing to spend not a penny of your cash ameliorating that risk
-- nor will apparently spend a moment of your time planning against the
day one of those risks hit.

Indeed, I'm acting just like any UK resident does when he runs out of
cash: I go and look for an ATM.

I'm afraid, Mr Perry, that you are projecting again. I venture that most
people that run out of cash look in their wallet before going to the ATM,
but perhaps you have evidence otherwise?

Well, duh! Obviously - as where else do you keep your cash???? And
when you have looked in your wallet and found that you have no cash,
what do you do? You go to the nearest ATM, of course!

Of all the foolish statements you have made on this thread, I think that
one is the most foolish.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 6 June 2004