We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
How safe do you stick to the 85K FSCS Protection?
Comments
-
I have put a large chunk into Santander easaver paying 2.75%. They are a large bank but if it was a smaller well-known bank would not do that.1
-
Having been very fortunate when Icesave & Kaupthing failed, I will not now have more than the FSCS limit with any bank, no matter how large or well known.I wouldn’t rely on the same treatment now.1
-
I rarely stray past the 85k limit, even if it is a miniscule risk with the larger institutions why bother...in saying that even with the 85K protection I still prefer to have my cash spread across multiple banks so that in the event one got into issues or system/tech/hacking events prevented me accessing my funds I could dip into other accounts to mitigate the risk of not being able to access cash in the short term.
I also accept there is never 100% certainty with anything in life.2 -
AFAIU , these 'smaller' ones were mainly very small credit unions. The smaller savings banks often mentioned on this forum seem to be pretty stable . Charter; Shawbrook; Aldermore; Paragon; Kent Reliance; Ford Money etc .Band7 said:
Although none of the big names has gone bellies up since 2008, a lot of smaller ones have. Just look at how much FSCS have paid out to dateIvanOpinion said:
The fund bit is already covered. I agree with your second para that the need to rely on the FSCS guarantee will be a last resort and not something that they really expect to happen.alternate said:
It isn't a fund as such - it is just a government guarantee. If they were to ever pay out under it then it would be a case of cover it in full or destroy trust in the banking system - the subsequent run on the banks would crash the economy.IvanOpinion said:I have always thought that the government and industry must think there is very little possible risk of it being tapped into. If, for some obscure reason, it is ever required then it would not surprise me if the actual pay out was based on how many pence in the pound customers get.
It is very unlikely the guarantee is significantly tested as it is more likely they would operate as they have in the past - either take public stakes in banks (like in 2008) as a precautionary measure or nationalise smaller banks (like with Northern Rock).2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards