Carney guarantees low rates on breakfast tele

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Lots of people were not 'taught a lesson' - savers didn't lose any money and lying borrowers didn't do any jail time.

I'm not sure what you are advocating

are you saying that there should be no government guarantee of any savings in the banks?

you would genuinely let the banks fail?

ordinary people's saving wiped out

companies working capital wiped out?

etc.

wotsthat

Fella wrote: »

The reality is that they saved effort more than anything else. Unless you had pretty large amounts of money it really wasn't difficult to spread cash savings around & stay under the FSCS limit & still get a decent return, it just took a bit of effort. Keeping more than the FSCS limit in one place was (& is) lazy & a bit daft. Were there really that many people with substantial (let's say a million or more) savings in cash in one bank? I've never met anyone with remotely that much who doesn't invest it mainly in non-cash options. Without knowing the figures I'd guess the number of savers with >the FSCS limit that were bailed out is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of mortgage holders currently being kept above water by low base rates.

Don't know about individuals but councils, police forces and charities had over a £1bn in Icesave.

Hard work to spread out millions into FSCS sized parcels but these presumably intelligent people were blind to the risk.

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't know about individuals but councils, police forces and charities had over a £1bn in Icesave.

Hard work to spread out millions into FSCS sized parcels but these presumably intelligent people were blind to the risk.

A financial director of a council should have checked the banks stability before depositing overseas.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are advocating

are you saying that there should be no government guarantee of any savings in the banks?

you would genuinely let the banks fail?

ordinary people's saving wiped out

companies working capital wiped out?

etc.

I don't have a problem with the government guarantee for depositors at all. When the queues started at NR the government had to act quickly and I suppose guaranteeing all deposits was a pragmatic approach to prevent the embarrassing queues and to quell some of the panic.

Having guaranteed the deposits would it have been so bad to let the bank go bust and let the market find the price? I can see a reason to bail out Lloyds and RBS but did Northern Rock or HBOS, for that matter, really represent a systemic risk to the UK's financial system?

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

A financial director of a council should have checked the banks stability before depositing overseas.

An individual bright enough to have substantial funds could have done the same but why bother?

The saver was delighted with the return and the FD looked good for securing such good rates whilst the taxpayer paid the insurance policy.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the government guarantee for depositors at all. When the queues started at NR the government had to act quickly and I suppose guaranteeing all deposits was a pragmatic approach to prevent the embarrassing queues and to quell some of the panic.

Having guaranteed the deposits would it have been so bad to let the bank go bust and let the market find the price? I can see a reason to bail out Lloyds and RBS but did Northern Rock, or HBOS, for that matter, really represent a systemic risk to the UK's financial system?

If the government listed the banks that they would bail out, surely all the others would be bankrupt within a hour or so?

ILW

wotsthat wrote: »

An individual bright enough to have substantial funds could have done the same but why bother?

The saver was delighted with the return and the FD looked good for securing such good rates whilst the taxpayer paid the insurance policy.

A pro investor (paid loads to do it) should have a different level of cover (none) to an amateur.

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

A pro investor (paid loads to do it) should have a different level of cover (none) to an amateur.

there are no government guarantees for other than retail customers; so companies, local authorities, charities etc are not covered

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

If the government listed the banks that they would bail out, surely all the others would be bankrupt within a hour or so?

Likewise their list might include all banks no matter what - that would have some fairly obvious outcomes too.

That's probably why there isn't a list.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the government guarantee for depositors at all. When the queues started at NR the government had to act quickly and I suppose guaranteeing all deposits was a pragmatic approach to prevent the embarrassing queues and to quell some of the panic.

Having guaranteed the deposits would it have been so bad to let the bank go bust and let the market find the price? I can see a reason to bail out Lloyds and RBS but did Northern Rock or HBOS, for that matter, really represent a systemic risk to the UK's financial system?

I'm a bit confused here

when you say guarantee 'depositors' do you mean all depositors i.e. companies, local authorities, charities as well as 'personal' customers?