MSE News: Chancellor called to prevent 'absurd' savings protection cut

Oblivion

Archi_Bald wrote: »

No "serious saver" would have a need for much more than £75K in cash at any point in time in a single account.

Nonsense. I am a serious saver (very different from a speculative investor) and as a result I have ten times that in savings and if a good interest rate appears tomorrow, I want to get as much of it transferred in as I safely can within the prevailing guarantee limit. Granted, I may represent a minority, but there's no harm in looking for an improvement in guarantees.

As a previous poster said, why support a race to the bottom?

dunstonh

Nonsense. I am a serious saver (very different from a speculative investor)

Two opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet most fall in the middle.

Granted, I may represent a minority

You mean the vocal 5%.

As a previous poster said, why support a race to the bottom?

Why not keep the harmony of a single amount as was intended?

Oblivion

dunstonh wrote: »

Two opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet most fall in the middle.



You mean the vocal 5%.



Why not keep the harmony of a single amount as was intended?

No, why not go for the MAX. Harmony, in Europe :rotfl: :rotfl:

Archi_Bald

Oblivion wrote: »

Nonsense. I am a serious saver (very different from a speculative investor) and as a result I have ten times that in savings and if a good interest rate appears tomorrow, I want to get as much of it transferred in as I safely can within the prevailing guarantee limit. Granted, I may represent a minority, but there's no harm in looking for an improvement in guarantees.

As a previous poster said, why support a race to the bottom?

If you have £750,000 in cash from savings over 10+ years, you would have at least twice of that, but probably a lot more, in wealth if you had invested your money in a well diversified portfolio of investments. No serious financial professional would ever recommend 100% in the same asset class, and no serious financial professional would consider your approach in an investment strategy.

But anyway, if you insist on your cash strategy: £750K fit into less than 9 sole £85K accounts, 5 if joint. With a £75K limit, you need just 1 or 2 additional sole or joint accounts and you are still protected. Not even a hint of any "race to the bottom".

The other thing you, as a self-proclaimed serious saver, should consider is that if the UK was the only EU country with more than a nominal €100K protection, a huge amount of cash would try to come into the UK. This would, in turn, lead to lower cash interest rates, and possibly push up the value of the pound. Making our continental holidays cheaper, letting us buy lots more EU goods and making our exports a lot more expensive. A lose-lose situation for everyone in the UK, but a tiny minority of savers would be able to celebrate a "win" over that ever so ghastly EU.

Before you suggest it, limiting the inflow of cash into the UK from other EU countries wouldn't be a valid answer either, if only because it would at best be illegal and at worst force other EU countries into similar measures for UK money inflows.

Just get your 1 or 2 extra accounts and stop crying.

LadyDee

Oblivion wrote: »

Transfers of existing ISA savings from one provider to another does not affect your annual ISA allowance.

So already having opened another ISA with the 2015/16 allowance elsewhere, the excess over the £75,000, can be transferred into another ISA in the current year?

Archi_Bald

Oblivion wrote: »

No, why not go for the MAX.

me me me me me

BTW, you have ignore my Q as to why are you happy to "live in the past" when it comes to investments and are not asking for the protection for "serious investors" to be raised from £50K?

Archi_Bald

LadyDee wrote: »

So already having opened another ISA with the 2015/16 allowance elsewhere, the excess over the £75,000, can be transferred into another ISA in the current year?

It can, from instant access accounts. This rule existed since 1999.

For fixed term accounts, a consultation process is underway and the providers are expected to find a solution that is cost neutral for the savers.

bowlhead99

Oblivion wrote: »

Nonsense. I am a serious saver (very different from a speculative investor) and as a result I have ten times that in savings

Oblivion wrote: »

No, why not go for the MAX. Harmony, in Europe :rotfl: :rotfl:

Because if the UK set its depositary compensation level to a guaranteed £750k to accommodate your rainy-day fund while banks in the rest of Europe stick at a more sensible level like £75k, the wealthiest individuals around the EU (a market of over 500 million people) would send their cash to UK banks for the extra protection.

The resulting influx of cash would be commercially damaging for the banks in its owners' home countries while the extra supply of deposits in the UK would reduce the average interest rates on offer here (supply and demand). At the same time, it would result in UK regulated financial services businesses having to dig deeper into their pockets to afford the premiums on the effective insurance policy which they collectively have to fund, on sums many times larger than the typical UK consumer actually needs, and a level much higher than the governments of any country (not just Europe but US, Canada, Japan etc) think necessary. This would further reduce savings rates offered and/or increase the cost of banking services.

The average family has savings of £2k or less and saves £50 a month. To make them buy (through the cost of financial products offered by the banks that subscribe to the FSCS) insurance on £750k would be absolutely stupid.

"Why not go for the MAX".

!!!!!!.

LadyDee

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It can, from instant access accounts. This rule existed since 1999.

For fixed term accounts, a consultation process is underway and the providers are expected to find a solution that is cost neutral for the savers.

I don't suppose the consultation process is likely to find that solution by the time the new limit comes into force! That would be too much to hope for I suppose.

Archi_Bald

LadyDee wrote: »

I don't suppose the consultation process is likely to find that solution by the time the new limit comes into force! That would be too much to hope for I suppose.

Yes it will. One of the major reasons why the drop will not come into force before Jan 1 is that the consultation needs to be concluded before then. You can google for more info on the subject.