Martin told you Icesave had a "dodgy compensation scheme"... his comment on 4 News

Gambler

earlgrey wrote: »

If the UK government is required to use money from other taxpayers, some of whom will have no savings themselves at all, to compensate those with savings who invested in a foreign bank it will be a very controversial decision. That was the political point repeatedly made by some of us at the beginning of this year. It's made even more difficult if they were fully warned by "experts" such as Martin Lewis on this site as he claims but disregarded those warnings.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that and that it all goes smoothly. Easily said, but worrying about such things never helps.

What warnings were these? I saw the warnings in the weekly email about the £35K limit and changing to fixed price gas and elec. But I don't recall anything about dodgy protection

31May2008

He IS the messiah! (and i should know - I've followed a few...)

fair play for the apology :-)

Plasticman

langtoft_lad wrote: »

I have to agree with both sides of the argument.

Would you like to me get you a fence to sit on?

earlgrey_3

Thanks for the apology Martin for making what seems to have been a totally misleading claim.

I'm sure you are aware that there were long threads in April dismissing all suggestions made by some of us that savings in some Icelandic banks carried additional risks despite your description of them as best buys.

If you really knew what you say you knew it would have helped if you had backed what we were saying instead of letting the PR woman from Icesave make her propaganda posts here without any response whatsoever from you. You certainly had time to make posts here saying what a scam you thought Premium Bonds were which is a little ironic.

In future I hope you and other journalists will give proper consideration to the effect of when you describe as an account as best regardless of any risk reward calculation.

I think too that you should be taking more responsibility for some of the hugely misleading advice given here. The cop out of saying that the board isn't monitored isn't good enough. If it really isn't monitored then it should be, people's saving and future are at risk.

aqueoushumour01

the info he provided is here http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/04/01/icesave-how-safe-are-your-savings-facts-and-myths/

Ok, no mention of 'dodgy' but the info about how the compensation would work is clearly mentioned (initial payout from Iceland, the remainder under the FSCS up to 50k (previously 35k)

("This means that in the unlikely event it went bust, the first E20,000 needs to be reclaimed from the Icelandic compensation system not the UK system. The remainder of the £35,000 would still come from the UK scheme. ")

Nick_C

MSE_Martin wrote: »

1. Before I wrote the safe savings guide a year ago, little was known about the issue and we pieced a lot together. Two years ago no one cared a jot about this

Rubbish. The FSCS has been around for nearly 7 years. I was aware of it - through the Daily Mail's excellent Money Mail pages and through Which? - long before I heard of Martin Lewis or this web site.

Many of your older readers will also remember BCCI going bust, and will have had a real awareness that banks can go bust, just as property prices can fall.

If you recognise though that your readers are this naive, I think you should be more careful in your recommendations.

epsilondraconis

How many of us have been in situations where we could have worded things better? I certainly know I have. Okay, I don't regularly get interviewed by Jon Snow, but the principle still stands true.

Whenever I am in a situation where I may be asked difficult questions, I attempt to think what they may be. I think to myself, what do I not want them to ask me. Then I think of suitable answers to those questions and remember the answers.

As a result, I have reduced the number of times I say the wrong thing, although there are times I still say the wrong thing when under pressure.

Martin, I know how you feel.

It was after reading all of Martin's advice that I chose not to invest in the Icelandic bank. That is not to say that I am gloating - not at all.

To summarise, I guess I'm saying that Martin did, imho, explain the situation on this website regarding the Icelandic banks. As a result of using one wrong word in a pressurised interview, he is being shot down by some.

I for one will be continuing to use this site as I believe it to be invaluable to me.

mobfant

I think people are missing the point. Myself and others (I guess Martin as well) thought that though it was unlikely Icesave would go bust; if they did we could get the money back except it would be more bureaucratic than UK systems. This was the risk that I accepted and wasn't too worried about as I didn't need the money urgently.

What very few people foresaw is that Iceland itself would be close to bankruptcy, that the other banks in Iceland would be in desperate need of help and that its Nordic partners would also be in dire straits and wouldn't be keen to assist. This is a totally different situation to what almost anyone expected

As for the interview tonight - Jon was as adversarial as always but it's perhaps unfair if it was unexpected on Martin's and unfortunate that 'dodgy' was used but on live TV and under that pressure, it's a forgiveable mistake surely - especially because his use of the word tonight hasn't affected anyone's future decisions.

earlgrey_3

Lavendyr wrote: »

Could it therefore be the case that the government should take some responsibility for that? Martin Lewis certainly seems to think so.

Yes Martin Lewis has been quick to point blame at the government whereas he was constantly giving warnings about Icesave throughout. Others remember it slightly differently. :rolleyes:

sparrow74

Martin, having decided not to put my money into icesave some months back because of your information/warnings regarding the passport scheme (i.e out of the UK hands) then I for one feel you said all you could or had to.