Is it ok to reinvest your TFSA again into a TFSA GIC after it matures? | Page 2 | Tax Free Savings Accounts | Discussion forum

We do the same thing at Hubert, and they do not seem to think it unusual when we do, although I imagine few do. We always do it on the phone so as not to accidentally do it wrong.

I've decided to continue with some Oaken RIFs. The way I manage it is that there is always at least one maturing each year somewhere, not necessarily at Oaken. When one is maturing at Oaken, I transfer it to Hubert, where it will be available for when I decide how much to withdraw that year.
So far, that has provided enough liquidity. If there is some left over, then I may transfer it back to Oaken for another GIC.

But there is no getting around Oaken's annoying process of sourcing mandatory withdrawals except to keep only one RIF GIC there at a time, so there is only one source. You can then keep at least one GIC there.

AltaRed said
I am guessing after HCG's near death experience in 2017 when there was a run on deposits necessitating an expensive Buffett bail out, HISA liabilities are being 'managed'. Once one has bled from all orifices, no one wants to bleed that way again. Clearly HCG's HISA rates post-crisis have not been nearly as attractive relative to their GICs as it was pre-crisis.
.  

I don't recall that Oaken was ever a leader in savings rates. Maybe they were but I have never been motivated to have a HISA there.

I don't think their crisis had to do with not offering registered savings accounts. They never had them before the crisis either. It's simply that they are meeting their goals without offering them because they have attractive GIC rates.

It's worth remembering too that registered funds are held in one name only so the max CDIC coverage you can get is 100K in each type of fund (200K in the case of Oaken). For many people, this will mean that they must hold some of their funds elsewhere regardless.

I don't recall that Oaken was ever a leader in savings rates. Maybe they were but I have never been motivated to have a HISA there.

Correct for sure!!! Not in HISA but sometimes in GIC's.

I don't think their crisis had to do with not offering registered savings accounts. They never had them before the crisis either. It's simply that they are meeting their goals without offering them because they have attractive GIC rates.

Was the crisis not due to unscrupulous mortgage brokers filling out applications incorrectly and that Home Trust was knowingly or unknowingly accepting them? Thus allowing people to access a mortgage that they should have not been able to have. Thus giving out tooooo much money.

It's worth remembering too that registered funds are held in one name only so the max CDIC coverage you can get is 100K in each type of fund (200K in the case of Oaken). For many people, this will mean that they must hold some of their funds elsewhere regardless.

Exactly.

Just to add Loonie, I like your idea of only having ONE RRIF GIC at Oaken. Unfortunately I did not think of that one!! I was more thinking about laddering just enough for every year and the bulk to a 5 year...and where the payment would come from for the mandatory payment. Also there are so many at Oaken that cannot, or do not, answer RRIF questions correctly. A hassle not worth getting into. Last month my wife called to find out what amount of principal and interest was paid out to her. First response was....it all comes from principal....he must have heard me say....that's not right....and he then looked into her account and verified the amounts.
But bottom line....all my RIFS and wife's.....will all move out at maturity.

PubMob said

Was the crisis not due to unscrupulous mortgage brokers filling out applications incorrectly and that Home Trust was knowingly or unknowingly accepting them? Thus allowing people to access a mortgage that they should have not been able to have. Thus giving out tooooo much money.
…

No, that was just the background that was used by the short sellers.

The company had some high-performing underwriting staff who lied about verifying the income on applications. That's how those "outstanding" individuals were able to process so many applications.

It was called "phantom ticking". The staff would "tick" an "income verified" box without actually contacting the employer and waiting for the employer's employment and salary verification letter.

It turned out to be not material as those "phantom ticked" mortgages had slightly lower arrears and default rates than their mortgages in general.

I suspect Home Trust believed certain of those mortgage broker had doubts about the salary and employment info. But, the brokers submitted the applications anyways and could pin the bad news on Home Trust when the application came back declined.

When the application came back approved, the brokers realised something was wrong. Instead of warning Home Trust of a compromise, the brokers decided to send in more questionable applications which would also get approved.

Kind of like years ago when some restaurant staff realized many people don't verify their monthly credit card statements against the signed slips. The staff got away with changing, for example, a $71.20 slip to $74.20 after it was signed and pocketing an extra $3 of tip!