Punjab National Bank - fixed rate deposits

innovate

missile wrote: »

Have we forgotten the problems the Icelandic banks?

No we (I) haven't - but how are those probs relevant to Punjab National Bank?

jayship

Check out facts about PNB on wikipedia and than decide for yourselves.

innovate

jayship wrote: »

Check out facts about PNB on wikipedia and than decide for yourselves.

That's an interesting starting point, but personally, I would use the T&Cs of a bank, double-checked against the FSA website, to make up my mind.

Kippaxman_2

Thanks for all the advice. I think it is a good idea to open an account with PNG in their offices. I invested with the Icelandic Banks and I do admit to being worried at the time, I got every penny back including the interest under the FSCS protection scheme. Kippaxman

oldvicar

innovate wrote: »

Your deposit is safe up to £85K but the interest is not guaranteed.

I believe you can, however, withdraw your money early and without penalties if they inform you that they will not achieve their originally expected returns.

If its the FSCS you rely on for safety, the interest is just as 'guaranteed' as the original deposit up to the overall £85K limit. In other words if your original deposit is £80K and accrued interest amounts to £5K, then it is all 'protected' .

Kippaxman wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice. I think it is a good idea to open an account with PNG in their offices. I invested with the Icelandic Banks and I do admit to being worried at the time, I got every penny back including the interest under the FSCS protection scheme. Kippaxman

Except of course the FSCS protection scheme didn't actually pay out - it never could afford to. It merely administered money the UK government provided, which it in turn sequestered from Iceland by (ab)using UK terrorism laws in the case of Icesave, in what the Icelandic government called an "unfriendly act". In the case of Kaupthing Edge the UK government seized the accounts and sold them to a Dutch bank (ING).

Meanwhile the nice Icelandic people were charitably knitting jumpers and sending them over here because they had heard our OAPs were freezing to death.

opinions4u

oldvicar wrote: »

Except of course the FSCS protection scheme didn't actually pay out - it never could afford to. It merely administered money the UK government provided,

You're right about not having the money, so it borrowed it from the Treasury. It will take a lifetime for the financial services to repay with interest. While individuals won't see the cost transparently, our financial products will price in the cost.

which it in turn sequestered from Iceland by (ab)using UK terrorism laws in the case of Icesave, in what the Icelandic government called an "unfriendly act". In the case of Kaupthing Edge the UK government seized the accounts and sold them to a Dutch bank (ING).

I don't think the Icelandic government's refusal to honour their promised investor protection was particularly friendly. And let's not forget that protection was for significantly less than the £35k FSCS limit at the time. So the FSCS, funded by debt, topped payments up to this level.

Meanwhile the nice Icelandic people were charitably knitting jumpers and sending them over here because they had heard our OAPs were freezing to death.

I'm sure a few did. They were also very hospitable to Nazi submarines during WWII but that's a whole different debate.

oldvicar

opinions4u wrote: »

You're right about not having the money, so it borrowed it from the Treasury. It will take a lifetime for the financial services to repay with interest. While individuals won't see the cost transparently, our financial products will price in the cost.....

The government circumvented the protection schemes and the FSCS hasn't borrowed a penny for this. All the FSCS did was provide the administrative mechanism for what HM Treasury wanted to do, in the case of Icesave.

The seizure and subsequent transfer of Kaupthing and Heritable accounts to ING was also nothing to do with the FSCS.

opinions4u

oldvicar wrote: »

The government circumvented the protection schemes and the FSCS hasn't borrowed a penny for this. All the FSCS did was provide the administrative mechanism for what HM Treasury wanted to do, in the case of Icesave.

The seizure and subsequent transfer of Kaupthing and Heritable accounts to ING was also nothing to do with the FSCS.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fin_stability_fscs.htm

In Autumn 2008, HM Treasury provided loan facilities of approximately £20 billion to the FSCS in relation to the failure of five banks: Bradford & Bingley, Heritable, Kaupthing, Singer!& Friedlander, London Scottish Bank, and the UK branch of Landsbanki (which provided IceSave accounts). The Treasury’s loans to the FSCS attract interest, consistent with state aid rules set by the European Commission. State aid rules ensure that interventions by national governments do not distort competition or trade within the EU, and so help to promote a level-playing field across Europe for financial services.

GREENBHOY

for a beginner here would it be worthwhile investing 1k with the PNB?

oldvicar

opinions4u wrote: »

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fin_stability_fscs.htm

Apologies. It seems you are mostly right and I am mostly wrong !

According to the FSCS website the interest alone now amounts to an estimated £510m p.a. based on LIBOR plus 1% [:rotfl:] for the major 2008-09 bank collapses, the bulk being for Bradford and Bingley.

But there is good news. All but around £800m is expected to be recovered, and this will all be repaid to HMT through levies over the next 3 years. So it won't last a lifetime.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/doing/regulated/fees/pdf/fsc_levies.pdf