khachsankiengiang

Archive for the ‘Private Banking’ Category

Singapore private banking has grown massively over the past decade. Assets under management at Singapore private banks have grown to around 300Bn, 6 times what they were 10 years ago. It is estimated that Singapore manages around 5% of the world’s private wealth, while Swiss private banking manages around a quarter.

Singapore has benefited from tight bank secrecy regulation, in addition to a rise in the number of Asian millionaires, especially the type that want to invest with private banks and financial instruments rather than in property.

Yet in response to demand from the G20 group of developed countries, Singapore has promised to rethink its ultra private secrecy laws. Like Switzerland, Singapore has to walk the tightrope between keeping its sovereignty and international acceptance of its laws and banks.

One of the reasons why Singapore has grown is because it already was a large financial center in its own right. Unlike smaller tax havens and dependencies of other countries which have been accused of ”inventing” laws to benefit from capital flight, Singapore is a long-standing trading hub and center of international financial settlements.

There are several arguments in favour of Singapore keeping its privacy laws. Many private banking clients in Singapore are very powerful people among neighbours like China, Indonesia and Thailand. It’s in their interest to ensure that Singapore bank secrecy is not relaxed. Furthermore, Singapore is an international financial center – it cannot be blackmailed in the same way as other jurisdictions.

However Singapore has made concessions, and may not necessarily see its future in harbouring Western tax evaders. Singapore has signed TIEAS with a number of countries and promised to adopt article 26 of the OECD model tax convention on information exchange over tax matters.

After Swiss banking secrecy was put under the spotlight, it was widely reported that bankers were urging a massive flight of capital to Singapore, where bank secrecy rules still held strong. But in reality, basing any structure on bank secrecy is like building a house on a fault line, it’s bound to change. The smartest investors instead used techniques which do not depend on bank secrecy in any single country.

Savvy private banking clients are now using distinct structures which operate independent of bank secrecy such as investing through trusts or trust companies.

Further, the reasons for banking in an offshore centre like Switzerland do not depend entirely on tax. In fact the biggest reason is security. Hundreds of banks have been going under in the US, not Switzerland. Investors are also escaping from currency devaluations, civil forfeiture and frivolous lawsuits.

Singapore wealth management is certainly growing in sophistication, but it is still in a learning phase. During the mid 2000′s when Singapore’s private banking industry was growing rapidly, it was alleged that there were not enough bankers to meet demand. Singapore private banks were instead employing local hairdressers and car salesmen with good people skills and turning them into private bankers.

Singapore private banking is modeled closely on Swiss private banking, even down to its family trust law. In terms of weathering geo-political events like the war on bank secrecy, Singapore may have to follow the Swiss lead also.

“This isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about building a smarter government that focuses on what works.” Barack Obama, November 26, 2008

As our 44th President prepares to enter the Oval Office, bank lending has seized up, some of the nation’s largest banks are on life support, and the big three automakers are bankrupt. Housing continues to crash, and so does the economy.

Little wonder that Obama is being compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who entered the White House in similar financial straits in 1932. Even before taking office, Obama has started his version of the “fireside chats” (updated from radio to online video) given by Roosevelt nearly weekly to reassure the public. He said on November 22 that he plans to create 2.5 million new jobs by 2011 and kick-start the economy by building roads and bridges, modernizing schools, and creating technology and infrastructure for renewable energy. These are excellent ideas, but what will they be funded with-more government debt?

Obama has pledged to honor the commitments of the outgoing administration to rescue financial markets, on the theory that if we don’t, our credit system could freeze up completely. But as noted by Barry Ritholtz in a December 2 article, the bailout has already cost more than the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana Purchase, the moonshot, the savings and loan bailout, the Korean War, the Iraq war, the Vietnam war, and NASA’s lifetime budget combined. [1] Increasing the debt burden could break the back of the taxpayers and plunge the nation itself into bankruptcy.

