Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this7:44 pm
February 1, 2023
Offline
HermanH said
Thanks for your efforts, GR.I was going to pull the plug on my purchases, Monday. Now, I'll let them go ahead.
Are you doing the 1 year?
8:10 pm
September 15, 2017
Offline
As this issue with ECCU was apparently brought to the attention of Kevin at GIC Wealth by members here, he was negligent in not checking with ECCU before assuring anyone that everything was "kosher".
8:25 pm
February 1, 2023
Offline
GR said
As this issue with ECCU was apparently brought to the attention of Kevin at GIC Wealth by members here, he was negligent in not checking with ECCU before assuring anyone that everything was "kosher".
Yeah. I'll admit I'm struggling with this. I believe what has been reported here (there is no reason for anyone to misrepresent what Kevin told them). But I also know from personal experience that Kevin is extremely conscientious.
My sense right now -- not to make excuses (Kevin is a big boy and can speak for himself) -- is that he was told everything was in order by ECCU. And so he passed that along, just as I would if I was in his place.
To me, there are 3 really astonishing parts of this whole story so far:
1) the ECCU rep that GR first contacted actually said that they create member PROFILES instead of SHARES. I really think that this is the "misinformation" that ECCU executive is talking about, as in "why the hell did that @(&#@ person tell them that we create profiles!?"
2) GR -- unlike the vast majority of people in this fine country -- immediately grasped that there could be a categorical difference between 'profile' and 'share' as far as NSCUDIC coverage is concerned.
3) GR spent a lot of (probably tedious) time going through all kinds of awful ECCU and NSCUDIC web pages -- how traumatic that must have been -- and escalated the issue to NSCUDIC and posted about it here. Once it was 'outside' ECCU they could not contain it, which I imagine they would have much preferred to do.
This has just been really fascinating to me.
9:20 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
I don't think for a minute that Kevin is intentionally misleading anyone. Among other things, that would not be in his best interests.
However, it's possible he has been misinformed.
It may be that nobody has looked into this as carefully as GR before now.
Kevin has been made aware of our discussion. I imagine he himself is looking into this right now, and possibly speaking to his lawyers, before he posts anything. I know I would.
10:36 pm
April 14, 2021
Offline
GR said
As this issue with ECCU was apparently brought to the attention of Kevin at GIC Wealth by members here, he was negligent in not checking with ECCU before assuring anyone that everything was "kosher".
Yes, I will be gently reminding him of this error, when I proceed with the transactions on Monday. No need to beat up a man, if he admits his error and learns from it.
More importantly, he needs to know right away if any other CUs are doing anything similar. I have only purchased DUCA and Habib Bank via GIC Wealth. I already checked with DUCA and they are properly set up with a courtesy share.
I tried to call Rotenberg twice today, but went to voicemail. He usually takes my calls immediately. I wonder if he avoided me because I told him about how absolutely vital NSCUDIC coverage was to me when he gave me his assurance that he would not sell a GIC not covered by insurance.
10:38 pm
April 14, 2021
Offline
sothisistheinternet said
Are you doing the 1 year?
Yes, I could find no other GIC that would be better. I actually lost out on 5.53% because I could not get the money over to GIC Wealth fast enough. It was on 6-day hold at Hubert after transfer and could not be released. 
I was going to give ECCU a pass, because of the share issue. I would sacrifice a $150 or so and take a 5.2% 1-yr offer from Motive, instead.
11:18 pm
April 14, 2021
Offline
sothisistheinternet said
If anything, what they may refer to as a miscommunication is the fact that whoever GR talked (or emailed) with the first time was blatantly honest when, as far as East Coast is concerned, they should have either not answered the question or referred it to someone higher up the food chain who could figure out what was going on.
The frankness in which their profile procedure was disclosed to both GR and myself leads me more to believe that they thought they were actually in compliance with NSCUDIC regulations. Since they were open and forthcoming about their process, I find it more believable that it was an honest mistake.
4:05 am
September 7, 2018
Offline
Many GIC agents have recently been selling Lighthouse Credit Union GICs. Wonder if the situation is the same as with ECCU. Being a very new CU, wonder if Lighthouse is aware of requirement to issue memberships to buyers of GICs via agents. It is up to the many GIC Agents to ensure their clients receive complete and accurate information, otherwise it would be unfortunate if clients thought they were covered by provincial CU insurance when perhaps that is not the case without having a CU membership. Scary!
4:10 am
September 7, 2018
Offline
HermanH said
Yes, I could find no other GIC that would be better. I actually lost out on 5.53% because I could not get the money over to GIC Wealth fast enough. It was on 6-day hold at Hubert after transfer and could not be released.
I was going to give ECCU a pass, because of the share issue. I would sacrifice a $150 or so and take a 5.2% 1-yr offer from Motive, instead.
I agree - avoid ECCU - go with Motive - until this matter has been properly dealt with by the GIC agents and the CUs whose GICs the agents sell to trusting clients.
