Icesave- Martin is wrong.

ianmr65

bristolleedsfan wrote: »

U mean like Harriet Harman. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Or did u mean a Vicar. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I take your point BLF, :T but did qualify my appraisal. 'Good' in comparative terms.
Perhaps i should have said, if he was slightly less mediocre, than the average backbench MP, (which is basically what he is) then he would be a Minister. As in general the qualificaton for being a Minister, is just that.

Lavendyr

silentfox wrote: »

My point is that this forum, as you yourself say, is for less financial savvy people, so a recommendation from Martin carries weight, as most will follow blindly without question

Is that any different from making a choice based on BBC Working Lunch or a Channel 4 feature? Martin is a journalist and his blog is based on certain sources. The BBC and Channel 4 are also journalistic pieces and their work is based on certain (other) sources. Same thing, it's just a choice of who you prefer to believe and whose argument you feel stacks up better. Either way, neither is factual - it's all opinion-based.

silentfox wrote: »

Everything on my post is a fact, I am not saying that Icesave going under is a fact, but if you know the dog might bite why stick your hand in it’s mouth.

How do you know it is fact? You are quoting journalistic sources, not factual sources. Moreover most of what you have personally experienced (phones not answered, etc) has nothing to do with the credit crunch or Icesave's financial position. OK, it doesn't demonstrate the best customer service, but to state that "everything in your post is fact" is just wrong. It's not fact, it's a number of different peoples' opinion, and for every person who is of the opinion that Icesave may collapse, there is another person who thinks it will not.

But it cannot be fact that Icesave will collapse, for the simple reason that it has not happened yet, and it cannot be fact that if Icesave were to collapse it would take longer to pay out, because there is absolutely no precedent for such a situation. This is merely assumption and conjecture - nothing more.

gt94sss2

I think you should all stop worrying about Icelandic banks and read this post instead

The author is very will respected and is employed at a bank where he decides which banks 'his bank' will or will not lend money too.

Regards
Sunil

ianmr65

Good Post gt94sss2!!.... It might intrest everyone to know, that S&P one of the rapidly goin into a tailspin up there own a$$ ratings agencies are calling the UK housing market to fall by 27%. This year.

Now i' not sure that companies who have variously rated junk sub prime derivatives AAA, are still rating the defunt re-inurance monolines AAA, who have changed the icelandic rating 5 times in 2 years, and are paid by the people who issue debt, and derivatives rather than the people who buy it; and are now being stupidly pessimistic about the UK housing market. Have any credibility left.

In my view the housing market will fall 10 - 15 % max.

ianmr65

Lavendyr wrote: »

But it cannot be fact that Icesave will collapse, for the simple reason that it has not happened yet, and it cannot be fact that if Icesave were to collapse it would take longer to pay out, because there is absolutely no precedent for such a situation. This is merely assumption and conjecture - nothing more.

Indeed. Good post Lavendyr - I think that the chances of the ex bank of iceland (landsbanki, icesaves parent) colapsing are as close to zero as you can get. It holds the bulk of icelandic savings accounts. It has operations all over the Nordic states and europe. It owns hargerves lansdown, Heridtable, and Landsbanki Kepler, It has not extended itself in the leveraged buy out market. It is traditionally very risk averse. It has no exposure to sub prime, and no liquidity problems. It's the icelandic equivalent of Lloyds.

I think Kaupthing and Glitner, who have been a bit more adventuarous in funding eneterprise, have slightly more on their plate. I still think they are very safe. Think of them as barclays equivalents.

Somethimes i think we have a mental block in this country

One of our banks has collapsed. Another one teetered on the brink and was possibly one day away from having to be rescued.

'UK' Banks have all but stoped writing anything but the safest mortgage business. :eek: :eek:

The mortgage side of the business for many of 'our' banks was fundemental.

This is like tesco deciding they aren't gonna sell you food anymore, unless you can pay in gold.

How do you think they are going to be able to sustain their businesses?

But we'd rather belive that icelandic banks are unsafe, becuse rumour mongering ill informed journalits, are swayed by by people who want to make a profit, and cds numbers that they don't understand.

And that british banks are inherantly safe, because they are britsih, when half their new business is rapidly going down the toilet., and have a goverment, and central bank who seem incapable of organising the proverbial in a brewery. :mad: :mad:

MSE_Martin

My aim is to provide full information. My articles detail the best buys. If i start withdrawing best buys due to various reports on financial responsibility - wher edo i stop - who draws the line? No one knows the financial stability of the banks.

I explain all this in detail in my blog.
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/04/01/icesave-how-safe-are-your-savings-facts-and-myths/

I'm not sure how providing information and sources can actually make me wrong. If I said "Icesave will not go bust" I would be hostage to fortune, similar if I said "Icesave will go bust" you could argue the same. I say never - i explain its products - i explain how its protected - i explain the system - and i give my opinion. You may disagree with that; but I hope the info I have given you would allow you to go with that.

Martin

PS I make no bones about the fact this site makes money, but in an ethical way. But as for "Is it really free? What a lovely man. Is there really nothing in it for him?"

Of course its free! No one pays, no one ever has to use this site in any way shape size or form.

If you'd like to read how this site is financed, you'll find the link on every page of the site - and prominent on the front page and in the email.

Just in case you've missed it - its here http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/funding

Toastie

I think most people by not physically being able to walk in to a branch and talk to someone find that it is weaker.

Because Icesave aren't advertising or showing off there deals and aren't in a branch in the UK doesn't mean they aren't safe. Look at some of the high street banks who were greedy in the american market and are now regreting it.

Then the problem of the media slamming foreign banks because the high street ones are loosing money to them is hypocritical after Northen Rocks fiasco.

The media are robbing Peter (Icesave) to pay Paul (High street banks).

Even Martin's done a blog on it; http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/04/01/icesave-how-safe-are-your-savings-facts-and-myths/

Toastie

MSE_Martin wrote: »

I explain all this in detail in my blog.
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/04/01/icesave-how-safe-are-your-savings-facts-and-myths/

You've just beat me by 3minutes :rolleyes:

silentfox

Martin

I have no problem with you making millions out of this site, hope we are clear on that as it was posted by another member.

I know you have not said that “Icesave will not go bust”, my point is even in your blog you still give it a best buy, I still think this is wrong, not because it is not paying the highest rate, but because of the two tier system of compensation, I also don’t think you have highlighted this enough with respect to Icesave until your recent blog. Also I am now concerned that you seem to be ignoring the statement given to the Working Lunch program, by the FSCS where they explicitly sate there could well be a delay.

“In the event of a failure of a topped up bank (i.e Icesave) the home state scheme would have lead responsibility for claims and would pay the first part of any compensation. This might cause some delays in resolving claims”

FSCS statement on BBC Working Lunch 03-April 2008.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/broadband/mediaplayer/players/bbc2/bb_wm_console.shtml?redirect=console.shtml&lang=en&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2&package=4588779&clip=wl_wed_020408_fullFast forward to the 26th minute.

Martin you have to agree that many will simply see best buy and follow it, maybe that is ultimately their fault, but considering your appeal and the trust people have in you and this site, I still think on this occasion it was wrong to give it a best buy.


Looks like we will disagree on this Martin but thanks for taking the time to respond, first the time in many years I have had cause to disagree with something you have said, but nice to know we can still say it.

Good luck with the site may it grow even bigger.

nilrem_2

silentfox wrote: »

Martin you have to agree that many will simply see best buy and follow it, maybe that is ultimately their fault, but considering your appeal and the trust people have in you and this site, I still think on this occasion it was wrong to give it a best buy.

Surely someone with cash to save would not just look here and invest their cash in an account listed as 'Best buy' without doing a little more research? IMHO most people that come here are a little more 'canny' than that.