Ladies and gents - please calm down and stop adding to the hysteria

leviathan

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

It is however futile for individuals to ask for reassurance about the security of their savings, to be told of all the guarantee schemes in place, and then still to wail about how worried they are

I think it's pointless to ask about the security of your savings to be fed the usual line that it's protected by FSCS.
That's not for keeping them safe, it's an insurnace policy and compensation for after they been taken from you by an insolvent bank!!

Security for your savings is putting them into an institution where you can reasonably expect to be able to access them and withdraw them with confidence for the forseeable future.

If it ever came about that the £50,000 guarantee were reneged on in the event of a bank failure then we would be in the midst of such an unprecedented economic crash and collapse that we would indeed all be doomed.

We'll find out soon enough when Iceland tells FSCS to go stuff over the first €20K of the refund it's customers will be expecting.

I have a feeling that we will be picking that one up certainly in the short term whilst Iceland tries to sort itself out.
Their priority is not going to be baling out the UK savers, they may well owe the FSCS the money for quite a while.
Sorting out the big institutions which could bankrupt their entire nation is more important to them than giving Miss Bloggs back her £5000 savings account.


All this helps to empty the FSCS pot for the next bank to take a nose dive.

bazster

leviathan wrote: »

All this helps to empty the FSCS pot for the next bank to take a nose dive.

If it's a biggy then the Government will lend the money to FSCS, just as it did for B+B.

itsnever2lateisit?

leviathan wrote: »

All this helps to empty the FSCS pot for the next bank to take a nose dive.

IIRC the FSCS do not have a pot, but the powers to levy other financial institutions, and even then only upto a certain value in any year. The scheme was designed to cover the failure of ONE bank, not a total collapse of the system as we have known it. There are (IMO) too many banks in the A&E dept to be seen at once, hence the need to force 'marriages' between banks

itsnever2lateisit?

The Icelandic PM has just given a news conference that didnt make good listening. He stated that help was not forthcoming from their traditional friends, hence seeking financial help from Russia. He also stated that his concern was with the domestic market only and had no answers for UK savers at the moment :mad:

GeorgeHowell

leviathan wrote: »

I think it's pointless to ask about the security of your savings to be fed the usual line that it's protected by FSCS.
That's not for keeping them safe, it's an insurnace policy and compensation for after they been taken from you by an insolvent bank!!

Security for your savings is putting them into an institution where you can reasonably expect to be able to access them and withdraw them with confidence for the forseeable future.


We'll find out soon enough when Iceland tells FSCS to go stuff over the first €20K of the refund it's customers will be expecting.

I have a feeling that we will be picking that one up certainly in the short term whilst Iceland tries to sort itself out.
Their priority is not going to be baling out the UK savers, they may well owe the FSCS the money for quite a while.
Sorting out the big institutions which could bankrupt their entire nation is more important to them than giving Miss Bloggs back her £5000 savings account.


All this helps to empty the FSCS pot for the next bank to take a nose dive.

If you believe that the FSCS scheme does not represent a foolproof safety net, then the institution that you describe is surely NS&I, and surely by now pretty much everyone knows that to be the case. The interest rates are lousy, but it's 100% safe (unless you believe that HMG might renege at some point).

My understanding is that the FSCS has to underwrite any foreign banks which are affiliated to it under the passport scheme -- if anyone has a definitive refutation of that then please publish it here. In addition HMG underwrites the FSCS -- Brown has effectively said so, and they've already done this for B&B. The banks will have to pay it back eventually (thus putting the Ferrari brochures back in the drawer for a while perhaps), but FSCS will not be allowed to run out of money.

altocumulus

A spokesman for the FSCS said however that UK customers of Icesave will not have to make two separate claims and that it would probably handle all UK claims on one form

leviathan

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

If you believe that the FSCS scheme does not represent a foolproof safety net, then the institution that you describe is surely NS&I, and surely by now pretty much everyone knows that to be the case. The interest rates are lousy, but it's 100% safe (unless you believe that HMG might renege at some point).

