Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

nicebuyer

Members
  • Posts

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nicebuyer

  1. Yep, that is it exactly. Two extremes and nothing in between.

    I have posted here before about one Canary Wharf bank that I was at where you never saw a black face outside of the canteen. The only other non-white faces were the Indian boys working in IT.

    I was gobsmacked the first time I went into the 'canteen' as basically all the staff there were of African descent. I went to get a piece of toast and they had one person to select a slice of toast, croissant, muffin, whatever, for me. This was then handed to a second person who asked if I wanted butter or marg on it and that person then buttered my toast before handing it to a third who asked what jam I wanted on it and then proceeded to 'jam it'.

    Whilst all this was going on I held a conversation with these 3 people going to such effort to give me a piece of toast. Later on that day I was taken aside and told that someone had witnessed me talking to the restaurant staff and that it was not allowed.

    The best thing that can happen to any of these City types IMPO is to lose their jobs and find it hard to get by for a while - it will make them better Human Beings. Heck, it might just make them Human.

    I've seen your posts about this 'supposed CW bank'. Either this was a long time ago or you are talking ******** mate. I've worked for everyone from Barcap to CSFB and I've NEVER seen what you're talking about.

    I really think people need to get a clue before spouting crap like this. The poor bloke the OP is referring to is in procurement. How much do people think he earns? ****** all, just about enough to support his wife and kids and probably not enough for a holiday.

    This idea that everyone is on £500k+ is ludicrous. I started on £35k + Bonus in year one, after tax and expenses of living in London and working costs it left me enough to rent a 1 bed flat in Kilburn.

    Get some perspective people.

  2. Prices are dropping, just not, in the main, with pproperty that is of interest to many of us. I went to see a house a few days ago, they took £200k off it over the past two months, that still puts it £100k over what it would have cost a year ago.

    There's plenty of crappy property dropping in price but for the time being, the good stuff is about where it was at the beginning of the year, overpriced and sitting on Rightmove unsold.

    People can point out property snake etc but unless you really know the area then you can't put price falls into context. I'm sure there are plenty of properties with 50% reductions but no one wants them anyway plus they were 60% overpriced in the first place. I'm still waiting to see a real 10% drop on the properties I'm after. I fear I may have some time to wait.

  3. I dont wish any bodys bank to go bust as hard working tax payers have their money saved. Its very hard to know where to bank these days, probably ING Direct is a good option.

    I'd have to disagree with the notion that ING is either a safe bet or a good option. ING rates are terrible, they've been chasing the market for years and they signed up for the passport exemption scheme (I think I'm correct there). It's also a massive banking institution, if confidence were lost who exactly would save it?

    If you want safe and good rates (better than ING by a long way) then why not Northern Rock?

  4. CDS stands for credit default swap. Each financial institution has a CDS price, the higher the level, the higher the debt costs to insure and the more risky the bank is. It's not an exact science because there's a lot of trading in CDS contracts, one of my colleagues does it for a living. However anything above 600 would be a worry if on a medium term scale.

    Kaupthing at 800+ is a bit perilous. BSC was priced at around 700 just before it fell so anything above 700 is a big worry. Saying that I'd rather have my money with Kaupthing than with ICE.

    CDS is just one measure, there are many others that need to be taken into consideration. Eg HBOS was pretty low last week, around 250 if I remember correctly so don't just rely on CDS rates.

  5. I think the point is that if your money is tied up for 6 months (to use the figure previously mentioned -- it might be shorter or longer) then you can't do anything about it except sit helplessly and watch it fall. That six months might be absolutely crucial, with opportunities to buy fire-sale assets, or simply to protect the value of your savings by switching away from sterling -- as long as you're liquid. Why take an unnecessary risk of having your savings frozen at such a time (or at any time)?

    I'm not saying the scheme is worthless; rather I'm saying that it's not rational to rely on it because there will be a cost and it could be a major one.

    I agree it might be 6 months before you get your money but then it might only be 6 days, we don't know. I think those most affected and in need will probably get their money more quickly. Those that can wait will get it a bit later. I'm not saying that the £35k guarantee is the bees knees, I'm arguing against those who say it's worthless. We're probably in agreement in the main. I have an issue with those telling others that they might as well burn their money if a bank goes down because the £35k guarantee is totally worthless.

  6. Your argument might be 'standard' and 'accepted', but so were arguments such as 'the fundamentals of the UK economy are sound' and 'house prices always go up' until very recently. In this case the null hypothesis (i.e. default case) has to be 'if your bank goes bust you lose your deposit' and it's up to the proponents of the alternative hypothesis ... 'you won't lose your deposit because of X' to demonstrate that mechanism X does what it says on the tin.

