MSE News: Re-Give to return savers' cash after FSA pressure

flossy_splodge

I'm sorry to say that it makes me cross when people make poor decisions about their money and then expect to be 'fully protected' when it goes wrong.
Just like the Icelandic debacle.
Those that invested were happy enough when they thought they were beating the market but not so happy and not prepared to suffer the losses when it went wrong.
Never did understand how they got their money back but those with shares in Bradford and Bingley lost all when it was taken over and no chance at all of getting your money back.
Why one rule for the greedy and one for others.
It has always been the case that there are risks in the market and you need to research properly or take the consequences.
We are so turning into a nanny state where no one takes responsibility for their own choices.:mad:

IronWolf

Why have the FSA stopped it disposing of assets? How are they supposed to return the cash? Do the FSA think they issued this bond just to have the money sit in their bank account?

aleph_0

flossy_splodge wrote: »

Just like the Icelandic debacle.
Those that invested were happy enough when they thought they were beating the market but not so happy and not prepared to suffer the losses when it went wrong.
Never did understand how they got their money back but those with shares in Bradford and Bingley lost all when it was taken over and no chance at all of getting your money back.
Why one rule for the greedy and one for others.

Nothing to do with Re-give, which is a story of a company with misleading advertising quite quickly being shut down, but...

I'd agree that refunding/guaranteeing above the FSCS limits was wrong. But up to the FSCS limit was right. Ignoring the complexities of the passport scheme, those deposits were essentially guaranteed jointly by the whole industry, the point being that the little guy shouldn't need to do his own analysis of each bank, since the regulator has guaranteed it. Personally, I didn't think I was 'beating' the market, I was buying from a company legitimately in the market.

Even above the limit, we're talking a cash deposit account. That is totally different from B&B *shares*, which are a much riskier investment. If one would only refund one, it would be the cash deposit.

The story of the icelandic banks is, mainly, imo one of regulatory failure.

bigadaj

flossy_splodge wrote: »

I'm sorry to say that it makes me cross when people make poor decisions about their money and then expect to be 'fully protected' when it goes wrong.
Just like the Icelandic debacle.
Those that invested were happy enough when they thought they were beating the market but not so happy and not prepared to suffer the losses when it went wrong.
Never did understand how they got their money back but those with shares in Bradford and Bingley lost all when it was taken over and no chance at all of getting your money back.
Why one rule for the greedy and one for others.
It has always been the case that there are risks in the market and you need to research properly or take the consequences.
We are so turning into a nanny state where no one takes responsibility for their own choices.:mad:

I did quite well out of kaupthing, though within FMCS limits. Got a cracking rate right up yo the time it got transferred to ing and I could the. Place elsewhere.

In short those are the rules and you play by them, depending on whether you trust teh people making the rules. Difference in your examples is that your comparing shareholders to depositors, so higher up the risk scale.

I'd definitely support retrospective confiscation of bank bonuses paid above a set level, say fifty grand, as the is obviously a conflict there in terms of aims for staff and management against shareholders, Barclays publicised figure of £1 return for shareholders for every £9 of staff pay ent sums this up nicely.