If £ 35k in savings is the max. compensation amount guaranteed by the FSA

spiritus

.....then should someone be worried having double that amount in one account ?

Paul_Varjak

It is not per account, it is per institution!

So Halifax and Bank of Scotland is one INSTITUTION!

Steve_xx

Yes, you ought to be concerned. Whilst 35k per institution is the limit of compensation payable under the FSCS, you would be prudent to invest not more than 33k in any one institution, so allowing for interest at 6% to bring the total amount up to just shy of 35k after one year.

dunstonh

The FSA is the regulator. The FSCS is who you mean.

Fella

Spiritus - the answer to your question, as to many questions, is an overwhelming maybe.

If all you have is £70K, then IMO....YES, you should be very concerned.

If you have £10 billion, then the chances are you can't spread that around in <£35K chunks, so you may as well not be concerned.

If you have < A_Nominal_Sum_but_let's_call_it_less_than_a_million_pounds then it progressively becomes personal choice. It's perfectly possibly to spread an almost limitless amount around in <£35K chunks but it becomes a progressively huge pain in the a**e. And you lose on interest too.

All you can do is educate yourself on boards like this, decide where your risk appetite lies, then invest accordingly.

You're doing the right thing by asking questions here though. Plenty of ppl here will give you good advice.

PBA

spiritus wrote: »

.....then should someone be worried having double that amount in one account ?

No. The Government has proven with the Northern Rock affair that they aren't willing to let a relatively small and pointless bank go to the wall. They can't afford to lose any voters, so they won't let your savings disappear.

Steve_xx

PBA wrote: »

No. The Government has proven with the Northern Rock affair that they aren't willing to let a relatively small and pointless bank go to the wall. They can't afford to lose any voters, so they won't let your savings disappear.

I hardly think a "small and pointless bank" to be a fitting description of Northern Rock. Certainly the shareholders will not be of a like view, and the employees of this bank who are dependent on its survival will not share your dismissive view of what has happened there.

tradetime

PBA wrote: »

a relatively small and pointless bank go to the wall. They can't afford to lose any voters, so they won't let your savings disappear.

PBA as far as I'm aware NR was the third (possibly the fifth reading somwhere else) biggest lender in the UK just prior to it's demise, not sure small and pointless really applies there.

RayWolfe

PBA wrote: »

They can't afford to lose any voters, so they won't let your savings disappear.

What this, and any other government cannot afford, is to let any bank fail in an uncontrolled way. Remember how people were worried at the time about A&L and B&B as being the next banks to have a run on them?
Banking is all about confidence, none of them can instantly repay their liabilities and if confidence in one fails then there is NOTHING to stop complete collapse of confidence.
Unless you are completely politically biased there is no credence to your point about voters.

Jonbvn

Interesting comments in the Times today.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article3386753.ece

A lot of the comments left by readers state that they believe this was a political move?

McSaver

spiritus wrote: »

.....then should someone be worried having double that amount in one account ?

why dont you open another account with a different bank and place 35K in it so you dont have worry about it anymore since you will be covered.