Tag Archives: The Nestmann Group

Related Reading: Another Take On ‘Old’ Gold Coins Being Better Than Bullion Against Confiscation

Earlier this week I discussed two recent blog posts by economist Martin Armstrong concerning what he thinks is the most effective way to possess and retain physical gold in the face of government confiscation.

My understanding was “genuine old coins,” as:

Coins are better than bullion for they have some historical value. Their historical value could be an excuse to prevent confiscation if government simply declares that “gold is for criminals,” as they are trying to do with cash…

Another take on this comes from offshore expert Mark Nestmann, head of Phoenix, Arizona-based The Nestmann Group, who pointed out the following on The Silver Bear Cafe website some time ago:

Some coin dealers claim that numismatic (collector) coins would be exempt from any future government confiscation of gold and silver. This claim is based on the terms of Roosevelt’s 1933 emergency order, which specifically exempted “coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.”

Some firms say that premiums of at least 15% over the spot price of bullion magically turn coins “numismatic.” This notion is based on a proposed federal regulation issued in 1984, but never adopted. Other dealers claim that coins 100 years or older are automatically converted to numismatic status.

It’s beyond me why anyone takes these claims seriously. Why would a government that stole its citizens’ property in 1933 be consistent when it does so again?

Nothing obliges the federal government to pay by the same set of “rules” it imposed 75 years go. Nothing obliges the federal government to honor the terms of a proposed regulation issued a quarter century ago. And naturally, those rules can change at any time

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

What Nestmann wrote has stuck with me as I keep coming across the debate over what makes a coin “numismatic.” I even stumbled on the following just the other night on the website of a company offering asset protection services:

For a coin to be numismatic, its retail price must be double the value of its metal content.

Perhaps all for naught, according to Nestmann?

An insightful piece (he does espouse positioning “some gold and silver bullion outside the United States, preferably in a safety deposit box or a private vault”), which you can read in its entirety here on The Silver Bear Cafe site. For more information about The Nestmann Group, visit their website here.

By Christopher E. Hill
Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes (www.offshoresafedepositboxes.com)

(Editor’s note: The mention of businesses above should not be construed as confirmation of services claimed to be provided or any sort of recommendation. A qualified professional should be consulted prior to making a financial decision based on material found in this weblog. If this recommended course of action is not pursued, then it must be understood that the decision is the reader’s and the reader’s alone. Christopher E. Hill, the creator/Editor of this blog, is not responsible for any personal liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence of the use and application, either directly or indirectly, of any information presented on the site.)

Share

Canada Introducing Bank ‘Bail-In’ Legislation

As concerns grow about the health of the global economy, ‘bail-in’ programs look to proliferate outside Europe. Leah Schnurr reported Tuesday afternoon on the Reuters website:

Canada will introduce legislation to implement a “bail-in” regime for systemically important banks that would shift some of the responsibility for propping up failing institutions to creditors.

The proposed plan outlined in the federal budget released on Tuesday would allow authorities to convert eligible long-term debt of a failing lender into common shares in order to recapitalize the bank, allowing it to remain operating.

The plan is in line with international efforts to address the potential risks to the financial system from institutions that are deemed too big to fail, the budget document said…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Funny how I just talked last night about “bail-ins” as part of a growing global trend of government/banking system wealth confiscation. Again, from the section entitled “Why Offshore Private Vaults” on this blog’s sister site

• Germany, July 2014, plans approved for creditor (may also mean depositor) bail-in of banks beginning in 2015, a year earlier than required under European-wide plans setting rules for failing financial institutions
• In November 2014, the G-20 Group of Nations endorsed a proposal which offshore experts The Nestmann Group says “profoundly changes the rules for banking globally, and not in a good way. Deposits in banks that are ‘too big to fail’ will be ‘promptly recapitalized’ with their ‘unsecured debt.’ This avoids those nasty taxpayer-funded bailouts that proved so politically unpopular during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. And the largest chunk of unsecured debt is your bank deposits. Insolvent banks will recapitalize themselves by converting your deposits- checking accounts, but also money market accounts and CDs- into stock. Thus, when you deposit money in a bank, you’re taking the same risk as someone buying a stock.”
• European Union, January 2016, new EU bank bail-in procedures implemented on New Year’s Day via the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive. Central to the BRRD is the single resolution mechanism. The European Council (EU institution that defines the general political direction and priorities of the European Union ) said in a November 30, 2015, press release, “The single resolution mechanism (SRM) is aimed at ensuring the orderly resolution of failing banks without recourse to taxpayers’ money. This will involve both a systematic recourse to the bail-in of shareholders and creditors, in line with the EU’s directive on bank recovery and resolution, and the possible recourse to the SRF…” Note that bit about “creditors.” From my research on the subject, it has been argued that the terms “creditors” and “depositors” are interchangeable. As such, depositors may be on the hook for a future EU bank bail-in as a result of this new setup.

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Could depositors be targeted in a future Canadian bank bail-in as a result of this coming legislation? Is there a scenario where assets stored in bank safe deposit boxes might also be threatened? It’s too early to tell at this point.

Stay tuned…

By Christopher E. Hill
Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes (www.offshoresafedepositboxes.com)

(Editor’s note: A qualified professional should be consulted prior to making a financial decision based on information found in this weblog. If this recommended course of action is not pursued, then it must be understood that the decision is the reader’s and the reader’s alone. Christopher E. Hill, the creator/Editor of this blog, is not responsible for any personal liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence of the use and application, either directly or indirectly, of any information presented on the site.)

Source:

Schnurr, Leah. “Canada to introduce ‘bail-in’ bank recapitalization legislation.” Reuters. 22 Mar. 2016. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-budget-banks-idUSKCN0WO2Y5). 23 Mar. 2016.

Share