Very worrying stop press news re Anglo Irish

Reaper

The FSCS is not obliged to cover it, and the government said with Icesave (when they did) that it was a one off. So the answer is no.

However I would think there a good chance that the EU in one form or another would chip in to cover savers because savers are like gold dust and they can't afford to have them lose confidence in the banking system.

EDIT: They used to be partially in the FSCS scheme but they have now withdrawn

Midnight_Cowboy_2

Anglo Irish had to withdraw under European law as their scheme exceeded that of the UK scheme.

One interesting thing in yesterday's article (link above)

No member of the European Union has gone "bust" so far. If such a thing were to happen, the European Central Bank is prohibited from providing any loans or financial support to the afflicted government.

So that rules out an ECB bailout as some people have suggested.

I wrote to Anglo Irish and the Irish Dept of Finance a couple of weeks ago to ask the question about what would happen if the guarantee couldn't be honoured. I haven't had a reply. For a laugh I sent the letter to the ECB and the IMF too, just to see what they'd say. I wasn't expecting a response - and guess what? I didn't get one!

gozomark

unless the ECB rule is changed of course, which I would expect - If Germany wanted it changed, and last week it implied it did, then it will be changed

GeorgeHowell

We don't know whether the EU or anyone else would bail out Ireland or anyone else if it came to it. And we won't know until and unless it happens, because such policy is made up on the hoof.

So why take the chance if you don't have to ?

stevetodd

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

We don't know whether the EU or anyone else would bail out Ireland or anyone else if it came to it. And we won't know until and unless it happens, because such policy is made up on the hoof.

So why take the chance if you don't have to ?

For reward! that's why people take risks. Anyone in a 7% fixed bond is getting about twice the interest they would elsewhere, also added to that is the interest they would lose by breaking the bond

Midnight_Cowboy_2

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

So why take the chance if you don't have to ?

There is a world difference between somebody planning to save with an Irish bank now (to which I would say, don't take the chance) and those who already have done. Most of the people here are not 'taking a chance'; they're people who made deposits in good faith before all this blew up, and now find themselves without much choice about the 'chance' they inadvetantly took.

JP45

Interesting article by Wolfgang Munchau in today’s FT about the threat posed to the Eurozone from a possible financial collapse in Eastern Europe.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/06a45f2a-0118-11de-8f6e-000077b07658.html

Note the reference to Ireland in the third para:

‘But Ireland is not the biggest danger for the eurozone. If the country goes down, the eurozone will bail it out. Even the Germans accept this now.’

melbury

stevetodd wrote: »

For reward! that's why people take risks. Anyone in a 7% fixed bond is getting about twice the interest they would elsewhere, also added to that is the interest they would lose by breaking the bond

When I took out my two year bond with Anglo Irish in November 2007 I could have got a pretty similar interest rate with a UK bank/building society. I phoned Anglo Irish twice to check that they came under the UK compensation scheme and was assured that they did. So I entered into the bond with them feeling safe in the knowledge that should the worst happen I was covered.

If you think I would have chosen to put myself through all of this worry for a bit more interest, then you are completely mistaken.

What I simply cannot understand is how they can pay some people out and not others. The article that appeared in the Sunday Times at the beginning of February (which is on here somewhere) clearly indicates that the gentleman was given his money back (no penalty and no loss of interest from memory) purely because he challenged the changes to the terms and conditions under which he took the bond out.

Surely that must have set a precedent? How can they refuse other people who give the same reason? I just don't understand it at all.

Andrew64

melbury wrote: »

Surely that must have set a precedent? How can they refuse other people who give the same reason? I just don't understand it at all.

Could this be one reason?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/scandal-sees-836410bn-flood-out-of-country-1649052.html

"Up to €10 billion in funds is believed to have left Ireland in the last seven days as details of the Anglo Irish Bank scandal emerged."

melbury

Andrew64 wrote: »

Could this be one reason?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/scandal-sees-836410bn-flood-out-of-country-1649052.html

"Up to €10 billion in funds is believed to have left Ireland in the last seven days as details of the Anglo Irish Bank scandal emerged."

Probably, but I wrote to them two weeks ago and they haven't even bothered to reply, that is just totally ignorant.:mad: