Are your savings safe? article discussion

Baldur

kirt wrote: »

However on checking with the FSCS it appears that the bank has signed up to the compensation scheme in Sept. 2008.

If so, the FSA Register doesn't reflect this - 206097 Anglo Irish Bank Corporation is shown as being EEA authorised.

kirt_2

Baldur wrote: »

If so, the FSA Register doesn't reflect this - 206097 Anglo Irish Bank Corporation is shown as being EEA authorised.

As I see it, this is one of the banks that have topped up into the UK scheme. I may be wrong. Please correct me.
thanks,
Kirt

Baldur

kirt wrote: »

As I see it, this is one of the banks that have topped up into the UK scheme. I may be wrong. Please correct me.

Hardly 'topped up', as the bank is covered by the Irish Govenment's 100% protection scheme until 2010, therefore the FSCS would not normally be involved - http://www.itsyourmoney.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=100&nID=153&aID=618

LongTermLurker

kirt wrote: »

Someone had previously commented that banking with Anglo-Irish is not that safe. However on checking with the FSCS it appears that the bank has signed up to the compensation scheme in Sept. 2008. So they have committed themselves to paying upto £50,000 per individual in UK. Besides, the which magazine November issue lists the bank's deposit account as one of the best buys.
kirt.

That's not how it works. AI haven't committed to anything - If they were to fail, the FSCS aims to provide compensation up to £50k pp.

Also, as Baldur says, the Irish scheme actually offers greater protection than the UK scheme, at least for a year.

Finally, "choosing to top up to the UK limit" isn't necessarily a plus point. The alternative, which is full UK membership, is always going to be better unless the foreign system could pay out more than the FSCS.

I'm not saying they're not safe, I'm just saying your reasoning is flawed.

Lugh_Chronain

FSCS is putting in place a system that means retail depositors of the bank should be able to receive their savings through an electronic payment into their linked accounts.

A concern of mine is that I always thought it inevitable that during the 'accelerated payout' process the transfers [from Icesave] will probably be to our linked accounts and not to an ISA of our choice. Meaning we'll almost certainly miss out on a heck of a lot of interest which we would have gained if we were to transfer directly from Icesave to another ISA.

It’s a pity we want be able to transfer what’s in Icesave to another ISA.

No bank/building society is going to except above £3600 unless it’s done by means of a transfer. And of course there's the issue of security. Hence the reason for not been able to transfer to another ISA.

Gillyches

Interesting video about money, banks and governments here... most illuminating!!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

It explains a great deal about how the monetary system works (or not!) and is probably the best I've seen.

No wonder we're in a mess! :eek:

johartrog

If the Lloyds TSB takeover of HBOS goes ahead what are the advantages/ disadvantages to the new group for going for one registration as opposed to many? I have money in Lloyds, Halifax, B Midshires and Saga and it will be a real pain to start apportioning this to other banks or financial institutions. Could the FSA (or Government) insist the new group should have multiple registrations to stop this unnecessary financial merry-go-round?

LongTermLurker

johartrog wrote: »

If the Lloyds TSB takeover of HBOS goes ahead what are the advantages/ disadvantages to the new group for going for one registration as opposed to many? I have money in Lloyds, Halifax, B Midshires and Saga and it will be a real pain to start apportioning this to other banks or financial institutions. Could the FSA (or Government) insist the new group should have multiple registrations to stop this unnecessary financial merry-go-round?

Well the obvious advantage to the company is it only has one liability. They don't have to lodge a bond or anything, but in the event of another bank collapsing they only have to pay one share of the bail-out requirements, rather than several portions.

It wouldn't be fair for the government, or anyone, to force a company to contribute more than other companies just because it had bought someone out.

Neil_G_2

Hello, please allow me to join the conversation. Further to my previous posts on earlier threads, I work on behalf of Lloyds TSB and having read your posts I would like to direct you to the new pages Lloyds TSB has added to its website. These aim to answer users’ questions about the proposed HBOS acquisition. More information is being added all the time, so do keep checking what’s online there at www.lloydstsb.com/hbosacquisition. I hope you find this useful, Neil.

LongTermLurker

Neil_G wrote: »

Hello, please allow me to join the conversation. Further to my previous posts on earlier threads, I work on behalf of Lloyds TSB and having read your posts I would like to direct you to the new pages Lloyds TSB has added to its website. These aim to answer users’ questions about the proposed HBOS acquisition. More information is being added all the time, so do keep checking what’s online there at www.lloydstsb.com/hbosacquisition. I hope you find this useful, Neil.

Thanks Neil. I'm sure many will find that a useful section to follow.

btw, thanks for joining to pass on the information.