Consumer Power: Have your say on savings safety

gt94sss2

alanq wrote: »

The increased compensation limit may increase competition because more money will be drawn to accounts offering higher rates whereas at present people choose to leave some of their funds earning less attractive rates in order not to exceed the limit.

I think you may find what actually happens is that it reduces interest rates as those institutions which are financially weaker feel they don't need to accurately reflect the risk to their depositors funds by offering even higher rates- as they all know that for less than <£50k it doesn't matter..

Regards
Sunil

chris1

MSE_Wendy wrote: »

We're planning to interview the CEO of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, Mark Neale, and would love to hear which questions you'd like us to ask.

Any answers yet, or when is the interview to take place please?

RAN_2

All of Santander's brands now fall under one single FSCS registration so any saver with existing funds in, say A&L, Abbey, B&B, Cahoot etc have total protection of only £50000. This suggests that sensible savers will choose to put no more than £50000 into Santander owned companies. However Santander are regularly out in the savings market offering some of the highest rates which implies a wish to take in as much money as they are able - but are restricted in doing so by virtue of their single group wide registration. What possible benefit is there in this policy and who comes out the actual winner - the FSCS scheme or Santander?

adindas

They sell mypersonal data to other parties, making money from it.
Why do I need to pay to see those data ?

In my opinion I should get some share percentages of pay that they receive from the companies accessing my data .... :j
People shoould not pay even for £2 to see their data.
CRA make mistake, People suffer terreble for those mistake.

ADINDAS

Reaper

RAN wrote: »

...but are restricted in doing so by virtue of their single group wide registration. What possible benefit is there in this policy and who comes out the actual winner - the FSCS scheme or Santander?

It is Santandar's choice. They can opt to have 1 lot of cover across the group or individual cover for each part. Presumably splitting it up costs them more in contributions which is why they only have one.

I would like to see them forced to have 1 lot of cover per brand to avoid confusing customers. The companies then just have the choice of paying for each part or merging the brand names into one.