Proof of funds - do I need the minimum in the past months?

[pplupo]

I read somewhere that I need to provide a history of my bank account funds as proof that I have at least the minimum required for immediate use.

Most of my money is in investments. I can get the money back into my account in 24h. So the lack of money isn't really the issue. The problem is with the account history. If I take the money from the investment, the account history will show that I didn't have enough in the previous months, only in the current month. Would that be a problem?

 

[TanakaM]

I read somewhere that I need to provide a history of my bank account funds as proof that I have at least the minimum required for immediate use.

Most of my money is in investments. I can get the money back into my account in 24h. So the lack of money isn't really the issue. The problem is with the account history. If I take the money from the investment, the account history will show that I didn't have enough in the previous months, only in the current month. Would that be a problem?

Hi,

You don't necessarily need to have the funds in your account for a specified period of time or for 6 months as per popular belief. The idea is just to prove that the funds are yours and not borrowed. This is normally shown by having little or no difference between the current and 6 months average balance, however, if there is a significant difference you need to show the source of your funds. In your case this will be details of your investments and proof of their conversion into cash (bank statement).

So to answer your question, this wont be a problem.

All the best