State Bank Of India

kinger101

When it Icelandic Banks went bust, the UK government were only supposed to cover the difference between the UK guarantee and Iceland guarantee as far as I'm aware. So Alistair Darling did those with retail accounts a huge favour by going above and beyond their legal requirement.

As for India, I don't think you can expect Western levels of efficiency in service. And even though English is commonly spoken in India, about half those that speak it do so really fast with a very strong accent. Good luck if you need to speak to someone on the phone on what could be a very bad connection.

singhini

interesting thread, I need to invest this years ISA allowance and was going to transfer my existing ISA aswell into SBI (rate being 2.10%).


But poor level of service/communication would stress me out (also I agree with "Slim", will there be problems trying to withdraw the money when the ISA matures?

Steve_xx

kinger101 wrote: »

As for India, I don't think you can expect Western levels of efficiency in service. And even though English is commonly spoken in India, about half those that speak it do so really fast with a very strong accent. Good luck if you need to speak to someone on the phone on what could be a very bad connection.

That really is not the case. The people you might speak to at State Bank of India are actually based at branches, few though there are, in the UK. The lady I spoke to last at the State Bank of India sounded to me like she hailed from the south-east of England.

badger09

joe134 wrote: »

Mine didn't Vanish?
I had £50k with both the Icelandic banks when they went bust, it was a bit of a shock, but the fscs stepped in straight away and no problems, wish I had taken the 5 year ones instead of the 3 year.
FSCS;;;;UK.It does what it says on the tin.
No wonder, they want to do away with it.Mr Carney, et.al.

Effectively money saved in the Icelandic banks did vanish, in that it was neither accessible, nor even visible for some time. A very uncomfortable experience for many of us:(

kinger101 wrote: »

When it Icelandic Banks went bust, the UK government were only supposed to cover the difference between the UK guarantee and Iceland guarantee as far as I'm aware. So Alistair Darling did those with retail accounts a huge favour by going above and beyond their legal requirement.

Absolutely. And I am very grateful that he did. However, I would not assume that the favour will be repeated:cool:

Steve_xx

badger09 wrote: »

Absolutely. And I am very grateful that he did. However, I would not assume that the favour will be repeated:cool:

In the case of the State Bank of India the favour would not need to be repeated due to it being fully covered by the UK scheme.

kinger101

Steve_xx wrote: »

That really is not the case. The people you might speak to at State Bank of India are actually based at branches, few though there are, in the UK. The lady I spoke to last at the State Bank of India sounded to me like she hailed from the south-east of England.

Time have changed then. It was hideous when some UK companies outsourced telephone services to India. Had to hang up and call again sometimes just to get someone whom I could understand.

joe134

badger09 wrote: »

Effectively money saved in the Icelandic banks did vanish, in that it was neither accessible, nor even visible for some time. A very uncomfortable experience for many of us:(




Absolutely. And I am very grateful that he did. However, I would not assume that the favour will be repeated:cool:

As mine were all fixed rate bonds, they were inaccessible without penalty anyway, as most were..
If any bank goes Kaput, all funds are frozen, no matter where they are based.
.As soon as Icelandic banks went Kaput, the Fscs , sent letters to all , to say we were covered, just don't cash in.
It didn't Vanish;It was frozen .The Fscs guarantee of full amount was good enough for me.
It was jittery, no one likes their bank going under, BUT, there will come a time,(when, not if ) the next crash comes round the fscs will not be able or allowed to cover all the funds; It's just dropped £10k thanks to the EU, and they want it abolished.:eek:
It did vanish for a lot of Councils, thanks to Prescott telling them to invest to lend.PLONKER.
It was obvious it was too good to be true to last.
I have money in ICICI etc since.
HSBC is not exactly British.;
No where is 100% safe these days.
Just don't put all ones eggs in one basket.:cool:

badger09

joe134 wrote: »

As mine were all fixed rate bonds, they were inaccessible without penalty anyway, as most were..
If any bank goes Kaput, all funds are frozen, no matter where they are based.
.As soon as Icelandic banks went Kaput, the Fscs , sent letters to all , to say we were covered, just don't cash in.
It didn't Vanish;It was frozen .The Fscs guarantee of full amount was good enough for me.
It was jittery, no one likes their bank going under, BUT, there will come a time,(when, not if ) the next crash comes round the fscs will not be able or allowed to cover all the funds; It's just dropped £10k thanks to the EU, and they want it abolished.:eek:
It did vanish for a lot of Councils, thanks to Prescott telling them to invest to lend.PLONKER.
It was obvious it was too good to be true to last.
I have money in ICICI etc since.
HSBC is not exactly British.;
No where is 100% safe these days.
Just don't put all ones eggs in one basket.:cool:

You are missing the point I was attempting to make.

There was no obligation on FSCS to do what it did in the case of the Icelandic banks' failure in 2008.

What should have happened is that depositors should have claimed the first £20887 from the Icelandic authorities. If they had more than that on deposit, they should have claimed the difference between £20887 and £50000 from FSCS. Anything above £50k would have been lost.

Instead, the Treasury stepped in and guaranteed that no UK retail depositor would lose anything. They also streamlined the claim process.

http://www.fscs.org.uk/industry/determinations/icesave/

As I said in my previous post, I am grateful this was done, but would not assume it will happen in the same way should there be further bank failures

nushnush

joe134 wrote: »

Mine didn't Vanish?
I had £50k with both the Icelandic banks when they went bust, it was a bit of a shock, but the fscs stepped in straight away and no problems, wish I had taken the 5 year ones instead of the 3 year.
FSCS;;;;UK.It does what it says on the tin.
No wonder, they want to do away with it.Mr Carney, et.al.

same here, dont think i had one sleepless night over it, just sat back and waited.i dont think the precess could have been any easier

joe134

badger09 wrote: »

You are missing the point I was attempting to make.

There was no obligation on FSCS to do what it did in the case of the Icelandic banks' failure in 2008.

What should have happened is that depositors should have claimed the first £20887 from the Icelandic authorities. If they had more than that on deposit, they should have claimed the difference between £20887 and £50000 from FSCS. Anything above £50k would have been lost.

Instead, the Treasury stepped in and guaranteed that no UK retail depositor would lose anything. They also streamlined the claim process.

http://www.fscs.org.uk/industry/determinations/icesave/

As I said in my previous post, I am grateful this was done, but would not assume it will happen in the same way should there be further bank failures

Icelandic people have never forgiven us for being bailed out.
Politics had a lot to do with it.
Prescott et.al had egg on their faces, and local councils , your money and mine, went under, by them putting our money there.
The fscs couldn't help them.
, even after court cases.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I don't think if "should" applies now, it's when, not if, they go bust.
The last survey, only weeks ago, showed most banks, couldn't meet their stress tests.
lending too much again.
History has a habit of being repeated.
They never learn.
:beer: