Agreed … though in the same vein, we should also not over-dramatize?
1 Like
Agreed.
A private banker knows the client personally so the example you outline seems very low risk.
Edit: even my local Raiffeisen, where I know the staff, called me when I made a top up payment to my 2nd Pillar
(In theory probably AI can impersonate my voice but I haven’t heard of that kind of fraud happening very often)
1 Like
Funny. I’m at Raiffeisen, too, and when I made my last top-up payments into pillar 2 in 2019 and 2020 with high six figure amounts, I didn’t get a call from my branch. 
I believe even if they did call me, I haven’t seen them in about 20 years or so, and the few times I did talk with them on the phone wouldn’t be enough for them to verify me by voice.
At any rate, I wasn’t trying to describe a likely scenario, just wanted to point out that there are always ways …
(even though I’ll say that I think in this thread there’s already a little too much of things-that-could-go wrong. )
Dutch banks compensate in case of fraudulent actions, even in cased when you were tricked to transfer money yourself. See in Dutch https://www.consumentenbond.nl/acties/vergoed-bank-oplichting
Consumentenbond is a reputable source.
It is even not the case that your credentials are stolen. Some hackers used a replica of login page of a bank to trick you enter your credentials there.
Translated by google:
At the request of Minister of Finance Wopke Hoekstra, the Dutch banks ABN AMRO, Rabobank, ING and De Volksbank have agreed on a minimum framework within which compensation is given to victims of spoofing. The rules apply retroactively from January 1, 2020. In order to achieve compensation, according to the banks, there must be demonstrable and convincing evidence of misuse of the bank’s name or telephone number. In addition, the victim must have reported the incident to the police. The victim must also provide a copy of the official report to the bank. According to the banks, there should be no gross negligence on the part of the customer. The banks still have to work out exactly what this gross negligence entails. Hoekstra emphasizes that the agreed framework is a minimum framework and that individual banks are free to show more compliance with spoofing victims.
2 Likes
(Probably) Minority optionion: I would hate to be the customer of such a bank.
Who pays for the insurance of a customer being compensated if they get hacked? The other customers of the bank via higher fees…
2 Likes
Well, the whole point of insurance is to cover low probability high impact events. I don’t insure my movable belongings like furniture and appliances, but insure the house against damages like fire. Appliances are relatively cheap, can replace them myself, but the house is in the order of life savings. I think insuring your capital for peanuts is a good deal. A very good one.
Sure, all I’m saying is I’d prefer having a choice of whether I want to insure against me falling victim to fraud at my bank.
You’re a customer at the bank and want insurance for you falling victim to fraud? Great, be my guest, and pay for it (yourself).
Me, customer at the same bank, doesn’t want insurance for me falling victim to fraud, I don’t want to pay for this insurance.
2 Likes
I pay 3 Euro per month for the banking service, which includes that insurance. It is dirt cheap.
The AUM fee for holding portfolio is 0,24% for the first 100k, and further 0,12% with a cap of 400 Euro per year. Unpleasant, but this fee will not make you poor. The problem is that the investment vehicles at the bank are either ESG or leak DWT. So my UCITS part of the portfolio is some 0,5% per year more expensive than my VT at IBIE. That is very unpleasant and has a long-term impact on wealth accumulation.
3 Likes
Well, you see, if you squint a little ESG is just like forced insurance by politicians and asset managers against the low probability high impact event of humanity going extinct and the planet possibly disappearing soon - everyone should pay up (a little) for this eventuality!
(I am being facetious)
I’m with you on the ESG milking of investors, but at least investors have a choice and can move their funds to investment vehicles from ESG to something with less fees … I do.
In the Netherlands the world is turned upside down. The most known ESG fund, Northern Trust MSCI WORLD Custom ESG has a TER of 0,15% and claims almost all witholding taxes paid at the source (it looses some 0,1% per year somewhere, but that besides the point). So it is on par with VT, which costs 0,195% per year if you take onto account DWT of non-US companies.
