Icesave - lobby your MP NOW

tradetime

mybrainhurts wrote: »

This is all looking less funny by the hour. Landsbanki is said to have major holdings in UK companies which it is likely to sell in order to repatriate the money. the Iceland PM is openly suggesting that the country may go bankrupt. It is obviously right that all Landsbanki assets if not all Icelandic assets in the UK should be frozen immediately by the UK government until the Iceland government has given express assurances that funds are in place sufficient to compensate all UK depositors in the event of Landsbanki failing. Go to http://www.writetothem.com/ to find out who your MP is and write to him now. Before you go to bed.

I have no idea what the legalities, or political ramifications of such a move would be, but I doubt any government would consider such an action. Besides at the rate things are moving this will be over by the time he reads it.

meunier

Forgive me my ignorance - for I may be VERY ignorant - (and certainly have a substantial sum in a 2 year bond with Icesave over the limit) - but did not the Icelandic goverment request that some foreign assets held by the Icelandic banks SELL some of their foreign assets in order that the proceeds from such a sale could be repatriated. That makes sense to me .... somehow ... but I may be wrong.

Can I ask a potentially (alright ... most likely) foolish question. Much as was the case with Bradford and Bingley when Santander bought its saving business after the UK Government had stepped in (on one of its 'case by case' missions), would not it be possible for Landsbanki to sell off their company registered in the UK that trades under the Icesave nomenclature? Surely that would be the most effective means to gather effective monies for repatriation.

Again, I apologise if this question appears to be TOTALLY FOOLISH.

(The writer now curls up and hides ... but would be oh, so interested in any reponses during that period when he himself crawls out .... no doubt entirely poverty striken ... but, who knows .... maybe a tad wiser due to the generosity of your largess).

Cheers.

1echidna

nicholbb wrote: »

Wow most people don't seem to understand that a savings account is an investment and what that means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment

I'm sorry but people have to start taking responsibility for their actions and their investments. I assume that you willingly put your money into the bank because it had a high interest rate not because you had a gun to your head? Well higher return = higher risk.

If you read the terms and conditions before you opened the account then you knew the risks were that your savings were protected by the Iceland government, if you didn't then you deserve what you get.

Finally the bank has not gone into liquidation if you are that scared TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT!:mad:

Speaking personally I do take responsibility for my actions. I knew when I opened Icesave and KE accounts that there was what I perceived as a small risk, they did however offer higher interest rates. I also knew that there was no such thing as a completely safe place to put my money, albeit some are safer than others such as NS&I in which I also made deposits. Having said that it is completely reasonable for me to do my best to recover my money under any compensation schemes should the worst happen.

1echidna

tradetime wrote: »

I have no idea what the legalities, or political ramifications of such a move would be, but I doubt any government would consider such an action. Besides at the rate things are moving this will be over by the time he reads it.

I can't imagine that the Icelandic banks can instantly sell their assets (high street shops) etc in the UK and repatriate the proceeds (which was what we meant meunier). Such procedures must take some time although I suppose stock market investments could be sold very quickly.

nicholbb

1echidna wrote: »

Speaking personally I do take responsibility for my actions. I knew when I opened Icesave and KE accounts that there was what I perceived as a small risk, they did however offer higher interest rates. I also knew that there was no such thing as a completely safe place to put my money, albeit some are safer than others such as NS&I in which I also made deposits. Having said that it is completely reasonable for me to do my best to recover my money under any compensation schemes should the worst happen.

I fail to see what compensation you are entitled to or think your deserve? At this moment you have lost ZERO amount of money (this may change tomorrow or the day after or never but is the case at the moment). If you are worried by the Icelandic government statements then move your money, if you don't and the worst happens and you don't get your compensation then tough - you live and learn.

I will have sympathy with you if the Iceland banks go into liquidation tomorrow and the government default on all payments, meaning you don't get your cash because you couldn't withdraw it in time - any later than that and I hope the UK compensation scheme will also be withdrawn so the rest of us don't have to bail you out of the bed you have made.

Harsh and I'm sorry for being overly nasty, I have just been wound up by the amount of whining and am taking it out on your post (which was quite innocuous by comparison).

edwinac_2

nicholbb wrote: »

Harsh and I'm sorry for being overly nasty

You are a fairly obvious shill. You arrived just two days ago, and have posted almost exclusively, and very aggressively on the Icelandic banking crisis. You arrived with arms flailing, and made no effort to ease yourself as a "newcomer" into this web community. This indicates you were already familiar with the forum from a propagandist's perspective. Furthermore, your personality and posting style has mutated rapidly. This suggests a team of people is using the nicholbb moniker.

1echidna

nicholbb wrote: »

I fail to see what compensation you are entitled to or think your deserve? At this moment you have lost ZERO amount of money (this may change tomorrow or the day after or never but is the case at the moment). If you are worried by the Icelandic government statements then move your money, if you don't and the worst happens and you don't get your compensation then tough - you live and learn.

I will have sympathy with you if the Iceland banks go into liquidation tomorrow and the government default on all payments, meaning you don't get your cash because you couldn't withdraw it in time - any later than that and I hope the UK compensation scheme will also be withdrawn so the rest of us don't have to bail you out of the bed you have made.

Harsh and I'm sorry for being overly nasty, I have just been wound up by the amount of whining and am taking it out on your post (which was quite innocuous by comparison).

