UK to lend Iceland £3bn for Icesave compensation

ajaxgeezer

All that made my head hurt too.

So if I can pitch this at my (much lower) level, anyone confident of what will happen now, and when?

MarkyMarkD

Given that it says at the top of this page "Icesave & Kaupthing News: In the Are your savings safe guide. Updated 3x a day", I'd suggest following Martin's comments rather than asking whether anyone else knows better.

ajaxgeezer

Hmm.. Was that a reply to me Marky?

going2die_rich

nilrem wrote: »

From that I presume that you don't have your savings with Icesave! :mad:

And the panic caused to savers of other institutions who would draw their cash out fearing a similar fate would not effect the country at all? :rolleyes:

No I don't have any savings in Icesave. I did think about it but didn't think the passport protection scheme was trustworthy in my opinion at the time. I don't think you should trust another country, only your own.

The panic would have been people taking their money out of other country ran banks and putting it in the British banks. Which people should be doing now anyway. Now isn't the time to be greedy and go for a bit of extra interest rate.

KingL

This has all been done about 30 times over. Give it a rest, won't you?

going2die_rich

shindigger wrote: »

Hi,
Who do you bank with?
Where are your savings?
Are they safe?
I hope so.

My money is safe as it can be since it's in a bank thats protected under the british scheme. Mickey Mouse savers trust in other governments schemes like the icelandic passport one.

I am also not one of the idiots who puts in more than that was protected in the first place either. These people should have not been bailed out more than their £50k limit. Although at the time before the bank was in trouble it was only £35k, so they got an extra £15k to cover their stupidty.

By the way, I was and still am sort of FOR the bail out (apart from the bit where it's not capped to the £50k limit). But thats the last bail out I want to see by the government if the bank isn't protected under the british scheme. Anyone else goes under for the passport scheme or no scheme at all, they best be told they aren't getting a penny from the taxpayers.

I just think bailing the savers out is adding to the burden of the taxpayers for the future. So it should be a thought out resolution. Perhaps, the initial lump sum £10k first, then everything after that in yearly instalments. Obviously without interest, since the icesave savers should be a bit more grateful for getting their money at all.

hazyhazyhazy

going2die_rich wrote: »

My money is safe as it can be since it's in a bank thats protected under the british scheme. Mickey Mouse savers trust in other governments schemes like the icelandic passport one.

I am also not one of the idiots who puts in more than that was protected in the first place either. These people should have not been bailed out more than their £50k limit. Although at the time before the bank was in trouble it was only £35k, so they got an extra £15k to cover their stupidty.

By the way, I was and still am sort of FOR the bail out (apart from the bit where it's not capped to the £50k limit). But thats the last bail out I want to see by the government if the bank isn't protected under the british scheme. Anyone else goes under for the passport scheme or no scheme at all, they best be told they aren't getting a penny from the taxpayers.

I just think bailing the savers out is adding to the burden of the taxpayers for the future. So it should be a thought out resolution. Perhaps, the initial lump sum £10k first, then everything after that in yearly instalments. Obviously without interest, since the icesave savers should be a bit more grateful for getting their money at all.

Is it NOT thetaxpayer that has injected cash in to entire banking system. If they didn't you might be claiming your cash back.

If your robbed you would be using TAX PAYERS money to either find criminal or return your goods.

MarkyMarkD

ajaxgeezer wrote: »

Hmm.. Was that a reply to me Marky?

Certainly was. If it had been to anyone else, other than the immediately preceding post, I'd have quoted their relevant comment.

ajaxgeezer

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Certainly was. If it had been to anyone else, other than the immediately preceding post, I'd have quoted their relevant comment.

hmm... just wondering why you felt the need to be (or certainly appear to be) sarcastic when someone like me - with little knowledge of the machinations of these things - admits that it's all a bit bewildering and asks very politely that someone be kind enough to share any knowledge they have. That sarcasm was unwarranted, unnecessary and misplaced.

1. It was misplaced because the headline you referred to is incorrect in that it's old and not updated three times a day any more - it hasn't been for ages (if it ever was). Usually 'news' appears in other publications and then gets discussed on here.

2. It was unnecessary because I simply asked that someone with a knowledge higher than mine shared their knowledge with me in a format that I could understand. I'm not very good with words or finance - not everyone can be, but irrespective of that we (us Icesavers) are all in the same boat.

3. It was unwarranted because it made me feel bad that someone would appear to use their post and sarcastic smiley simply to belittle someone. There can be no other reason other than "you could". It's intellectual bullying, pure and simple. Now, had I given you a reason to become aggressive or even touchy then I could perhaps understand your spines pricking up but that wasn't the case. Why adopt that tone?

You could have just ignored me if you didn't want to answer. I know it gets frustrating saying the same things to the same people, but in this forum environment it's easy to ignore someone you perceive as unworthy rather than belittle them. I asked my question because all of the wheat of the Icesave situation is surrounded by a lot of chaff - will we/won't be be paid interest? Will we be paid by the Treasury/FSCS of will they liquidate the Icesave accounts to allow withdrawal? Is the FSCS a 3-month or 6 month guideline? Eveyone points to a different clause in a different publication and they usually contradict each other.

Under those circumstances I don't think it unfair to ask my question of whether anyone "is confident what will happen and when?" without feeling that I should be intellectually bullied and made to feel bad just because someone wants to do it.

luvpump

going2die_rich wrote: »

It would have been easier telling the Icesavers they aren't getting anything. Save the taxpayer all this burden for the gain of a few.

I disagree, because I would have stood to lose quite a lot , If the taxpayer had not come to the rescue .... So here is a big thank you from me to you !! :beer: :wave: