The Top Easy Access Savings Discussion Area

dlevene

No notice, limited withdrawal accounts fall under the category of easy access for me. My easy access account is primarily for my emergency fund, and these are perfect.

They're not right for everyone but I don't think they should be excluded.  

Yellowman

SJMALBA said:

Very limited EA:

Chorley Building SocietyEasy Access Saver (1 Withdrawal) - 4.65%

https://www.chorleybs.co.uk/saving/easy-access-saver-1-withdrawals/

What would be the (hypothetical) gross monthly rate on this annual interest payment account?

TisMeBill

I have had enough of Chip, just had a 3rd source of wealth check email,this time all I have done is paid back in the money I withdrew last week when they were not the best rates available. Virgin private banking here I come.

nottsphil

flobbalobbalob said:

TiVo_Lad said:

You can also look at the situation from ClearBank's perspective:

https://clear.bank/use-cases/fintech

They've only got 5 clients !

One of which is Chip - which I thought they owned. If they don't, why would Clearbank bail them out if they went under?

masonic

TiVo_Lad said:

BooJewels said:

masonic said:

Doctor_Who said:

masonic said:

Doctor_Who said:

SanguineOnSaturn said:

Is there a list of other clearbank accounts to see how the fscs 85k might be shared among multiple institutions?

Do you mean whether ClearBank has a shared banking licence and so may share FSCS protection? If so the answer is no:

This bank isn't linked to any others, for savings safety purposes

This means the £85,000 per person protection isn't shared between any other banks.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings/

I think the poster was looking for a list of providers using ClearBank's licence, of which there are several, including Chip and Raisin.

I've always used the MSE page to check if financial institutions are linked for FSCS protection - is this giving incorrect information regarding ClearBank? I have money with Chip and Raisin, presumably the FSCS limit would apply to money in the Raisin holding account (ClearBank) and Chip? I never keep money in the Raisin holding account for longer than necessary!

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings/

No, it isn't giving incorrect information because neither Chip nor Raisin are banks. However, you'd be wrong to take away from that result that you could hold £85k in a Chip savings account provided by ClearBank AND have additional cover for money in Raisin's holding account provided by ClearBank. To be fully covered for the FSCS, your total balance across all accounts provided by ClearBank must not exceed £85k.

The situation is the same as if you held a large cash balance at two different investment providers who happened to use the same bank for their client money account. If you look up Barclays, it doesn't mention the fact that Hargreaves Lansdown and others will park cash there that would be considered part of the Barclays limit (ditto for HL's active savings account).

If that's true - then several smaller providers use Barclays as their clearing bank, but they all clearly offer the full £85k FSCS protection in their terms - none of the ones I know of tell you that your protection is shared over a number of organisations that use the same bank - if that bank goes under. 

For example; Ford Money:  "It protects up to £85,000 (or £85,000 each, for joint account holders) of the money in your Ford Money accounts."

First Save:  "Your eligible deposits with FirstSave are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme"

Charter:  "Your eligible deposits held by a UK establishment of Charter Savings Bank are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the UK’s deposit protection scheme."

The three you have quoted all hold a banking license:

Ford Money https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000MfJwuAAF

First Save https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000MfMNsAAN

Charter https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000NMRUpAAP

They are therefore allowed to hold or control client money and are FSCS Registered in their own right. Where they hold the money isn't relevant for your protection because you're protected by their own FSCS registration, not the FSCS registration of the organisation where your money actually resides. If Barclays went bust, you'd claim under the three individual protections.

There's no doubt that the moment money is applied to your savings account it has FSCS protection afforded from the saving institution's licence, but the point at which the savings institution takes on liability for incoming payments in particular is unclear. Both savings and investment firms have permission to hold or control client money and are FSCS registered. When client money is held in a pooled nominee account, then the entity subject to a FSCS claim would be dependent on who failed. My understanding is that in the interests of preventing further damage to critical parts of the financial services industry, it is the entity which has already failed.

So, for example, if Barclays failed during the processing of your inward deposit, such that Ford Money etc didn't receive it, then you would claim from Barclays and Ford Money would be in for some difficult times implementing a disaster recovery plan, but wouldn't immediately be pushed into insolvency too just from the wave of customers whose deposits are lost on their journey through the Barclays nominee account.

I'd be very interested indeed in any official source that dealt with this rather specific scenario.

For example; Ford Money:  "It protects up to £85,000 (or £85,000 each, for joint account holders) of the money in your Ford Money accounts."

First Save:  "Your eligible deposits with FirstSave are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme"

Charter:  "Your eligible deposits held by a UK establishment of Charter Savings Bank are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the UK’s deposit protection scheme."

Pulling these quotes out of the prior post, they all state very specifically that eligible deposits with/held by... or money in your...accounts are protected, so those statements are fine whether or not money that hasn't yet been credited to your accounts is subject to different protection. While in a Barclays holding account, they are not yet held by [savings bank] or in your [savings bank] account.

masonic

crumpet_man said:

Easy access = no notice?

Instant access = no notice and no withdrawal restrictions?