Quite a lot of my money in Premium Bonds.
Suggest Martin reprhases the article about them being a bad investment due to the current climate in banking sectors!
Least it's fairly safe!!

My understanding is that the FSCS has to underwrite any foreign banks which are affiliated to it under the passport scheme -- if anyone has a definitive refutation of that then please publish it here.

Yes, FSCS will pay the money back and then go after the Icelandic scheme for their cut of it. So the custoemr wont see it happen but FSCS has to deal with it.
Probably after they have a nice fat total from everyone invested.

The banks will have to pay it back eventually (thus putting the Ferrari brochures back in the drawer for a while perhaps), but FSCS will not be allowed to run out of money.

No they get to keep borrowing it from HMG ie: you and me.
However I don't think it's a given that Icelandic banks pay back the FSCS.
They didn't borrow billions from the Ruskies to pay back the Brits!!

It may be a cold day in hell before the FSCS sees anything.

31May2008

Got cold feet and cut them loose this morning.

If Glitner was the tip of the iceberg surely that means kaupthing will struggle to stay afloat.

mal79

As with most people on this thread, I also have savings with Icesave. I'm currently in between jobs at the moment, so the access to the savings would come in really useful right now!

However i'm not in a panic - the situation is still developing so it is futile for me to worry about this. I can't control or change the situation so instead I focus on what I can do, like finding some work!

So I will wait for some clarity and facts in the Icesave situation and then investigate the options available to me. I will NOT allow myself to be drawn into the panic as it is impossible to make rational decisions whilst in a state of stress and panic.

I also agree with other posters on media coverage fueling the sense of panic. IMO it is as a result of 24/7 news and the need to appear to be reporting new news. Hence the tone is changed to imply breaking news when infact it is old news, adding to the sense of urgency and panic.

davem7

Please excuse the fact I registered to post on this thread - I am a regular reader here but have never contributed I also feel it's prudent to point out that I have no money invested with Landsbanki, nor am I any kind of financial advisor - I'm just a maths student at University with a casual interest in finance.

I have to say that I agree with both sides of the argument here. People have a right to be concerned, and whilst spreading misinformation is not good for anyone, the situation is looking pretty grim at this point in time. I would say, however, that a certain amount of speculation is always required when dealing with these situations and you have to go by your gut instinct.

From what's been published, in the last few hours Landsbanki has been placed into receivership. From what I've gathered, it is a distinct possibility that they could be declared insolvent in the near future due to their debts vs. assets. Last week they sold off some major assets to rival banks in order to generate funds and remain solvent, but this current action makes it look like that wasn't entirely successful. If they do go insolvent, any deposits will have to be reclaimed under the FSCS. We don't know what knock-on effect the insolvency would do to the other Icelandic banks.

Based on all of this, my own feeling is that any bank based in Iceland is in trouble at the moment. Banks in general are finding it very difficult to secure funding at the moment, and due to the extremely volatile nature of their currency I would imagine that Icelandic banks are faring much worse. Whilst I would not be rushing to get money out, I wouldn't be puttng any more money in and I would be keeping a very close eye on the situation as it seems to be changing on an hour-by-hour basis at the moment.

In any case (as has been pointed out many times) your savings in Icebank would be guaranteed up to £50k, partly by FSCS and partly by the Icelandic scheme. I would consider it unlikely that the first £16k of this would be reneged upon by Iceland. My main concern as a saver would be the time aspect; to my knowledge, the FSCS scheme has never been used, and we simply don't know how long it would take for claims to be processed and the money actually put into your account. If Government IT schemes are anything to go by, I wouldn't expect these claims to be processed in a timely fashion.

I have to say that at the end of the day, it's your money. If you don't feel that it is safe in an Icelandic bank, then pull it out, regardless of what is being said on here. Just bear in mind that these are not charities, and you should not feel obligated in any way to 'support' them, whatever that means.