All I am saying is that I would hope for compensation 'should the worst happen'. I am not really interested in whether I have your sympathy or not if I lose money, however, to say that you wish for the UK compensation scheme to be withdrawn retrospectively seems vindictive in the extreme. Clearly no bank, even the biggest can withstand a run by depositors and, emotionally perhaps, I am letting things run their course rather than add in my small way to the banks woes. The point of this discussion, from my point of view, was to explore whether the banks are doing their best to treat UK retail depositors fairly.

nicholbb

edwinac wrote: »

You are a fairly obvious shill. You arrived just two days ago, and have posted almost exclusively, and very aggressively on the Icelandic banking crisis. You arrived with arms flailing, and made no effort to ease yourself as a "newcomer" into this web community. This indicates you were already familiar with the forum from a propagandist's perspective. Furthermore, your personality and posting style has mutated rapidly. This suggests a team of people is using the nicholbb moniker.

You are a fairly obviously a shill for talking down the Icelandic banks [insert made up evidence here - so my ideas seem better]. If you weren’t a shill posting from a number of people I'd take offence.

Actually I've been hanging around for a few weeks but registered a few days ago, think because I wanted to comment on a MFW (but maybe something else).

Shill for who? As you've 'researched' me (by that I mean you seem to be a stalker), you'll know I had investments in Icelandic bank (KE) that I have stated that I removed because I wanted to link to another UK account (but that I would be putting it back) - saying I removed my money for any reason is hardly the best endorsement.

Why should I ease myself in as a "newcomer"? It's an open forum my opinions are my opinions and I'll state them. I have been (and still am) a member of a number of forums and have no issues around this being a new technology or how to state what I think.

posted almost exclusively, and very aggressively on the Icelandic banking crisis. Well as you have pointed out I'm a fairly new member and this is the area that has caught my attention as it's been in the news (if you noticed). Also despite all your (quite unsavoury) stalking you have missed the point of my posts, my main thrusts: 1) people need to take responsibility for their actions 2) that savings are investments 3) don’t ask stupid questions.

Personality and posting style mutated rapidly. Thanks you but how? I was worried about the opposite. The only way they may have improved is that I type most of my stuff into word first to remove the spelling mistakes. Recently I thought my posts have been getting more and more angry with the naive comments I have seen - as I lose my temper I know I lose focus (which is why you'll see apologies after some of my statements - not this one though).

I think the site (and timings) will be able to tell I have posted most of my comments from home with 1 (maybe 2) from work. Also would multiple people only be able to post 25 (ish) times in 2 days?

nicholbb

1echidna wrote: »

All I am saying is that I would hope for compensation 'should the worst happen'. I am not really interested in whether I have your sympathy or not if I lose money, however, to say that you wish for the UK compensation scheme to be withdrawn retrospectively seems vindictive in the extreme. Clearly no bank, even the biggest can withstand a run by depositors and, emotionally perhaps, I am letting things run their course. The point of this discussion, from my point of view, was to explore whether the banks are doing their best to treat UK retail depositors fairly.

I didn't say retrospectively but understand how you could see that from my post. What I actually meant was from a point in a future, I had in mind end of the week to stop compensation as the risk would have been obvious and there would have been time for people to do something about it by then (hence why I'd have sympathy if it went bad tomorrow but not after that date).

vindictive in the extreme - well yes it was nasty (that's why there was a the sorry at the end), but you are admit that:

Clearly no bank, even the biggest can withstand a run by depositors and, emotionally perhaps, I am letting things run their course

As much as I admire your stance you are relying on compensation to bail you out when you clearly thing there is danger, which is why I don't think you should be entitled. On the hand as you have kept your money in I think the bank should increase the interest to compensate you for the added risk. You understand you are under no obligation and you should do what is best for your finances and it appears to be your morals are more important than adding to a run on the banking system (as I elsewhere I agree and will be putting my money back once new account linked).

treat UK retail depositors fairly? their order of priority will be: shareholder, Icelandic people, employees, other depositors (that means us). This will be a case of life not being fair and learning moral lessons if money runs out before it reaches us.

1echidna

nicholbb wrote: »

I didn't say retrospectively but understand how you could see that from my post. What I actually meant was from a point in a future, I had in mind end of the week to stop compensation as the risk would have been obvious and there would have been time for people to do something about it by then (hence why I'd have sympathy if it went bad tomorrow but not after that date).

vindictive in the extreme - well yes it was nasty (that's why there was a the sorry at the end), but you are admit that:

Clearly no bank, even the biggest can withstand a run by depositors and, emotionally perhaps, I am letting things run their course

As much as I admire your stance you are relying on compensation to bail you out when you clearly thing there is danger, which is why I don't think you should be entitled. On the hand as you have kept your money in I think the bank should increase the interest to compensate you for the added risk. You understand you are under no obligation and you should do what is best for your finances and it appears to be your morals are more important than adding to a run on the banking system (as I elsewhere I agree and will be putting my money back once new account linked).

treat UK retail depositors fairly? their order of priority will be: shareholder, Icelandic people, employees, other depositors (that means us). This will be a case of life not being fair and learning moral lessons if money runs out before it reaches us.

I don't think we are that far from agreeing. The compensation scheme does encourage people to be rate tarts, perhaps disadvantaging more solid and prudent institutions which end up paying if less careful institutions fail. I make no apologies however for considering it to be a crucial consideration when I opened the accounts. If the compensation scheme was to be withdrawn, as you suggest, at the end of the week, there would most certainly be a run on the banks and I would be part of it, whether interest rates were increased or not.

As for the final point about treating UK retail depositors fairly it was perhaps a fairly meaningless way to put it on my part. I think I am right in saying that the Icelandic Government has already said that the banks will no longer be run for the benefit of shareholders and if it follows the pattern of failed banks elsewhere in the Western World the shareholders will be left with little or nothing, many employees also are likely to lose their jobs. I am sure that, though, that the authorities in debtor countries will not be trying to squeeze money out of a stone as far as the Icelandic people are concerned, there would be little point in denying them money to buy fuel or food, it would just have to be supplied in aid anyway. This is of course all hypothetical.