Icesave- Martin is wrong.

earlgrey_3

Lavendyr wrote: »

But they *don't know* that to be the case. You tout it about as a fact that there "will" be a delay but it is still just the opinion of the FSCS - who are ultimately in no better a situation to comment than anyone else, since it's never happened before.

The FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) are the people who would be responsible for paying out the balance up to £35K if Icesave did default.

I'd therefore assume that they are in a better situation than anyone else to judge when they announce that there might be some complications and delay if it became necessary to pay out compensation in that situation. As close as you'll get to the horse's mouth I'd say and, let's be frank, certainly more authoritative than anything you might hear in the saloon bar or in an internet forum.

talana

I'm firmly in agreement with Martin and those who are happy to put their money with Icesave.

In this whole debate about Icesave (very interesting indeed though much of it is), there are very few facts. Lots of speculation, hypotheticals, theories, ifs, maybes and dunnos, but not a lot else.

Fact - Icesave offer great rates for savers
Fact - they operate the "passport" compensation scheme
and that's about it!!

Let's see:
IF Icesave were to go bust .........(seriously big if)
IF they are any more likely to go bust than a British bank in fact........
IF the passport compensation scheme were to prove inferior to the full FSCS scheme in practice (big if) .........
IF the delay in receiving compensation would be any different......
and so on, and so on.

Now why anyone would avoid Icesave on the strength of such a string of complete hypotheticals I can't understand.

None of the compensation schemes have been tested for real so we have no way of saying which would prove better if it came to it.

talana

The FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) are the people who would be responsible for paying out the balance up to £35K if Icesave did default.

I'd therefore assume that they are in a better situation than anyone else to judge when they announce that there might be some complications and delay if it became necessary to pay out compensation in that situation. As close as you'll get to the horse's mouth I'd say and, let's be frank, certainly more authoritative than anything you might hear in the saloon bar or in an internet forum.

If it's the issue of top-up compensation from the FSCS as part of the passport scheme that's a concern to you, then that's not even an argument to avoid Icesave completely.
At most that's an argument not to deposit any more than would be claimed direct from the Icelandic compensation scheme. So fine, limit your funds with Icesave to £15,000 (or whatever the limit is) and that issue is completely taken out of the equation.
To a huge number of "ordinary" savers, myself included, £15,000 would be perfectly acceptable ceiling anyway.

nilrem_2

RayWolfe wrote: »

Really?
Maybe, just maybe, a few of the posters are, but the rest? Do you read these forums? My judgement would be that few read the T&Cs, let alone the finer points of money management.

Well obviously I do read the forums, otherwise what would be the point of posting replies?:)

I just can't believe that folks come here look at the best buy list and shove their cash in that without doing just a little checking and research of their own first! But them maybe I have over estimated peoples canniness! Lol

chris1

earlgrey wrote: »

The FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) are the people who would be responsible for paying out the balance up to £35K if Icesave did default.

Well, actually it would be the Icelandic scheme for the first ~£15K, not the FSCS. If the Icelandic scheme did not pay, the FSCS would not cover it on their behalf and savers with less than ~£15K would not receive anything.

Lavendyr

earlgrey wrote: »

The FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) are the people who would be responsible for paying out the balance up to £35K if Icesave did default.

I'd therefore assume that they are in a better situation than anyone else to judge when they announce that there might be some complications and delay if it became necessary to pay out compensation in that situation. As close as you'll get to the horse's mouth I'd say and, let's be frank, certainly more authoritative than anything you might hear in the saloon bar or in an internet forum.

I know that they are the ones who would have to organise a pay-out, but since they've never had to organise a pay-out since they were set up, (in 2001 I believe?) I can't see how they can make a judgement which is based on anything other than opinion. Yes, it *might* take longer to pay out. Or, given that Iceland has an actual 'money pot' rather than the FSCS collect-on-demand system, it *might* be quicker. We - and they - just don't know.

As for being more authoritative than anything you might hear in a saloon bar or in a forum, perhaps if we're talking about comments from average Joes, but it's still the case that the FSCS's opinion is not fact, and therefore I personally don't consider the FSCS can be any more accurate than any other person who is well acquainted with the financial system. Then again, that's just my opinion.

VITO_3

What's wrong with the Coop Bank @ 6.62% ,a very long standing company,and if it goes bust you can wait for your guaranteed £35000 and also have the pleasure of getting the manager by the scruff of the neck in a branch near you !!

Lavendyr

No longer available to new customers, I believe.

talana

Well, actually it would be the Icelandic scheme for the first ~£15K, not the FSCS. If the Icelandic scheme did not pay, the FSCS would not cover it on their behalf and savers with less than ~£15K would not receive anything.

A perfect example of what I was saying earlier about all the ifs, maybes and hypotheticals floating around this whole debate.

Sure, IF the Icelandic scheme did not pay, then that would be the case. But have you got any basis (in fact not supposition) to suggest that they wouldn't? Because I'd like to hear it.

And IF I won the lottery jackpot I'd be rich!!

Killahertz

VITO wrote: »

What's wrong with the Coop Bank @ 6.62%

Nothing wrong with the rate, but imagine the stigma of using an establishment better known for coupons and the blue-rinse brigade. Hell, they may even force you to use one of their shopping emporia: spending hours in a queue behind a urine-scented mass of half-size baked bean can buyers.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with Iceland. Far cooler :rotfl: