Icesave- Martin is wrong.

Would agree there's been a huge amount of rubbish from saloon bar pundits pretending to be experts on international finance both about Icelandic and about UK banks.

As a punter observing Northern Northern Rock it was obvious that what ultimately caused its demise was an old-fashioned bank run when confidence collapsed and not because it was involved in sub-prime mortgages.

Sadly it can't be ignored that baseless or not, it's sentiment and lack of confidence that takes banks and currencies down regardless of underlying figures. The Icelandic krona has nose-dived largely because it was thought to be heading in that direction and that becomes self-fullfilling.

UK savers were saved from loses in NR because the UK government politically couldn't allow that to happen to UK citizens. If the same happened to a foreign bank the reaction wouldn't be the same and so the question would be what reponsibility the home government felt towards the citizens of another country without votes.

Whenever anyone places their money with someone else there's some degree of risk. That's why investors are prepared to accept lower rates from government stocks. Each investor has to assess the risk/benefit for their own situation.

(I think it would also be useful if the PR person from Icesave who is obviously reading this thread and what calisto posted about the delays or stalling when he wanted to move his money from Icesave gave an explanation rather than just the platitudes.)

ianmr65 wrote: »

I assume you are refering to banks like:

HSBC - The hong kong and shaghai bank corporation
Abbey - which is owned by the spanish santander group.
Barclays, the bulk of who's share holder are 'foreign' and which operates in 150 countries, with an American CEO, and chair.

And who are all by a long way, far to big for the UK goverment to rescue.

All a goverment can do is to try help stop a failure. If a bank is going down fast and hard nothing in the world is gonna stop it.

Or do you think Gordon is going to wave a big magic wand?

Indeed the political calculations for different banks would be different. No surprise there.

Lavendyr wrote: »

there is not great cause for concern if you have £35k or less with Icesave.

With that I doubt anyone would disagree. There is no doubt that at some point those with less than £35K would be compensated.

RayWolfe wrote: »

Earlgrey, can't you see that you're flogging a dead horse?
There are people here who not only have entrenched opinions but also have a vested interest in shouting contrary opinions.
Do you remember whistling in the dark when you were a nipper? Some people are still in that frame of mind.
Thank you for your sensible caveats and let's all hope that, for the sake of all of us, that the concerns that you rightly raise, come to nothing.

I think you're right Ray.

I really don't want to spook or unduely influence anyone but does bother me when people are being told here that the statement from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme about possible complications was just their opinion and not worth more than anyone else's. Don't think it helps savers make sensible decisions either to circulate rumours about other institutions as some form of defence or post cartoons suggesting that NR is about to be sold off and anyone leaving Icesave is a lemming jumping to its death.

Some would rather hear what they'd like to believe so kindest to let them do that.