ICESAVE - What is covered?

Andrew64

Does anyone know where money deposited with Icesave actually is? Is it in Britain or Iceland?

babylonfree

steadysaver wrote: »

They are probably trying to stop a run, that itself would just cause even more problems than just leaving your cash in their

Most probably the case, just as they suspended trading in shares to stop people selling.

At least I hope so, otherwise my house deposit has just gone up the swanny.

babylonfree

Andrew64 wrote: »

Does anyone know where money deposited with Icesave actually is? Is it in Britain or Iceland?

Why, are you going to lead a daring raid to get all our money out?

csiman

Andrew64 wrote: »

Does anyone know where money deposited with Icesave actually is? Is it in Britain or Iceland?

The money doesnt actually exist in reality. But the bank is Icelandic.

pizzagirl

derbyjon wrote: »

Was just about to post the same thing.

Scary stuff.

What do you expect? Everyone tries to withdraw at the same time and you expect them to be able to cope?

Fella

pizzagirl wrote: »

What do you expect? Everyone tries to withdraw at the same time and you expect them to be able to cope?

Why not? It's not unreasonable to expect an Internet-only bank to be able to cope with times of increased demand?

This isn't a website problem though it is - this is them CHOOSING to prevent withdrawals. Quite different.

aleph_0

Fella wrote: »

Why not? It's not unreasonable to expect an Internet-only bank to be able to cope with times of increased demand?

This isn't a website problem though it is - this is them CHOOSING to prevent withdrawals. Quite different.

*sigh* No it's not different. Their systems might have started to form a backlog of transactions, or suchlike. In such circumstances it seems sensible to limit things instead of letting more and more unprocessed transactions build up.
[See also, Northern Rock website rate limiting]

Of course, there are many possibly explanations, but the fact they have made this choice doesn't give much information.

pizzagirl

Fella wrote: »

Why not? It's not unreasonable to expect an Internet-only bank to be able to cope with times of increased demand?

This isn't a website problem though it is - this is them CHOOSING to prevent withdrawals. Quite different.

They're choosing to prevent withdrawals because there's too many panickers trying to do the same thing at the same time. I don't know of any website that can cope with say 10 times its expected bnadwidth.

blizeH

How do you know the two aren't linked? Just because their website can cope doesn't mean that their other systems can.

Banks are not designed to have everyone withdraw cash in such a short periods of time, and I for one welcome the block as long as it helps them sort things out.

Fella

blizeH wrote: »

How do you know the two aren't linked? Just because their website can cope doesn't mean that their other systems can.

Banks are not designed to have everyone withdraw cash in such a short periods of time, and I for one welcome the block as long as it helps them sort things out.

If it was a systems problem I would expect a responsible institution to make it clear it was a systems problem. They have not.