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

Nickb1866

Hello,

I'm an Icesave customer, and I understand that HM Government will 'bail out' all Icesave UK depositors which is very good news. However does anyone know what the timescales (roughly) will be? i.e a few weeks, months?

Does the money coming back to us rely on the UK Government taking the Icelandic Government to court first (i.e. for the first £16,000) etc?

Also, in what way will Icesave customers be sent notice of a compensation form? i.e. via email/post etc.

And finally, I know we should be grateful to get our money back, but with Icesave I get paid monthly interest, will I lose interest from now on, or will they continue to honour this?

Thanks,

Nick, Icesave depositor:mad:

MissMoneypenny

ChloeRadshaw wrote: »

I for one am not happy about this,

I will be out of pocket by at least 3K as a result of this and I expect to be compensated - I m not a troll but a senior creditor to Icsave (which is fully regulated by the FSCS)

I was within the 35K protection limit - How are they allowed to do this>?

Thanked you in error.

Didn't you read Martins very clear warning about investing in this bank and how it was protected and was not as secure as other banks? Did any of you????

You should be very grateful that the tax payer is bailing you out and paying you Iceland's share. If all you lose is your interest, you should count yourself very lucky.

nanker

MissMoneypenny, did you not read my post?

There was NO warning on this site when I invested my daughter's inheritance. I heard about the concerns of the passport scheme on C4 news. Martin was still not warning about it at that time. So, no, I did not read it here because it was not here!

Some people are so thick

Rafter

Not sure any agreement is going to be reached on this one.....

What would be the 'fair' thing to do?

Perhaps Icesave customers should receive what they would have earned if they had invested 'risk free' in National Savings and Investments.

It certainly seems unfair that the rest of the industry and the taxpayers should be paying an above average interest rate for what turned out to be a risky investment.

You might as well start arguing that all the B&B shareholders should be re-imbursed.

If you think retail savings are all 'risk free' then they should all be priced the same and be government control and individual banks would have to 'bid' for savings from the central pot and pay a premium to government if they are more risky than the average.

But that would drastically reduce customer choice and competition.

Savers can't have it both ways though. You can't have introductory bonus' and higher rates without accepting that there is at least some risk to you from investing in smaller or startup banks versus long established players.

R.

MissMoneypenny

nanker wrote: »

MissMoneypenny, did you not read my post?

There was NO warning on this site when I invested my daughter's inheritance. I heard about the concerns of the passport scheme on C4 news. Martin was still not warning about it at that time. So, no, I did not read it here because it was not here!

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.

nanker wrote: »

Some people are so thick

That is so true....but don't worry...the tax payer will bail them all out.

Birdie100

but rafter, all of Bradford and Bingley's interest payments are safe; all of Northern Rock's interest payments were saved; all of Kaupthing's interest payments have been saved, so why shouldn't Icesave's in turn? The Government has announced we are not to lose a penny, and I would deem losing £50 or so in outstanding interest payments to be losing money. Given the Chancellor seems to be prepared to let my ISA keep its tax free wrapping from previous terms, then the cost, and future cost, of that will far outweigh the interest payments for 1 year. I will however concede that as of the 7th October, no further interest should be paid. (Since this is now "consequential loss" - such as fines we may be incurring as we are unable to retrieve our money). But I do believe the interest payments up to the 7th should be honoured.

Dancon

I did post earlier under a different thread titled "Icesave interest" but as there are so many threads at the moment it quickly vanished off the front page and has had limited viewings.

Just to let you know that my Icesave account was credited with it's normal monthly interest today so it looks like they are still honouring this. I'm not sure about annual interest but it looks like it should be still accruing (hopefully)

LesU

Rafter wrote: »

It certainly seems unfair that the rest of the industry and the taxpayers should be paying an above average interest rate for what turned out to be a risky investment.

R.

If there was a direct correlation between the rate of return and the inherent risks involved then it would put savings decisions more into the realms of on-line poker.
However, there is no link between the two. High interest rates were offered by the Icelandic banks so they could attract high amounts of saver's money and hence be properly capitalised.
Icesave was extremely well capitalised, unlike, say, Northern Rock.
It had such good funding, that after adding in its other assets, there is still a possibility that it will be able to repay a good proportion of its debts. The Icelandic Government may have other ideas for that money of course.

bignoise

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You should be very grateful that the tax payer is bailing you out and paying you Iceland's share. If all you lose is your interest, you should count yourself very lucky.

I totally agree. (And I had/have money in Icesave myself.)

I invested a small amount (nowhere even close to the £35k limit) and while the "offshore" nature of Icesave was a concern, I was happy enough that it was all covered by the UK Banking Code, regulated by the Financial Services Authority, and so on.

The only thing I didn't bank on, so to speak, was that in the event of Icesave going to the wall, that the Icelandic government would turn around and say "You know that guarantee? We won't be bothering with that, sorry." Without the benefit of hindsight, I don't think that's something which you could reasonably expect the man in the street to be able to forsee.

So, as it stands, I'm perfectly content, and grateful, to be getting anything back at all. I think that demanding "lost interest" and such would be, in a word, ungracious, and asking too much. (I know that the MSE culture is very much "Demand your rights! Consumer revenge! Screw the banks!" but now is not the time and place for that kind of attitude, in my opinion.)

For the other taxpayers who seem to think that they personally are bailing me out from their very own wallets, I can say only this. I'd do exactly the same thing for you. Via general taxation or otherwise, we all help each other - it's called society.

GeorgeHowell

strawberrylane wrote: »

It will be a travesty if the UK taxpayer ends up paying for accumulated interest to Icesave customers who chose not to get out earlier, despite the warnings. That's the only way people will learn not to emulate the bankers and chase high returns regardless of the risks

@George - I agree with a lot of what you say, but I suspect there are a lot of people with fixed bonds opened a year ago or longer who haven't had the chance to get out earlier. Your comment is unfair in that respect.

That's why I said 'who chose not to get out'. It is different for bond holders who could not so so. Ideally a distinction should be made between those who could not get out and those who chose not to do so, but I doubt that it will.

Regarding those above who are more than happy to be bailed out by the taxpayer, and who are and putting two fingers up, this ridiculous Labour government (who such types no doubt vote for, and probably owe their livelihood to) will continue do this as it desperately clings to office. But the days of freebies for the non-contributors will come to an end sooner or later.