Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
Page 1
  • ps646566
    • #2
    • 18th Mar 08, 5:01 PM
    • #2
    • 18th Mar 08, 5:01 PM
    I would argue that, regardless of the FSCS, savings with UK based institutions are inherently safer. As Northern Rock showed, HMG cannot afford a UK institution of any size and significance to go under because the political, financial, and economic ramifications are just too awful for it to contemplate. If however a bank in, for example, Iceland, India, or Nigeria were to fail then the situation is much less clear cut for the British investor. It could take a very long time and involve a great deal of time, effort, and stress to recover all money invested up to £35,000.
    I blame Blair
  • 1echidna
    • #3
    • 18th Mar 08, 6:37 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Mar 08, 6:37 PM
    I would argue that, regardless of the FSCS, savings with UK based institutions are inherently safer. As Northern Rock showed, HMG cannot afford a UK institution of any size and significance to go under because the political, financial, and economic ramifications are just too awful for it to contemplate. If however a bank in, for example, Iceland, India, or Nigeria were to fail then the situation is much less clear cut for the British investor. It could take a very long time and involve a great deal of time, effort, and stress to recover all money invested up to £35,000.
    Originally posted by ps646566
    I can understand the time (and my situation is that I can afford to wait for the machinations of the FSCS) but why effort or stress? The FCCS surely does not expect the individual investor to assist in recovering monies available in the event of failure by a foreign bank operating under the scheme?
    • bryanb
    • By bryanb 18th Mar 08, 6:52 PM
    • 4,764 Posts
    • 3,470 Thanks
    bryanb
    • #4
    • 18th Mar 08, 6:52 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Mar 08, 6:52 PM
    Is Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp a UK institution?
    This is an open forum, anyone can post and I just did !
    • rosy
    • By rosy 18th Mar 08, 7:11 PM
    • 636 Posts
    • 840 Thanks
    rosy
    • #5
    • 18th Mar 08, 7:11 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Mar 08, 7:11 PM
    Can I ask -hoping it's a theoretical question - if a British bank did have to be bailed out by the government and be nationalised, would you retain all of your savings in it or would you lose everything over the protected £35000?
  • Stavros
    • #6
    • 18th Mar 08, 7:25 PM
    • #6
    • 18th Mar 08, 7:25 PM
    The FSA would gaurantee the first 35k, 'technically' speaking after that its a gonner. BUT. I doubt that this government would allow a UK bank to go under and seeing scenes of thousands of customers queuing outside banks again like we saw with the panic caused over the Northern Rock, I would expect the Chancellor (after changing his crap stained underpants) to re-assure customers that their savings are safe
    Liquidity is when you look at your investment portfolio and **** your pants
    • Aegis
    • By Aegis 18th Mar 08, 8:18 PM
    • 4,745 Posts
    • 2,813 Thanks
    Aegis
    • #7
    • 18th Mar 08, 8:18 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Mar 08, 8:18 PM
    Is Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp a UK institution?
    Originally posted by bryanb
    Vaguely, yes

    It's quoted on the UK stock market anyway (among others!)
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser
    Anything I say on the forum is for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as personal financial advice. It is vitally important to do your own research before acting on information gathered from any users on this forum.
    • awadan
    • By awadan 18th Mar 08, 9:26 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    awadan
    • #8
    • 18th Mar 08, 9:26 PM
    What about building societies?
    • #8
    • 18th Mar 08, 9:26 PM
    OK I understand the rules for the FSCS for banks but does this also work for building societies?
    :confused:
    • Aegis
    • By Aegis 18th Mar 08, 9:36 PM
    • 4,745 Posts
    • 2,813 Thanks
    Aegis
    • #9
    • 18th Mar 08, 9:36 PM
    • #9
    • 18th Mar 08, 9:36 PM
    Yup, same scheme, same terms.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser
    Anything I say on the forum is for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as personal financial advice. It is vitally important to do your own research before acting on information gathered from any users on this forum.
    • Exo
    • By Exo 18th Mar 08, 10:07 PM
    • 174 Posts
    • 75 Thanks
    Exo
    I would argue that, regardless of the FSCS, savings with UK based institutions are inherently safer. As Northern Rock showed, HMG cannot afford a UK institution of any size and significance to go under because the political, financial, and economic ramifications are just too awful for it to contemplate. If however a bank in, for example, Iceland, India, or Nigeria were to fail then the situation is much less clear cut for the British investor. It could take a very long time and involve a great deal of time, effort, and stress to recover all money invested up to £35,000.
    Originally posted by ps646566
    I do not follow your logic that investing in British banks is safer than foriegn ones, assuming of course the foriegn banks conform to the FSCS.
    It could be argued that the economies in China and India are far stronger than the UK, so ICICI looks a safer bet in comparison to Alliance and Leicester.

    If a bank did go under, then the saver may have a wait to recover his/her money via the FSCS, regardless of the location of the bank in question.

    From your other posts on this forum, you seem to be averse to investing outside the UK.
    Without competition from foriegn banks, do you think those in the UK would still be competing at the same level of 6% - 6.5% for savers?

    I think the USA and British banks have been quite reckless with their investments/risks. They seem to be meeting target levels in order to sustain their high bonus payouts. Common sense and risk assessment seemed to be well down their check list. They seemed to be totally removed from the real world and their glass bubble has finally broken.
    Last edited by Exo; 18-03-2008 at 10:17 PM.
  • Meltdown
    Can I ask -hoping it's a theoretical question - if a British bank did have to be bailed out by the government and be nationalised, would you retain all of your savings in it or would you lose everything over the protected £35000?
    Originally posted by rosy
    Clearly not theoretical (nor hypothetical).
    Northern Rock was a British bank, bailed out by the government, and then nationalised. Depositors with NR have retained all their savings, and received a bonus to their interest rate for staying put.