Compare it to Vanguard Institutional Plus MSCI World, which has a TER of 0,11%, but leaks 0,36% in DWT… A cry… ESG turns out to be the cheapest option in NL…
2 Likes
Any idea why this specific fund can claim back taxes and others cannot ?
The ability to return level 1 DWT to the investor is specific to the Dutch fiscal system. In principle, all NL domiciled funds can do the trick. There are many NL domiciled index funds, but they are ALL ESG, with NT funds applying the least intrusive screens.
I can explain how this works, but it is specific to the Netherlands, of no replication in othet jurisdictions.
The point is that if you wish tax efficiency, then it must be article 8 or 9 sustainable investment.
2 Likes
Thanks. It’s clear
So basically Dutch system works like Swiss pension fund system.
But is it to promote sustainable investments ?
The Dutch system indeed promotes sustainable investing. But it is unlikely that it has any impact, as ESG screens are likely effective only in enriching fund providers. The naivety of the population is huge in this respect…
Miladies, sirs, hear me out … invest in Dutch and Swiss institutional asset managers!
They’ll for sure shave off the ESG fee cream floating on the top of the investors milking into the pension fund system.
At least for a while. Until the next fee extracting theme comes along.
Not sure what you mean. But pension funds investment is not by choice. People need to contribute to pension anyways
Oh, sorry for being unclear: my statement is completely orthogonal to people needing to contribute to their pension fund and having (almost) no choice in how their contributions are invested.
Looking at things from the perspective of companies that invest money on behalf of people that “give” them money in order to invest it:
There are companies that specialize in investing money for institutional investors (like pension funds). If pension funds in NL and CH prefer investing in ESG concious funds, then those companies offering ESG concious funds for institutional investors would profit via additional (ESG) fees?
Though, actually, as I just wrote this and reflect on it, I update my theory on-the-fly: because all companies offering products for institutional investors need to provide ESG products, the upside boils down close to zero because of competition between these asset allocators providing ESG compatible investable funds.
Renewed investment advice: invest into companies that sell ESG data to the institutional investors that need to provide ESG compatible products to their investors.
Unfortunately, most of these companies are already in an oligopoly of being market data providers (MSCI, FactSet, etc) and ESG is just another fencepost in their already well staked moat of their business.
Regardless: the additional fees coughed up by investors remain in the universe of the financial sectors.
PS: Please take this all with a grain of salt. I’m just here to provide serious entertainment in a topic that seems to sometimes provide unserious entertainment. 
2 Likes
So, to summarize on how to keep your money safe:
- Choose a properly regulated bank or broker (can’t do much wrong, unless you invest with crypto traders or start-up fintech’s). I myself want my broker to be registered in Switzerland, but that is more for personal comfort than following an actual reasoning.
- Keep your money invested at all time (remember that money market funds exist if you don’t want to invest otherwise)
- Keep your remaining cash below regulatory insured deposits per bank or broker (100k CHF in Switzerland, 100k EUR in the EU, 85k GBP in UK, 250k USD in USA).
- Follow all typical recommendations on personal cyber security. If you don’t trust yourself, insure against the risk of a cyber attack or fraud. Offering in Switzerland is still pretty useless with regards to maximum insured amounts and highly overprized, but at least improving every year. Many offer 20k CHF (cheapest being Baloise for around 30 CHF per year), up to 50k CHF is now possible (Zurich for around 230 CHF per year). Only sensible offer is Postfinance, which includes 100k CHF insurance for free with all their accounts.
What is therefore the best choice for a risk averse investor in Switzerland? Postfinance: Swiss regulated, low-ish fees for a Swiss broker (caped and credited as trading credits), good offering (it’s Swissquote in the background), unique cyber security offering and de-facto still having a state guarantee (not formally anymore, but still classified as too big to fail and fully state owned).
Should you put all eggs in one basket as asked? Yes. If you follow the above, there is no need to split your funds.
1 Like
That‘s an INSANE fee to me.
400/ year over 30 years at 8% are
48,880
That‘s what you pay here.
3 Likes