The Real Message from the latest Coutts / AIG £748M bailout ?

2sides2everystory

Uncertain wrote: »

Where we disagree is that you seem to feel that somebody with a lot of money should have less rights than somebody of modest means.

Yes of course. It should always be harder for a rich man than passing a camel through the eye of a needle.

In fact, as a mere mortal, you have more protection than the super rich as you may be able to argue that the product was unsuitable for your circumstances and therefore mis-sold. The mega wealthy will struggle with this one if the amount, however large, is a small proportion of their total wealth.

Well this particular group seem to have been given an enormous leg up by the FSA this week. Was the £6.3M fine a reflection of the cases of just one or two of the 247? Will 245 perhaps now have a tough time claiming?

Not the impression I got at all. I stand to be further corrected but it looked to me that Coutts will now cave in much like Barclays with PPI and eventually Barclays with Adventurous Aviva and just settle on a broad indemnity basis and move on.

Uncertain

oldvicar wrote: »

There is no £85K government safety net.

The FSCS says this about itself:

Yes, technically I know.

However, I was trying to keep it simple and make the point that the £85K is underwritten pretty securely.

So far the government have covered the full extent of private deposits in banks in any case.

oldvicar

Uncertain wrote: »

So far the government have covered the full extent of private deposits in banks in any case.

Apparently the government has not:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/16/southsea-mortgage-depositors-comment

Be warned: the government meant what it said when it set the protection limit at £85,000 per person per firm (or £170,000 for joint depositors) under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
Some 14 depositors at Havant-based Southsea Mortgage & Investment Company, where BDO was appointed liquidator today, may find this out the hard way. They are over the £85,000 limit and have been told to apply to the liquidator for sums above the threshold. One unlucky/ignorant/imprudent individual could, apparently, stand to lose as much as £94,000.
Is the chancellor, in sticking by the £85,000 limit, being too brutal? Well, there's no point having a cut-off if you don't apply it in practice

opinions4u

I don't really follow your working, but I don't suppose it matters.

Possibly the most sensible sentence in the entire thread.

Uncertain

oldvicar wrote: »

Apparently the government has not:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/16/southsea-mortgage-depositors-comment

Well first of all it is in the Guardian so you wouldn't expect the best slant on anything the current government does!

Anyway, assuming the report is correct, I wonder how they would have responded if it were one of the big banks and a few million prime voters were involved?

oldvicar

Uncertain wrote: »

Well first of all it is in the Guardian so you wouldn't expect the best slant on anything the current government does!

Anyway, assuming the report is correct, I wonder how they would have responded if it were one of the big banks and a few million prime voters were involved?

Hopefully we will never need to know

John_Pierpoint

I am rather thinking of the possibility that you have just sold mum & dad's former "family" home for 500,000, after shelling out 200,000 in IHT on it and been foolish enough to pay the proceeds into some organisation of which you know very little; be it AIG, Coutts bank or Southsea ............... (aka spivs incorporated?)
If it has bank or building society on the end of the name then you should get back £85K ?
Or is Coutts now 100% secure because its "parent" has in effect gone bankrupt once already?

Hang on a minute Alice will explain it all, when she has explained to me why a team of painters are at work on the roses........................


Sorry Alice I just don't understand.... "...Simple, the Government is just printing some nice new money again, just like they had to back 2008, the last lot disappeared into gold, Swiss Francs, general inflation BUT it did allow a few more rounds of pass the toxic parcel before a bunch of pensioners opened another layer of disappointment. This time we are playing a new game called kick-the-can, hopefully past the next election" ......what are the rules of this new game?

Uncertain

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

If it has bank or building society on the end of the name then you should get back £85K ?
Or is Coutts now 100% secure because its "parent" has in effect gone bankrupt once already?

No, you are missing the point.

If you make a successful claim that you have been mis-sold an investment the company will be ordered to reimburse you in full regardless of the amount involved. Obviously that assumes they haven't gone bust in the meantime or, if they have, somebody such as the government has taken on their liabilities.

Gone down in value is not the same as mis-sold. It depends what you were told at the time of the sale and / or based on a proper risk profile it was appropriate for you. If the product was properly sold then any loss is down to you.

If you deposit money in a bank you know that £85K is underwritten. Amounts above this may or may not be depending on the mood of the government at the time.

If you invest in National Savings or Gilts the whole lot is underwritten by the government (as much as anything is certain these days).

Your wealth, or lack of it, has nothing to do with any of the above.

2sides2everystory

Uncertain wrote: »

No, you are missing the point.

I am not sure about that! I think John has caught the mood perfectly!

I love your next five paragraphs - they can all be found in Alice's Garden and it is very difficult to know which is safest to follow or in which order they should be taken ... each with a pinch of salt. Try reading them in the style of Mad Hatter

1. If you make a successful claim that you have been mis-sold an investment the company will be ordered to reimburse you in full regardless of the amount involved. Obviously that assumes they haven't gone bust in the meantime or, if they have, somebody such as the government has taken on their liabilities.

2. Gone down in value is not the same as mis-sold. It depends what you were told at the time of the sale and / or based on a proper risk profile it was appropriate for you. If the product was properly sold then any loss is down to you.

3. If you deposit money in a bank you know that £85K is underwritten. Amounts above this may or may not be depending on the mood of the government at the time.

4. If you invest in National Savings or Gilts the whole lot is underwritten by the government (as much as anything is certain these days).

5. Your wealth, or lack of it, has nothing to do with any of the above.

No. 5 is the truest of them all so avoid the other 4 regardless of the amount involved and depending what you are told of course about the mood of the government at the time (as much as anything is certain - THIS IS) !

And do beware of the March Hare:
`Have some wine,' the March Hare said in an encouraging tone.

Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. `I don't see any wine,' she remarked.

`There isn't any,' said the March Hare.

`Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it,' said Alice angrily.

`It wasn't very civil of you to sit down without being invited,' said the March Hare.

`I didn't know it was your table,' said Alice; `it's laid for a great many more than three.'

oldvicar

I agree that John summed it up well, but loved the March Hare at #44 is even more. Thanks 2sides.