Icesave-please help/advice!!!!

homer_J123

Myself and my partner have a joint account with Icesave.

For arguments sake, we'll say we've got £20k in that join account.

I have a cash ISA with Icesave (value say of £12k)

My partner has a cash ISA with Icesave (value say of £12k)

How does the FSCS work in this scenario?

bazster

homer_J123 wrote: »

Having re-read this piece several times, I've come to the conclusion that acutally there is absolutely NOTHING here that confirms that Icesave is going bankrupt.

Looks like a completely re-hashed piece.

Anyone else feel the same?

Clicky...

Correct, there's nothing new there, same as other sites (BBC, The Times) have been saying since lunchtime. You *might* have to claim, nothing concrete.

Scooby64

richleeds wrote: »

I presume no ISA interest will be paid if we have to claim compensation and we will have to be happy with getting our initial investment back only?

I don't think so - interest is acruued daily, so you should get back what you put in + the acruued interest up to the point when it went into liquidation (WHICH HASN'T HAPPENED YET!) - up to a max of £50K

bazaarboy

jm104 wrote: »

I got through to Icesave first thing this morning and they did say everyone would get everything up to £50k back and all tranfers up until this morning were going through but how definite this is I don't know - we just need someone to say something that is not supposition!

... jm104, I wouldn't trust anything Icesave employees say...
The first £16k of all investors is very much at risk right now. The shambolic thing here is that Icesave were allowed to offer "protection" when they simply could not afford to do so...
Let's hope Gordon will help 300,000 taxpayers by guaranteeing the whole £50k...

Scooby64

homer_J123 wrote: »

Myself and my partner have a joint account with Icesave.

For arguments sake, we'll say we've got £20k in that join account.

I have a cash ISA with Icesave (value say of £12k)

My partner has a cash ISA with Icesave (value say of £12k)

How does the FSCS work in this scenario?

You've each got assets of £22K, you'll get back about £5½K each under the FSCS scheme - is that what you meant?

Primrose

Can't access Icesave's website and am away from home so can't access the Terms and Conditions of their Fixed Term Savings accounts. Are you able to withdraw/close the fixed term accounts before time and lose the interest due or is it simply "No Withdrawals at all" from them. (Realise this may be an academic question at the moment but would appreciate the answer if somebody knows it).

LGG_2

if iceland the country go bust then they have an agreement with other nordic countries to pay off the 16k that ppl have to claim from them before going to the uk system. theres no evidence imo that the country will go bust

Scooby64

[quote=bazaarboy;14779457The_first_£16k_of_all_investors_is_very_much_at_risk_right_now._[/quote]

I can't see the EU allowing a government to default - the consequences would be too horrible to contemplate for Europe, the Political System and the World Economy

Super_Ted_2

Okie wrote: »

the definition of risk-free, in purely economic terms, is where your capital base is not exposed to risk of depreciation (excluding the effects of inflation). For consumer savings, the status of 'risk free' is ultimately underwritten by some kind of institutional guarantee from a government or regulator. Under this definition, government bonds, NS&I accounts, and deposit accounts held in commercial banks/building societies/credit unions are all considered to be risk free. Whether you chose an account with a rate of 3% or 5% does not change it's fundamental risk free characteristics.

The frantic activities of world governments over the last few weeks has been focused on exactly this concept...maintaining the 'risk free' status of bank deposit accounts. Because once that status is lost, there is nothing to discourage everyone from withdrawing their money and putting us back in the dark ages. What we are talking about with Icesave is the concept of 'risk free' changing radically in the last 72 hrs as the real possibility grows of an entire government and associated institutional framework going insolvent. Most posters are seeking to clarify whether their deposits in icesave remain 'risk free' ie. that they can recover all their funds. I still believe the answer will be yes, because the alternative is fundamentally more damaging to world economics...

...but this is all moot given that we are where we are, and what people need at the moment is practical advice and facts, not ridiculous 'i told you so' sermons like that one you've just given above

Your definition of risk free is not appropriate to the context of this discussion.
.
Risk can cause potential loss to the capital base via many means, including as you correctly point out inflation. There are many other risks to capital depending on how it is stored/invested. Money stored in pound coins in fort-knox would be extremely safe from the risk of theft but almost 100% at risk of inflation. Money stored in a bank is at risk of bank failure, the fact that so few people understood or factored this risk is a great shame.
.
You then say that the deposits are underwritten by govt/industry garuntee. But this is only to a certain level and is not a fundamental or inherent property of a deposit savings account.
.
The frantic work of the govts has been largely to prevent systematic failure of a failed system. This is not a liquidity crisis this is fundamentaly a solvency crisis, the banks have lost everything again (as they have more than once in the last 100yrs) and will need to be recapitalised. Iceland could not back up it's promise to garuntee all deposits, neither could Ireland or for that matter the UK. To expect this is to expect a promise of cash and dentures from the tooth fairy if we all knock out all our own teeth.
.
The "we are where we are" argument is popular with politicians and other sophists since it seeks to lay blame on 'circumstances' rather than why some people brought us here. (Gordon Clown being a prime example) The fact of the matter is that somebody came to this site looking for advice. They got some good advice and some REALLY bad advice, not only that, those giving sensible reasoned data on why the icelandic banks were very risky were ridiculed. That is shameful.
.
ST

bazster

mybrainhurts wrote: »

Things may be slightly less bleak than you think. I don't see Brown surviving if 200 000 + voters lose £16000 apiece because f a government approved scheme.

You might want to write to your MP at www.writetothem.com and, if he's labour, tell him you will blame Brown personally for any loss you suffer. Also ask him why the government has so far failed to seize Landsbanki's UK assets to compensate UK savers.

Good point, it may be an Icelandic scheme but it was approved and accepted by the British authorities as being effectively as good as our own.