    Clearly, the government can hand over a crisp new tenner for every £10 someone has on deposit (they can print the things, after all). The question is, how much purchasing power will be lost between a bank bust and the subsequent compensation payment? Even if we accept the assumption that the surviving banks will able to cover the bail-out in future, right now the government would have to borrow or print, and that would impact the value of the pounds being returned to depositors.

    Very few regulated professionals would ever say that prices can only go up. In any case, if you wanted to disagree you could make a sound argument for why prices might drop or why we might have an HPC. You'd certainly make a better job of it than "You're a dick". Wouldn't you? If one wishes to argue that I am wrong then I'm all for it, after all, I might be. However I want to see some kind of credible argument. 'Cos I said so' doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

    Onto your main point about purchasing power of the £35k, you might be right, we might, in the short term, be able to purchase less for our money. However it's all relative isn't it? Let's take us two. Let's assume you have £35k in your account. Let's assume I have £10 in mine.

    Your bank goes down, the FSCS sends out your forms and you collect your £35k. Does it really matter if your initial deposit is only worth £31,500 if mine, along with everyone else's money is worth 10% less?

    I guess my point is that purchasing power is all relevant and certainly not a factor when claiming, as other people seem to be doing, that the £35k guarantee is worthless. It is not.

  7. Are you two still at it? :rolleyes:

    I agree entirely with Warpig but neither he nor Nicebuyer can prove it here either way.

    So let's just cross our fingers & hope one of the big Retail Banks collapses soon so we can see who the winner is :P

    I don't need to prove it. My argument is the standard, it is accepted as being valid by every regulated financial body in this country and by their members. It is up to the other fella, you know, the one that still hasn't come up with more of an argument than 'cos it is'. He reminds me of someone....hmmmm......

    Csm_01.jpg

    I cannot of course say, with 100% certainty that any money is safe. No one can because we don't know what's around the corner. However everything needs to be put into perspective here. Otherwise if we're willing to accept the fact that we're going to be in some economic stone age because some guy says 'cos I say so' then we might as well start believing anything.

    Until we see some evidence beyond 'you're a dick' I think we ought to lend more credence to what is widely accepted.

  8. I have made my points in a clear manner, I have nothing further to add. If you or anyone else wants to trust this system then at least you have been told of the potential consequences and you have no one to blame but yourself if it doesn't pan out in the idealistic manner you portray. You have been warned.

    You should probably substitute 'further' with 'valid. You really haven't added anything to the discussion beyond conjecture and guesswork. Not once have you backed up your argument with ANY evidence, you continually, like others on this board, resort to scaremongering and asking others to disprove a negative whilst taking the lack of response as proof that you are in fact correct. It's utter nonsense. Not only are your facts lacking you then go on to create disaster scenarios that have no bearing on the initial issue at hand. How we go from a bank collapsing and the FSCS not being able to guarantee £35k deposits to hyperinflation and money being worthless in some kind of doomsday scenario is beyond me. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED you say. Once again you're another that falls back to Mulder and Scully conspiracy paranoia when faced with questions about your arguments.

    Hopefully by now the average reader of this topic will realise that people like you actually have no evidence for anything you say and take everything you write as a joke rather than real advice but if just one person starts putting their savings under a pillow rather than earning interest safely in a bank account then you are responsible because of your idiocy. You and other like you should realise that what you say might just end up with someone losing hundreds if not thousands of pounds.

    If your argument had just a smidgen of credibility it would be okay but it doesn't. Think about what you write before you write it, it can have consequences. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.

  9. IS ING Direct a safe bet? :unsure:

    Interesting one, certainly safer than ICE or Kaupthing but not immune. One thing to bear in mind, ING messes about with rates so much that I hardly think it's worth saving with them. New accounts at circa 6% but after a few months they'll get you down to circa 4%. You might as well bank British with Nationwide or HSBC/Lloyds/Barclays. At least they're under the umbrella of the UK govt. Also, isn't ING under the passport scheme whereby the Dutch govt pays out before the FSCS gets involved? Same with ICE I think. Not the best scenario really.

  10. I already have and you are moving the goal posts. I don't believe for a second the government will let you lose your savings in nominal terms, but this isn't the issue. The issue is what are you going to do for money whilst your claim is being processed, how are you going to pay your mortgage and buy food, will your business survive? Once you get your non-index linked money back, what will inflation be raging at, what will it be worth in real terms and have you been able to keep your life together in the mean time?

