FSCS/Icesave EMAIL WINNERS?

NonGeographicalMan

bryanb wrote: »

Sorry if my posts have come accross as unsympathetic, but behind every post is a different story and a poster with their own situation uppermost in their mind.

Bryan,

I suppose the point is that I am far from naive on financial matters and I was aware for instance of the collapse of BCCI several years earlier. That was why I avoided ICICI bank and their higher interest rate than Icesave despite Martin Lewis's repeated strong endorsement of their top paying rate. I was also very suspicious from the word go about Kaupthing because the rates they were offering was just too high for there not to be something odd underlying it. In hindsight I suppose I should have reviewed my savings with Icesave at that stage. But the marketing used by Icesave (clear difference and all that stuff trading on the clean and well run image of Iceland and its respectable Scandinavian links) was so good that I was still convinced they were safe.

At the end of the day British banks like Northern Rock and HBOS made errors every bit as grave as the Icelandic banks but the difference is they were in Britain so our government was big and strong enough to stop them from going under. But the Icelandic government wasn't and let the whole sector flounder in favour of returning to cod fishing and trips to the land of the midnight sun. Because of that knowledge I will not risk depositing money outside the UK again in future. It doesn't matter what the reputation of the bank is but just that it is outside the UK.

I personally think the failure to cover the interest after Oct 7th by the FSCS is an important point because it means these guarantee schemes are all very well but even if you are in a British deposit taker and the FSCS scheme has to be invoked you will lose some money. But if you pick a substantial enough bank the government will never let it go under. That would only happen in circumstances such as nuclear war or a horrendous worlwide disease epidemic in which everything collapsed.

I must commend your fairness in thanking me on my previous post as that seems to show considerable open mindedness on your part in view of the previous heated words between us.

bowlesbargain

Thanks Bryanb. It would appear to be a good deal to leave the money and collect the interest on maturity. I am aware that I will not get the interest paid each year but I cannot get the rate offered asnywhere else. Thanks for your views.

NonGeographicalMan

bryanb wrote: »

I believe the FSCS are saying that for fixed term accounts they will pay capital and full interest at maturity. Also they say that the money will not be placed with any institution but will be paid as compensation (by them)

So why do the FSCS feel they have a continuing liability to pay interest on the original terms on these accounts for the whole remaining term but can slash the rate of interest on the Icesave High Interest Account after October 7th to 0%?

Obviously after the latest base rate cut I would expect the rate of interest offered on an Instant Access Account to be lower than paid by Icesave as it is not a fixed rate but I would not expect it to be 0%. There seems to be a distinct double standard here by the FSCS. I would have expected the FSCS to only give people in the Fixed Rate products the interest due pro rata over the period to Oct 7th (without any penalty clauses for early withdrawal being operated due to the circumstances) and then let those savers place their money in whatever new deposit account appears appropriate. The treatement of the Instant Access and the Fixed Rate Icesave investors on the interest issue does not appear to be at all even handed or consistent

LGG_2

Not expected yet, what may seem pointless to you could be important to others, but of course you can choose not to read the discussions.

the FSCS said second emails would go out at the end of the week ie yesterday. its pointless in the sense that this thread is about who has received their emails and discussion releated to that. theres other general chit chat ice threads all over the place. ppl come to a specific thread to get info about one subject not having to trawl through loads of off topic conversation that just goes round in circles.

bryanb

Sorry we seem to be at cross purposes, I understand the end of the week to be Sunday.
I think that having plenty of threads to express frustrations etc. is a good thing, it must relieve some of the pressures on FSCS by forestalling numerous emails asking the same questions. Hopefully they will be able to get on with their real job a little better.
But of course - each to their own.

NonGeographicalMan

LGG wrote: »

the FSCS said second emails would go out at the end of the week ie yesterday. its pointless in the sense that this thread is about who has received their emails and discussion releated to that. theres other general chit chat ice threads all over the place. ppl come to a specific thread to get info about one subject not having to trawl through loads of off topic conversation that just goes round in circles.

