Is keeping a high balance (6 figures) in an EMI insane?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scanman

New Member
Oct 13, 2017
45
0
161
Maybe a stupid question, but after reading these forums the last few days, EMIs seem to be the recommended way to go, rather than traditional banks.

If you have a mid 6 figure sum, and a steady stream of money coming in, is it safe to let an EMI hold your hard earned money? It seems most have their funds held with legitimate banks and are 'ring fenced" from creditors, but if they were to get shut down or go under how safe are you funds really? None seem to insure your funds with a deposit insurance scheme like a traditional onshore bank...

I suppose what I'm asking is how safe are EMIs for use to hold a high balance for long term, or are they just a solution to receive and withdraw quickly?
 
Usually you receive and withdraw quickly, that's how I use them and always would use‌ them. Looking at your question then there is another angle to look at it. If‍ you have to use an EMI or offshore account your Money can't be on a⁠ regular onshore account for various reasons. So there will always be a risk higher compared⁤ to normal banking.
 
Thanks for the reply - I did figure EMIs were for quick transnational and withdrawal‌ use, but wondered if they were viable as a means of holding funds long term.‍
 
"depends".

in the eu banks are only covering the first⁠ 100k.EUR, so you will loose there also.

if the emi is established, with a good⁤ reputation it should not be problematic to hold large sums -provided- you can explain the⁣ source.
 
I'm not convinced EMI's fall under the⁣ AEoI/CRS rules. The UK regulator has stated this was not the case so there is⁢ a good business case for having a large sum of money at an EMI (end︀ of december beginning of january 😉) .

(LeuPay, probably due to their ownership by Satabank,︁ will report deposits!)
 
i would recommend to hold your funds in bitcoin, because it's impossible to loose it,‌ when nobody except you has the private key to the wallet
 
Unfortunately the value of the bitcoin can go up and down ... so you⁠ introduce an exchange risk into the mix. (and you still have to convert it into⁤ fiat currency something which will become harder and harder (more regulated).
 
This has been my concern so far - UK banks are £85K, so⁠ I keep opening new ones which is just getting hard to control, and probably will⁤ start to look very suspicious at some point. Sounds like all EU options are €100k⁣ which is good to know, at least as long as the Euro stays strong. I⁢ take it EMI have no depositors insurance?

As to Bitcoin, holding funds in that is︀ a gamble I would never take - and I make all my money in BTC.︁ Though its on the rise it's far from stable or guaranteed, and you loose on︂ exchange to FIAT as said, and exchanges are really becoming a pain with verification's.

At this point i'm tempted to buy Gold with Bitcoin... No CGT on 1oz Brittanias...
 
Also investing in bitcoins is tax free as long as you have paid tax from‌ the money you buy bitcoins for! At least it is that way in some of‍ the countries in EU I read.
 
I was‌ talking specifically about the UK, however the first PDF is withdrawn so that ight have‍ changed the conclusion.

1) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...Exchange_of_Financial_Account_Information.pdf (seems to have been withdrawn)

IEIM400740 - International Exchange of⁠ Information Manual - HMRC internal manual - GOV.UK (EMI is not listed)

2)
“E-money” providers⁤ that are governed by the provisions of the European Union Electronic Money Directive (2009/110/EC) (EMD)⁣ are not deposit takers for the purposes of the Banking Consolidation Directive (2006/48/EC). Recital 13⁢ to the EMD specifically states that “The issuance of electronic money does not constitute a︀ deposit-taking activity pursuant to Directive 2006/48/EC”, consequently such providers will not fall within the definition︁ of Depository Institution that requires deposits to be accepted in the ordinary course of a︂ banking or similar business.

The CRS cover entities that fall into certain categories of institutions,︃ which include custodial institutions, depository institutions, investment entities and specified insurance companies. There was some︄ uncertainty as to whether or not E-money institutions might be regarded as depository institutions. The︅ latest guidance notes however specifically state that “E-money” providers that are governed by the provisions︆ of the European Union Electronic Money Directive (2009/110/EC) (EMD) are not deposit takers for the︇ purposes of the Banking Consolidation Directive (2006/48/EC). Accordingly such providers will not fall within the︈ definition of depository institution and therefore also not in the scope of the CRS".

3)
http://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/common-reporting-standard/CRS-related-FAQs.pdf

8. E-money providers – qualification as a Depository Institution
What is the status of︉ electronic money providers for CRS purposes?No special rules apply to electronic money providers. Like other︊ financial industry participants, they must determinewhether they are a Financial Institution, as defined by the︋ CRS. That determination will depend on the facts andcircumstances. For instance, in order to determine︌ whether an electronic money provider is a Depository Institution,the analysis must be done with reference︍ to Section VIII(A)(5) and the related Commentary, in particular paragraph 13.

7. Excluded Accounts -︎ low-value electronic money accounts
Under what conditions can electronic money accounts that are Depository Accounts️ be Excluded Accounts pursuant to Section VIII(C)(17)(g)?The mere fact that a Financial Account is an‌ electronic money account does not by itself enable that Financial Accountto be specified by a‍ jurisdiction in its domestic law as a low-risk Excluded Account. In order for such FinancialAccounts⁠ to be specified as Excluded Accounts under the domestic law of an implementing jurisdiction pursuant⁤ toSection VIII(C)(17)(g), the jurisdiction needs to ensure that the accounts present a low risk for⁣ being used for taxevasion, have substantially similar characteristics to another category of Excluded Accounts and⁢ that their status as anExcluded Account does not frustrate the purposes of the CRS.

The Commentary on Section VIII(C)(17)(g) providesexamples of such low-risk jurisdiction-specific Excluded Accounts.As an example of a︀ low-risk Excluded Account in the context of financial inclusion, Example 5 states that aDepository Account︁ subject to financial regulation (i) that provides defined and limited services, so as to increasefinancial︂ inclusion, (ii) on which monthly deposits cannot exceed USD 1 250 and (iii) for which︃ Financial Institutionshave been allowed to apply simplified AML/KYC procedures consistent with the FATF Recommendations may︄ be alow-risk Excluded Account.Provided that electronic money accounts are regulated and meet the requirements of︅ Section VIII(C)(17)(g), they maybe defined as an Excluded Account by the implementing jurisdiction. The above-mentioned︆ example can providefurther illustrative guidance as to when the requirements of Section VIII(C)(17)(g) would be︇ met in the context offinancial inclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnnyDoe.is is an uncensored discussion forum
focused on free speech,
independent thinking, and controversial ideas.
Everyone is responsible for their own words.

Quick Navigation

User Menu