How can the new President resolve these enormous funding challenges? Thomas Jefferson realized two centuries ago that there is a way to finance government without taxes or debt. Unfortunately, he came to that realization only after he had left the White House, and he was unable to put it into action. With any luck, Obama will discover this funding solution early in his upcoming term, before the country is declared bankrupt and abandoned by its creditors.

THE KEY TO A SOLUTION: UNDERSTANDING MONEY AND CREDIT

Jefferson realized too late that the Founding Fathers had been misled. He wrote to Treasury Secretary Gallatin in 1815:

“The treasury, lacking confidence in the country, delivered itself bound hand and foot to bold and bankrupt adventurers and bankers pretending to have money, whom it could have crushed at any moment.”

He wrote to John Eppes in 1813:

“Although we have so foolishly allowed the field of circulating medium to be filched from us by private individuals, I think we may recover it … The states should be asked to transfer the right of issuing paper money to Congress, in perpetuity.”

It had long been held to be the sovereign right of governments to create the national money supply, something the colonies had done successfully for a hundred years before the Revolution. So why did the new government hand over the money-creating power to private bankers merely “pretending to have money”? Why are we still, 200 years later, groveling before private banks that are admittedly bankrupt themselves? The answer may simply be that, then as now, legislators along with most other people have not understood how money creation works. Only about 3% of the U.S. money supply now consists of “hard” currency-coins (issued by the government) and dollar bills (issued by the private Federal Reserve and lent to the government). All of the rest exists merely on computer screens or in paper accounts, and this money is all created by banks when they make loans. Contrary to popular belief, banks do not lend their own money or their depositors’ money. They merely “monetize” the borrower’s promise to repay. Many creditable authorities have attested to this fact. Here are a few:

“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”

- Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under President Eisenhower

“Banks create money. That is what they are for… The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all… Each and every time a Bank makes a loan… new Bank credit is created-brand new money.”

- Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955

“Of course, [banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise [by the same amount].”

- The Chicago Federal Reserve, Modern Money Mechanics (last updated 1992)

Not only are banks merely pretending to have the money they lend to us, but today they are shamelessly demanding that we bail them out of their own imprudent gambling debts so they can continue to lend us money they don’t have. According to the Comptroller of the Currency, the books of U.S. banks now carry over $180 trillion in a form of speculative wager known as derivatives. Particularly at issue today are betting arrangements called credit default swaps (CDS), which have been sold by banks as insurance against loan defaults. The problem is that CDS are just private bets, and there is no insurance commissioner insuring that the “protection sellers” have the money to pay the “protection buyers” if they lose. As loans have gone into default, the elaborate gambling scheme built on them has teetered near collapse, threatening to take the banking system down with it. Now the players are demanding that the government underwrite their bets with taxpayer funds, on the theory that if the banking system collapses the public will have no credit and no money. That is the theory, but it misconstrues the nature of money and credit. If a private bank can create money simply by writing credit into a deposit account, so can the federal government. The Constitution says “Congress shall have the power to coin money,” and that is all it says about who has the power to create money. It does not say Congress can delegate to private banks the right to create 97% of the national money supply in the form of loans. Nothing backs our money except “the full faith and credit of the United States.” The government could and should have its own system of public banks with the authority to issue the credit of the nation directly.

BUYOUTS, NOT BAILOUTS

Accumulating a network of publicly-owned banks would be a simple matter today. As banks became insolvent, instead of trying to bail them out, the government could just put them into bankruptcy and take them over. Insolvent banks are dealt with by the FDIC, which is authorized to proceed in one of three ways. It can order a payout, in which the bank is liquidated and ceases to exist. It can arrange for a purchase and assumption, in which another bank buys the failed bank and assumes its liabilities. Or it can take the bridge bank option, in which the FDIC replaces the board of directors and provides the capital to get it running again in exchange for an equity stake in the bank. An “equity stake” means an ownership interest: the bank’s stock becomes the property of the government.[2] Nationalization is an option routinely pursued in Europe for bankrupt banks. As William Engdahl observed in a September 30 article, citing economist Nouriel Roubini for authority:

