GOOD NEWS INTEREST WILL BE PAID - if you're unhappy about this- GET OVER IT!

greyster

I find it difficult to understand how people log on here and drop blanket statements like icesave customers are stupid or why not bank with UK banks.

Foreign banks have been offering better rates. More banks, more competition, better rates. This is far healthier than two banks merging (cough) for example to create a super bank, as competition will be less and financial products will be less attractive.

If everyone banked with the same few banks, the rates would be a lot less. The more banks the more competition.

So if you don't mind I will continue to bank with whatever bank gives me the best rate. FYI my entire life savings were with icesave. The difference between me and the above posters is that I don't drop blanket statements on people and expect people to follow me. Infact I don't want people to, if everyone banked with the same bank the rates would be LOW.

Everyone considers different factors, some take more risks than others. I'm sure many icesave customers will move to HSBC, one of the safer banks at the moment or one of the two halves of the yet to be superbank...whatever rocks their boat.

Good news about the interest, I'm chuffed tonight.

Daft_Monkey

Nick_C wrote: »

Absolutely nothing, but surely the level of protection offered should be a key consideration when deciding where to put your money? Having said that, the fact Abbey is fully covered by the FSCS makes it, in my view, a little less foreign than Icesave, which relied on the Icelandic govt making good an impossible guarantee.

To tell you the truth it did bug me a bit the passport scheme, as I was thinking of the hassle if something wrong was going to happen (and it did). I think the UK government stepped in as they needed to be seen to do something about it. If it didn't I'm sure Iceland would have been forced one way or another to cough-up the money. When? That's a different story.
Personally I don't care if the bank is British or not, but from now on I will avoid passport schemes, as the Icesave situation proved that under certain circumstances the passport schemes and guaranties don't worth the paper they are written on. I wouldn't care if the savings were guaranteed by the ECB, the Irish government or the Fed. It will just be good old FSCS for me!
I'm a bit surprised however that people held more than £35K in one account. In the past I was splitting my savings so I wouldn't have more than £2K in any account (with the exception of the ISA). A bit over the top I think, but I couldn't bare loosing 10% of my hard earned cash.
Maybe a good thing might come out of this, i.e new regulations for the passport schemes. Maybe they will be abolished after this fiasco!

john_holgate

Daft_Monkey wrote: »

I'm a bit surprised however that people held more than £35K in one account. In the past I was splitting my savings so I wouldn't have more than £2K in any account

There are many people for whom splitting money into £35K chunks is just not that practical. Some people have got very large savings and need to make large transactions from time to time. But even ordinary folk might do simple things like sell their home and rent for a couple of months when they change jobs. Having deposit accounts in double figures would be a nightmare!

The FSCS is far from perfect. Covering £50k covers completely 98% of accounts, but this is actually only about half the deposits, the rest being in the remaining 2% of accounts.

The FSA should simply demand that all the banks take some collective responsibility and pay more into the fund so that it covers 100%. Either that or apply the cover at a rate e.g. 50% rather than a limit.

Every pound on deposit is worth the same as the next one. I really don't see why someone with £1m on deposit should lose 95% of it when someone with £50k would lose nothing.

sgjeffery

Instead of arguing about whether or not people should have put their money in, could someone answer the question that has been asked several times by different people, would people who have savings in fixed interest savings bonds (where the interest is payable on maturiry) also be able to claim back their interest up to the date the bank collapsed, even if it was before the maturity date?
thanks in advance

dommorton

I've been wondering the same as I too had a fixed bond with them due to mature in June 09.

I would guess if anyone is getting paid interest to date all will?

sgjeffery

I have just read this on the fool.co.uk website

"In relation to fixed rate bonds, if the bank in question goes bust, the FSCS will effectively take over your bond for the remaining term. If no access to your money is permitted at any time before maturity, you will need to wait to the end of the term before you can make a claim under the FSCS for compensation. You will then be entitled to claim for the capital deposited in your bond plus the interest you would have earned over the term up to the new maximum of £50,000."

First I've heard of it , is this true does anyone know?

k8r4u

sgjeffery wrote: »

...
First I've heard of it , is this true does anyone know?

It probably is under normal circumstances, but I think it's clear that we're in uncharted territory. I would expect that having agreed to honour a agreement that they didn't have to, the government/FSCS can (continue to) effectively make up the rules on this one as they go along.

meanmachine_2

The mindless idiots on here berating us for saving our hard earned in a "filthy foreign" bank while lavishing praise on good old British banks like HSBC DO realise it stands for Hong Kong and Shanghai, don't they?

Maybe some of these trolls should only be saving with the BNP bank. If you get my drift...

dommorton

sgjeffery wrote: »

I have just read this on the fool.co.uk website

"In relation to fixed rate bonds, if the bank in question goes bust, the FSCS will effectively take over your bond for the remaining term. If no access to your money is permitted at any time before maturity, you will need to wait to the end of the term before you can make a claim under the FSCS for compensation. You will then be entitled to claim for the capital deposited in your bond plus the interest you would have earned over the term up to the new maximum of £50,000."

First I've heard of it , is this true does anyone know?

I can't see that being true?

If the bank has failed it shouldn't matter what product you had with them surely?

South_Bound

"In relation to fixed rate bonds, if the bank in question goes bust, the FSCS will effectively take over your bond for the remaining term. If no access to your money is permitted at any time before maturity, you will need to wait to the end of the term before you can make a claim under the FSCS for compensation. You will then be entitled to claim for the capital deposited in your bond plus the interest you would have earned over the term up to the new maximum of £50,000."

If that is true I am a whole lot more relaxed about my other bonds. Won't believe it until I find it on the FSCS site though...