We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!

Are your savings safe? article discussion

Options
196979899100102»

Comments

  • Malthusian
    Malthusian Posts: 11,055 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Up until the 2007 collapse of Northern Rock, when panicking customers queued outside branches in a desperate attempt to take out their savings, the FSCS only promised to repay 80% of the first £35,000 held in a failed bank or building society.

    Never change, Grauniad. (It was 100% of the first two grand and 90% of funds between £2,000 and £35,000.)

    In regard to the "superior" protection of the USA's FDIC, it's worth noting that this doesn't appear to have "temporary high balance" protection as the FSCS does (although this only came in here in 2015).

    The £85k limit only really needs to be increased when we reach the point that people are ignoring it in large numbers because £85k is worth so little that people can't be bothered to split up funds into £85k chunks, and instead start keeping all their money in one place and assuming the Government will step in if needed. (In much the same way as few people bothered to split up cash into £35k chunks in 2007, and nobody split up cash into £2k tidbits to secure 100% FSCS coverage.) Which is still a few decades of inflation away. (Maybe.)

    As long as the vast majority are staying under the FSCS limit (and the few who don't bother don't have enough numbers to cause a bank run) there is little impetus to increase them.

    I can still see the Government increasing the limit to buy some easy headlines to calm the horses if a big bank (bigger than Silicon Valley Bank, at least) goes under. 

    RG2015 said:
    I wasn't aware of this and am surprised that the US would guarantee more than Europe and the UK. 
    They are almost twice as rich as we are, remember. $250,000 is twice and a third times the FSCS compensation limit at current exchange rates. Other things being equal, you'd expect a country which is twice as rich as another to have double the savings and need double the deposit protection. (The alternative is that their citizens would have to expend twice as much effort in spreading their money around, which is not how being rich works.)
  • baby_boomer
    baby_boomer Posts: 3,883 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Yea. Why shouldn't the UK government waste taxpayers' money and throw it at banks that take unacceptable risks? 
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 37,182 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Yea. Why shouldn't the UK government waste taxpayers' money and throw it at banks that take unacceptable risks? 
    FSCS is funded by the industry, not the government.

    It's true that there is an arrangement via which the Treasury can loan money temporarily to FSCS in the event of a shortfall, but the funds all eventually come from the institutions rather than the taxpayer as such, although of course those funds will ultimately be borne by customers....
  • GeoffTF
    GeoffTF Posts: 2,039 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    eskbanker said:
    Yea. Why shouldn't the UK government waste taxpayers' money and throw it at banks that take unacceptable risks? 
    FSCS is funded by the industry, not the government.

    It's true that there is an arrangement via which the Treasury can loan money temporarily to FSCS in the event of a shortfall, but the funds all eventually come from the institutions rather than the taxpayer as such, although of course those funds will ultimately be borne by customers....
    The FSCS protects the bank's depositors, not the bank's shareholders. They lose their money if the bank goes down.
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 37,182 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    GeoffTF said:
    eskbanker said:
    Yea. Why shouldn't the UK government waste taxpayers' money and throw it at banks that take unacceptable risks? 
    FSCS is funded by the industry, not the government.

    It's true that there is an arrangement via which the Treasury can loan money temporarily to FSCS in the event of a shortfall, but the funds all eventually come from the institutions rather than the taxpayer as such, although of course those funds will ultimately be borne by customers....
    The FSCS protects the bank's depositors, not the bank's shareholders. They lose their money if the bank goes down.
    Yes, this thread is all about deposit protection - perhaps the poster I replied to was looking to derail it in a different direction, but that wasn't clear....
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.