How can a person protect his savings against a country default?
The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered  a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there. "These have the potential to become ""end-of-the-world"" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid.  Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default.  Take Zimbabwe, for example.  Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies.  Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece." "Since you are going to be experiencing a liquidity crisis that even owning physical gold wouldn't solve, may I suggest bitcoins? You will still be liquid and people anywhere will be able to trade it. This is different from precious metals, whereas even if you ""invested"" in gold you would waste considerable resources on storage, security and actually making it divisible for trade. You would be illiquid. Do note that the bitcoin currency is currently more volatile than a Greek government bond."
"There's not nearly enough information here for anyone to give you good advice. Additionally, /r/personalfinance will probably be a bit more relevant and helpful for what you're asking.   Aside from that, if you don't know what you're doing, stay out of currency trading and mutual funds. If you don't care about losing your money, go right ahead and play in some markets, but remember there are people paid millions of dollars/year who don't make consistent profit.   What are the chances a novice with no training will perform well?  My $.02, pay your debt, make a general theory about the economy a year from now (e.g. ""Things will be worse in Europe than they are now"") and then invest your money in an index fund that matches that goal (e.g. Some sort of Europe-Short investment vehicle). Reassess a year from now and don't stress about it." Bank and most Credit Union deposit accounts (including CDs) are guaranteed by the Federal government by the FDIC and NCUA, respectively.  Some state-chartered credit unions use private insurance, you'll want to be careful about storing lots of money in those institutions. "Somehow I just stumbled onto this thread...  &gt; You essentially robbed the person holding the debt (since you promised to pay it off).   Depends on leverage, with fractional reserve lending.  Banks are permitted to loan out 30x their actual assets, or more.  If I have $1 but can loan out $30, and anything more than $1 gets paid back, I haven't lost any money.  In addition, I can write off the amount defaulted, *and the government will pay me back* for certain types of loans.  With student loans, since they are almost impossible to discharge, gov't will pursue the borrower for years and decades, and ultimately collect more interest.  Here is an article on it:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061953842079760.html  &gt; According to Kantrowitz, the government stands to earn $2,010.44 more in interest from a $10,000 loan that defaulted than if it had been paid in full over a 20-year term, and $6,522.00 more than if it had been paid back in 10 years. Alan Collinge, founder of borrowers' rights advocacy Student Loan Justice, said the high recovery rates provide a ""perverted incentive"" for the government to allow loans to go into default. Kantrowitz estimates the recovery rate would need to fall to below 50% in order for default prevention efforts to become more lucrative than defaults themselves.   Not to mention:  http://studentloanjustice.org/defaults-making-money.html  &gt; So essentially, the Department is given a choice:  Either do nothing and get nothing, or outlay cash with the knowledge that this outlay will realize a 22 percent return, ultimately (minus the governments cost of money and collection costs).  From this perspective, it is clear that based solely on financial motivations, and without specific detailed knowledge of the loan (i.e. borrower characteristics, etc.), the chooser would clearly favor the default scenario,  for not only the  return, but perhaps the potential savings in subsidy payment as well,     And don't forget the penalties accruing to the person defaulting; they will probably have to move out of the country in order to escape collection.  And let's factor in the huge ROI the lender sees by creating an indentured servant class.  Plus, the gov't will issue as much currency as it wants, to make *itself* whole.  And how much of a loss IS the loss, when the whole of the loan amount went right back into the local economy, paying professors, janitors, landlords, grocery stores, etc.?  And don't forget all THOSE taxes (income and sale) that the gov't collects.  Government will collect ~30%-50% of the loan immediately as income and sales tax, plus a portion of it every time the money changes hands (I pay income tax, then use some of my after-tax money to pay you for a product or service, and you still have to pay tax on that money, and so on).  So it's more complicated than having ""robbed the person holding the debt"".  Banks at 30x leverage don't lose money as long as they get back 1/30th of the total amount lent out, including interest, fees, and penalties, before considering write-offs and government repayment.  In fact, the point of over-leverage is so you CAN make loans that have risk attached.  If you could only lend what you actually had, you would have to stay away from anything risky because it would be too easy to lose money.  Having virtual $ to bet means you can serve market segments that have higher risk.  This makes MORE money for the banks, that's why they do it.  They are already playing with funny money, so they don't lose any even if you default and move to another country.  And the money you ""spent"" has also made its way back to them in various amounts, such as your professor's mortgage payments, auto loan, etc.  Your taking on debt already helped the bank get its OTHER loans repaid.  