Icesave- Martin is wrong.

VITO_3

Lavendyr wrote: »

No longer available to new customers, I believe.

Quite correct,no longer available from today,lucky I got in last week.

Toastie

I'm perfectly fine with Icesave so i had 6.65% at only 6months, then when that money is freed up i will put it in to my ISA so it will be maxed out for this year.

strawberrylane

I've just ploughed through all of the Icesave threads and based on what I've read here and elsewhere am perfectly happy to deposit money there. So, today I've applied for a 2 year fixed rate account with them and my wife's done the same.

earlgrey_3

talana wrote: »

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.

None of it's any concern to me Talana and I don't know how risky or otherwise Icesave are. Martin has never pretended that he does either (nor I'd suggest does anyone else on this board).

Just making the obvious point that to say that the announcement by the FSCS is just their opinion and were "in no better a situation to comment than anyone else" is just a teeny weeny bit wacky don't you think? It's part of their job to know if there would be problems or delays. C'mon. :rolleyes:

I'm not too sure what an ordinary saver is. In the current climate I was content putting £100K last month with the government owned Northern Rock at 6.45% fixed for 1 year rather than worry about a fraction of a percentage point I might get elsewhere and couldn't be bugg*red with splashing it around half a dozen banks at various rates.

Others will rightly come to other conclusions depending on their circumstances. If I was looking for somewhere for less than £15K I'd look at various aspects beside the headline rate being paid including security, the likelyhood of any future hassle, how efficient they were to deal with, and a few other things. I have no problem with risk as such provided it's fully justified by the return.

Lavendyr

earlgrey wrote: »

Just making the obvious point that to say that the announcement by the FSCS is just their opinion and were "in no better a situation to comment than anyone else" is just a teeny weeny bit wacky don't you think? It's part of their job to know if there would be problems or delays. C'mon. :rolleyes:

Who said that? If you mean my posts, I actually said:

"I personally don't consider the FSCS can be any more accurate than any other person who is well acquainted with the financial system."

They cannot *know* if there would be problems or delays because they have never done it. They can speculate and they can form educated opinions, which will, I agree, probably be more informed opinions than many others, but a) there are others equally well placed to speculate (such as the Icelandic compensation scheme, who are arguably better placed than the FSCS to speculate on the speed of their own scheme) and b) while speculate they may, they still cannot *know*. That's my point.

talana

None of it's any concern to me Talana and I don't know how risky or otherwise Icesave are. Martin has never pretended that he does either (nor I'd suggest does anyone else on this board).

I'm not too sure what an ordinary saver is. In the current climate I was content putting £100K last month with the government owned Northern Rock at 6.45% fixed for 1 year rather than worry about a fraction of a percentage point I might get elsewhere and couldn't be bugg*red with splashing it around half a dozen banks at various rates.

Others will rightly come to other conclusions depending on their circumstances. If I was looking for somewhere for less than £15K I'd look at various aspects beside the headline rate being paid including security, the likelyhood of any future hassle, how efficient they were to deal with, and a few other things. I have no problem with risk as such provided it's fully justified by the return.

I don't disagree with you.
Sure, we don't really "know" how risky or otherwise Icesave are. But you could say the same thing about plenty of other banks too. Why single out Icesave?

By ordinary saver I simply meant those who don't have huge sums (such as £100k as you say) to put away. Merely that if like me (and I believe many others) you have modest sums to put away in any one savings institution, why not put your ceiling at £15000. Then no need to concern myself with the point you're making, whether I agree or not.

And yes, if I'm looking for somewhere to place £15000 I will consider all those aspects you mention, not just headline rates. And after considering them, I'm more than happy to have money with Icesave.

earlgrey_3

talana wrote: »

But you could say the same thing about plenty of other banks too. Why single out Icesave?

I didn't single out Icesave; this thread is about Icesave. The clue is in the title used by the OP: "Icesave- Martin is wrong". :rolleyes:

That said, there are factors that do make the calculations different from other banks operating in the UK but that's of no concern to me because I don't bank with them. If you know the position and the arrangements suit you, then that's fine.

earlgrey_3

Lavendyr wrote: »

Who said that? If you mean my posts, I actually said:

"I personally don't consider the FSCS can be any more accurate than any other person who is well acquainted with the financial system."

They cannot *know* if there would be problems or delays because they have never done it. They can speculate and they can form educated opinions, which will, I agree, probably be more informed opinions than many others, but a) there are others equally well placed to speculate (such as the Icelandic compensation scheme, who are arguably better placed than the FSCS to speculate on the speed of their own scheme) and b) while speculate they may, they still cannot *know*. That's my point.

This is getting plain daft. No, what you actually said, copied and pasted from here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=9863465&postcount=29 for your convenience was:

"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."

Perhaps you could refer us to the post where you said what you now claim to have said.

The FSCA were commenting on the fact that responsibility for compensation would be split between two schemes. To suggest that they as the people actually responsible for the UK part of any compensation are not in any better position "than anyone else" to judge that the more complex position could cause delays makes no sense.

nilrem_2

VITO wrote: »

lucky I got in last week.

Same here! Nowt wrong with the Co-op bank, solid and reliable.

FWIW I have a considerable amount with Icesave too which I am happy about.

shindigger

strawberrylane wrote: »

I've just ploughed through all of the Icesave threads and based on what I've read here and elsewhere am perfectly happy to deposit money there. So, today I've applied for a 2 year fixed rate account with them and my wife's done the same.

Good for you. Me too.