5:35 am
March 30, 2017
Offline
HermanH said
sothisistheinternet said
If anything, what they may refer to as a miscommunication is the fact that whoever GR talked (or emailed) with the first time was blatantly honest when, as far as East Coast is concerned, they should have either not answered the question or referred it to someone higher up the food chain who could figure out what was going on.The frankness in which their profile procedure was disclosed to both GR and myself leads me more to believe that they thought they were actually in compliance with NSCUDIC regulations. Since they were open and forthcoming about their process, I find it more believable that it was an honest mistake.
I have no doubt it’s an honest mistake from ECCU and the broker involved. However it goes back to ‘trust’ vs ‘truth’. The onus is on ECCU to confirm what they doing is proper, not just ‘assumed’. It’s also on the broker to verify the ‘requirement’ is satisfied. After all being insured is the biggest selling point, not the extra 20bps…
It could be ECCU told the broker they create ‘profile’ and the investor is in their system, and the broker took that as "it is insured". The broker is our first line of defence after all.
If I am to speculate, profile vs actual shares is to facilitate "out of province investments". This is the CU's decision, a "get around" maneuver ?? Broker should quickly ‘check’ with every single CU they place business with, and make sure it’s done properly. Now he knows EXACTLY what to ask. Even better he should send the member ID to all his customers so everyone knows they do have actual membership with the respective CU they have investments in.
kudo to GR to investigate and let us know. It’s eye opener for us.
When I look at my summary from Equities CU, I can see $20 member share in there. So that comforts me its done properly.
6:47 am
February 1, 2023
Offline
HermanH said
I was going to give ECCU a pass, because of the share issue. I would sacrifice a $150 or so and take a 5.2% 1-yr offer from Motive, instead.
I want to do something 1-year as well. Even though I'm confident ECCU will straighten this out very soon, I'm irked by this whole thing. Maybe I'll do something with them in a while. For now, I'll probably do something at Motive or Oaken.
Also, it might be useful for you to know that Meridian has an 18-month at 5.25%. The rate is going down on Tuesday, I think. But if you call in on Monday and get everything set up I think they'll hold it for 30 days.
7:08 am
February 1, 2023
Offline
canadian.100 said
I agree - avoid ECCU - go with Motive - until this matter has been properly dealt with by the GIC agents and the CUs whose GICs the agents sell to trusting clients.
What I'm hoping (read: what I hope GR does for all of us 
) is that this serves as a wake up call for brokers and CUs in other provinces as well, who may need to revisit their policies and practices to ensure (not just assume) they are compliant.
And while they should all do this because it's "the right thing to do," it's also strategically wise. Can you imagine if ECCU went under, and it came to light that people who invested through brokers were not covered? The reputation damage to brokers could be extremely costly. Even now, I'm re-thinking my relationship with brokers and am looking at things a little differently.
7:18 am
February 1, 2023
Offline
Loonie said
I don't think for a minute that Kevin is intentionally misleading anyone. Among other things, that would not be in his best interests.
However, it's possible he has been misinformed.
It may be that nobody has looked into this as carefully as GR before now.
Kevin has been made aware of our discussion. I imagine he himself is looking into this right now, and possibly speaking to his lawyers, before he posts anything. I know I would.
If I was Kevin, what I would absolutely need out of this is for NSCUDIC and ECCU to release a joint statement confirming that all members who invested through brokers were, are, and will continue to be covered by NSCUDIC insurance, and that issues raised around reporting/record-keeping in recent weeks were of an administrative nature, not a material nature.
In other words: we royally screwed up the clerical stuff (with no malicious intent), but brokers who assured their clients of NSCUDIC protection were 100% correct in doing so.
7:24 am
September 15, 2017
Offline
canadian.100 said
Many GIC agents have recently been selling Lighthouse Credit Union GICs. Wonder if the situation is the same as with ECCU. Being a very new CU, wonder if Lighthouse is aware of requirement to issue memberships to buyers of GICs via agents. It is up to the many GIC Agents to ensure their clients receive complete and accurate information, otherwise it would be unfortunate if clients thought they were covered by provincial CU insurance when perhaps that is not the case without having a CU membership. Scary!
I have seen part of an application form used to purchase a GIC from Lighthouse C.U. through a GIC broker/agent in the GTA. The terms and conditions indicate that the depositor subscribes for a share in the credit union, the credit union provides funding to purchase the share, membership ends when the GIC is paid out and and the credit union will apply the redemption amount of the share to pay the account closure fee.
Hopefully, this is the process with all credit unions, or similar.
7:37 am
September 15, 2017
Offline
ECCU is not being accused of INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY omitting setting up membership shares. ECCU and NSCUDIC screwed up.
Kevin from GIC Wealth is not being accused of INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY misleading those who asked him about ECCU membership shares. He possibly overlooked the need to verify with ECCU, even though he was alerted about this critical problem.
