Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JayK

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Seriously? A quarter of a million accounts to sort out and you don't think they are doing a good job because they are potentially going to take an extra six weeks to sort out a matter involving the estate of a deceased person? You have not provided evidence of incompetence or that they are not doing a great job sorting out this huge mess. I'm sorry for your loss. But sorting out inheritance and resolving financial affairs after death is never a quick and easy process at the best of times, never mind during the first ever proper test of the deposit guarantee scheme - and right in the middle of the biggest financial crisis and turmoil for at least 75 years too. When my mother died three years ago, it took 15 months to resolve all of her financial affairs.
  2. And deservedly so, because you reckon completely and utterly wrong. Sainsbury's Bank (a 50:50 venture between J Sainsbury and HBOS) operates under its own FSA banking license. Consequently, under UK law the deposit guarantee for Sainsbury's Bank is as seperate from HBOS as is HSBC or Barclays. It is simple to find this out doing a quick bit of research on the internet (and I mean sites such as FSA, HM Treasury etc, not discussion fora). If more took the time to find the facts, fewer would be worked up into an unnecessary worry by misinformed chatter and opinions.
  3. Apparently, customers of IceSave have been paid interest on all accounts pro rata to 8 October, in advance of the money being paid back into linked accounts by FSCS this month. Looks like the FSCS are doing a fantastic job in good time. And to think of all the armchair experts who insisted it would fail to deliver. But some people are never happy. One poster at This Is Money is apoplectic that they have not got their money as of 2 November when it was "promised in November". What a tool. If I was in the FSCS I'd try to **** up his transfer on purpose..... ;o)
  4. But call centre jobs is hardly the nux of the problem nor part of the solution, is it? Nationwide issue bonds. That fills the funding gap. And the argument was that building societies such as NW prove that banks aren't required. HSBC categorically prove otherwise: they have high quality assets, low exposure to bad products, and careful lending practices. Plus equally competitive interest rates despite having those evil shareholders receiving dividends. Also, didn't NW recently have to rescue two societies who had gotten into big trouble with bad debts, bad loans, toxis products, falling asset values........proving again that it is all down to the quality of the board, not the legal status of the institution.
  5. Er, new Icelandic law allows the government to take any bank into receivership whenever it likes for whatever reason it likes, e.g. for protection and/or restructuring. It does not have to be insolvent as you suggest is the only reason for receivership in this context. That is partly why they passed mergency legislation Monday - so they could seize a solvent bank, amongst other things. Remember, even solvent banks can be brought down by frozen money markets or other factors. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that receivership in this case is no proof whatsoever it is going to happen. And the PM/FSA equivalent have said they expect there to be sufficient funds to cover Icesave claims in the UK. Indeed, I read such a statement at an official icelandic site linked from this very forum, earlier this evening. Clearly referred to UK claims. AGAIN, British GDP is less than the obligations of all the UK banks so do explain how Iceland is any different? Also repeated: Icelandic FSCS is pre-funded at about 88m. You say Landsbanki owe UK savers 4bn. UK FSCS is pre-funded at about 113m. How much does one of the big four owe? Who has the biggest obligations overall? Iceland or the UK? Where will the extra funds come from in the UK if needed? Nearly all our banks are asking HM Treasury for cash! By the way, if the UK banks went down, and the government said "UK savers will not get all their guaranteed amount because we need some of the money to help out foreign investors too" there'd be riots in this country, regardless of whether a law or international agreement applied or not.
  6. Yes, but if you listen to some here you would also believe that the BBC is controlled by the Communist PolitBuro in NuLabour (sic) and their newsreaders spy on you through your TV screen.......... I remember being confidently told last year, by many here, that UK inflation would hit 25% in 2008. And I was told earlier this year that oil would pass $200pb by summer. My point being that just because people at hpc.co.uk say it, it doesn't mean it is the absolute truth. Just on my few examples, the hpc experts have a low success rate in predicting trends. So quit with the pious "we warned you" replies. Christ, one guy even insisted that interest rates would rocket. Like anyone with a brain would believe the MPC would do that. The City and Wall Street are bigger basket cases than Rekjavik. More UK and US banks have failed than Icelandic banks. Again: glass houses, stones........
  7. ICICI is a full member of FSCS so the guarantee for funds in their coffers is no worse than for the UK institutions: the full 50k and no claim on a foreign scheme as you suggest. It does NOT use the passport system favoured by Landsbanki for their Icesave subsidiary (why on earth did they choose this?).
  8. No. How can profit-making Nationwide prove that a not-for-profit money system works? Just because they do not have shareholders it doesn't mean they are not run for profit. HSBC (and Santander) have proved that banks are perfectly good when not run by idiots. And actually, Nationwide are not that well funded by retail deposits as you claim: Nationwide: 69% funded by retail deposits. I believe even Landsbanki was at 70%! HSBC: 100% funded by retail deposits. Nationwide's savings interest rates are rarely if ever in the top 5. Savers subsidise borrowers more at Nationwide than at many other institutions (their loan rates are more competitive than their savings rates). Nice. And I've always wanted to know where all that money "they don't have to pay shareholders" goes every year.
