Lost money through Icesave?

GDB2222

It may be helpful to collect MSE emails advertising Icesave. This one is from 25 September 2007. You will note the affiliate link and the (arguably) incorrect information about investor protection.

"Next best clean accounts are ICICI 6.3%*, Sainsburys 6.25% and Icesave 6.2%* (which has the best rate guarantee). I’ve listed a few as I know many people are currently worried about savings safety. In the extraordinarily unlikely event of any bank going bust, you’re only protected for the first £2,000 and 90% of the next £33,000 back per institution (double for joint accounts). If you’ve more than this and want peace of mind, don’t put more than £35,000 in any one bank."

Does MSE have a duty of care to people who may have been misled because part of the investor protection is through an Icelandic guarantee that may not perform?

Heyman_2

No it doesn't, and this point has been covered in many other threads on the Savings board.

Heyman_2

In fact, while I'm about it (and I know this is off-topic) -

We've had a lot of talk here on the House prices board about people being annoyed about how the government is bailing out banks and the bubble they (along with the government) created, with taxpayers money.

Well I think it's SCANDALOUS that Icesave savers, who put their money in an off-shore account are going to be bailed out 100% with taxpayers money. Does anyone else think this is not quite right? Especially as UK banks only have a 50K limit????

Don't get me wrong, I feel for people who have their life savings in there, but it annoys me that yet again this falls to the taxpayer to sort out.

GDB2222

Is there a 100% guarantee for amounts over £50k? Why, in heaven's name should UK taxpayers pay for that? Sorry if I'm not up to date on this.

Heyman_2

Apparently there is. Although there's a bit of doubt that Darling might have made a balls up (there's a surprise) in his interview this morning, when he said 100% (i.e. 100% of 50K or 100% of everything???).

morg_monster

I know it sounds ridiculously unfair, and it is, but I'm sure if they do in the end have to bail out Icesave savers over £50,000, they will extend that same cover to customers of all British banks.

At the end of the day, so far they have just nationalised failing UK banks, so no need for the FSCS compensation, everyones ££ is completely safe; I think if any more UK banks fail they will just do exactly the same thing (nationalise)

So you're right to be completely pi55ed off, but I think no customer of a UK bank will lose money.

But as someone else said, their are a bunch of threads about this on the savings forum already. Its an absolute bunfight in there.

neverdespairgirl

Heyman wrote: »

Well I think it's SCANDALOUS that Icesave savers, who put their money in an off-shore account are going to be bailed out 100% with taxpayers money. Does anyone else think this is not quite right? Especially as UK banks only have a 50K limit????

I don't think Icesave is or was an off-shore bank.

Chris2685

From my own point of view, it doesn't matter if it is 100% of 50k or 100% of everything, as I have much less than 50k saved there (still a lot to me though!!). I do think it is unfair that tax payers are being made to bail us out though, but of course I am happy that I will get my money back. All IceSave customers should get their money back up to 50k anyway though, due to the guarantees that were given when they signed up for the accounts. If it had been a true off-shore bank account, I wouldn't have even signed up for it! I signed up for it because I knew that my savings were protected. I didn't know, however, that the Icelandic government was going to declare bankruptcy and refuse to live up to their guarantee!

penguine

Taxpayers' money has been / will be used to protect a lot of savers' money by keeping shaky banks from going under, so it's not really logical to single out Icesave customers has having been unfairly "bailed out". Plus if governments start allowing individual savers to lose money they've deposited in banks, you're psychologically getting into Great Depression territory -- and you're just going to erode confidence in banks in general, which isn't going to help the economy.

PasturesNew

imho

I think generally savers' money should be protected. I think it unfortunate that this foreign scheme somehow managed to pass muster for protection. I think perhaps it shouldn't have and we shouldn't have been offered it as a "safe bank". However, it was and everybody rushed to it, so the obligation needs to be met on this occasion for the savers, because savers are the lifeblood of a proper and orderly society.

Saving isn't "investing". It's little old ladies squirrelling away some pounds for their grandchildren's Xmas presents. It is frugal people saving up to pay cash for something.

Saving needs to be encouraged. Saving your money in a bank has always been seen as the safe and right thing to do.

Having shares in a bank is known to be risky and speculative. These are the next layer of people up the wealth scale. These, like shares in all companies that go under, should just be worthless.

Instantly, all bonuses to be paid/due etc should be written off. The company has, after all, just gone t1ts up, so in effect that money's already gone. From that point forward excessive bonuses/payoffs should be out of the question.

Overall though: it's all a massive balls up isn't it. I despair. Savings should be safe because we all need to save money for the short-term and long-term.

Annpan

I just read on another link that latest news is Lansbanki may have enough funds to cover UK savers after all. Let's hope so - less of a burdon for tax payers.