northern rock savings

bristolleedsfan

oldfella wrote: »

automatically firing back all the time

---

virgin being the preferred bidder.

---

lets see it happen first

savers would get notice

---

I doubt very much if you will get notice of NR going into administration

yip u often fire back on my posts without appearing to grasp all the circumstances and/or facts.

you "doubt very much if you will get notice of NR going into administration"


i never save with a plc so i dont need any notice.

u appear to not be aware that "if" NR was put into administration it would be the government putting NR into administration, before u fire back with how do i know. :rolleyes: because the government are pulling all the strings as far as it can. ( it obviously cant dictate how the shareholders vote)

so "if" the government were planning to put NR into adminsistration it would give NR savers sufficient notice that it planned to withdraw the 100% savers guarantee.

baby_boomer

For clarity and reassurance.

Changest to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme from October 2007

"The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has increased the limit of Financial Service Compensation Scheme (FSCS) cover for deposits to 100% of the first £35,000 of each depositor's claim. This increase applies from 1 October 2007."

roddydogs

baby_boomer wrote: »

For clarity and reassurance.

Changest to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme from October 2007

"The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has increased the limit of Financial Service Compensation Scheme (FSCS) cover for deposits to 100% of the first £35,000 of each depositor's claim. This increase applies from 1 October 2007."

Sorry, forget the 90% bit, but the £35000 bit still applies-if you have,say £100,000 with NR it will all be protected!

oldfella

yip u often fire back on my posts without appearing to grasp all the circumstances and/or facts.

---

Bristolleedsfan - I seem to have upset you - not intentioned I assure you !

the posting wasnt aimed at you - it was trying to warn savers in NR that if it went into administration it seems interest payments are at risk. The capital of course is guaranteed by the govt.

This is my last post on this thread.

Mike

bristolleedsfan

oldfella wrote: »

yip u often fire back on my posts without appearing to grasp all the circumstances and/or facts.

---

Bristolleedsfan - I seem to have upset you - not intentioned I assure you !

the posting wasnt aimed at you - it was trying to warn savers in NR that if it went into administration it seems interest payments are at risk. The capital of course is guaranteed by the govt.

This is my last post on this thread.

Mike

u still dont seem to understand that "if" NR went into administration it would be the governments decision, the government has pledged to NR savers that in the event that it ( the government) was to withdraw its 100% savings deposits guarantee, it the government would give NR savers prior notice so they could move their savings elsewhere.

its apparent that in the event the government were planning ( "if") to put NR into administration, the government would prior to that give NR depositers prior notice that it was going to be withdrawing its 100% depositors guarantee.

the article that u referred to in the guardian on saturday was apparent speculation ( based on "if") which had already been superceded by events on sunday which were announced before u posted the reference to saturdays guardian article.

i dont get upset, just mystified why u posted reference to a speculative article from a day earlier when events had already moved on as a matter of fact a day later.

by events having moved on from saturday, i mean as of saturday the "speculation" was that the government had three options that being, administration,nationalise or pick an approved bidder, on sunday it took the latter option.

administration may well become a speculative topic again, the government would have already given NR depositers notice of its intention to withdraw its 100% depositors guarantee before administration was initiated.

jamesd

mambi, Northern Rock interest rates aren't normally competitive so transferring to an account with a higher interest rate would probably be best. You don't currently need to worry about the safety of your money since all savings accounts there are 100% protected. But the interest rates are a sufficient reason to switch.

macgyver, why would you lose all your cash ISA interest if you transferred? What normally happens with either monthly or annual interest is that interest for the partial month or year is calculated up to the date of transfer and then the balance plus that interest is sent to the new provider.

rebeccaj

jamesd wrote: »

Northern Rock interest rates aren't normally competitive

it's been announced today that two of their online savings accounts have had rate increases

http://www.mortgagesolutions-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=660661

Biggles

jamesd wrote: »

mambi, Northern Rock interest rates aren't normally competitive so transferring to an account with a higher interest rate would probably be best.

I don't believe that is really true, the Silver Saver in particular (even before today's rate increase) has been one of the better accounts.

I have £35,000 there and am happy leaving it there.

jamesd

rebeccaj, 6.49% is more competitive alright. Also cheaper than they are rumored to be paying the Bank of England for money, so they will save money at these rates. Maybe even make some. A&L's eSaver at 6.5% but no interest in any month where you take the money out is also interesting, given that they are both fighting to get money to fund mortgages.

Biggles, so long as you can handle the possible delay if a guarantee claim is needed, that seems fine to me and gets you 70 a year more than with say Icesave at 6.3%. If you're happy to leave the money there you might consider say 6.7% for a year from Icesave, or 6.6% for two years or 6.5% for three years, no withdrawing or additional deposits allowed.

bristolleedsfan

oldfella wrote: »

the posting wasnt aimed at you - it was trying to warn savers in NR that if it went into administration it seems interest payments are at risk. The capital of course is guaranteed by the govt.

This is my last post on this thread.

Mike

hope all can see that the Government is in control of events at Northern Rock and it the Government would not allow a situation to occur where NR went into administration with savers deposits locked into NR.

It has been scaremongering :eek: which caused NR savers to withdraw deposits in large numbers unneccesarily.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=155233