3 ms·

No one is giving them hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the terms and conditions of their website. There will be actual legal contracts to be signed, an

No one is giving them hundreds of thousands of dollars based on the terms and conditions of their website. There will be actual legal contracts to be signed, and those will be the relevant contracts in event of a problem occurring. Annoyingly, I cannot actually find their agreement on their website (which is annoying common for financial services), but I found what looks like their contract on a random third party site through google [0]. If you are actually considering giving them hundreds of thousands of dollars to manage, you could contact them and ask for a copy of their standard agreement. [0] https://agendasuite.org/iip/fannin/file/getfile/17288 https://agendasuite.org/iip/fannin/file/getfile/17288

Animats 4y ago
That's not much better. "... WE, INTRAFI, AND BNY MELLON WILL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR: (i) ANY LOSS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO A CAUSE OVER WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE DIRECT CONTROL, INCLUDING THE FAILURE OF ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR COMMUNICATION LINES, TELEPHONE OR OTHER INTERCONNECT PROBLEMS, UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS, THEFT, OPERATOR ERRORS, GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS, OR FORCE MAJEURE." Note that "theft" is in that list. If they had a "hack", it's not their problem. There's also the part where they are listed with BNY Mellon as the owner of the CDs. The customer is not, apparently, on BNY Mellon's records: "Each CD will be recorded (i) on the records of the Destination Institution in the name of BNY Mellon, as our sub-custodian, (ii) on the records of BNY Mellon in our name, as your custodian, and (iii) on our records in your name." Remember, what IntraFi is doing has to work when the financial system is under extreme stress. Otherwise, it's pointless.
- gizmo686 4y ago
  I assume it goes without saying, but this is not legal advice. Speak with an actual lawyer before signing contracts for this magnitude of money. You also skipped out on: > SUBJECT TO OUR REIMBURSEMENT OBLIGATION IN SECTION 9.3(b), AND EXCEPT AS MAY BE OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW 9.3(b): > If all or part of your deposit at a Destination Institution is uninsured because of our failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 9.3(a), and if the Destination Institution fails and you do not otherwise recover the uninsured portion, we will reimburse you for your documented loss of the uninsured portion that you do not otherwise recover. 9.3(a): > We will maintain, directly or through a Service Provider, appropriate records of our placements for you. We will not place deposits for you through the CD Option at a Destination Institution that is the subject of a theneffective exclusion on your Exclusions List, at a Destination Institution that is the subject of a theneffective rejection by you, or at a Destination Institution under one Depositor Identifier in an amount that exceeds the SMDIA IntraFi is there to solve a specific problem: working around the size limitations of the FDIC. > Note that "theft" is in that list. If they had a "hack", it's not their problem. If that "hack" did not effect their records of your deposits, then it really isn't your problem. They know what money is owed to you and who is holding it. If it does effect their records, they are liable because of their 9.3(a) obligation for maintaining records. If a third party bank is hacked, you are correct that they are excluding themselves from direct liability. They do, however, have evidence that that bank owes you money. If the bank is unable to pay its liabilities (of which you are one), then they are a failed bank, and FDIC kicks in to reimburse you. It is also worth remembering that financial crises thus far have always been economic issues. They have not been the result of the underlying infrastructure powering the financial sector failing. The financial system being "under extreme stress" does not imply that their computer systems are having any problems.
  - Animats 4y ago
    > we will reimburse you But they probably won't have the money. IntraFi isn't that big. You're just an ordinary creditor of a bankrupt company at that point. This is a generic problem with non-bank financial intermediaries. "Who's the counter party?"

Animats 4y ago

That's not much better. "... WE, INTRAFI, AND BNY MELLON WILL NOT HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR: (i) ANY LOSS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO A CAUSE OVER WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE DIRECT CONTROL, INCLUDING THE FAILURE OF ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR COMMUNICATION LINES, TELEPHONE OR OTHER INTERCONNECT PROBLEMS, UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS, THEFT, OPERATOR ERRORS, GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS, OR FORCE MAJEURE." Note that "theft" is in that list. If they had a "hack", it's not their problem. There's also the part where they are listed with BNY Mellon as the owner of the CDs. The customer is not, apparently, on BNY Mellon's records: "Each CD will be recorded (i) on the records of the Destination Institution in the name of BNY Mellon, as our sub-custodian, (ii) on the records of BNY Mellon in our name, as your custodian, and (iii) on our records in your name." Remember, what IntraFi is doing has to work when the financial system is under extreme stress. Otherwise, it's pointless.

gizmo686 4y ago
I assume it goes without saying, but this is not legal advice. Speak with an actual lawyer before signing contracts for this magnitude of money. You also skipped out on: > SUBJECT TO OUR REIMBURSEMENT OBLIGATION IN SECTION 9.3(b), AND EXCEPT AS MAY BE OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW 9.3(b): > If all or part of your deposit at a Destination Institution is uninsured because of our failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 9.3(a), and if the Destination Institution fails and you do not otherwise recover the uninsured portion, we will reimburse you for your documented loss of the uninsured portion that you do not otherwise recover. 9.3(a): > We will maintain, directly or through a Service Provider, appropriate records of our placements for you. We will not place deposits for you through the CD Option at a Destination Institution that is the subject of a theneffective exclusion on your Exclusions List, at a Destination Institution that is the subject of a theneffective rejection by you, or at a Destination Institution under one Depositor Identifier in an amount that exceeds the SMDIA IntraFi is there to solve a specific problem: working around the size limitations of the FDIC. > Note that "theft" is in that list. If they had a "hack", it's not their problem. If that "hack" did not effect their records of your deposits, then it really isn't your problem. They know what money is owed to you and who is holding it. If it does effect their records, they are liable because of their 9.3(a) obligation for maintaining records. If a third party bank is hacked, you are correct that they are excluding themselves from direct liability. They do, however, have evidence that that bank owes you money. If the bank is unable to pay its liabilities (of which you are one), then they are a failed bank, and FDIC kicks in to reimburse you. It is also worth remembering that financial crises thus far have always been economic issues. They have not been the result of the underlying infrastructure powering the financial sector failing. The financial system being "under extreme stress" does not imply that their computer systems are having any problems.
- Animats 4y ago
  > we will reimburse you But they probably won't have the money. IntraFi isn't that big. You're just an ordinary creditor of a bankrupt company at that point. This is a generic problem with non-bank financial intermediaries. "Who's the counter party?"