MSE News: Euro crisis - How safe is Santander?

JimmyTheWig

bubbles0169 wrote: »

does anyone know if it were to go how long would it take to get my savings back through compensation? it an ISA being used to save for my wedding!

dunstonh wrote: »

2 months to 2 years.

bubbles0169 wrote: »

oh carp! would it be too drastic to close it? how much warning would we get it was going bust?

Note that other posters have put the compensation time scale at significantly less than this.

But either way, if I was saving for something specific that I couldn't put off then I'd be tempted to spread my risk. I'd be looking at having two or three accounts. Not that I think that Santander UK is unsafe, more that any single individual bank could potentially be unsafe.

Obviously it depends on many factors - how long until the wedding, when you need to pay the large wedding expenses, what access (e.g. credit cards, a loan from parents) to other cash have you got.

Assuming that the wedding is in, say, the next 6 months then I wouldn't be worrying too much at this point about interest rates and ISA status. The difference between the best and the worst is pretty small on this timescale.


But to put it into perspective, and without wanting to worry you, I would expect that Santander are much more stable than some of your other key wedding suppliers (e.g. the venue, the dressmaker, the cake maker, etc). Not saying that I think any of them will go bust (clearly, as I don't know who you are using!), just that in the scheme of things Santander looks pretty safe. Pay on credit card where you can for added protection!

bubbles0169

the wedding is september next year so i wont need to pay out the big amounts until july, i understand what you mean about suppliers, its just a risk you have to take with them, unfortunately we dont get forewarned so hopefully the insurance will cover them!
we are paying it all ourselves, but if the worst comes to the worst we could rely in OH parents
i will have had the santander one for a year in april though so would proabably switch that then anyway
i think i will open another account and split it between them, now who to trust??!!

JimmyTheWig

bubbles0169 wrote: »

now who to trust??!!

That's just the point. We don't know.
Even Martin lewis doesn't know.

But by spreading it around you minimise your risk.

bubbles0169

i know its so frustrating! is it all worth the £200 id get in interest, i might aswell put it under the bed!

JimmyTheWig

From an interest point of view I largely agree (which is why I said don't worry too much about rates and tax status, especially as it comes near to needing the cash) but from a safety point of view I'd say it is much safer in even the riskiest of banks than as cash at home.

callum9999

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Its a good article so long as you dont fall off your chair in a blind panic after reading just the headline.

It confirms what Ive thought true for a while that Santander is the opposite of how RBS was run.
If you read to the end it says each section of the bank is run separate from the others, where as RBS and friends were piled together like a giant wrecking ball used to endlessly take out competitors and in the end their own knees, leaving them and their customers in a mess on the floor

If you own the shares then you own the whole bank, the growing parts in South america , the UK, the USA bank and the Spanish debt and iffy government bonds.

If you have a savings account then you just have an interest in their UK bank, the rest of the company doesnt matter. If anything the flow of money has been into the UK I think the parent company was obliged to increase the capital because they have so many customers.
Alot of these banks have large amounts of capital now, the others have bad debts I dont think Uk Santander does as it did not take on B&B debt and you can speculate about A&L and Abbey but I dont think they were especially bad or exposed to anything bad outside of uk residential mortgages

HBOS BARC and RBS were doing all sorts of strange deals. B&B were buying up USA general motors unsecured car loans, why a tiny BS had to go and do that I will always wonder

Also Nationwide was downgraded

I own San shares for the yield, they seem relatively sensible to me

For people like you or me yes, that is true. For a huge number of people who will either just read the headline, or will just skim bits of the article it is a tremendously misleading piece.

I clicked on it as the headline gives the impression Santander is in danger of imminent collapse (who possibly thought putting the word "crisis" followed by a question of a banks stability is a good idea?). The article itself however is about how Santander is well protected and the only negatives appear to be about other banks.

If I was in management at Santander I'd be furious at that headline!

JimmyTheWig

callum9999 wrote: »

If I was in management at Santander I'd be furious at that headline!

At least it gets people reading and talking about their bank!

Meeper

This whole thread is ridiculous.

hermante

A lot of people are wondering why Santander is being singled out. Well, unlike Lloyds or Barclays, Santander is regarded as a Spanish (= foreign) bank, and we all see Spain being in trouble on the news etc. Not everyone realises or understands that Santander UK is a UK bank.

oldvicar

Isn't Santander UK still a subsidiary of a Spanish bank?

If the parent were to be in trouble, would it affect its UK bank in any way? Has the parent lent it any money?