Icesave - hard facts/possible Fortis takeover?

saxmund

del1001 wrote: »

yeah, that's ok, but what about a good many like myself that have fixed term deposits with icesave (as posted in another thread), apparently there would have to be a rule change for the money to be payed out early

I don't see why it would be a problem - surely any bank can make a rule change in the customer's favour very easily.

saxmund

EalingSaver wrote: »

Understand your points saxmund. But I guess it wouldn't be UK buying it, except for a nominal £1 sum?? The deposits have no value. But something along the lines of the dutch scheme: UK makes a loan to Iceland, the money is then injected into IceSave to cover some of its liabilities, and the UK buys (and possibly then sells on) for a nominal amount.

Who knows...we will see.

I would expect it to be a nominal "purchase" but don't forget we have got those seized assets: maybe the loan will be offset against them as collateral.

noh

saxmund wrote: »

I don't see why it would be a problem - surely any bank can make a rule change in the customer's favour very easily.

No a change to the FSA rules concerning compensation and the date of default.
http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/COMP/12/3
The rules state that a default takes place when the protected deposit was due and payable. With term deposits this would be at the end of their original term.

Nigel

Tony_Webster

Then again, the FSCS was only supposed to top-up over & above the Icelandic scheme. What does that say about fixed term deposits, given the conciliatory noises coming from the North Atlantic ?

azureblue_2

And then there's folks like me who (just about) live on the interest from savings so as not to burden the country with anymore benefit claims . . .
It's a meagre time for us now.

ajaxgeezer

Tony,

I've wondered about this. This is from the Icesave website, I've 'bolded' the relevant bits:

--
The first level of protection is provided under the Icelandic Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (www.tryggingarsjodur.is). The maximum protection under this scheme is 100% of the first €20,887 (or the sterling equivalent) of your total deposits held with us.

The second level of protection is provided by the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme (www.fscs.org.uk). This scheme tops-up your protection so that the protection under both schemes, is equal to 100% of the first £35,000 (rising to £50,000 with effect from 7 October 2008) of your total deposits held with us.
--

Now the way this always read to me is that if the first (passport) scheme failed to provide 100% of the first 20887 Euros then the FSCS scheme had to find that shortfall too. In other words, the FSCS was always committed to the possibility of having to provide 100% cover anyway. To me, the fact that there was a passport scheme was largely irrelevant.

As I say, this was from the Icesave website and the actual truth (or the FSCS take on it) may be completely different, in which case I've been a very lucky boy indeed that the FSCS/government will come to the rescue.

itsmickdundee

Is totally irrelevant to UK savers as this is what the Dutch government has done to cover its own citizens.

The link posted above is for the Icelandic government website.

A non story, unless you are Dutch national.

Can we post relevant articles that mean something to UK citizens, please?

Though my other hunch about Iceland does seem to be coming to fruition - BIG loans given to them by other world governments which they will spend the next 50-70 years paying off a la UKs payments to the US after WWII...

Iceland will be living a frugal existance for some time. This is also the beginning of the end for domestic banks operating in foreign countries, unless they are one of the big boys - mark my words...

meanmachine_2

itsmickdundee wrote: »

Is totally irrelevant to UK savers as this is what the Dutch government has done to cover its own citizens.

The link posted above is for the Icelandic government website.

A non story, unless you are Dutch national.

Can we post relevant articles that mean something to UK citizens, please?
..

Calm down. I understand your frustration, but you can be 99% sure that what the Dutch have agreed to is what the British have agreed to.

Lend the Icelandics the money so that they can go through the face-saving pretence of "giving us our money back".

It's the only option on the tablem, as far as I see it.

ajaxgeezer

meanmachine wrote: »

Calm down. I understand your frustration, but you can be 99% sure that what the Dutch have agreed to is what the British have agreed to.

Lend the Icelandics the money so that they can go through the face-saving pretence of "giving us our money back".

It's the only option on the tablem, as far as I see it.

....yes I agree. I was being blindly optimistic that the Icelanders would borrow the money and they'd effectively open up the channels of icesave.co.uk for the mass withdrawal. It would certainly save a lot of red tape. It really does look like a claim now though.

EalingSaver

Ajax, don't agree on your interpretation. ("Now the way this always read to me is that if the first (passport) scheme failed to provide 100% of the first 20887 Euros then the FSCS scheme had to find that shortfall too.").

Changing your highlighting

...The maximum protection under this scheme is 100% of the first €20,887 (or the sterling equivalent) of your total deposits held with us.

...This scheme tops-up your protection so that the protection under both schemes, is equal to 100% of the first £35,000 (rising to £50,000 with effect from 7 October 2008) of your total deposits held with us.
--

In other words the sum of the protection provided by the combination of both schemes gives you up to the FSCS limit. The only other interpretation of my highlighted sentence is that both schemes separately give you protection up to the FSCS limit, which is clearly not the case, neither in reality nor because of the preceeding sentence (in my cut down) which would then contradict.