Notice To Martin On IceSave MD

deep_pockets

i do hope our government besides taking the icelandic government to court for defaulting on their obligations, is going to seize all icelandic assets in this country, seems only fair to me!

GeorgeHowell

deep_pockets wrote: »

i do hope our government besides taking the icelandic government to court for defaulting on their obligations, is going to seize all icelandic assets in this country, seems only fair to me!

Be interesting to see how West Ham United fared as the only state owned club in the Premiership.

edwinac_2

climbgirl wrote: »

Well the answer's clearly yes because I did! And so did many others, not all of them complete idiots.

Naive maybe, but I thought that the money I had in there was protected by two different schemes. It's only after everything went sour we learnt the scheme wasn't worth a thing.

That will doubtless be true for a number of other schemes around the world. Any government which has issued a guarantee to depositors that introduces a liability of many times GDP is essentially pulling a confidence trick.

Exceptions to the rule, perhaps, are the eurozone nations which can draw on ECB funding, like Ireland.

Although even then, it is mysterious why Ireland decided to go it alone, without ECB support, offering its 100% depositors' guarantee. I've heard no coherent explanation for that.

Not every single person who holds a bank account can be expected to investigate the credit rating of a bank and of the country who is bound to fund any compensation schemes. I thought that any bank who gets and keeps a UK registration is already examined in this way!

I'm delighted that everyone has come out of this latest debacle, battered and bruised, but basically still in once piece.

It set me wondering whether we've simply 'got it too good' and whether people are becoming too reliant on government safety nets. Are we getting slack with our scrutiny.

If there was no safety net - no depositors' guarantee - surely we would be forced into studying every institution in much great depth.. which could be no bad thing..

Please don't see that as criticism of anyone here, since i can completely understand how sometimes there just aren't enough hours in the day to complete all the important jobs, and still find some leisure time.

mime20

"But didn't Norther Rock change everything, guys ? We were told then that this could be the tip of the iceberg (excuse pun). Others like B&B were mentioned as possibly dodgy. The FSCS, which hardly anyone had heard of, suddenly got visibility, and there was discussion about the adequacy of the £35,000 limit. Then it emerged -- initially in the Mail on Sunday I believe -- that the £35,000 limit might not be all it seemed in the case of at least some foreign-based banks. This was all fairly prominent in the media, both newspapers and TV/radio."

You seem to forget that some of us put our money in one or two year bonds (which we couldn't withdraw before the end of the fixed term) before Northern Rock at a time when Icesave had excellent credit rating with at least 2 ratings groups (Mood's & Fitch) & Iceland was being touted as a very stable economy. To try & blame people for not having a crystal ball to see future unprecedented events is not helpful.

altocumulus

"Greedy Rate Chaser" is a totally insane name to place on anybody.

Going for the highest rate is a valid rationale in keeping ahead of inflation which few of the high street banks have been able to do.....

surfcat

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Anyone who stays with a foreign based bank now is asking for trouble. The higher interest rates may be attractive, and it may make some people feel like smart operators compared with the 'saddos' who rely on boring old places like Nationwide. But if it happens again who will be the real saddos ?

So you're saying get out of B&B (Spanish), Abbey (Spanish), Halifax and BOS (who both had to be taken over)?

GeorgeHowell

mime20 wrote: »

"But didn't Norther Rock change everything, guys ? We were told then that this could be the tip of the iceberg (excuse pun). Others like B&B were mentioned as possibly dodgy. The FSCS, which hardly anyone had heard of, suddenly got visibility, and there was discussion about the adequacy of the £35,000 limit. Then it emerged -- initially in the Mail on Sunday I believe -- that the £35,000 limit might not be all it seemed in the case of at least some foreign-based banks. This was all fairly prominent in the media, both newspapers and TV/radio."

You seem to forget that some of us put our money in one or two year bonds (which we couldn't withdraw before the end of the fixed term) before Northern Rock at a time when Icesave had excellent credit rating with at least 2 ratings groups (Mood's & Fitch) & Iceland was being touted as a very stable economy. To try & blame people for not having a crystal ball to see future unprecedented events is not helpful.

Of course the non-withdrawal bond scenario is a different case. But as previous posters have not mentioned that as their reasons for not getting out of the likes of Icesave then I am assuming that problem does not apply to them.

I don't think it was unprecedented after Northern Rock happened -- before that I would agree with you. It was obvious that with UK banks the FSCS process would almost certainly not come into it because HMG will step in before it gets to that. But with foreign based banks it was highly likely that FSCS would be required, sometimes with the complication of foreign involvement, as the FSA has warned. I don't see that any of that required a crystal ball to foresee -- just common sense and a healthily sceptical and neutrally optimistic/pessimistic approach, which frankly any saver/investor should maitain.

GeorgeHowell

surfcat wrote: »

So you're saying get out of B&B (Spanish), Abbey (Spanish), Halifax and BOS (who both had to be taken over)?

No, if you re-read the posts you will see that I am referring to foreign-based banks where HMG has no requirement to bail them out before we get to the FSCS stage.

1echidna

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

But didn't Norther Rock change everything, guys ? We were told then that this could be the tip of the iceberg (excuse pun). Others like B&B were mentioned as possibly dodgy. The FSCS, which hardly anyone had heard of, suddenly got visibility, and there was discussion about the adequacy of the £35,000 limit. Then it emerged -- initially in the Mail on Sunday I believe -- that the £35,000 limit might not be all it seemed in the case of at least some foreign-based banks. This was all fairly prominent in the media, both newspapers and TV/radio.

Neverthless, that's water under the bridge. But for goodness sake, anyone who is not just putting their money in NS&I and leaving it there forever must now realise that they do need to read the daily press, watch/listen to the news, make sure they do not exceed any compensation limits, and make sure they have accessible funds in more than one place in case something happens.

No excuses next time (let's hope there's not a next time, but I'm not holding my breath).

A carefully composed post. There remains however a risk to reward ratio to consider and what is reasonable care or being overly obsessive (how many people for example check the oil level in their car once a week as recommended by the manufacturers). Sorting out what is a real potential problem from one which is not real (or even motivated so as to sell newspapers) is not easy. Personally I feel sorry for anyone who is wiped out or nearly wiped out almost whatever the circumstrances although clearly it may be right to point out that he/she should have been more careful. In many cases there will always be extenuating circumstances.

edwinac_2

deep_pockets wrote: »

i do hope our government besides taking the icelandic government to court for defaulting on their obligations, is going to seize all icelandic assets in this country, seems only fair to me!

Aww.. spare a thought for the humble Icelandic people. it looks like an absolutely awful place to live. bitterly cold and darkness much of the year. Before I pass judgment, i would like to hear how this banking crisis has affected the average Icelander...

There are many unanswered questions, like how and why did Iceland suddenly become a "hot place" for international banking? What made it special? Did it have favourable corporate taxes? Lighter banking regulation than elsewhere?

I've got this theory - granted, no evidence as yet - that the whole Icelandic banking crisis was engineered (by the forces behind currency manipulators like George Soros who crippled the Kronoa), to force Iceland into membership of the EU...

If that's true, I really pity the Icelanders.. they're just pawns in the middle..

And what does Russia want for her E4bn? Are there valuable mineral reserves on the island? any untapped oil pockets in iceland's stake of the arctic circle? What does the notorious "CIA world factbook" note to be of worth in iceland?