“[I]n almost every case of recent banking crises in which emergency action was needed to save the financial system, the most economical (to taxpayers) method was to have the Government, as in Sweden or Finland in the early 1990′s, nationalize the troubled banks [and] take over their management and assets … In the Swedish case, the Government held the assets, mostly real estate, for several years until the economy again improved at which point they could sell them onto the market … In the Swedish case the end cost to taxpayers was estimated to have been almost nil. The state never did as Paulson proposed, to buy the toxic waste of the banks, leaving them to get off free from their follies of securitization and speculation abuses.” [3]

As in any corporate acquisition, business in the banks nationalized by the government could carry on as before. Not much would need to change beyond the names on the stock certificates. The banks would just be under new management. They could advance loans as accounting entries, just as they do now. The difference would be that interest on advances of credit, rather than going into private vaults for private profit, would go into the coffers of the government. The “full faith and credit of the United States” would become an asset of the United States. Instead of paying half a trillion dollars annually in interest, the U.S. could be receiving interest on its credit, replacing or eliminating the need to tax its citizens.

THREE WAYS TO FUND THE “NEW” NEW DEAL

There are three ways government could fund itself without either going into debt to private lenders or taxing the people: (1) the federal government could set up its own federally-owned lending facility; (2) the states could set up state-owned lending facilities; or (3) the federal government could issue currency directly, to be spent into the economy on public projects. Viable precedent exists for each of these alternatives:

1. The Federal Bank Option

The federal government could issue credit through its own lending facility, leveraging “reserves” into many times their face value in loans just as banks do now. Franklin Roosevelt funded his New Deal through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), a government-owned lending institution. However, the RFC borrowed the money before lending it. A debt-free alternative would be for a government-owned bank to issue the money simply as “credit,” without having to borrow it first. This was done by the state-owned central banks of Australia and New Zealand in the 1930s, allowing them to avoid the worldwide depression of that era. In the informative booklet “Modern Money Mechanics,” the Chicago Federal Reserve confirms that under the fractional reserve system in use today, one dollar in reserves is routinely fanned by private banks into ten dollars in new loans. Following that accepted protocol, the government could fan the $700 billion already earmarked to unfreeze credit markets into $7 trillion in low-interest loans.

Apparently, that is how Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are planning to generate the $7 trillion they say they are now prepared to advance to rescue the financial system: they will just leverage the $700 billion bailout money through the banking system into $7 trillion in new loans. [4] But the Federal Reserve is a privately-owned banking corporation, and the recipients of its largesse have not been revealed. [5] The $700 billion in seed money belongs to the taxpayers. The taxpayers should be getting the benefit of it, not a propped-up private banking system that uses taxpayer money for the “reserves” to create ten times that sum in “credit” that is then lent back to the taxpayers at interest.

Seven trillion dollars in government-issued credit could furnish all the money needed to fund Obama’s New Deal with a few trillion to spare. Among other worthy recipients of this low-interest credit would be state and local governments. Many state and municipal governments are going bankrupt through no fault of their own, just because interest rates shot up when the monoline insurers lost their triple-A ratings gambling in the derivatives market.

2. The State Bank Option

While states are waiting for the federal government to step in, they could charter their own state-owned banks that issue low-interest credit on the fractional reserve model. Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution says that states shall not “emit bills of credit,” which has been interpreted to mean they cannot issue their own paper currency. But there is no rule against a state owning or chartering a bank that issues ten times its deposit base in loans, using standard fractional reserve principles.

Precedent for this approach is found in the Bank of North Dakota (BND), the nation’s only state-owned bank. BND was formed in 1919 to encourage and promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota. Its primary deposit base is the State of North Dakota, and state law requires that all state funds and funds of state institutions be deposited with the bank. The bank’s earnings belong to the state, and their use is at the discretion of the state legislature. As an agent of the state, BND can make subsidized loans to spur economic and agricultural development, and it is more lenient than other banks in pressing foreclosures. Under a program called Ag PACE (Agriculture Partnership in Assisting Community Expansion), the interest on loans made by BND and local lenders may be reduced to as low as 1 percent. [6] North Dakota remains fiscally sound at a time when other state governments swim in red ink, and its educational system is particularly strong. While disruptions in capital markets have hampered student loan operations elsewhere, BND continues to operate a robust student loan business and is one of the nation’s leading banks in the number of student loans issued. [7] North Dakota’s fiscal track record is particularly impressive considering that its economy consists largely of isolated farms in an inhospitable climate. Ready low-interest credit from its own state-owned bank may help explain this unusual success.

3. Government-issued Currency

A third option for creating a self-sustaining government would be for Congress to simply create the money it needs on a printing press or with accounting entries, then spend this money directly into the economy. The usual objection to that alternative is that it would be highly inflationary, but if the money were spent on productive endeavors that increased the supply of goods and services-public transportation, low-cost housing, alternative energy development and the like-supply and demand would rise together and price inflation would not result. The American colonial governments issued their own money all through the eighteenth century. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was this original funding scheme that was responsible for the remarkable abundance in the colonies at a time when England was suffering the depression conditions of the Industrial Revolution. After the American Revolution, private bankers got control of the money supply, but Abraham Lincoln followed the colonial model and authorized government-issued Greenbacks during the Civil War. Not only did this allow the North to win the war without plunging it into debt to the bankers, but it funded a period of unprecedented expansion and productivity for the country.

Obama would do well to consider these funding solutions for his “smarter” government. He has been quick to assemble his advisers and form policy, but a fast start down the wrong road could do more harm than good. The bailout scheme of the current administration is serving merely to keep a failed banking system alive by draining assets away from the productive economy. The conventional wisdom is that we must continue down the path we are on, because the alternative means frightening, radical change. Financing a new New Deal without putting the country further into insolvency, however, would not be a radical departure from tradition but would represent a return to our roots, to the uniquely American monetary policy advocated by our venerable forebears Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

1. Barry Ritholtz, “Bailout Costs More than Marshall Plan, Louisiana Purchase, Moonshot, S & L Bailout, Korean War, New Deal, Iraq War, Vietnam War,” Global Research (December 2, 2008).

2. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island (Westlake Village, California: American Media, 1998), pages 63, 65.

3. “William Engdahl, “Financial Tsunami: The End of the World as We Knew It,” Global Research (September 30, 2008).

4. Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry, “U.S. Pledges $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit,” Bloomberg (November 25, 2008).

5. Mark Pittman, et al., “Fed Denies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose,” Bloomberg (November 10, 2008).

6. “The Bank of North Dakota,” New Rules Project (2007).

7. Richard Sisson, et al., The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia (2007), page 41; Liz Wheeler, “Bank of North Dakota Keeps Student Loan Funds Flowing,” Northwestern Financial Review (September 15, 2008).

One recurring question we hear almost every day in the wealth management business is “How Can I Open a Swiss Bank account?” Whilst a minority of those asking the question might really be candidates for Swiss private banking, the majority seem to have watched too many Bond movies! This article is a brief introduction to Swiss banking to help you decide which of these categories you fit into.

First of all let me point out that if you are looking for a secret bank account, there are places that are much more discreet, much more under the radar than Switzerland. But what if you have your heart set on a real Swiss account? Opening a bank account in Switzerland is in theory not too difficult – but like all banks anywhere in the world, Swiss banks do reserve the right to refuse customers. Needless to say the recent hoo-hah from the G20 and the OECD has not made it any easier to open Swiss bank accounts. All banks are scared of being accused of money laundering and this has made it much harder, especially for non Swiss residents, to open bank accounts.

Then, you need to choose a Swiss bank according your requirements. If you want traditional private banking service and a free lunch each time you visit your banker, expect to invest at least a million as your opening deposit. Some of these real Swiss private banks are so discreet they don’t even have signs outside their offices, let alone websites.

