MSE News: Warning! Re-Give savings not protected

grey_gym_sock

yeah, it started by looking like a bad idea even if it wasn't a scam ... and went downhill from there.

jamesd

One thing I wonder about this is whether it's linked to Red Aid in objectives or principles. Red Aid being a communist fund raising scheme to help communist activist prisoners and otherwise advance the cause of world communism. While the original scheme closed down long ago, others still pop up using the same name with the same objectives.

The place may be legitimate but it's doing a great job of persuading people otherwise.

Former_MSE_Dan

dunstonh wrote: »

The answers seem evasive and the questions were not probing enough.

I wouldn't disagree, except to say there may well have been more questions asked that aren't published here, or answered off the record. The Guardian journalist does refer to at least one answer given not being published, and there may be more.

dunstonh

MSE_Dan wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree, except to say there may well have been more questions asked that aren't published here, or answered off the record. The Guardian journalist does refer to at least one answer given not being published, and there may be more.

Hopefully, the journalist in question will be spurred on by the evasiveness. You like to think that the more evasive an individual/company is at answering questions, the more a journalist will be frustrated and will be spurred on to find the truth.

Paul_Herring

dunstonh wrote: »

Hopefully, the journalist in question will be spurred on by the evasiveness. You like to think that the more evasive an individual/company is at answering questions, the more a journalist will be frustrated and will be spurred on to find the truth.

You really haven't analyzed what passes for 'journalism' these days have you DH?

garry232

"When choosing MSE's top savings accounts, one crucial factor is membership of a deposit protection scheme – and we don't include accounts that fail to give savers this safety net.

Hmm, that's why you told everyone to send all their money to Iceland (even after banks started collapsing all over the world).

Paul_Herring

garry232 wrote: »

"When choosing MSE's top savings accounts, one crucial factor is membership of a deposit protection scheme – and we don't include accounts that fail to give savers this safety net.

Hmm, that's why you told everyone to send all their money to Iceland (even after banks started collapsing all over the world).

Icelandic banks did have a deposit protection scheme.

Granted, no-one realised at the time how bad the (passport) scheme was or how it could be reneged upon so easily, but they did have a protection scheme.

innovate

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Granted, no-one realised at the time how bad the (passport) scheme was or how it could be reneged upon so easily, but they did have a protection scheme.

And every retail saver got every penny back.

Former_MSE_Dan

garry232 wrote: »

"When choosing MSE's top savings accounts, one crucial factor is membership of a deposit protection scheme – and we don't include accounts that fail to give savers this safety net.

Hmm, that's why you told everyone to send all their money to Iceland (even after banks started collapsing all over the world).

Nope, no change of policy. The Icelandic banks we included were protected under two different protection schemes

1) Kaupthing - full UK savings safety. This was actually sold to ING Direct rather than going bust

2) Icesave - protected first under the Icelandic deposit scheme, then topped up by the UK FSCS. No individual savers lost their money (The UK govt paid out instead of Iceland), except those off-shore - which MSE never includes.

We never mentioned either of these without fully outlining their protection regime

Dan

jimjames

From the Guardian FAQ

On its website, ReGive says its savings bond is issued "pursuant to the exemption to Section 21(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) 2000 contained in paragraph 35 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotions) Order 2005 and does not require an approved prospectus pursuant to Section 85 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 because the bond falls within paragraph 7(2)(a) of Schedule 11A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Prospectus Regulations 2005".


However the paragraph cited does not seem to exist.