Are your savings safe? article discussion

dunstonh

wilkopn wrote: »

Are you sure that Northern Rock really is safe?
Here is what Northern Rock display on their website.
I can't find any mention in their terms and conditions that the government guarantees 100% of new savings.

Depositors

On 1 October 2007 the Financial Services Authority (FSA) increased the limit of Financial Service Compensation Scheme (FSCS) cover for deposits to 100% of the first £35,000 of each depositor's claim. Most depositors, including individuals and small firms are covered. The Scheme limit relates to each depositor for their combined deposits held with Northern Rock and not for each Account. Further details of the Scheme are available on request.

That is the standard deposits protection scheme but they are owned by the Govt now so you would need the Govt to go bankrupt. The Govt, before they stepped in fully, extended the protection to NR to 100%. That has not been rescinded but its a non issue now due to their ownership.

arty4

so the govt encouraged the hx takeover by lloyds supposedly in the interests of the 15m savers and the economy at large etc. how about this? - there is only actually £4 billion in the fscs (compensation scheme for savers in banks that go bust) - that would allow for an average of a paltry £267 per saver! and where would the govt have been then?

ok, i know the govt has actually undertaken to deal with demands beyond the initial £4 billion - nevertheless, they would hardly have been comfortable doing so. i haven't seen anyone raise this aspect of understanding the govt's position on the halifax precipice yet. (which involved waiving the competition rules with alacrity, bringing on more unemployment etc.)

ANGLICANPAT

Am I right thinking that NS and I is nothing to do with the Post Office --and that the bond that the safe sounding Post office are offering or at least were offering last week , 1yr at 7.01% is riskier than some as its done through the Bank of Ireland?

Fella

arty4 wrote: »

so the govt encouraged the hx takeover by lloyds supposedly in the interests of the 15m savers and the economy at large etc. how about this? - there is only actually £4 billion in the fscs (compensation scheme for savers in banks that go bust) - that would allow for an average of a paltry £267 per saver! and where would the govt have been then?

ok, i know the govt has actually undertaken to deal with demands beyond the initial £4 billion - nevertheless, they would hardly have been comfortable doing so. i haven't seen anyone raise this aspect of understanding the govt's position on the halifax precipice yet. (which involved waiving the competition rules with alacrity, bringing on more unemployment etc.)

Speak up...

jack_spratt_2

ANGLICANPAT wrote: »

Am I right thinking that NS and I is nothing to do with the Post Office --and that the bond that the safe sounding Post office are offering or at least were offering last week , 1yr at 7.01% is riskier than some as its done through the Bank of Ireland?

Its no more risky than any other financial institution as it has the same protection as any other bank covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme

SouthCoast

To rely on the existence of the FSCS when making investment decisions is IMHO unwise.
We live in unprecedented times and any major claim on the fund would take years to sort out.

Why be a rate tart?
An extra .5% on a £35k investment is 0.48p a day.
Spend it wisely.

The greater the reward, the greater the risk.

jack_spratt_2

SouthCoast wrote: »

To rely on the existence of the FSCS when making investment decisions is IMHO unwise.
We live in unprecedented times and any major claim on the fund would take years to sort out.

Why be a rate tart?
An extra .5% on a £35k investment is 0.48p a day.
Spend it wisely.

The greater the reward, the greater the risk.

My personal opinion is that just because a bank or building society is paying a lower rate of interest on a saving account does not make it a safer bank and less likely to go belly up!! its more to do with how they run there business and how they have managed there funding and lending and the stability of there assets

arty4

to fella - ref your post directed to/at me at 7.25 pm today - you're clearly a very experienced poster and yet the brutal pithiness of your remark has robbed me of having a clue as to its meaning. perhaps you could afford just a few more words and enlighten me? thnx.

Fella

use a smaller font?

arty4

aha - thnx for elucidation. well now, georgia 4 is hardly shouting, wouldn't you say? personally, i find a slightly larger font much easier on the eyes. it did cross my mind that your remark was something sarcy. but wasn't sure cos it also crossed my mind that maybe you meant something about me speaking up on the issue in some way other than merely posting here. well i guess all your 2,800 posts can't be as inconsequential as this, cos i see you've been thanked numerous times. good. can this particular correspondence be closed now please?