The Prudential Regulation Authority proposes raising FSCS deposit protection limit to £110,000

happybagger

400ixl said:

Given the government wants people to invest, not save, why would they want to increase this? I can understand the temporary cover increasing though.

Because it's unlikely to cost them much, if anything, while putting out what they'd view as "good news".

A day for burying bad news, probably.

masonic

happybagger said:

400ixl said:

Given the government wants people to invest, not save, why would they want to increase this? I can understand the temporary cover increasing though.

Because it's unlikely to cost them much, if anything, while putting out what they'd view as "good news".

A day for burying bad news, probably.

If the PRA think this will be viewed as good news by the majority of the public, then they are tone-deaf. Many would view it as another bung to the rich while the only thing increasing for them is their bills.

Albermarle

masonic said:

happybagger said:

400ixl said:

Given the government wants people to invest, not save, why would they want to increase this? I can understand the temporary cover increasing though.

Because it's unlikely to cost them much, if anything, while putting out what they'd view as "good news".

A day for burying bad news, probably.

If the PRA think this will be viewed as good news by the majority of the public, then they are tone-deaf. Many would view it as another bung to the rich while the only thing increasing for them is their bills.

And their income.
Average annual wage rise is up around 5.5 %
SP is up 4.1%
Minimum wage up between 6.7% and 18%

masonic

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

happybagger said:

400ixl said:

Given the government wants people to invest, not save, why would they want to increase this? I can understand the temporary cover increasing though.

Because it's unlikely to cost them much, if anything, while putting out what they'd view as "good news".

A day for burying bad news, probably.

If the PRA think this will be viewed as good news by the majority of the public, then they are tone-deaf. Many would view it as another bung to the rich while the only thing increasing for them is their bills.

And their income.
Average annual wage rise is up around 5.5 %
SP is up 4.1%
Minimum wage up between 6.7% and 18%

Yes I've heard about these legendary pay rises the average person has enjoyed. I don't know anyone willing to admit to getting such a pay rise in the last couple of years. Seems to be largely public sector where wages were held down for many years prior.

eskbanker

masonic said:

Albermarle said:

And their income.
Average annual wage rise is up around 5.5 %
SP is up 4.1%
Minimum wage up between 6.7% and 18%

Yes I've heard about these legendary pay rises the average person has enjoyed. I don't know anyone willing to admit to getting such a pay rise in the last couple of years. Seems to be largely public sector where wages were held down for many years prior.

The ONS has it the other way round:

• Annual growth in employees' average earnings for regular earnings (excluding bonuses) was 5.9% and total earnings (including bonuses) was 5.8%.

• [...]

• Annual average regular earnings growth was 6.1% for the private sector and 5.3% for the public sector.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/march2025

EthicsGradient

FWIW, median full time, part time, and all employment weekly wages, adjusted for CPIH, each April from 2012 to 2024:

2012	528	162	423
2013	528	163	424
2014	520	162	420
2015	528	167	426
2016	535	176	436
2017	533	176	435
2018	539	178	436
2019	544	183	445
2020	539	186	441
2021	552	195	458
2022	539	192	448
2023	535	188	448
2024	551	199	464

So we can see that by April 2024, full time wages had just about got back to their 2021 peak, and part time and all-employment wages had hit a new peak. Over the 12 years, full time wages' real growth was about 0.36% per year.
Sources:
Employee earnings in the UK - Office for National Statistics
CPIH INDEX 00: ALL ITEMS 2015=100 - Office for National Statistics

Albermarle

masonic said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

happybagger said:

400ixl said:

Given the government wants people to invest, not save, why would they want to increase this? I can understand the temporary cover increasing though.

Because it's unlikely to cost them much, if anything, while putting out what they'd view as "good news".

A day for burying bad news, probably.

If the PRA think this will be viewed as good news by the majority of the public, then they are tone-deaf. Many would view it as another bung to the rich while the only thing increasing for them is their bills.

And their income.
Average annual wage rise is up around 5.5 %
SP is up 4.1%
Minimum wage up between 6.7% and 18%

Yes I've heard about these legendary pay rises the average person has enjoyed. I don't know anyone willing to admit to getting such a pay rise in the last couple of years. Seems to be largely public sector where wages were held down for many years prior.

Thinking back ( 18/24 months ?) there were acute shortages of labour in some sectors. Lorry drivers, chefs, construction workers, tradespeople  etc, so there were some significant wage rises in some sectors, which are probably still feeding through.
IIRC Tesco, Aldi etc jacked up their workers pay two or three times in a year.

bristolleedsfan

happybagger said:

400ixl said:

Given the government wants people to invest, not save, why would they want to increase this? I can understand the temporary cover increasing though.

Because it's unlikely to cost them much, if anything, while putting out what they'd view as "good news".

A day for burying bad news, probably.

Does not cost Government anything.

https://www.fscs.org.uk/about-us/funding/

How we are funded

We're able to pay our customers compensation because we are fully funded by the financial services industry. Firms authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) pay us a levy. This annual levy funds the cost of running our service.

wmb194

The question is whether banks, building societies and all the others who pay the FSCS levy will be happy about this.

In the past the £85k was set to match the €100k EU limit and I haven’t heard mention of the EU increasing it. At today’s exchange rate £85k is about €101.76k. Pointless goldplating? Most people won’t care.

eskbanker

wmb194 said:

The question is whether banks, building societies and all the others who pay the FSCS levy will be happy about this.

In the past the £85k was set to match the €100k EU limit and I haven’t heard mention of the EU increasing it. At today’s exchange rate £85k is about €101.76k. Pointless goldplating? Most people won’t care.

I suspect that the responses to the consultation will be positive from consumers and negative from the industry, although if payouts for protected deposits are generally rare and small then I wouldn't have thought that the levy would increase much anyway?

I'm sure there are many who'd support divergence from the EU just because we can!