Something to be aware of with "odd-month" GICs | Page 3 | GIC discussions | Discussion forum

I agree with Norman1 and Bill that Luminus has a problem with how they have written their advertising.

A major reason why this situation became so problematic is because, no matter where we looked online or who my friend communicated with by email or phone, nowhere were the terms clearly articulated. They all kept reading from the same unclear script until he finally got to a boss. This appears to still be the case with the current 2.5% 2yr term offering, which, when you click on it, only says "Promotional Offers:
•2 Year Fixed Term Deposit at 2.50%" and does not have any footnotes.

While it may be conventional that rates are per annum and not per term, most institutions do state that clearly in their advertising - as they should. And staff should also know enough to think it unusual that this would not be the case, and should therefore question it whenever it appears not to be. Clearly there is no expectation that the person selling the product will necessarily understand it, although I think the public assumes they will and has a right to assume that. In my view, this ought to be an industry requirement. FSCO should be addressing this.

Something else that should be required by FSCO is a clear statement of what any fixed term deposit which is not market-dependent, will return at the end of the term. This is what people want to know, it has already been calculated as a liability for the FI, and it should be automatic to include it for the customer's benefit.

I remain somewhat disconcerted because I am not confident that Luminus fully understands the problem. It's fine that the CS Manager is going to educate his employees, but he should also be looking at improving the language used by the business. There has been no indication that he plans to do the latter. Time will tell.