So, roughly speaking, if you took out $90,000 and $3,000 of that made its way back to the bank through various means, they haven't lost any money, because it only cost them $3,000 actual dollars in the first place." "Usually when the government defaults, the currency gets devalued. So as a debtor, that's a good thing -- your debt gets devalued. The ""catch"" is that your income and buying power is also devalued. So unless you happen to own the type of assets that become more valuable during those circumstances (real property, farms, utilities, certain industrial things, etc) you're looking at tough times ahead." "Sovereigns cannot go bankrupt. Basically, when a sovereign government (this includes nations and US States, probably political subdivisions in other countries as well) becomes insolvent, they default.  Sovereigns with the ability to issue new currency have the option to do so because it is politically expedient. Sovereigns in default will negotiate with creditor committees to reduce payments. Creditors with debt backed by the ""full faith and credit"" of the sovereign are generally first in line. Creditors with debt secured by revenue may be entitled to the underlying assets that provide the revenue. The value of your money in the bank in a deposit account may be at risk due to currency devaluation or bank failure. A default by a major country would likely lock up the credit markets, and you may see yourself in a situation where money market accounts actually fall in value." "This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment.   If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as *looong* as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets.  Heck, if you can take on even *more* debt at 3%, you should still do the same.  Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, *but*, doing so is effectively a form of ""loan"" to yourself.  We call the ""interest"" on that loan ""inflation"", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart).  So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%.  But someone has to *take* that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of.  There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much.  If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially ""invested"" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people." "Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means ""irregular deposit."" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (""give my money to a friend for safekeeping"") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (""how can I keep my money safe""). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is ""contract"". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for ""safekeeping,"" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss.  Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily ""safe"" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the ""irregular"" part of the concept of ""irregular deposit"" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for ""safekeeping"" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and ""withdraw"" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier.  And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides ""what you meant the money to be."" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court." Savings accounts have limitations in case a bank goes belly up and you have a higher amount in the account (more than the insured amount). Mostly big corporations or pension funds cannot rely on a bank to secure their cash but a government bond is secured (with some fine print) and hence they are willing to take negative interest rates. You can't both enforce saving and have access to the money -- from what you say, it's clear that if you can access the money you will spend it. Can you find an account that allows one withdrawal every six months but no more, which should help to cut down on the impulse buys but still let you get at your money in an emergency? "By protected you mean what exactly? In the US, generally you'd get a promissory note signed by B saying ""B promises to repay A such and such amount on such and such terms"". In case of default you can sue in a court of law, and the promissory note will be the evidence for your case. In case of B declaring bankruptcy, you'd submit the promissory note to the bankruptcy court to get in line with all the other creditors. Similarly in all the rest of the world, you make a contract, you enforce the contract in courts." "While you have asked for general principles, I am going to seize onto a specific example you gave in order to illustrate the difficulties here: Argentina. Argentina's bonds are probably not safer than US treasuries. Argentina is presently in the business of seizing foreign oil businesses (Repsol YPF) while championing leftist causes. At the very least this indicates an elevated level of political risk: S&P, which affirmed Argentina's ratings five notches into junk territory at B, said policies such as those enacted since the country's October presidential election could also weaken Argentina's macroeconomic framework and external liquidity... ""Actions of this type continue to shorten the economic planning horizon in the country and contribute to Argentina's deteriorating economic and political links with the international community."" -- ""S&P Lowers Argentina Outlook To Negative"". The Wall Street Journal, 23 April 2012 You're not going to be able to capture that sort of a risk with raw budget numbers. It's hard enough to figure out creditworthiness for a business; for an entire nation it's even harder. That's why credit-rating firms, as faulty as they may be, employ dozens of people to try and figure this sort of thing out. Additionally, there is a currency risk associated with buying bonds denominated in foreign currencies. It doesn't matter much if $nation repays all its bonds if they have so much inflation that the repayment is worth half of what it used to be (nor is it much help if your own nation's currency