Icesave - hard facts/possible Fortis takeover?

rathernot

I feel a little guilty about starting another thread, however it seems there are so many that seem to have descended into speculation and "I told you so" that there's little hard fact available.

I have money with Icesave, and ultimately it takes as long as it takes for the mess to be sorted out, panic won't change anything.

However, at present I'm unclear whether the FSCS scheme has actually kicked in and we're simply waiting for them to announce what happens next, or if there is still a likelihood of Icesave accounts being taken over by another bank?

Perhaps a somewhat naive question, but should the FSCS kick in, the UK Government has to essentially write a cheque to each and every affected person for their deposit.

Would it not be more prudent, and cheaper, to "buy back" the bad debt from the Icelandic and nationalise it? I ask as I don't actually want my money, I simply want to know it's held somewhere safe.

I'm sure my terminology is a bit off but you get the idea I'm driving at.

Caudle

Some FSCS info here which you may find helpful.

Baldur

rathernot wrote: »

However, at present I'm unclear whether the FSCS scheme has actually kicked in and we're simply waiting for them to announce what happens next, or if there is still a likelihood of Icesave accounts being taken over by another bank?

You are no more unclear than anyone else - Treasury & FSA officials are reported to be in Iceland trying to resolve the situation there - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7665136.stm

The FSCS per se did not cover anything except the balance (up to £50,000) left after the Icelandic scheme initial payment (on which they subsequently reneged), so there are bound to be a lot of negotiations relating to the government's 100% guarantee pledge.

rathernot

Thanks Caudle, but respectfully that link just suggests the FSCS haven't a clue what's going on either i.e. what happens if the treasury trip to Iceland return with a few trawlers full of Krona.

Can't help but think that most people don't physically want their deposit, only to know it's safe and of course available when needed - that has to be a better solution that being forced to "refund" 300,000 people.

meanmachine_2

rathernot wrote: »

Thanks Caudle, but respectfully that link just suggests the FSCS haven't a clue what's going on either i.e. what happens if the treasury trip to Iceland return with a few trawlers full of Krona.

Can't help but think that most people don't physically want their deposit, only to know it's safe and of course available when needed - that has to be a better solution that being forced to "refund" 300,000 people.

Unfortunately, the very nanosecond my money becomes "unfrozen", I'll be shipping it right back to Blighty. I suspect 99.9% of people would do the same.

This is because the Icelandic government - and I have to be careful here - has effectively stopped me from taking it out. In fact, I tried to remove it and it was snatched back.

So you they could try to "re-open" Icesave, but I suspect the only depositor left would be you.

Better to shut down the whole stinking mess and pay us by cheque.

Caudle

Nobody really knows what is going to happen - what with anti-terrorist legislation being employed for the purposes of freezing Icelandic assets in this country (etc).

You can be sure those local authorities and other organisations who put money into Icesave will be exerting pressure at high political level to get their hands on their money.

rathernot

meanmachine wrote: »

Unfortunately, the very nanosecond my money becomes "unfrozen", I'll be shipping it right back to Blighty. I suspect 99.9% of people would do the same.

Sorry I phrased that badly. What I meant was rather than the FSCS (which for something this scale is basically the UK Government) writing 300,000 cheques which people could then deposit anywhere, would it not be wiser to nationalise those deposits and say "Those 300,000 deposits of £x are now in NS&I" which would satisfy most people of their moneys safety?

Thinking about it there's probably a monopolies/competition law against doing that.

EalingSaver

I preface this post with "Of course who the hell am I to know anything".

I am hoping, and suspecting, that what is intended is that the FSCS will
a) Handle the whole claims process (that much has been clarified I believe)
b) That the FSCS will pay the whole lot (certainly up to the £50k) relatively pronto
c) Separately the government will attempt to recover as much back from Iceland, or if the current negotiations fall flat on their backs, from the Landsbanki assets they have frozen over here.

In other words, having made the 'promise' that the government will ensure no loss, they will pay up first and try to recover as much as possible in parallel/later. i.e. not hold up payout while recovering process is going on.

Having made the promise they have, there would seem to be little point and certainly political downside, to drag the process out and have it dependant on recovery of assets/funds from Iceland/Landsbanki.

EalingSaver

rathernot wrote: »

...would it not be wiser to nationalise those deposits and say "Those 300,000 deposits of £x are now in NS&I" which would satisfy most people of their moneys safety?

Thinking about it there's probably a monopolies/competition law against doing that.

The latter is not the point. I think what you are suggesting is a B&B, Heritable, KE type solution (except they weren't nationalised as such). NR was.

The point is that in this case it is NOT a UK company so legally they can't do this. Difference between Icesave and KE is that KE was a UK incorporated bank, albeit wholly owned by Kaupthing; Icesave was not.

Edit:
Contrast this with Heritable, which was also owned by Landsbanki, where the authorities could seize and shuffle off to ING a la KE.

meunier

A question - and this may be simplistic, so forgive me. Understanding that Icesave was an Icelandic company, if there was an agreement by the Icelandic authorities - now that their assets have been seized - to allow the UK authorities to take over control of the website - and assuming that they (e.g., Iceland) have signed a legal agreement to return what monies they can through asset seizure - could not the monies BE returned electronically as they were - legally I assume - collected.

A lot of 'ifs' I understand - but I ask merely for information.

john5001

Dutch have already reached agreement where the Dutch have made a loan to Iceland, and the bank will pay back each investor up to 16k