Ok, first Northern Rock - who next?!

Flynn_2

joepubli wrote: »

I can't believe people are criticising depositors in Northern Rock who are taking their money out.
Joe

Joe, I think the point is that it's natural for people to be worried and prefer to put their savings somewhere else. On the other hand too many of the alarmist claims being made are just daft and will cause people more worry than necessary.

People have claimed NR are insolvent: they aren't and the FSA have said so. People have claimed NR are blocking savers from their website: they aren't because some people have got on and moved their money. It's like saying NR are blocking savers from their branches by putting queues outside. People are saying the assurances, including one from the Chancellor, are worthless and making all sorts of daffy comparisons. No Chancellor would put his head on the block when there was no need to if he thought it would get chopped off. There's no mileage for any government in giving false assurances in these circumstances and even less with an election coming up.

Nothing silly about moving savings somewhere else provided not too much is lost in doing so but some people have been losing chunks of money by cashing in bonds and ISAs.

So now they have a piece of paper signed by the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England saying "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds". They'll just have to take his word for that.

All the hysteria that some seem to enjoy whipping up just isn't justified.

theredfox_2

Fine.

So stop behaving like a herd of sheep running off in another direction, because a loud noise has frightened them.

But actually, thats what mob mentality finance is all about.

joepubli

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes I do. However, it appears you do not. If you quote those you may as well quote the Titanic or the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs as they have about the same similarity.

I am afraid I don't agree with you. If a bank is in trouble, its in trouble.No point in leaving your money there. All these assurances are very well but wouldn't people be more comfortable keeping there money elsewhere - with a bank not having these problems?

Given the chancellor's assurances, there is no need to panic. Equally there is no sense in leaving the money there unless taking it out results in a signficant loss.

mariegriffiths

Regarding the NR internet site being down.
Large institutions have contingency plans for busy servers, usually to cope with denial of service attacks. Specialised firms exists to provide extra bandwidth and server capacity for such eventuallities. Please do not believe the nonsense that the BBC news came up with that the servers were too busy and nothing could be done. NR could have taken action to keep its website running. It did not. This was in its own interests. If NR hasn't got the website up and running by Monday then the FSA should be investigating the matter.

Debt_Free_Chick

I think I must have missed something.

If you have savings with NR, why is it at risk? At risk of what?

noh

But the website is running and access is avaible to accounts.

Nigel

HankMcSpank

thing is the likes of NR (& many others) are always doing the old existing customers over, by only offering the better rates to new savers - disloyal in my books.

Why then should the small guy not have his moment in the sun & 'do the NR over' & extract his dosh swiftly in their moment of need?

I don't have any savings with them, but if I did, they'd be extracted in short order making sure I got in "oh, so you want to hng on to my money? Sorry but this money is only available for brand new banks only!" Chortle.

Aegis

Contingency plans are one thing, but planning to deal with an increase of several hundred percent of expected capacity is another. Please don't believe the nonsense that claims (without evidence) that they are doing this on purpose.

No large institution makes contingency plans that allow for almost all of its online customers to access the site at the same time.

$$$_12

I liked this piece in the Observer today:

The message from on high is that, unlike the money markets which have seized up from panic in the aftermath of the American property and lending crisis, ordinary savers and borrowers should not worry their little heads and stay calm. For savers with less than £2,000, the advice is right - the depositors' compensation scheme will fully reimburse them.But larger savers, whose compensation is limited to 90 per cent of their savings, will see no reason why they should run the risk of losing 10 per cent of their assets.



Nor, if Northern Rock does go bust, why they should go through the uncertainty, worry and hassle of the government organising a takeover to see if their savings will ultimately be protected. The City is not prepared to run that risk, so why should they?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2170289,00.html

which perfectly sums up the situation and attitude of the Government et al to my mind.

The Government lie to us about so much else - why should this be any different?

dougs

$$$ wrote: »

I liked this piece in the Observer today:



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2170289,00.html

good piece. Thanks for the link.