For me, it's an easy access account providing a can at the very least make a single withdrawal of the full balance without notice or penalty.

masonic

nottsphil said:

flobbalobbalob said:

TiVo_Lad said:

You can also look at the situation from ClearBank's perspective:

https://clear.bank/use-cases/fintech

They've only got 5 clients !

One which is Chip - which I thought they owned. If they don't, why would Clearbank bail them out if they went under?

If Chip fails, then ClearBank is under no obligation to bail it out. In fact, ClearBank will be the principal creditor, given that Chip is effectively borrowing against its savers' capital.

BooJewels

masonic said:

TiVo_Lad said:

BooJewels said:

masonic said:

Doctor_Who said:

masonic said:

Doctor_Who said:

SanguineOnSaturn said:

Is there a list of other clearbank accounts to see how the fscs 85k might be shared among multiple institutions?

Do you mean whether ClearBank has a shared banking licence and so may share FSCS protection? If so the answer is no:

This bank isn't linked to any others, for savings safety purposes

This means the £85,000 per person protection isn't shared between any other banks.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings/

I think the poster was looking for a list of providers using ClearBank's licence, of which there are several, including Chip and Raisin.

I've always used the MSE page to check if financial institutions are linked for FSCS protection - is this giving incorrect information regarding ClearBank? I have money with Chip and Raisin, presumably the FSCS limit would apply to money in the Raisin holding account (ClearBank) and Chip? I never keep money in the Raisin holding account for longer than necessary!

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings/

No, it isn't giving incorrect information because neither Chip nor Raisin are banks. However, you'd be wrong to take away from that result that you could hold £85k in a Chip savings account provided by ClearBank AND have additional cover for money in Raisin's holding account provided by ClearBank. To be fully covered for the FSCS, your total balance across all accounts provided by ClearBank must not exceed £85k.

The situation is the same as if you held a large cash balance at two different investment providers who happened to use the same bank for their client money account. If you look up Barclays, it doesn't mention the fact that Hargreaves Lansdown and others will park cash there that would be considered part of the Barclays limit (ditto for HL's active savings account).

If that's true - then several smaller providers use Barclays as their clearing bank, but they all clearly offer the full £85k FSCS protection in their terms - none of the ones I know of tell you that your protection is shared over a number of organisations that use the same bank - if that bank goes under. 

For example; Ford Money:  "It protects up to £85,000 (or £85,000 each, for joint account holders) of the money in your Ford Money accounts."

First Save:  "Your eligible deposits with FirstSave are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme"

Charter:  "Your eligible deposits held by a UK establishment of Charter Savings Bank are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the UK’s deposit protection scheme."

The three you have quoted all hold a banking license:

Ford Money https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000MfJwuAAF

First Save https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000MfMNsAAN

Charter https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000NMRUpAAP

They are therefore allowed to hold or control client money and are FSCS Registered in their own right. Where they hold the money isn't relevant for your protection because you're protected by their own FSCS registration, not the FSCS registration of the organisation where your money actually resides. If Barclays went bust, you'd claim under the three individual protections.

There's no doubt that the moment money is applied to your savings account it has FSCS protection afforded from the saving institution's licence, but the point at which the savings institution takes on liability for incoming payments in particular is unclear. Both savings and investment firms have permission to hold or control client money and are FSCS registered. When client money is held in a pooled nominee account, then the entity subject to a FSCS claim would be dependent on who failed. My understanding is that in the interests of preventing further damage to critical parts of the financial services industry, it is the entity which has already failed.

So, for example, if Barclays failed during the processing of your inward deposit, such that Ford Money etc didn't receive it, then you would claim from Barclays and Ford Money would be in for some difficult times implementing a disaster recovery plan, but wouldn't immediately be pushed into insolvency too just from the wave of customers whose deposits are lost on their journey through the Barclays nominee account.

I'd be very interested indeed in any official source that dealt with this rather specific scenario.

For example; Ford Money:  "It protects up to £85,000 (or £85,000 each, for joint account holders) of the money in your Ford Money accounts."

First Save:  "Your eligible deposits with FirstSave are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme"

Charter:  "Your eligible deposits held by a UK establishment of Charter Savings Bank are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the UK’s deposit protection scheme."

Pulling these quotes out of the prior post, they all state very specifically that eligible deposits with/held by... or money in your...accounts are protected, so those statements are fine whether or not money that hasn't yet been credited to your accounts is subject to different protection. While in a Barclays holding account, they are not yet held by [savings bank] or in your [savings bank] account.

I had presumed that we we're talking about deposits and withdrawals in transit, not balances already parked in your savings account - I did notice their very specific wordings about 'eligible' and 'in your account'.  So it's only amounts in transit that might potentially fall through cracks or end up in a precarious situation.  Maybe then it's another argument for moving funds in more manageable amounts.  Although, as you say, it seems a very specific - and short lived - scenario and maybe other factors of the banking world are more likely to be problematic than this particular one.  I bet there's quite a large sum of money in a fluid state like this at any one time though, so it wouldn't be an insignificant issue.

masonic

BooJewels said:

masonic said:

TiVo_Lad said:

BooJewels said:

masonic said:

Doctor_Who said:

masonic said:

Doctor_Who said:

SanguineOnSaturn said:

Is there a list of other clearbank accounts to see how the fscs 85k might be shared among multiple institutions?

Do you mean whether ClearBank has a shared banking licence and so may share FSCS protection? If so the answer is no:

This bank isn't linked to any others, for savings safety purposes

This means the £85,000 per person protection isn't shared between any other banks.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings/

I think the poster was looking for a list of providers using ClearBank's licence, of which there are several, including Chip and Raisin.

I've always used the MSE page to check if financial institutions are linked for FSCS protection - is this giving incorrect information regarding ClearBank? I have money with Chip and Raisin, presumably the FSCS limit would apply to money in the Raisin holding account (ClearBank) and Chip? I never keep money in the Raisin holding account for longer than necessary!

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings/

No, it isn't giving incorrect information because neither Chip nor Raisin are banks. However, you'd be wrong to take away from that result that you could hold £85k in a Chip savings account provided by ClearBank AND have additional cover for money in Raisin's holding account provided by ClearBank. To be fully covered for the FSCS, your total balance across all accounts provided by ClearBank must not exceed £85k.

The situation is the same as if you held a large cash balance at two different investment providers who happened to use the same bank for their client money account. If you look up Barclays, it doesn't mention the fact that Hargreaves Lansdown and others will park cash there that would be considered part of the Barclays limit (ditto for HL's active savings account).

If that's true - then several smaller providers use Barclays as their clearing bank, but they all clearly offer the full £85k FSCS protection in their terms - none of the ones I know of tell you that your protection is shared over a number of organisations that use the same bank - if that bank goes under. 

For example; Ford Money:  "It protects up to £85,000 (or £85,000 each, for joint account holders) of the money in your Ford Money accounts."

First Save:  "Your eligible deposits with FirstSave are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme"

Charter:  "Your eligible deposits held by a UK establishment of Charter Savings Bank are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the UK’s deposit protection scheme."

The three you have quoted all hold a banking license:

Ford Money https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000MfJwuAAF

First Save https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000MfMNsAAN

Charter https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000NMRUpAAP

They are therefore allowed to hold or control client money and are FSCS Registered in their own right. Where they hold the money isn't relevant for your protection because you're protected by their own FSCS registration, not the FSCS registration of the organisation where your money actually resides. If Barclays went bust, you'd claim under the three individual protections.

There's no doubt that the moment money is applied to your savings account it has FSCS protection afforded from the saving institution's licence, but the point at which the savings institution takes on liability for incoming payments in particular is unclear. Both savings and investment firms have permission to hold or control client money and are FSCS registered. When client money is held in a pooled nominee account, then the entity subject to a FSCS claim would be dependent on who failed. My understanding is that in the interests of preventing further damage to critical parts of the financial services industry, it is the entity which has already failed.

So, for example, if Barclays failed during the processing of your inward deposit, such that Ford Money etc didn't receive it, then you would claim from Barclays and Ford Money would be in for some difficult times implementing a disaster recovery plan, but wouldn't immediately be pushed into insolvency too just from the wave of customers whose deposits are lost on their journey through the Barclays nominee account.

I'd be very interested indeed in any official source that dealt with this rather specific scenario.

For example; Ford Money:  "It protects up to £85,000 (or £85,000 each, for joint account holders) of the money in your Ford Money accounts."

First Save:  "Your eligible deposits with FirstSave are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme"

Charter:  "Your eligible deposits held by a UK establishment of Charter Savings Bank are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the UK’s deposit protection scheme."

Pulling these quotes out of the prior post, they all state very specifically that eligible deposits with/held by... or money in your...accounts are protected, so those statements are fine whether or not money that hasn't yet been credited to your accounts is subject to different protection. While in a Barclays holding account, they are not yet held by [savings bank] or in your [savings bank] account.

I had Presumed that we we're talking about deposits and withdrawals in transit, not balances already parked in your savings account - I did notice their very specific wordings about 'eligible' and 'in your account'.  So it's only amounts in transit that might potentially fall through cracks or end up in a precarious situation.  Maybe then it's another argument for moving funds in more manageable amounts.  Although, as you say, it seems a very specific scenario and maybe other factors of the banking world are more likely to be problematic than this particular one.  

The Special Administration Regime was formulated to address precisely these sorts of issues, ensuring that payment and clearing systems continue functioning when a relevant firm fails. So I think we are probably well down in the hypothetical weeds when considering this issue.

Hattie627

I don't hold huge amounts in easy/instant access accounts, usually just money awaiting deposit in other places like RS accounts. However it would still be painful if my Chip funds got caught up in the hypothetical weeds being discussed. Why take the risk for minimal benefit? I've moved my Chip funds out to a new Skipton Bonus Saver (4.45%) and to an existing Newcastle BS EA Tracker (4.30% NLA). Minimal interest decrease. I've left a small balance in Chip to make it easier if I decide to return. Hopefully Skipton will have an Issue 3 Members' Regular Saver which I might qualify for in a few months, who knows. 

If Chip raise their rate next week, I will probably be tempted back