  9. Stop talking irrelevant rubbish. The UK has a population of 60 millions but if all the UK banks failed we wouldn't have enough money to honour our deposit guarantees either. As of Tuesday, the Icelandic PM and FSA-equivalent have clearly stated they believe there to be sufficient assets within Landsbanki to compensate Icesavers. If you know better (know, not think), please post the proof for us all to see. Otherwise, let's wait and see shall we? The Icelandic deposit guarantee scheme is pre-loaded with about 88m. The UK's with about 113m. Oops.......but the cash-rich UK banks will come up with the extra funds if needed. Oops......... Since when is trying to earn interest on savings at a rate greater than inflation "greedy"? You do like your dramatic language, don't you? Everyone who tried not to lose money on their savings is greedy: what a massively stupid statement. Plus, the Icelandic banks weren't even offering the highest rates on the UK high street! And if Landsbanki is "tinpot", what does that make our banks? You know, the ones who bought all those confusing toxic products they didn't understand from the US. The ones who bought sub-prime mortgage debt from dodgy US lenders. The ones who paid their investment bankers in the tens of millions a year before seeing if their activities were profitable. The ones who thought it would be a good idea to lend at an LTV of 125%. The ones who accepted fake P60s by the hundreds of thousands. The ones who gave 25k credit limits to 20-somethings on 15k a year. The ones who lent 600k to unemployed divorced women so they could buy BTL flats not yet built. The ones who thought that they didn't need to raise money from deposits in order to lend out billions. The ones who thought they could len out money they had themselves borrowed from another company...who had borrowed it from another company...who had......... Aside from HSBC, all our banks are utterly unfit for purpose. So quit throwing stones north of Scotland. PS I bank with HSBC. Should my - Joe British Taxpayer - tax pounds be used to bail out the useless UK banks I avoided like the plague? Why should I bail out people who invested in HBOS? I don't have kids: why should my - Joe British Taxpayer - tax pounds be used to fund nurseries and child benefit? I live a healthy life with only one visit to the doctor in 15 years, why should my - Joe British Taxpayer - tax pounds be used to fund the NHS? I've worked every day since leaving school, why are my - Joe British Taxpayer - tax pounds be used to pay the unemployed? Etc etc...... See what I did there?
  10. I'm sure I read in the FT or Economist a few weeks ago that Nationwide is 69% capitalised by deposits, not 100%, so it doesn't just "loan on savings". According to the article HSBC is 100% capitalised by deposits and I think the figure for Santander is very high also.
  11. Er, Mr Nice, are you claiming that "Europe Economics" (yes, that is the source: read the sentence again) - an economics consultancy owned by its own employees - is not independent of the government? Read slower next time. And what about RICS? Government stooges also? Anyway. My point in adding this text was to demonstrate to some posters here that you cannot completely dismiss HIPs. When I said that many people put their houses to market entirely speculatively I was shot down. Yet it turns out that RICS estimate that 10% of all sales come from people doing just that!! I was also shot down when I said the supply was distorted when HIPs were introduced, yet lo and behold there is data suggesting a reduction of up to 75% of larger properties coming to market after they were introduced! 75%!!
  12. From MSN Money: -------------------------------- Will Hips hit house prices? The arrival of Hips almost certainly distorted the market. A review carried out by Europe Economics, an independent source quoted by the government, concluded that Hips "may have had an additional modest-but-material effect on listings activity". Sellers, for example, rushed to put their properties on the market ahead of compulsion in the summer. Housing statistics also indicate that a number of vendors were then put off when the packs became compulsory. A survey by Rics in October, after the scheme was introduced for homes with three or more bedrooms, found that the supply of larger homes had fallen by 75% in the southwest and by 72% in the West Midlands. Such distortions could be dismissed as temporary. Surely people won't continue to refuse to move for the sake of a £300 Hip? But Rics reckons that 300,000 properties a year are advertised speculatively by homeowners testing the water. Of course, nobody will pay £300 just to test the water, so this property source could dry up. You might think it irrelevant. If they aren't serious sellers, they can't have a serious effect on the market. But half of those properties are actually sold - and they make up an important 10% of the market. It doesn't mean you can blame Hips for the slowdown in the property market. But if they put off speculative sellers, then they certainly aren't helping. -------------------------------- Thanks for your comments - some interesting stuff. But some evidence (above) to support my belief that HIPs has changed the market, however, and in a way which will reduce average prices simply through a change in the types of properties, not values. Also, evidence that homeowners do put their house on the market speculatively (which was shot down). 10% of the overall market is significant.
  13. Didn't the HPI slow-down start two months before the credit crunch began to bite and pass through to the high street and mortgage products? There is a large body of data that suggests HIPs has prevented people from speculatively putting their houses to market to "see what they might get". The evidence is there; we should not dismiss it so quickly without a proper analysis just because at the same time there are other factors at play. Indeed, I get an email from several property websites every day. I have noticed a change in the types of property coming to market since the summer, in my area at least: a higher percentage of small houses and flats with two or fewer bedrooms. And what effect would that have on average price data in my area? A drop - regardless of whether prices are actually dropping. HPI could have gone up 10% in three months, but if the market has a higher percentage of smaller houses than previously the data will inevitably show a drop in average prices. I'm there to be convinced otherwise, not only by personal opinion (though appreciated) or news headline but by hard facts, analysis and alternative data. Does anyone produce HPI data based on property size?
  14. So, no-one interested in deconstructing my opinion, or am I to assume there is no argument against it? Is it too much of a coincidence that the average property price started dropping the month after HIPs was rolled out (I think)? Again, not because prices dropped but because fewer expensive houses went to market........
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.