Martins Joned the scare-mongers camp

musty

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Thanks for those notes Ray...

Actually as you may not have realised we did the interview with Yvette Cooper late last night - having had a request in for three weeks. The Treasury contacted us just before the programme went to bed today and we hastily changed the ending as there had been NO conclusion from the interview.

I certainly do not believe I was scaremongering.

This was a programme about how its 'unlikely' any bank would collapse but to take sensible precautions.

The initial commentary said "and the shocking discovery that the fund mightn't have enough money to pay out" this is TRUE - it doesn't. And then we added "and the governments response."

The fact is I am very proud of the journalism here, both the discovery and that by doing the programme we've now gained confirmation that the governement will back up the scheme - something that didnt exist in the past.

If you consider that poor journalism - that's very well. I consider this is a responsible programme that explained a complex subject, wiht balance terms, deliberately reassured people that any event was unlikely and that people should protect themselves. The FSCS lack of funds was a true worry, and to have resolution was great. A programme like this is filmed over a month and in edit for five days - to be able to turn it around at all to get the Treasury confirmation in was due to the dedication of the team.

Martin

Hi Martin

You were absolutely spot on. That was factual and responsible journalism.
I am sure that you well maintain your approche and style

beer_tins

What the debate seems to forget is that it is HIGHLY unlikely for a bank to lose every penny. I can't see a situation where a bank would require the government to bail it out for 100%. Maybe the "pot" should be bigger, but even if a bank were to completely fail, it's mortgage and loan books and other assets would be sold of to cover a large part of the money to be returned to savers.

As for the sub-debate about shareholders, I have little sympathy. You take a risk in buying shares and make good money in dividends and appreciation. If the company fails, you lose. It's the Risk/Return principle in action. If that sounds risky to you, put your money in government bonds or cash savings.

ianmr65

Lavendyr wrote: »

Spot on ianmr65, thanks for posting that. Now let's hope that everyone will calm down a bit about Iceland. I'm honestly happier with my money there than in the UK, knowing that the Icelandic compensation scheme is a 'moneypot' scheme (i.e. the money is already set aside) and as such is probably more likely to pay out in the event of a problem than the FSCS.

yw Lavynder


yet more good news from our fav little island!

"Iceland’s central bank has signed €1.5bn of swap agreements with the central banks of its Scandinavian neighbours...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56a76dd4-2327-11dd-b214-000077b07658.html

ianmr65

beinerts wrote: »

Maybe the "pot" should be bigger, but even if a bank were to completely fail, it's mortgage and loan books and other assets would be sold of to cover a large part of the money to be returned to savers.

Do you think?

The fcsc is there to pay out from other banks money in case of failure. The administration process on a bank is likely to be extremely lengthy with creditors being paid out eventually a proprtion of what is owed, in strict hierarcy, order. I'm pretty sure that small savers would be low on the list and would not recive anything like what they had saved.
Pretty much why the fscs scheme is there. No?

earlgrey_3

ianmr65 wrote: »

You only had, like Saint Mel, to crunch the numbers to see they did not add up- £96bn (well over the nhs budget) vs £4bn

You seem to have the wacky idea that a bank would be allowed to continue trading way past the point of insolvency until it had lost every penny on deposit, every loan it made had defaulted, and all security against every one of those loans was worthless.

ianmr65 wrote: »

The only reason people like me have been promulgating the fantasy is to stop the less well informed amongst us from worrying,

Where are these poor benighted folk who are less well informed than you? They should be in a home. :rolleyes:

ianmr65

earlgrey wrote: »

You seem to have the wacky idea that a bank would be allowed to continue trading way past the point of insolvency until it had lost every penny on deposit, every loan it made had defaulted, and all security against every one of those loans was worthless.
Where are these poor benighted folk who are less well informed than you? They should be in a home. :rolleyes:

Prasied with feint damming.. E.G... couldn't have asked for more.