    It's when a bank goes completely bust (bankrupt), and isn't taken over lock stock and barrel, that the compensation scheme will kick in.
  • Meltdown
    I would expect the Chancellor (after changing his crap stained underpants) to re-assure customers that their savings are safe
    Originally posted by Stavros
    Just a thought ...
    Does anyone know what Messers (yes, that's the correct spelling ) Brown and Darling do about their savings. Clearly Brown is unlikely to keep Gold ...
  • ianmr65
    1) There is pretty much no such thing as a 'british' bank anymore - This is not 1950. All the major high street names, have share capital spread all over the place. are run by americans, and are active in dozens if not hundreds of countries, and depend on global markets for their financing. They are international banks who are headquarteted in the UK

    The are as British, as Ford, or Shell, or Macdonalds.

    2) The british governement is no more capable of nationalising Barclays or HSBC, or any bank other that A&L or B&B than I am.
    Even HBOS, which is small by comparison, still has an asset/liability base of £650bn a market cap of £20bn , and they print bank notes which are legal tender!!! would be too big to nationalise.

    So say hbos goes down, you honestly belive the goverment, can cover a liabillity base that is a quarter of the UKs GDP.


    3) Northern rock was a one off. A provincial little bank, with ideas above it's station, who played in the big boy's playground and got burnt.

    4) The FCSC scheme aims to pay out within 6 months, but if they sums required exceed £4BN, it reserves the right to call on the goverement to make a desicion, about compensation.

    So what's riskier, a huge bank, which if it goes down... the goverment / world are impotent to do anything about it, the bigger they are the harder they fall. Too much for the fcsa to pay out on. Mass panic.

    Or a small bank covered by two schemes one in the uk, and one in the HQ country. With a smaller asset base. That can easily be managed / or taken over by a larger rival, or nationlised.

    You pay your money, you take your choice.
  • ianmr65
    Just a thought ...
    Does anyone know what Messers (yes, that's the correct spelling ) Brown and Darling do about their savings. Clearly Brown is unlikely to keep Gold ...
    Originally posted by Meltdown

    Allister darling has or had a Northern Rock Mortgage , which may help shed some light.
  • Meltdown
    from the MSE article ...
    Q. Will my bank/building society will go bust?
    A. In the first incarnation of this article, in September 2007, my answer was "extraordinarily, unthinkably, ridiculously unlikely", now I believe it is "unlikely".
    Didn't that original article include something along the lines of :
    "It is as unthinkable as Cardiff City winning the F.A. Cup" ... or something like that.
    Last edited by Meltdown; 18-03-2008 at 11:36 PM. Reason: Yes, I know it was Accrington Stanley, but hey ...
  • 1echidna
    Re Ianmr65

    Could any government actually admit that it was impotent though? Surely not in the nature of governments especially British ones to admit impotence? Wouldn't they just print money?
    Last edited by 1echidna; 18-03-2008 at 11:28 PM.
  • ianmr65
    Re Ianmr65

    Could any government actually admit that it was impotent though? Surely not in the nature of governments especially British ones to admit impotence? Wouldn't they just print money?
    Originally posted by 1echidna
    That's what the US fed is doing right now. Printing money to stave off recession, and it only just, just managed to pull off deal for it's fifth biggest investment bank.

    In the case of the UK they'd spin it and would ceratinly not admit that they were too impotent, but they could never do it. And Certainly in the case of HSBC, Barclays, and Lloyds, and RBS would not be allowed to by the Fed and the ECB.
  • jamesd
    This is misleading because it is in a section writing about the FSCS: "if you put money in stocks and shares, funds that invest in them, and pension funds, then you’ve got a “risk based” investment NOT savings, and this protection doesn't apply".

    The FSCS does protect investments. While it's true that the 35,000 savings part of FSCS doesn't apply to investments, the investment protection limit is 100% of the first 30,000 plus 90% of the next 20,000. The trustee arrangement in pensions and unit trusts and OEICs gives an additional layer of protection from problems with fund managers, since the trustee is holding the assets in your name, not the name of the fund manager.

    Instead of writing this in a section about the FSCS it would perhaps be clearer to put it before that, saying that the article is not writing about the FSCS and other protections that may apply to investments.

    The following headings need English correction "Will my bank/building society will go bust?" and "How do I ensure get 100% safety?".
    Last edited by jamesd; 19-03-2008 at 9:36 PM. Reason: corrected FSCS protection limit for investments
  • ps646566
    I can understand the time (and my situation is that I can afford to wait for the machinations of the FSCS) but why effort or stress? The FCCS surely does not expect the individual investor to assist in recovering monies available in the event of failure by a foreign bank operating under the scheme?
    Originally posted by 1echidna
    It's never been put to the test has it. I can just foresee all sorts of obstacles in a situation where HMG has no vested interest in keeping the lid on things. For my part the difference in interest rates is not worth the risk in today's climate. Other people obviously think differently. Each to their own.
    I blame Blair
    • murphydavid
    • By murphydavid 19th Mar 08, 8:19 AM
    • 540 Posts
    • 124 Thanks
    murphydavid
    Domino
    Why really did the government bail out Northern Rock? They fear the domino effect. It is almost certain that if one bank is allowed to fall then there will be a mad panic to withdraw money from a lot of banks. They would almost certainly fail. The FSCS would be overwhelmed. This way leads to madness!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

71Posts Today

3,091Users online

Martin's Twitter