Talk:Tangerine Bank

POV
Dear editors that seem to work for either Tangerine, ING or Scotiabank, please abstain from making edits to this article, unless correcting a glaring factual error. Doing so raises a question of your neutrality, which is paramount to the purposes of wikipedia (WP:NPOV). If you feel something is missing, discuss it here and someone without POV will edit for you. -- Truther2012 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Founding Date
Tangerine (pka ING Bank of Canada) was founded in 2012 as a Schedule I bank. ING Bank of Canada (aka ING Direct Canada) started doing business in Canada in 1997 as a Schedule II bank (ie a Foreign Bank in Canada). This article is about Tangerine, a Canadian Schedule I bank, therefore, the founding date should be 2012. Objections? --Truther2012 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The bank is keeping the same transit and institution numbers (00152-614), so logically, it's the same bank as the one that was founded in 1997, except that it changed name and schedule (from Schedule II to Schedule I). Unless you have a source saying that a separate bank was founded in 2012, I believe the founding date should be reinstated as 1997. AirOdyssey (Talk) 13:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Me again. Your own source says that ING Bank of Canada was Schedule I. It is therefore not a separate bank. It is safe to assume that it went from Schedule II to Schedule I when the sale to Scotiabank was completed and it ceased to be foreign, but continued to operate as ING Bank of Canada until they got their new name. AirOdyssey (Talk) 13:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, my source says they were Schedule I as of 2012, but Schedule II as of 2011. The importance here is that Schedule II are foreign banks, and Schedule I - domestic. When a bank stops being foreign and becomes domestic - I call it different bank. Also, the old version of OSFI's website showed their founding date as per Schedule change. Unfortunately, the new version does not have founding dates (I recognise, it is my onus to find a new or the old source), but my point is that the methodology is valid. --15:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Truther2012 (talk)