Have the savers not learned nothing

Myrmidon_J

ifts wrote:

Maybe the title of your thread should of been Have the FSCS not learned anything instead of Have the savers not learned nothing.

Aye, and perhaps your riposte should have read: "Maybe the title of your thread should have been..."

Is your sig (not looking down on people, comrade) supposed to be deeply ironic?

D1zzy

Maybe OP was being ironic
"not learned nothing" = "learned something"
-we did - get the best rate you can but stay below the comp limit!!

ManAtHome

chopperharris wrote: »

citibank , ing , post office BOI , investec , bank of cyprus , icici , santander- with abbey, bradford and bingley , alliance and leicester.

Well, I have a few quid with A&L (for some time now), but nothing else on the list.

A quick scan of rates, and very little pops up even as market-leading, never mind substantially better - I shall remain mystified as to why everyone else is shovelling money into these accounts...

opinions4u

What should savers learn from the Icesave fiasco?

The message is quite clear:

CHASE THE BEST RATE BECAUSE IF IT GOES TITS UP HM GOVERNMENT AND THE FSCS WILL REIMBURSE YOU IN FULL, INCLUDING INTEREST.

What else would you learn?

nicko33

opinions4u wrote: »

What else would you learn?

How did the local councils and other public authorities come out of the Icelandic fiasco?

Is Iceland repaying them, or are we the taxpayer having to cover them?

Reaper

I don't think Iceland has to repay them a there was no guarantee for institutional savers (somebody correct me if I am wrong). That is why local authority rules said they had to pull out if the credit rating dropped below a certain level, something they failed to do.

So their losses will have to be covered by local or national taxpayers.

Bromley86

Actually, IIRC Iceland did not take the option to exclude charities, councils, etc. from the TIF (their version of the FSCS). Of course as the guarantee amount is <£17k, that won't be much of a consolation to those councils .

And Iceland has yet to ratify the Icesave agreements (they require parliamentary sign-off of state guarantees), so it's not a done deal yet.

Some of the loss will be offset by the liquidation of the old banks, but whenever I look at the figures I get the impression that councils are talking though their !!!!!! when they they mention 90-100% recovery. I may well be missing something though.

sagalout1954

Being savers with Icesave who "nearly got burned" we learnt 2 lessons:

1) When Kaupthing Edge also sank and was shoved into the arms of ING, we whipped our dosh out faster than a rat up a drainpipe. Keeping every penny of our money in financial institutions ONLY covered by the FSCS (which ING is not).

2) Stay under the limit of 50k (actually, we stay under about £45 - £47k to allow for interest payments increasing the capitol).

Chopperharris is failing to grasp it makes no difference if the institution is UK or foreign as long as it has full FSCS cover (though there's no guarantee they would be able to cough up if the brown stuff really hit the fan - but at least we would be dealing with our own country).

Jonbvn

chopperharris wrote: »

Its an internet forum , i dumb down so i can type and watch soaps at the same time innit , i do correct the kids when they are writing on my walls though.

Or perhaps you were typing with your other hand?;);)

Ifts

Myrmidon_J wrote: »

Is your sig (not looking down on people, comrade) supposed to be deeply ironic?

As for the sig, no its not supposed to be ironic. Was replying to the OP and was stating that I have learned to stay within the compensation limits of whatever financial institution I save with. Even though no private UK saver has lost any money to date, and in some cases have been compensated above the compensation limits. No point of scare mongering.

Aye, and perhaps your riposte should have read: "Maybe the title of your thread should have been..."

Yes you are quite right in correcting me, it was a bit late in the morning