10:46 am
October 21, 2013
Mortgage defaults at the CUs I have looked at are extremely low.
It's true that many CUs were formed because their members were being turned down by banks - banks that were prejudiced against them because they were new immigrants, didn't speak English well, had blue collar jobs, etc. So those communities banded together and supported each other, and it worked out well.
At one of the CUs I belong to, the guy I deal with, who is a CFP, regularly tells mortgage applicants to look for less expensive properties even though they might qualify for more, simply because he doesn't support them stretching themselves too thin. He firmly believes they should also have some money left for enjoying life. He actually tries to do what's best for members. This is a concept that hasn't reached the banks and never will.
12:02 pm
March 30, 2017
Loonie said
At this point, I think it is incumbent on the deposit broker industry to prove their claim. Kevin is not the only person selling these GICs and, as far as I know, they all say their products are insured.
yeah its a lost cause. None of them "lied", and I do believe "most" of the CUs that they deal with do have the membership share setup properly.
Maybe ECCU is a one-off, it can not be verified
HermanH said
Just got off with Kevin Rotenberg and told him about the ECCU and NSCUDIC discoveries posted on this thread and he is still adamant that ECCU does what is needed to ensure that their GICs are fully covered. He still believes that he would never sell a GIC that wasn't insured. I told him that wasn't the case and that ECCU did not issue a courtesy share the way DUCA does. He asked me to send him any evidence to the contrary.Could GR please send him a copy of your e-mail from ECCU and NSCUDIC? It might be helpful if you just mention my name (Herman) in the response.
In my opinion, its kind of a lost cause "to prove Kevin is wrong." What is important is to be more vigilant and make sure there is physical evidence that one is indeed a member and protect accordingly, not based on "Some said so", or even worse "it has to be".
12:45 pm
October 21, 2013
2:23 pm
September 15, 2017
HermanH said
Just got off with Kevin Rotenberg and told him about the ECCU and NSCUDIC discoveries posted on this thread and he is still adamant that ECCU does what is needed to ensure that their GICs are fully covered. He still believes that he would never sell a GIC that wasn't insured. I told him that wasn't the case and that ECCU did not issue a courtesy share the way DUCA does. He asked me to send him any evidence to the contrary.Could GR please send him a copy of your e-mail from ECCU and NSCUDIC? It might be helpful if you just mention my name (Herman) in the response.
I'm not sending Kevin anything. He should phone ECCU and NSCUDIC, if he thinks I'm lying! He is both negligent and stubborn.
Below is the email to me from VP of ECCU acknowledging that there was a problem which they are rectifying. (Can we put this topic to bed already?)
Further to your e-mail correspondence earlier today, I wanted to inform you that there has been discussion regarding broker-facilitated members purchase of GICs and if these deposits are covered by NSCUDIC, Nova Scotia Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation. East Coast CU appreciates the discussion, and we are pleased to provide clarification.
There was a miscommunication between East Coast Credit Union and NSCUDIC that has been rectified. We want to ensure our depositors that your investments are or (will be) insured and (have) or will have the required share account.
We apologize for the inconvenience this situation has caused,
Sally
Sally van de Wiel
Vice-President, Operations | East Coast Credit Union Limited
Mortgage Lenders License# 3000158
7:47 pm
November 15, 2018
canadian.100 said
HermanH said
Just got off with Kevin Rotenberg and told him about the ECCU and NSCUDIC discoveries posted on this thread and he is still adamant that ECCU does what is needed to ensure that their GICs are fully covered. He still believes that he would never sell a GIC that wasn't insured. I told him that wasn't the case and that ECCU did not issue a courtesy share the way DUCA does. He asked me to send him any evidence to the contrary.He probably does believe that - but reality is there is nothing documented anywhere and particularly by NSCUDUC in NS nor by FSRA in Ont that GICs sold via Agents are covered without being a CU member.
Bottom line - in court it likely could not be proven that purchasers are insured under FSRA if they are not a CU member which is stated as a necessary condition on FSRA site.
This is another amateur issue related to CUs which surely can be easily resolved by a statement from NSCUDUC and FSRA and/or the GIC agents IN WRITTEN form, not just "I believe...". Courts need documentation not just "beliefs".
Kevin has posted on this site & is aware of the concerns from members of this thread. It is telling that he as of yet has not come to this site with a written
explanation on why there is no worries & reasons why.
6:04 am
March 30, 2017
Loonie said
Another workaround in some cases will be to join the CU in question on your own before buying the GIC from the broker. It won't work in every case, but worth a shot if the alternative is missing out on a GIC you wanted to buy.
That does not get around those CUs that are offering good rates but outside your province.
I think all one has to do is to confirm one will indeed get a membership, proven by an assigned membership number when signing up with a new CUs thru a broker.
6:29 am
November 18, 2017
Loonie:
It's true that many CUs were formed because their members were being turned down by banks - banks that were prejudiced against them because they were new immigrants, didn't speak English well, had blue collar jobs, etc. So those communities banded together and supported each other, and it worked out well.
And women. Don't forget women, who I'm old enough to remember being "unbankable" without a testosteronic guarantor or representative.
Don't even ask about gays or non-binaries. Those folks were considered CRIMINALS!
RetirEd
RetirEd
8:09 am
April 6, 2013
Bill said
Agreed, Norman1, and that's another reason they're riskier than banks, higher risk debtors. Kinda contrary to the image they cultivate.
That's not necessarily the case. It depends on how the credit union applies their greater latitude.
The large banks used to refuse mortgages to those who have don't have a Canadian credit bureau record yet or the record was too new. So, they declined people who were going to put 75% down on a house while approving those who were putting as little as 5% down and could barely afford the payments just because the one putting 5% down had a longer credit record.
Alternative lenders like Home Trust and Equitable Bank exploited that silliness in the large banks' mortgage underwriting process and gave those wealthy 75%-down borrowers a mortgage. The alternative lenders also charged them extra, knowing that such borrowers would not be able to get a mortgage from the large banks!
10:04 am
October 21, 2013
savemoresaveoften said
I think all one has to do is to confirm one will indeed get a membership, proven by an assigned membership number when signing up with a new CUs thru a broker.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has succeeded in doing this, and which CU was involved. I've never bought a CU GIC through a broker.
10:16 am
October 21, 2013
RetirEd said
Loonie:It's true that many CUs were formed because their members were being turned down by banks - banks that were prejudiced against them because they were new immigrants, didn't speak English well, had blue collar jobs, etc. So those communities banded together and supported each other, and it worked out well.
And women. Don't forget women, who I'm old enough to remember being "unbankable" without a testosteronic guarantor or representative.
Don't even ask about gays or non-binaries. Those folks were considered CRIMINALS!
RetirEd
Quite right. Until approx the mid-late 1970s it was impossible for a woman to get a mortgage from a bank without a male guarantor.
I've had cause to investigate the situation of a female relative who bought a home in about 1958. She was single, in her mid-30s, no dependents, had a good job and a car. But her mortgage was with a private individual lender. I've tried to figure out if she knew the lender personally, but no luck. There is a reason I've been researching her but it's a vert long story.
I'm not aware of the situation with gays but I think the banks came around when they realized these were often 2-income families with good jobs and no dependents.
12:49 pm
March 30, 2017
Loonie said
I'd be interested to hear if anyone has succeeded in doing this, and which CU was involved. I've never bought a CU GIC through a broker.
think one can just ask the broker regarding a membership will indeed be set up and there will be a member ID to verify (make that a condition of your placement of a GIC). If the broker refuses to, just walk.
On my Equity CU certificate, it shows my member ID and a $20 membership share.
Mind you that is AFTER the fact I placed my GIC with the broker. At the time, it was also assumed that all GICs placed are insured (as thats the main selling point) and we did not know about the ECCU issue.
1:42 pm
September 15, 2017
savemoresaveoften said
think one can just ask the broker regarding a membership will indeed be set up and there will be a member ID to verify (make that a condition of your placement of a GIC). If the broker refuses to, just walk.
On my Equity CU certificate, it shows my member ID and a $20 membership share.
Mind you that is AFTER the fact I placed my GIC with the broker. At the time, it was also assumed that all GICs placed are insured (as thats the main selling point) and we did not know about the ECCU issue.
I would suggest, to be even more prudent, ask the broker also to confirm with the CU that a membership share has been set up. Without a membership share, a deemed "member" would probably not legally have deposit insurance coverage. In the case of ECCU, they could have assigned a "member" number on the profile, without a share. And Kevin from GIC Wealth could have said, "of course you are a member".
2:31 pm
November 3, 2021
Hi All, this is Kevin Rotenberg from GIC Wealth. My name has been frequently spoken of in this thread and I felt strongly that I should address your concerns. Firstly, I sincerely appreciate and understand your concerns. Please rest assured that the first consideration we as brokers/agents make in choosing to offer an institutions GIC is their guarantee. Who guarantees it, and to what amount. While I am highly confident that every depositor with East Coast CU (ECCU), whether through a broker or otherwise, is insured by the Nova Scotia Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation (NSCUDIC) up to $250,000, I have asked a VP at ECCU to prepare a response. He has assured me this should be completed shortly. I am hoping that this will put all interested parties at ease and this issue to rest.
At no point, past or present has any investor with ECCU not been insured to the available limits, in the event of a failure. I would like to add, there is nothing more significant in the Deposit Broker space than an institutions guarantee. My clients financial security is of the utmost importance. My office would never have offered an institutions GIC without being made aware of their guarantee.
Since 2002, GIC Wealth Management Inc. has over 21 years of providing guaranteed investments, and has processed more than $2 Billion in investments from over 40 different institutions. In addition, we are members of the Registered Deposit Brokers Association (RDBA). All members need to complete criminal background checks and are vetted before they are accepted. In addition, CDIC, FSRA and all other major Government Regulators are fully aware of the RDBA and the role it serves in our financial system.
I would welcome your phone calls with any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Kevin Rotenberg, 1-866-228-9442 xt. 373
2:33 pm
September 7, 2018
10:30 am
September 15, 2017
The members' shares problem with ECCU has been rectified. (Yes, Kevin Rotenberg, there was a problem, even if you deny it.)
I have seen the letter sent this week to brokers from the V.P., Finance & Corporate Services at ECCU, confirming that deposit holders investing through brokers become Associate Members, with deposit insurance coverage from NSCUDIC.
5:57 pm
October 21, 2013
6:15 am
March 30, 2017
GR said
The members' shares problem with ECCU has been rectified. (Yes, Kevin Rotenberg, there was a problem, even if you deny it.)I have seen the letter sent this week to brokers from the V.P., Finance & Corporate Services at ECCU, confirming that deposit holders investing through brokers become Associate Members, with deposit insurance coverage from NSCUDIC.
Can you post and share it here ? I hope that rings the alarm bell for all the brokers out there to now do their due diligence to confirm every FI they use are indeed dot the Is and cross the Ts when it comes to insurance coverage.
7:10 am
September 15, 2017
savemoresaveoften said
Can you post and share it here ? I hope that rings the alarm bell for all the brokers out there to now do their due diligence to confirm every FI they use are indeed dot the Is and cross the Ts when it comes to insurance coverage.
I will not post the entire letter because:
1) As the letter was not addressed to me, I feel it would be inappropriate to post the entire letter. I have summarized the main points. If you bought, or are thinking of buying, an ECCU GIC, ask your GIC broker for a copy.
2) For some reason, the document will not allow me to copy and paste it.
7:37 am
October 5, 2017
The original post was/is
"Caution If You Bought or Are Thinking of Buying East Coast Credit Union GICs"
After reading some of the previous posts my head went straight to how the SEC in the USA on multiple occasions declared it was 100% safe to invest with Bernie Madoff .
And we all know how that turned out.
7:52 am
March 30, 2017
bhuc said
The original post was/is
"Caution If You Bought or Are Thinking of Buying East Coast Credit Union GICs"After reading some of the previous posts my head went straight to how the SEC in the USA on multiple occasions declared it was 100% safe to invest with Bernie Madoff .
And we all know how that turned out.
SEC actually explicitly declared that ?! hmmm I dont think so.
I can only say a LOT of highly educated and powerful Wall Street people believed and vouch for Madoff over the years, before the ultimate blow up.
I also read a lot of hedge fund gurus have gossiped over the years that the returns are simply goldy and thus not possible. Obviously not saying it out loud due to defamation lawsuit and the like.
Please write your comments in the forum.