What is the matter with some people here!

Blah99

These threads do make me chuckle.

Icesave was a triple-A rated bank and was protected by the FSCS top-up scheme. Their website and their mainstream media advertising included wording stating that Icesave was as safe as any UK institution and fully compliant with FSA regulations. Financial advisors such as Capita recommended its use. Cash is one of the safest, least-risk forms of investment.

Icesave is/was not Farepak. Icesave was a retail banking operation, whereas Farepak was an investment "club" that provided vouchers for money. It was a gross shame what happened to Farepak customers, but it's not comparable to Icesave.

Anyone who deposited their cash into Icesave did absolutely nothing wrong based on the information available. They weren't greedy risk takers, they just deposited their cash in a bank account paying decent interest. They absolutely deserve to be compensated for their loss.

It seems that peoples' complaints about Icesave are all because of the supposedly high 6%-ish interest rates Icesave paid. This 6% and the "save" in "Icesave" seems to give the complainers the right to call the depositors "greedy", which is bizarre. Icesave is absolutely no different to Halifax, Natwest, Barclays, etc etc etc. 6% isn't even a fantastic interest rate; look in the Finance section of any newspaper and you would have found a bunch of other institutions offering the same or better rates.

If HBOS collapsed tomorrow I guarantee everyone who held an HBOS account and complained about Icesave would demand the same compensation. It's very hypocritical, because there's really no difference.

Now here's a joke for you: "What's the capital of Iceland?"



"About £100"...

EalingSaver

Blah99 wrote: »

Now here's a joke for you: "What's the capital of Iceland?"

"About £100"...

Shouldn't that be "Wreckjavik" ?

or

"About £100 - and thats on loan"

P.S. Not having a go at Icelanders.

Hungerdunger

Blah99 wrote: »

Anyone who deposited their cash into Icesave did absolutely nothing wrong based on the information available.

As long as they didn't go above the guaranteed limit of £35k.

Guesthouse

amistupid wrote: »

I think those with over £35,000 have been very, very fortunate to have had the rest guaranteed. They've played Russian roulette, shot themselves in the head, but still somehow managed to survive.

and considering the latest on HBOS etc looking for assistance, they have reloaded and passed the gun to someone else. As another poster noted, if HBOS etc went down how many posters would be here looking for their 100% guarantee. None? - I think not.

Money_Grabber13579

apt wrote: »

There's no point sneering at people who have been naive or unlucky.

Prehaps those who are sneering are those that are jealous because they have no money to invest? Some people have to work hard for their money, others get it too easy, but that doesn't give them the right to crow because they wern't involved in Icesave. Just a thought...

meanmachine_2

Nick_C wrote: »

Stupid is unfair - foolish would be more appropriate.

People who are upset about the bail out are concerned that the Birtish Taxpayer will end up paying for it. If Darling really can recover enough from seizing Icelandic assets to pay for the compensation then fine, but there is a genuine concern that it won't work out that way. Time will tell.

THe problem with bailing out the foolish is, will they learn their lesson?

You're beyond contempt.

I've worked DAMN hard for my savings. I've paid THOUSANDS in tax over the years, and now I'm being "foolish" for not panicking like a headless chicken and taking MY money out before the damn bank crashed?!!!

I can guarantee you something for nothing, if that 4bn pounds isn't recovered, I and every Icesaver in the land will have every right to refuse to pay taxes (I'm not paying to support greedy banks, heroin addicts, the homeless, people on benefits, blah blah) and let sanctimonious people like you pick up the slack instead.

Deal? Then you REALLY would have something to complain about.

Money_Grabber13579

Investing in a bank is supposed to be a very safe option, the safest there is. Hence it's only right that those savers should be refunded all their money if the worst happens.

Investors i.e. share holders bare more risk, as there is the possibility of more reward, so they shouldn't be compensated for their loss.

Finally, the top brass who ran a bank straight into the ground should be hunted down and pubished to the fullest extent, and stripped of their bonuses. Why should they deserve it for collapsing a bank?

What I'm trying to get accross though is, if you deposit in a bank, you get the smallest reward for bearing the smallest risk. An investor gets the potential of the largest reward, which has happened over the past 8-10 years, for bearing the largest risk. So savers should have all their money returned, however if the banks were managed properly, none of this should have happened.

Hungerdunger

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

Investing in a bank is supposed to be a very safe option, the safest there is. Hence it's only right that those savers should be refunded all their money if the worst happens.

How on earth do you get to that conclusion? It has been a safe option, but following the Northern Rock debacle and the problems in the US, it has also been obvious that banks and building societies can fail.

So yes, savers should have their money refunded up to the £35k (now £50k) limit, but apart from those who put money into fixed rate accounts before Northern Rock, I really feel savers should have been taking more responsibility for how they invested their money.

DX-SFX

So if any bank or building society can fail without warning (which apparently they can), it makes no difference which institution we put our money in so it's just a game of roulette. You may just as well call someone who puts their money on thirteen black greedy, stupid and foolish when the ball lands on fourteen red. No doubt there'll be experts popping up saying they knew it was going to land on red and I should've known too. In fact I'd like to thank all the people cleverer than me who wisely put their money in a bank that offered a good rate of intererst and guaranteed that it was safe.... Oh, wait a minute, just like Icesave.

juicyjude

Sorry hungerdunger I dont agree with your statement that savers should take more responsibility over where they deposit their money!( as opposed to investing). Investing assumes an element of risk, saving should not.