European Finance Ministers states Cyprius bailout now a template

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Lots of nobel prizes need to be handed out then.

I spend on my credit card, I pay it off within 60 days. I get a return (points / cashback) with no risk.

Of course, it's paid for by others (retailiers and others paying interest). But theres nothing to suggest that can't be done with savings accounts. Nothing at all. It's just something differing to what we currently have.

It's not like I have have asked for whole institutions to be risk free. I've just suggested an account should be risk free, and then other higher paying savings accounts have the risk attached. Maybe you could do away with all guarantee's on all other savings accounts.

bizarre

your example of 'risk free' is about going into debt and not a savings a/c

being in debt is indeed risk free

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You've made a return; others have taken the risk. That's exactly what I said.

With savings accounts you could deposit money in the world's safest (as in well guarded) bank.

Aye.

You're still doing it though, even after the correction. I never said bank.

I said account.

And in doing so, I suggested one account would be fully protected. Other, higher paying accounts wouldn't be.

It's not hard, and you are turning to strawman stuff in an attempt to ignore what I have suggested

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

bizarre

your example of 'risk free' is about going into debt and not a savings a/c

being in debt is indeed risk free

LOL, another strawman.

My example was merely in response to wotsthat's suggesting that you can't have reward without risk. I used the example to suggest you could. Both of you have now got a little annoyed by it. I never linked it to a savings account. I simply said you could get reward without any risk, which apparently, according to you both, is impossible.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Before the crisis I thought Lloyds was quite a reputable bank. Why would I as a layman think differently?

They still are reputable. It's HBOS which had the problems.

Darling & Brown somehow managed a shotgun marriage in 48 hours.
Aided by a £25 billion undisclosed treasury loan to HBOS to keep it afloat. .

Mallotum_X

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If it is a regulated establishment the regulator. The regulator has benefited from the upsides in the good times.
Back tomorrow 3G awful.

The regulator??

By that do you mean the Local Government, ie Cyprus?

So then its the Tax payers?

The majority of Cypriot tax payers have little or no savings, why should they pay more tax to save those with over 100,000?

The Cypriot Economy is just not big enough to save itself, hence needing a bailout from the EU. So you are back to the German taxpayers handing over the money, and there lies the problem.

Ultimately there isn't a big wadge of cash to hand over to bail the banks out, there is no silver bullet to solve this one. As unpleasant as it is for those who will lose out, I still think its the fairest solution. The guanteed 100,000 amount is still guaranteed. Those over 100,000 would have known (ignorance of the current situation is simply stupidity), that they were over the guarantee limit, and even then they are not losing everything.

As bad as this solution is, its the fairest available.

Mallotum_X

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Aye.

You're still doing it though, even after the correction. I never said bank.

I said account.

And in doing so, I suggested one account would be fully protected. Other, higher paying accounts wouldn't be.

It's not hard, and you are turning to strawman stuff in an attempt to ignore what I have suggested

Fully protected by who?

Is a commercial bank supposed to offer these accounts? or are they government issued accounts, in which case its back to the tax payer being the guarantor.

No matter which way its presented, its not actually possible to have 100% risk free banking.

daz378

how can an account be totally secure? when security is based economic trust maybe it was at the time of Mr Mannering... cdc swaps and other fancy financial products have eroded the trust. If this euro template of bail outs spooks the euro market ... what level of capital flight will ensue and will the euro survive it?

Generali

There is no such thing as risk free, even if you pay someone to look after your money.

Thrugelmir

Mallotum_X wrote: »

The majority of Cypriot tax payers have little or no savings, why should they pay more tax to save those with over 100,000?

Cypriots had enough money to take out loans to invest in their own banks.

Like many. Got sucked into the greatest ponzi scheme of all time. Now its all unravelling.

stinktankcynic

So, let me get this right. The banks want to give you nothing as interest, yet loan money at much higher rates. If they make an investment mistake or lend to those who won't pay back, then the depositor takes the hit? Surely the risk is passed to the depositor and so should be the rewards? The shareholders invest in the firm, so should depositors get a dividend and big bonus when the banks do well?
This is criminal. How long before this is someone's money elsewhere, or a levy on someones pension fund?