You can, however, open accounts at more run-of-the-mill Swiss banks with a very low opening deposit or minimum figure to open accounts. Swiss banks like Migros or Swissquote Bank (which is really more of a discount brokerage, E-Trade style) have no minimum opening deposits whatsoever and you can start the process all by yourself – no need to pay an intermediary. The disadvantage is that, well, there is no particular advantage if you see what I mean… this is not traditional Swiss banking at all! There is nothing private about these banks. Swissquote, for example, will require you to waive bank secrecy before you can even open account!

If you have a Swiss work permit and wish to open a local Swiss bank account, that changes things significantly. In order to pay your salary in, your employer will probably require that you have a bank account. But Swiss working papers make all the difference. Some of the documents you will need are:

* Passport or identity card
* Recent utility bill (electricity is best)
* Residence permit
* A copy of your work contract
* Cross border workers from France or Germany, a copy of your permis frontalier (cross border work permit)

It is not necessary to make an appointment to open a current account. Opening an account can be done in a day and means of payments (like cash cards) will usually arrive within a week to ten days of the account being opened.

In general banks all over Switzerland are open from Monday to Friday from 08:30 to 16:30, and are closed at weekends and on public holidays.

You may, however, not need a Swiss bank account at all. Household bills and invoices are more commonly paid through the post office, with a so-called Bulletin de Versement (bill slip). Bill slips are attached to each bill that you receive by the post.

Below are some links to major Swiss retail banks. Remember these are not the same as Private Banks. If you are a non-resident looking to open a Swiss bank account, you need to be looking at Private Banks since they are the ones that accept non-resident business.

Major Swiss Banks:

* Banque Coop
* Banque Migros
* Banque Raiffeisen
* Cr

Modest Beginnings

The history of Barclays can be traced back to 1690 in the dark streets of London. It was named after David and Alexander Barclay, who were known for providing credit to transatlantic slave traders. In 1896, a number of banks in London and in provinces including Gurney’s Bank of Norwich and Bankhouse’s Bank of Darlington united under one banner – Barclays and Co. By 1919, the bank acquired several banks, such as the British Linen Bank and the South Western Bank, amalgamating them and extending the branch network. In 1965, the company established its first affiliate in the United States, the Barclays Bank of California. Since then, numerous acquisitions, takeovers and mergers have been made, making it one of the leading forces in banking and financial services industries in the world.

Offshore Banking

When it comes to offshore banking, Barclays is one of the most trusted in the world. Its offshore banking arm, the Barclays International and Private Banking Division, is often the choice of many British expatriates who were clients before they left the UK. Overall, its offshore banking division has a good reputation recognized by a growing customer base. Its success is highly attributed to its quality of service especially when it comes to management, security and growth it provides. Not to mention that it serves both individuals and corporations, allowing them to streamline cross border banking and trading.

If you are an expatriate, an international business professional or simply someone who has to make a transaction while you cross national borders, Barclays may be the right bank for you. It offers convenient and secure access to your account through the Internet or over the phone. It also offers tempting discounts on money transfers and the ability to transact in multiple currencies. It also provides UK tax advice, international mortgages and great interest rates.

Apart from that, the company offers personal, private and corporate banking solutions and international premier banking solutions for people with excess of 100,000 pounds to invest or deposit. If you have excess of 1 million pounds, however, offshore private banking is perfect for you.

To sign up, all you need to do is visit their website and set up an account. You’ll be surprised that its official website is very user-friendly. Each service they offer is indicated with the details on how to get started.

It is an establishment that stores umbilical cord blood for future use. There are two types of umbilical cord blood banks, private banking and public blood bank which have developed over the years.

Cord blood transplant is a method of treating diseases of the blood and immune systems, some cancers and other blood disorders. Public banks have an exception over private banking in that they except donations to be used for anyone in need unlike the private cord blood banking.

Before any blood donations are made it is important for a pregnant mother interested to make the donation to contact the bank before the thirty fourth week of her pregnancy.

After the blood has been donated, all the information used to identify it is lost during the first or initial tests have been done.

The umbilical blood contains hematopoietic stem cells, progenitor cells which can form red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets.

The blood collection is very much important in its effectiveness as another alternative source of hematopoietic cells for transplantation.

The cells found in the umbilical cord have immunity to some disorders due to their minimal exposure to antigens especially when compared with adult blood stem cells.

The process happens after the umbilical cord has been cut and is removed from the fetal end of the cord and is usually done within ten or fifteen minutes of delivery.

Some additional cells mainly the stem cells can be collected from the placenta through the placenta cord banking. After the extraction of the placenta it is then carried to the stem cell laboratory for processing for other stem cells.

Adequate blood collection requires at least 80 ml so as to ensure that there is enough cells to be used in a transplantation process.

The blood is then taken to the laboratory after collection for processing and then it is cryo-preserved afterwards. Cropreservant is added to the cord blood during processing of the blood unit and its function is to aid the cells to survive while undergoing the cryogenic process.

The cord blood unit is gradually cooled to negative 90 Celsius and then it is added to liquid nitrogen frozen tank which keeps it frozen at about negative 195 Celsius.

The gradual freezing process is important in keeping the cells alive during the freezing process.

The blood later undergoes viral testing which include HIV and AIDs, hepatitis B and C and other blood diseases before it is stored.

Switzerland isn’t just known for its unparalleled watch-making and breathtaking scenery. It is also the number one country in the world for international financial asset management. Switzerland also has the world’s third largest volume of foreign exchange trading. In a diverse Swiss economy, almost 9% of the Gross Domestic Product of Switzerland is due to the banking sector, and almost 6% of Swiss employees work for banks.

Banks in Switzerland account for more than one-quarter of all corporate taxes paid federally, and to cantons and cities. And Swiss banks have strong commitments to charity and philanthropy. The city of Geneva is the world’s capital city for private banking. In fact, Geneva is where private banking originated more than two centuries ago.

Geneva private banking is a demanding and competitive sector, and international banks wanting to compete in Geneva must be ready to achieve a level of excellence that includes reaching out for charitable and philosophical excellence. The world is more interconnected than ever, and what happens on one side of the globe can affect what happens on the other. Responsible banking demands looking beyond local concerns.

As just one example, La Banque SYZ, a star in Geneva private banking, has philanthropic ventures in Switzerland and throughout the world. They are committed to fostering new technological developments that will improve the environment and day-to-day life of people everywhere.

Many other Geneva private banks also have strong traditions of charity and philanthropy around the world. One common philanthropic outreach involves funding of schools around the world in developing countries. Initiatives involve taking steps to improve school enrollment and increasing the numbers of children that schools are able to educate.

Creating partnerships with small business start-ups in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa is another approach to Geneva banks to improving the conditions of millions around the world. The overall philosophy of the top Geneva banks is that excellence demands giving back and encouraging economic growth everywhere.

While Switzerland does not occupy a very big geographic size, it has developed its reputation as the center of international banking nonetheless. This is due to diligence, innovation, and the use of new technologies to make the most of the banking industry.

Some Geneva banks are quite traditional, and others are very innovative and forward-looking. But the ones that succeed are the ones that understand that the banking industry has an obligation to economic development and technological innovation no matter where in the world they are needed.

Socially responsible Geneva banking not only involves philanthropic giving, but also socially and ecologically responsible policies and investment strategies. Geneva’s economy is service-oriented and forward-reaching, and private banking there is an enormous part of both the economy and the culture.

A cosmopolitan city that was founded during Roman times, Geneva looks back on what has worked and looks forward for what will work in the future. Succeeding in the world of Geneva banking demands that banks do not isolate themselves from the world around them. Responsible investing and philanthropic and charitable outreach are necessary for a sustainable business in an increasingly interconnected world of business.