Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
It's Time Savers Took Their Medicine
RENTING_IS_DEAD_MONEY
Posts: 11 Forumite
New Zealand also looking to levy savings...
“The Reserve Bank is in the final stages of implementing a system of managing bank failure called Open Bank Resolution. The scheme will put all bank depositors on the hook for bailing out their bank."
Between the years 2008 and 2010 proud homeowners took a hit on their investments of up to 4% so it's only fair and just that savers began to take their medicine. As a modern society we must all play our part for us to succeed.
“The Reserve Bank is in the final stages of implementing a system of managing bank failure called Open Bank Resolution. The scheme will put all bank depositors on the hook for bailing out their bank."
Between the years 2008 and 2010 proud homeowners took a hit on their investments of up to 4% so it's only fair and just that savers began to take their medicine. As a modern society we must all play our part for us to succeed.
0
Comments
-
Savers are not generally considered investors. Bondholders etc are.0
-
Perhaps if depositors simply removed their money form banks where would the borrowers go to get funds?
Maybe savers could "invest" via a mortgage investment vehicle that would charge realistically higher rates to provide realistic returns to entice investment and risk. As the investment vehicle would not want to unduly risk investors money, lending would be on strict terms and funds would be limited. Sounds a bit like a provincial building society to me.
No doubt most home owners are savers too. Double whammy.
Home owning is risk there is no rule that says the value can only go up."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Spend, you bu****rs, spend !
How foolish you were for not spending every penny you earn, and borrowing as much as possible !
Be fair and play the game. Live for today, you might not be here tomorrow, but if you are, that house that you are buying will be worth at least £100 more than it was last week. :beer::T:money:30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
The forum hpc.co.uk would literally explode with rage of this happened in the UK
Bruce Banner would blow a gasket!
:rotfl:0 -
Savers have been suffering for 4 years as the general rule has been base rates above inflation...today inflation was annonced at 2.8% so that would imply a savings rate over 4%...they now get 2% if lucky..
0 -
Savers are not generally considered investors. Bondholders etc are.
Doesn't matter whether savers are generally considered investors or not. The fact is that when they put £100 into a Nationwide deposit account they're making a loan to Nationwide - if Nationwide lend it badly, don't get repaid and go bust why should the taxpayer be on the hook? Not understanding something isn't an excuse.
Part of the problem is that governments are molly-coddling people into thinking there is no risk. Northern Rock depositors were happy taking the interest but if they'd thought they were going to get stung if their money was irresponsibly lent they might have paid more attention to where they put it.
I wasn't tempted by high saving rates in Northern Rock or MSE favourite Icesave but had to protect the deposits of those that were - doesn't seem entirely fair especially as we're probably only talking about a few percent in the event of a bank failure.0 -
As NR demonstrated though a run on deposits accounts can be disastrous. That is why governments underwrite most deposits.Doesn't matter whether savers are generally considered investors or not. The fact is that when they put £100 into a Nationwide deposit account they're making a loan to Nationwide - if Nationwide lend it badly, don't get repaid and go bust why should the taxpayer be on the hook? Not understanding something isn't an excuse.
Part of the problem is that governments are molly-coddling people into thinking there is no risk. Northern Rock depositors were happy taking the interest but if they'd thought they were going to get stung if their money was irresponsibly lent they might have paid more attention to where they put it.
I wasn't tempted by high saving rates in Northern Rock or MSE favourite Icesave but had to protect the deposits of those that were - doesn't seem entirely fair especially as we're probably only talking about a few percent in the event of a bank failure.0 -
Doesn't matter whether savers are generally considered investors or not. The fact is that when they put £100 into a Nationwide deposit account they're making a loan to Nationwide - if Nationwide lend it badly, don't get repaid and go bust why should the taxpayer be on the hook? Not understanding something isn't an excuse.
Part of the problem is that governments are molly-coddling people into thinking there is no risk. Northern Rock depositors were happy taking the interest but if they'd thought they were going to get stung if their money was irresponsibly lent they might have paid more attention to where they put it.
I wasn't tempted by high saving rates in Northern Rock or MSE favourite Icesave but had to protect the deposits of those that were - doesn't seem entirely fair especially as we're probably only talking about a few percent in the event of a bank failure.
If said institutions weren't encouraged and allowed to lend recklessly then the risk would be mitigated.
Borrowers pay a realistic rate and depositors get a rate below.
Lenders were allowed to become reckless by governments deperate to keep the bubble inflated.
I am sure criminal proceedings and a few years in Wandsworth, for responsible officials, might also reduce risk tendency."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
As NR demonstrated though a run on deposits accounts can be disastrous. That is why governments underwrite most deposits.
It's funny really - depositors aren't generally seen as investors but when the party stopped they all suddenly realised the risks involved in lending a flawed business money.
They wanted their cake (high interest) and to eat it (no risk). There's no return without risk - why kid people there is?
Why should the taxpayer be providing insurance to protect your bank deposit? It's not as if you're going to get wiped out - more of a trim than a haircut.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »If said institutions weren't encouraged and allowed to lend recklessly then the risk would be mitigated.
Borrowers pay a realistic rate and depositors get a rate below.
Lenders were allowed to become reckless by governments deperate to keep the bubble inflated.
I am sure criminal proceedings and a few years in Wandsworth, for responsible officials, might also reduce risk tendency.
Lenders were allowed to become reckless partly by being provided with capital from people who could chase high returns with no risk.
I didn't think the returns were sustainable (particularly in Icesave which I thought was an accident waiting to happen) but still had to insure those who didn't need to care.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 345.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 251K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451K Spending & Discounts
- 237.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 612.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.3K Life & Family
- 251K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards