Tangerine Sure Takes Advantage of Their Customers - It's no ING! | Page 2 | Tangerine Bank | Discussion forum

There is NO such thing as free lunch. 'No fee' is carrot and stick scheme. EVERY decent and long time in business bank HAS transfer fee for registered products. But I don't see why is that such a big deal. Receiving bank will reimburse you anyway so you are never at the loss. How many times you are going to move your rrsp from bank1 to bank2? And why are you moving it

WHY AM I MOVING IT?? Seriously?
Because even if I pay the $45 fee I will still make hundreds more at a bank with as little as a .50 higher rate. My chequing is with PC and I don't pay fees for that. When you are living off your investments in this climate of piss poor interest rates there is no choice but to move around and play the game. No brainer.

SavingIsGood said

Sure, 0.5% more makes a difference. BUT! are we talking about GIC? Because mutual fund is just that - muddy fund. You cannot say how much you will get next month or year. And having fund X at bank A or bank B does not make a difference as you get 'interest' from mutual fund not from the bank.
And having rrsp in gic is a very BAD idea, unless you locked it up for 20 years with interest of 8% or similar...

Not sure what is your point. There are no 20 year GICs. As for RRSPs, there are good reasons to invest in GICs. Suppose you make a contribution at the highest marginal rate. If you invest in a 5 year GIC that has at least a positive return compared to inflation, you will come out ahead with no risk. On the other hand, if you want to invest in the stock market for a possible better return, then go ahead, but why do it with your retirement funds, instead of your TFSA or open account? In my opinion, your RRSP is the best place for GICs if you choose to buy them.

Good for you, fabafter50. It's tough to experience and admit to such a significant loss.

I think the important thing is to figure out how to live with what you've got. If it's not too late, find some more sources of income if you need to. There is a lot that one can do to improve one's situation if the mind and body are still OK, other than taking more risk.

If you don't have enough, mutual funds and stock markets will not be any help as you can't afford the risk and may have nothing to put in them anyway.

If you do have enough, you won't need them, but it is a real choice if you want to try it. Only the people who do have enough should consider taking those risks.

Nobody should ever have to listen to the line that goes "you will have to take more risk to reach your goals". If you think about it, it makes no sense at all, as more risk means, by definition, that you are not assured of meeting those goals but you risk losing much of what you have!

it would be much better if they'd say, "let's look at some ways that you can live within your means or increase your sources of income." But they won't make any profit from doing that!

It's easy to forget, especially for younger people, that mutual funds are a relatively recent invention. Access to the stock market for people who are not wealthy is also a recent invention. All of this came up in the 1970s as the investment houses and corporations realized there was a population with access to cash that they had not yet tapped.
Mutual funds were the answer, enabling smaller investments in individual companies without buying impossibly small dollar amounts of individual stocks. All they had to do was convince us that it was good for us.
Some of them worked, some of the time. Even I bought a mutual fund of stocks in the 1980s! I held it one year, made 13%, and decided that was enough for me.
But some people lost money. For most of them, it was too risky a choice.

Mutual funds came to Canada in the 1930s, started being sold widely to "average" within a few decades. I remember my Dad talking to a door-to-door mutual fund salesman (probably Investors Group or whatever it was called then) in the late 1950s or early 1960s.
I'm still baffled why anyone would think someone else, especially a stranger, is going to help them make money, unless there's something in it for the latter.

Mutual funds may have existed earlier than I remember, but the big push to popularize them happened in the '70s/'80s. They became very accessible, every bank was pushing them, and they were heavily promoted at that time.

I don't recall anyone coming door-to-door with them at my house in the '50s or '60s. I remember the Fuller Brush salesman, the Encyclopedia salesmen, vacuum cleaner guys, Avon ladies, the ice man (yes, I was alive before we had a refrigerator!) and the Jehovah's Witnesses. We didn't buy any of it except the ice! Trying to bring home a large block of ice, especially without a vehicle, is not recommended!