MARTIN LEWIS on "It pays to watch" says we may NOT be paid interest (ICESAVE)...

AdamC_2

The fact that AD has said the UK taxpayer will cover the Icelandic Governments obligations (£16k-ish) should add up to more than the loss of interest for just about all savers...

I agree with Riq - just to get the capital back will be great. These people who want a little bit more, a little bit more, just a little bit more, really do come across as selfish and greedy. Like the poster of another thread, criticising the UK Govt. for asking that a form be fillled in!!!! It really beggars belief!

GeorgeHowell

It all goes to show that nobody should take the words of Jeremy Vine, Martin Lewis, Uncle Tom Cobley, or anyone else as gospel and blindly follow. You have to listen to all reputable sources and make your mind up, using your own common sense and experience. There is a lot to be said for the old adage "If it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is too good to be true.", This can be applied to a number of things which have been 'flavour of the month' for a time and over which people have got burned to varying degrees :- equities (espacially emerging markets), buy to let property, and now dodgy foreign banks offering high headline interest rates.

The Japanese have apparently avoided the worst of all this by being much more sage and conservative about how they run their finances -- both nationally and as individuals. In the UK, similar to the US, we now have a get-rich-quick, make-a-quick-killing, something-for-nothing-culture. Based on recent experience the sooner people wean themselves off that the better, for them and for the nation. From now on it pays to be cautious and conservative -- if in doubt, don't.

notarf

I'm an Icesave customer and was aware of the EEA 'Passport' scheme.
Fortunately in this case Icesavers are going to be fully compensated.

But something I don't understand about the 'Passport' scheme (still very relevant because ING are in it) is how it would be applied to a joint account.

For example if we have a total of 34k in a joint account, is it the case that the first 16.5k is covered by the 'passport' and the rest by the FSCS - or could it be the nightmare scenario that because the account is 'joint' the passport element would be per person (ie 16.5k each) ? In other words the FSCS would only be expected to pay out £1000 after the first £33000 (2 x 16.5k) was 'covered' by the passport scheme !!!
This would be a major disadvantage of having a joint account in an EEA passport scheme.
Could someone clarify this ?

nanker

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Yes it was. It was the reason my son wouldn't put his money in there. Martin clearly said it wasn't protected in the same way as other banks. It was Martin's warnign that was the sole reason my son wouldn't put money in there. Plus posters have been screaming warnings about Iceland for ages on this site, but got shot down by others. The papers were full of it too.

Again MissMoneypenny you have failed to read my post properly. I said there was no warning when i invested. It did not appear on this site until some time after the C4 broadcast in early March. Perhaps your son was looking to invest after that time.

I do wish people would read posts properly before replying to them, and that they are more sure of the facts before posting them.

gomeraman

Thank goodness the post quality is improving with a bit of reasoned argument, whether pro or against interest being retrievable. Reasonable points are now being made on both sides.

I've read through this thread from the start and some of the earlier posts were often moronic, aggressive, jealous or viciously vindictive. Just put down your stone axes and accept that everyone does not necessarily think the same way as you - assuming you do think!

MissMoneypenny

nanker wrote: »

Again MissMoneypenny you have failed to read my post properly. I said there was no warning when i invested. It did not appear on this site until some time after the C4 broadcast in early March. Perhaps your son was looking to invest after that time.

I do wish people would read posts properly before replying to them, and that they are more sure of the facts before posting them.

So you just put money in a high interest, high risk, place and leave it there without ever checking again? You don't read the papers? Don't listen to the news? Don't log back into this site and see all the warnings from people?

RikA_4

This attitude of "well, you took a high risk - it's your fault" that some people seem to have is a bit unfair, IMO. Specifically, saying that saving money in Icesave was 'risky' is vague, at best. What 'risk' do you honestly think people were taking?

I knew that Icesave was more likely to go under than (say) Barclays, but what I thought was at stake was some inconvenience in seeking compensation, and some lost interest during that period (or, at a push, lost interest over a longer period). And of course, I expected the likelihood of this to be unlikely. That is the risk *I* thought I was taking, not that the Icelandic government might then renege on their guarantee and leave me without any of my original capital. I'd suggest that most people were of the same understanding - at least up until very recently!

Don't get me wrong, I can see why the average tax-payer finds it hard to bear the brunt of this, but don't have a go at the people who put their money with Icesave - they (or at least I) did so against the promise of the Icelandic government. That's where the true anger should be directed.

nanker

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

So you just put money in a high interest, high risk, place and leave it there without ever checking again? You don't read the papers? Don't listen to the news? Don't log back into this site and see all the warnings from people?

Oh dear MissMoneypenny, once again you haven't read my posts. If you are going to reply to my posts then read them first! Go back through this thread and you will see that I put my money in before any warnings were issued about this bank or its compensation scheme. The first warning was from C4 news in early March (before Martin warned us on here). I shifted some at that time and some more a couple of weeks ago. So, clearly, I check, read the papers and listen to the news.

As for it being high risk, well, no one thought that until a few Months ago. Indeed it was rated AA by our Government, that's why so many councils were happy to invest in it. It would be cruel of me to hope your council has lost millions and therefore you would pay higher council tax bills, so I shan't

oliver_m_2

The following is Martin's safety guide from 11 October 2007 (last year's!).

As many of you I have invested in a fixed rate deposit with Icesave in October 2007.

Unless I'm totally blind I cannot see anything in Martin's safety guide from
October 2007 that there is something doggy about Icesave. Neither Icesave's
passport compensation scheme is mentioned nor to be special cautious dealing
with "foreign" banks.

Edit: I've opened a new thread and placed the screenshot there:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=14840747#post14840747

vigesimal

nanker wrote: »

Oh dear MissMoneypenny, once again you haven't read my posts. If you are going to reply to my posts then read them first! Go back through this thread and you will see that I put my money in before any warnings were issued about this bank or its compensation scheme. The first warning was from C4 news in early March (before Martin warned us on here). I shifted some at that time and some more a couple of weeks ago. So, clearly, I check, read the papers and listen to the news.

As for it being high risk, well, no one thought that until a few Months ago. Indeed it was rated AA by our Government, that's why so many councils were happy to invest in it. It would be cruel of me to hope your council has lost millions and therefore you would pay higher council tax bills, so I shan't

Are you one of the greedy ones who think the British tax payer should pay you your lost high interest in your very poor business decision?

As for hoping people are living in councils where they have lost money. Iit seems you want a hand out for your own bad decisions but want others to suffer through no fault of their own. That is just plain nasty.