The CEO of NSCUDIC stated that he would be releasing an "official statement"(to whom?).
This is the end of the long story and, thankfully, it is has a happy ending.
7:44 am
February 1, 2023
Offline
GR said
ECCU is not being accused of INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY omitting setting up membership shares. ECCU and NSCUDIC screwed up.Kevin from GIC Wealth is not being accused of INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY misleading those who asked him about ECCU membership shares. He possibly overlooked the need to verify with ECCU, even though he was alerted about this critical problem.
I get this. But I'm at the point where I need to very quickly see a public statement from NSCUDIC and/or ECCU that clearly, unreservedly says something to the effect of: "Sorry for the ****show, but be assured that all members who previously made deposits through brokers were and remain fully covered."
It has to be crystal clear to me that this UNINTENTIONAL and UNDELIBERATE mistake at no point exposed any members.
If I don't see a statement that specifically says this, then my takeaway is that they are being told by their lawyers NOT to say that, because it's not true or potentially not true (in other words, it was possible that members prior to this recall were exposed).
I will be OK with a 'my bad' if it's an administrative thing. But if they (for whatever reason) cut corners or got sloppy and a member could have lost their money simply because they used a broker....then holy **** I will never even think of depositing with them. Hell, if they sent me a calendar, I would send it back.
10:18 am
April 6, 2013
Offline
sothisistheinternet said
… But I'm at the point where I need to very quickly see a public statement from NSCUDIC and/or ECCU that clearly, unreservedly says something to the effect of: "Sorry for the ****show, but be assured that all members who previously made deposits through brokers were and remain fully covered."
It has to be crystal clear to me that this UNINTENTIOANL and UNDELIBERATE mistake at no point exposed any members.
…
Not sure why you are expecting anything like that. No such statement is coming because such a statement would be false.
No "members" were exposed because depositors without a share in the credit union were legally not "members" and consequently had no provincial deposit insurance coverage under the bylaws of the NSCUDIC.
That's why the credit union is going to ensure the depositors coming in through the deposit broker channel will be issued a share.
Just because it was unintentional doesn't mean there was and will be no consequences.
10:32 am
February 1, 2023
Offline
Norman1 said
Not sure why you are expecting anything like that. No such statement is coming because such a statement would be false.
First of all: I have no horse in this race, so there is no confirmation bias/wishful thinking/oh God don't do this to me on my part.
Based on an email that I received from the CEO of ECCU, I think there is a possibility that the "miscommunication" came from NSCUDIC to ECCU. If that is the case, then I can certainly see NSCUDIC releasing a statement saying that that no members' funds were exposed -- implying that, if ECCU had gone down prior to this, then people who came through brokers would have been protected even if they didn't have a share.
I do not expect any statement from NSCUDIC or ECCU to go into this detail. They don't want to turn a positive press release into a scary pharmaceutical ad ("Leviataramica can help you feel more energetic, although the risk of spontaneous combustion is high").
But -- and I am just speaking for me -- if I see a blanket statement that says "everyone has always been covered" then I'm good. If that's not going to happen, then I will see that omission as deliberate because, as you say, it's not true. And then I won't join their credit union (they'll survive, they're really big in NS-- they even put that in their email signature).
10:42 am
March 30, 2017
Offline
sothisistheinternet said
But -- and I am just speaking for me -- if I see a blanket statement that says "everyone has always been covered" then I'm good. If that's not going to happen, then I will see that omission as deliberate because, as you say, it's not true. And then I won't join their credit union (they'll survive, they're really big in NS-- they even put that in their email signature).
To me, the blanket statement you are looking for is "meaningless" to me anyway.
Staff at NSCUDIC may have miscommunicated to ECCU, EECU may have made their own assumption one way or the other, no one will know for sure and no one will admit one way or the other either. Either way broker agent got handed down wrong info as well (I do think an independent verification by the broker would have caught it and have it rectified easily).
No one has tried to cheat or be dishonest about anything. They just never think or act in the most diligent manner if you ask me. It i fortunate this is not exposed AS a result of ECCU going under and then some find out they are NOT members and thus NOT covered. That will be a $hit show and you can imagine lawsuits flying around, big enuf to bring down any GIC broker !
10:56 am
September 7, 2018
Offline
GR said
I have seen one of the specific credit union application forms for a GIC purchase with an Ontario broker. The terms state that the purchaser applies for membership and subscribes for 1 membership share and the credit union provides the funding to purchase the share and membership ends at the maturity of the GIC.
I was able to get my hands on an completed application for a GIC (from a CU) through an Ontario GIC broker (outside of GTA). The terms did not state anything about the purchaser applying for membership in the CU. Does not give one much comfort that the present procedure for (CU) GIC sales through Brokers is being handled properly and protects purchasers. The CU Deposit Insurance provincial bodies need to address the deficiencies identified in this thread and prompt action taken, and that the GIC Brokers are informed and can provide the necessary info to their clients re membership.
Please write your comments in the forum.