That is what locked stickies with forum announcements are about. This thread is about discussion. If you think it is too long then I suggest you cease participating in it as you are only making it longer with your chiding messages aimed against other posters.

LGG_2

Sorry we seem to be at cross purposes, I understand the end of the week to be Sunday.
I think that having plenty of threads to express frustrations etc. is a good thing, it must relieve some of the pressures on FSCS by forestalling numerous emails asking the same questions. Hopefully they will be able to get on with their real job a little better.
But of course - each to their own.

oh ok i just presume it would be the end of the working week

That is what locked stickies with forum announcements are about

yeah but u cant have stickies that are available to be added to ie posters can say ive got the second email.so instead there should be threads that are just about that subject and nothing else so ppl can look for info straight away without having to go through loads off pages about general convo because then when someone gets their second email u can bet another thread will be created.i just thought that was the normal process for message boards as ive seen on others.

oldfella

So why do the FSCS feel they have a continuing liability to pay interest on the original terms on these accounts for the whole remaining term but can slash the rate of interest on the Icesave High Interest Account after October 7th to 0%?

---

the T&Cs of FSCS clearly state that fixed term accounts will be paid out at maturity including interest owed - so they had no choice

NonGeographicalMan

oldfella wrote: »

So why do the FSCS feel they have a continuing liability to pay interest on the original terms on these accounts for the whole remaining term but can slash the rate of interest on the Icesave High Interest Account after October 7th to 0%?

You raise precisely the same question as myself. The FSCS's position is not logical consistent or sustainable.

They surely have no obligation at all to pay the 7% for the rest of the original term as that was Icesave's obligation. What they should be doing is paying the 7% pro-rata without any withdrawal penalty up until Oct 7th and then paying a market rate of interest for this kind of sum on deposit between Oct 7th and payout date. It should then be up to the Fixed Rate Bond investors where they reinvest the money just like the rest of us who should also be getting a market rate of interest until FSCS payout date but are not.

The Fixed Rate Bond investors seem to have a gold plated guarantee with nobs on while the FSCS can stab the rest of us Instant Access account holders in the back. One wonders if one of the relatives of an FSCS member of staff or an FSCS member of staff themselves perhaps has an Icesave Fixed Rate Bond.:eek:

I sugggest people write to complain to their MP, the Chairman and CEO of the FSCS and Alistair Darling about this absurd and unjustifiable inconsistency in policy by the FSCS.

bryanb

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

You raise precisely the same question as myself. The FSCS's position is not logical consistent or sustainable.

They surely have no obligation at all to pay the 7% for the rest of the original term as that was Icesave's obligation. What they should be doing is paying the 7% pro-rata without any withdrawal penalty up until Oct 7th and then paying a market rate of interest for this kind of sum on deposit between Oct 7th and payout date. It should then be up to the Fixed Rate Bond investors where they reinvest the money just like the rest of us who should also be getting a market rate of interest until FSCS payout date but are not.

The Fixed Rate Bond investors seem to have a gold plated guarantee with nobs on while the FSCS can stab the rest of us Instant Access account holders in the back. One wonders if one of the relatives of an FSCS member of staff or an FSCS member of staff themselves perhaps has an Icesave Fixed Rate Bond.:eek:

I sugggest people write to complain to their MP, the Chairman and CEO of the FSCS and Alistair Darling about this absurd and unjustifiable inconsistency in policy by the FSCS.

Basically I agree with you view on this, but it was Alistair who said, no retail saver would lose out. The fixed term account was an agreed contract to a specific date at a set rate, whereas the easy access was available to withdraw at any time (before collapse) On this basis fixed termers would have had to stay even if rates had risen astronomically.
I expected and would have been happy with interest to date of payment of compensation if that was the offer. The continuation of my fixed term accounts is a bonus for which I may even vote Labour next time round. BB