MSE News: Chancellor faces renewed call to prevent 'absurd' savings protection cut

bigadaj

VT82 wrote: »

You really think rich Belgians would move money into British banks, suffering exchange rate risk, and comission costs in both directions, for the sake of another £10k of FSCS protection? I guess that's why so much cash was flooded into Irish banks when the Irish Government moved to guarantee 100% of deposits - not!

The logic IS flawed - because it ignores the all-important fact that British savers don't care what they are covered for in Euros - they care what they are covered for in GBP. And anyone ignoring this fact for the sake of maintaining the status quo / rich-bashing / lazy-bashing is being deliberately obtuse.

Not Belgians, but certainly rich Greeks for example, they have already done this though probably more into Swiss francs than into sterling. With respect to the Irish example then it all boils down to the fact of whether the guarantee is worth anything, or thought to be worth anything which is just as important. The Irish weren't considered to be solvent and indeed were partially bailed out or guaranteed by the UK which makes their guaranteed somewhat useless.

There is of course the argument that sums of cash of this order of magnitude would be better kept in equities than cash in most circumstances but that's a separate matter.

2010

Archi_Bald wrote: »

The number of people immediately affected by the reduction is miniscule.

If that`s the case leave it as it is at £85k.

Brussels barks we jump.

masonic

2010 wrote: »

If that`s the case leave it as it is at £85k.

Brussels barks we jump.

"Brussels" set the limit at EUR100,000. The UK set the limit at £50,000. Which would you rather have?

colsten

2010 wrote: »

Brussels barks we jump.

Isn't it more of a case of one politician, on behalf of a tiny number of "rich" people, barking and we jump?

Although he won't be listened to in this matter by the powers that be.

Jsscmm

2010 wrote: »

If that`s the case leave it as it is at £85k.

Brussels barks we jump.

Leaving it at 85k would probably generate a worse return for UK savers due to increases in investment cash from other EU states but no real additional protection for anyone (either due to people having less than 75k or spreading it out).

That isn't why this is being highlighted. It's being highlighted to do some EU bashing in advance of the referendum.

Pincher

I would love to hear from people who actually had FSCS pay outs, to re-assure me that this things has ever worked.

If Greek banks had "rupted", I wonder how it would work.
They have EURO bank accounts.

If the liability is spread across all the Eurozone countries, that would teach them to invite a country famous for their kleftikos into the club.

PeacefulWaters

Pincher wrote: »

I would love to hear from people who actually had FSCS pay outs, to re-assure me that this things has ever worked.

If you know anybody who had an account with Bradfird & Bingley when they went bust, you know such a person. Their missing money was topped up overnight and transferred to Santander.

If you search Icesave in this forum you'll find others who will have had a slightly more stressful return of their protected capital,

Both those examples included a 100% return of all cash over and above the FSCS limit at the time.

masonic

Pincher wrote: »

I would love to hear from people who actually had FSCS pay outs, to re-assure me that this things has ever worked.

I received FSCS compensation after the Icesave collapse, even though the FSCS were not technically responsible for insuring the deposits since Icesave was part of the Icelandic compensation scheme (which at the time refused to pay out to UK savers).

The most recent compensation case I'm aware of is DotComUnity credit union, where many MSErs had cash ISAs: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4938603

Pincher

Beyond a certain amount, you really have to buy something you can insure, like diamonds , or gold. The problem is, they don't generate any income.

I am beginning to see the sense in putting your money in Rembrandt, which does go up in value. A house is the most accessible form of preserving value and generating income for most people. I suspect even a school drop out who failed GCSE Maths can work that out.

masonic

Pincher wrote: »

Beyond a certain amount, you really have to buy something you can insure, like diamonds , or gold. The problem is, they don't generate any income.

I am beginning to see the sense in putting your money in Rembrandt, which does go up in value. A house is the most accessible form of preserving value and generating income for most people. I suspect even a school drop out who failed GCSE Maths can work that out.

None of those options have the same risk profile as a deposit account though, even with insurance to cover loss or damage.