Money Protection/Bank Licences

Sid27

The link below shows that the Bank of Scotland shares a licence with Aviva. I have a small amount of money with that bank but a sizeable pension pot with Aviva, Am I in danger of losing any of my Aviva pension money should the Bank of Scotland get into trouble?

The link: as I am a first-timer, I'm not allowed to post the actual web link but the information that I am referring to is on the This Is Money site and the heading of the article is "Savings compensation - who owns my bank? A comprehensive list of bank ownership and licences"

jonesMUFCforever

Bank of Scotland is part of Lloyds Banking group which is not only profitable and easily passed the last stress test done by the regulators.

Go direct to the FCS website which will fully explain the compensation scheme for pensions.

bigadaj

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Bank of Scotland is part of Lloyds Banking group which is not only profitable and easily passed the last stress test done by the regulators.

Go direct to the FCS website which will fully explain the compensation scheme for pensions.

The OP is correct in saying a link is shown between bos and aviva, I thought there was no such link unless the former has a special specific account operate din behalf of the latter.

There is no reason to be worked in relation to an aviva pension as they are separate and regulated and 'guaranteed' separately.

Bos may currently be operating profitably but it has obviously gone bust once already, where it does so again may well be down to the munificence of the taxpayer as it was before.

System

bigadaj wrote: »

The OP is correct in saying a link is shown between bos and aviva, I thought there was no such link unless the former has a special specific account operate din behalf of the latter.

There is no reason to be worked in relation to an aviva pension as they are separate and regulated and 'guaranteed' separately.

Bos may currently be operating profitably but it has obviously gone bust once already, where it does so again may well be down to the munificence of the taxpayer as it was before.

BOS have never 'gone bust'.

bigadaj

SPalin wrote: »

BOS have never 'gone bust'.

So the government bailed them out from the goodness of their heart?

Or profit?

And only after they had forced lloyds to take them over which dragged lloyds down to going bust too.

PeacefulWaters

Unless you have some form of Aviva savings deposit account (as opposed to investments) you're worryingly unnecessarily.

Your pension fund is nothing to do with the FSCS deposit protection scheme.

Am I in danger of losing any of my Aviva pension money should the Bank of Scotland get into trouble?

No.

eskbanker

bigadaj wrote: »

So the government bailed them out from the goodness of their heart?

Or profit?

And only after they had forced lloyds to take them over which dragged lloyds down to going bust too.

Perhaps it's just semantics but surely by bailing BoS (and others) out with substantial emergency investments, the government prevented them from going bust?

System

eskbanker wrote: »

Perhaps it's just semantics but surely by bailing BoS (and others) out with substantial emergency investments, the government prevented them from going bust?

I obviously wasn't privy to conversations but I don't think LloydsTSB were forced to take over the BoS. Cajoled maybe, as they were looking for a bailout anyway but they would never been able to merge with HBoS in normal circumstances.

Wasn't Barclays Bank sued for their dodgy Arabian bailout relatively recently? x

bigadaj

eskbanker wrote: »

Perhaps it's just semantics but surely by bailing BoS (and others) out with substantial emergency investments, the government prevented them from going bust?

Yes, semantics.

bigadaj

SPalin wrote: »

I obviously wasn't privy to conversations but I don't think LloydsTSB were forced to take over the BoS. Cajoled maybe, as they were looking for a bailout anyway but they would never been able to merge with HBoS in normal circumstances.

Wasn't Barclays Bank sued for their dodgy Arabian bailout relatively recently? x

My understanding was they there were two theories behind the reason for the lloyds takeover.

One was the cajoling and doing a favour for the government which would be appreciated in some manner.

The other was that it was a way of bypassing competition issues, the combined group would dominate in a few areas of uk banking and no merger would have been sanctioned otherwise. Bit similar to Barclays takeover of lehmans which did turnout better.

JuicyJesus

bigadaj wrote: »

My understanding was they there were two theories behind the reason for the lloyds takeover.

One was the cajoling and doing a favour for the government which would be appreciated in some manner.

The other was that it was a way of bypassing competition issues, the combined group would dominate in a few areas of uk banking and no merger would have been sanctioned otherwise. Bit similar to Barclays takeover of lehmans which did turnout better.

It's the former. HBOS was in dire straits, the Government made clear it would look the other way regarding competition laws as it going under would pork the entire economy, and Lloyds were the first to want to take the bait. So there was a shotgun marriage, which ended up almost taking Lloyds with it.

It was a very necessary evil. Unpopular opinion I know, but Labour's handling of the whole crash was exemplary - things could have been much, much worse for everyone if they hadn't taken the actions they did. I don't think most people appreciate just how much of a bullet we'd dodged.