rises in value while your investment's value is stable elsewhere). Ultimately the value of a bond is ""how much money am I actually going to get back?"" and while operating a budget surplus isn't a bad sign in and of itself, it's hardly the complete picture. A fair accounting of the relative creditworthiness of any two nations needs to unite two massive fields of study: Macroeconomics and Politics. It is possible that the right sort of degree in economics, risk management, or a similar field of study could prepare you to know exactly what sort of research is necessary to make a meaningful analysis. :) Now, if you just want some commentary on which bonds are safe to buy, ask a credit-rating agency -- for example, read Standard and Poor's sovereign ratings - or find a mutual fund which may invest in international bonds at its own discretion and have someone else make the decisions." "to answer the question in the title of your post...  + convince your fellow Euro nations to accept austerity,  + convince them to elect responsible governments,  + demand transparency from your leaders, and...  + make sure this never ever happens again.   Alternatively, build a time machine and go back in time to either...  + immigrate to another part of the world,  + sabotage the corruption of the PIGS nations,  + prevent the formation of a shared currency, or finally,  + do something to ensure Germany didn't lose WWII, as letting them be in charge of everybody's money would appear to be a sound financial decision.   That is how you negate the impact of the Euro collapsing.  Now, on to the details of your question...  I believe your initial assessment is correct. If one accountable nation were responsible for the solvency of its currency, it could be trusted indefinitely. As is the case with the Euro, as no one country is directly responsible for it, the less responsible governments are in a race to exploit it as much as possible.  Remember, ""Spain no es Zimbabwe!""  I think Euro zone nations will be lucky if all that comes of this is the fall of the Euro. Wars between nations have been fought over less significant developments than what Greece, Italy and Spain have done to the financial stability of their Euro zone counterparts.  Foreign gold trusts, possession of physical precious metals and precious metal ETFs (GLD is one stock ticker of such a fund, although I would look to a similar fund issued by a company with better physical gold audits) can hedge your currency risk. Check with local laws regarding physical possession of gold. In the USA when we left the gold standard for our currency, the government confiscated all privately owned precious metals and raided customer bank security boxes. Assess your own risk of that sort of thing happening." Quality of life, success and happiness are three factors that are self define by each individual. Most of the time all three factors go hand by hand with your ability to generate wealth and save.  Actually, a recent study showed that there were more happy families with savings than with expensive products (car, jewelry and others).   These 3 factors, will be very difficult to maintain after someone commit such action. First, because you will fear every interaction with the origin of the money.  Second, because every individual has a notion of wrong doing.  Third, for the reasons that Jaydles express. Also, most cards, will call you and stop the cards ability to give money, if they see an abusive pattern. Ether, skipping your country has some adverse psychological impact in the family and individual that most of the time 100K is not enough to motivate such change.   Thanks for reading. Geo "I'll try to give you some clues on how to find an answer to your question, rather than answering directly the question asked.  Why not answer it directly? Well, I can, but it won't help you (or anyone else) much in two months when the rates change again. Generally, you won't find such in brick-and-mortar banks. You can save some time and only look at online banks. Examples: ING Direct (CapitalOne), CapitalOne, Amex FSB, E*Trade, Ally, etc. There are plenty. Go to their web sites, look for promotions, and compare. Sometimes you can find coupons/promotions which will yield more than the actual savings rate. For example, ING frequently have a $50 promotion for opening a new account. You need to understand that rates change frequently, and the highest rate account today may become barely average in a week. There are plenty of sites that offer various levels of comparison information. One of the most comprehensive ones (IMHO) is Bankrate.com. Another place to look is MoneyRates.com. These sites provide various comparisons, and you can also find some promotions advertised there. There are more similar sites. Also, search the Internet and you can find various blog posts with additional promotions – frequently banks give ""referral bonuses"" to provide incentive for clients to promote the banks. Do some due diligence on the results that appear promising. Not much. You won't find any savings account that would keep the value (purchasing power) of your money over the long term. Keeping money in savings accounts is a sure way to lose value because the inflation rate is much higher than even high-yield savings accounts. But, savings accounts are safe (insured by FDIC/NCUA up to the limit), and very convenient to keep short term savings – such as an emergency fund – that you cannot afford to lose to investments. Sometimes you'll get slightly better rates by locking up your money in a Certificate of Deposit (CD), but not significantly higher when the CD is short-term." Yes, the US dollar is the standard for all global trade - IMF driven  And China has been going for that title for the past decade and this is a very smart and tactical way to do it  If this goes through, gold &amp; oil might become really good place to be. The US has been in a supply run and kept the price of oil low.  Things are changing quick...