Ask the Chancellor a question on the banking crisis

isofa

Personally I think 50K per institution isn't enough, and has led to a lot of money moving out to Ireland and being split up from good accounts. With people selling houses and moving large sums of money around, splitting to 50K often is just a nuisance, and hence why many had huge sums in Iceland, B+B, NR and other failed institutions. Savings really should be a zero risk product, they aren't an investment. 50K in this day and age really isn't a massive amount of money. 100K pp would be a better starting point. But as the government so far have guaranteed everything saved with the current set of bank failures, it's just a notional amount in times of non-crisis IMO.

Ireland have a 100% guarantee, and the US $250K, so 100K for the UK would be a good idea IMO.

Aren't there guidelines and details of timescales on the consumer section of the FSCS website?

Rocket32_2

It's very simple, Never owe more than can afford to repay.The greedy financial institutions are to blame for this mess, by encouraging borrowing beyond what can be repaid. The Government now need to step in and control our excesses, because self-regulation doesn't work and never will do.

greenalien_2

The recent cut in interest rates, with more to come, will reduce the income on savings for anyone with a savings account linked to the BOE rate. How about changing the ISA rules to allow the entire annual allowance of £7200 to be held in cash? This would have minimal cost to the government but would be a great encouragement to those of us using ISAs to save for our retirement but who don't want to gamble on the Stock Market. More savings = greater liquidity for banks!

cwcw

Question:

The Chancellor announced two weeks ago that all savings in Icesave would be 100% protected. Whilst myself and every Icesaver was grateful of this, at the time of writing we have still not heard when or how this will happen. EU law states a maximum of 3 months from default. Can the Chancellor promise this deadline will be met, and if not, will lost interest since default also be compensated to truthfully ensure "no UK saver will lose out"?

jkd_3

Isofa mentioned that savings should be zero-risk.

So where do you think the bank/BS gets the money to pay you interest ?
They have to invest in order to provide each one of us a return....
Some of the savings interest comes from the mortgage interest, so in theory, if someone defaults on their mortgage (thus no income to the bank), the bank still finds the money to pay you interest, or should they default in paying the savers ?

There is nothing in life that is risk-free !!

JimmyTheWig

isofa wrote: »

Personally I think 50K per institution isn't enough, and has led to a lot of money moving out to Ireland and being split up from good accounts. With people selling houses and moving large sums of money around, splitting to 50K often is just a nuisance...

In these instances there is no real need for table-topping interest rates and the proceeds from a house sale could be deposited, until, presumably, a new house is purchased, in an institution that is 100% protected, such as Northern Rock or NS&I.

With the hassle of having to wait for a payout from FSCS the suggested plan is to have two savings accounts anyway, regardless of the limit. This, then, gives people £100k of protection. This, in my opinion, is more than enough for someone wanting a tip-top interest rate.

Nomad25

annual allowance of £7200
[/QUOTE
What a good idea, but I thought it was 3,600 cash and 7,200 stock + shares, so that would allow a total of 10,800 cash. Happy to be corrected if I've got this wrong.....

simmsathome

Listening to reports on the TV,about the the Directors of the Banks that have lost their customers money are allowed to keep the Profits. Surely they could be more responsable? Perhaps made to deduct a percentage out of their Bonus if the Market looses out? What ever happened to accountability to customers?
I agree with alot of others when they say that the UK savers should all be helped when Banks etc make the losses.
We should be more responsable by limiting the money we borrow; eg less credit.
I use credit cards but always pay them off as soon as I can. I do live on a limited income.
I have nominal savings and no investments and a very small pension when I retire. Risk taking is not on my agenda, living is.
How would the goverment encourage folk to save when they are not in a position to do so in the first place?
In an ideal world everyone would be able to save for retirement but for a large majority this is not an option.
The interst rate has been so low for the last 15-16 years, it makes little sense to save in the Bank or anywhere else at present.
This web site has helped me and many save where they can.
All thanks to all at Money savings expert.:j

JBEILBY

As we are now in a position of being bankers to those banks the goverment has given our money then a seat on the board of directors should be on offer to a tax payer so we can see what they get up to behind closed doors. After all self regulation is never going to work and neither is the FSA (since the latter was set up by the banks - say no more!)

flossy_splodge

Nomad25 wrote: »

annual allowance of £7200
[/QUOTE
What a good idea, but I thought it was 3,600 cash and 7,200 stock + shares, so that would allow a total of 10,800 cash. Happy to be corrected if I've got this wrong.....

Sorry but that IS wrong. The total is 7200 but that can be split into cash and/or stocks and shares. The £3600 has only just been put up to that level from the previous one of £3000 in cash.:T