    Ah, okay, I see so it's not about getting the money back or that the guarantee isn't backed or valid, it's a question as to how long it will take to get it back? Far from me moving the goalposts I think it's you that has done so. Questions about how much the FSCS can afford or putting out figures for debt are totally irrelevant if your argument is about timing. But in any case, you are simply guessing at time frames as would I be. My guess would be that money is back in people's accounts within 6 months with the hard up getting money back within two weeks and small loans given until this happens for the very poor. But that's a guess just as, if you wanted to disagree with me, you would also be guessing.

    t comes down to the fact that you have no idea whether one will get their money back in a week or 60 years yet you are scaremongering and pulling figures out of thin air.

  11. I did, it's here.

    It has been alleged, if the FSCS levy reaches it's maximum annual capacity (£4.03bn) the FSCS can draw on commercial borrowing, which I cannot personally verify through any online source. It is also alleged a consultation is currently under way that will enable it to borrow from the Government, neither which I can verify though any online source

    Drop the treasury an email. It will confirm that the BOE and or Govt will back any loan to the FSCS and this will be recouped via levies for however many years is needed.

  12. It's not a feeling. There is no money to bail out savers if one of the big retail banks go under.

    Dude, you're still talking rubbish. You've been at this all day with NOTHING to back it up apart from some vague 'there won't be enough money'.

    Tell me, how much will be needed? Why will the loan not be affordable? Where does the ECB stand on the issue? The point is you are making this up. I'm sitting here feeling like you believe what you're saying, I just don't understand how that can be when you have no evidence for it. Just one link from some official source, heck, even an internet 'expert' would do. But you have nothing. So please, stop scaring people because what you say can have a real effect on how people run their lives. The more you say it the more others will believe it and perhaps lose money because of your B.S.

  13. Partner's dad so worried he took life into own hands and went to Halifax branch on his own. Apparently the cashier tried to talk him out of withdrawing followed by someone who he assumed was the branch manager, who spoke to him in very hushed tones. He got his cheque (so still not out of the woods) and will be putting it somewhere safer in smaller denominations tomorrow. Phew.

    Here's a question; have you thought that perhaps, money in the Halifax is actually one of the safer places to have it? It can be argued that apart from NR, HBOS is a pretty safe bet for deposits. Just a thought really, it just strikes me that HBOS is probably closest to the edge and it's unlikely that the government would allow it to fail not only because of it's business model but also because it's 'resolvable' unlike many others.

    As for getting his money by cheque, silly move, if you're that worried go back in tomorrow and cancel the cheque and pay your money for a few CHAPS transfers. I'd hate to think what might happen if that money is 'midstream' whilst HBOS goes.

  14. But there has been lots of speculation on here that the guarantee scheme won't be big enough to cover a Hallifax bust

    Speculation by people that still haven't managed to provide any evidence for it. These people just have a 'feeling'. Probably the same people that had a feeling buying property in 2003 was a bad idea. I really would like to see some evidence from people that don't believe that the FSCS could cover the guarantee scheme if HBOS went down (that's assuming it goes down or that the Govt would let it)

  15. Would this also mean deposits with NS&I and Northern Rock are not guaranteed - or are there differing levels of gaurantee from the government?

    Please ignore that other fella, he's scaremongering:

    Real bad stuff will happen - riots, civil unrest, people starving

    He's one of those that thinks there might be something to 'The X Files'.

    We are in scary times, yesterday's events were not unforeseen however and if a major impact was likely LEH would have been rescued, just as MER was. LEH was allowed to fail, don't think otherwise. it could have been rescued if it needed to be. The big worry right now is HSBC, (maybe BCS) the question is, who could rescue it? The answer is probably a combination of the ECB and other FSA institutions. Other banks failing would not cause a doomsday scenario unless a number fall at the same time. Could that happen? Anything can happen.

    However please remember, there are still lots of people employed, lots of companies making money, people are still shopping and some are even buying houses. Look out the window, it's not the end of the world just yet. Yes it's scary but a little perspective would not go amiss.

    If you want to be really safe then spread your bets, a little bit of exposure in a lot of places. Open 20 accounts with differing banks, you could even put some with Zopla, invest in MSFT, just spread it around, you'll be fine. Alternatively buy a house, at least you'll have a roof over your head if what doomsday man says does come true. Preferably with a big back garden so you can grow some veggies.

  16. I feel for those that lost their jobs today. Most people here don't actually have a clue what being an 'investment banker' is or what it involves. Most think that anyone working for Mellon or BarCap earns millions for sitting around doing nothing or for spending their days working out how they can best increase house prices. Your average broker has no responsibility whatsoever. Your average 'investment banker' (it seems as if this is now a general term to describe anyone that works in the city) works his socks off. Yes they may earn a good wage but they not only work silly hours now, they worked silly hours at school, got good grades and went to a good university and did silly hours there etc.

    Getting up at 4am, home at 10pm and not getting home at all on Thursday due to client meets and hopefully getting home on Friday for 11pm is the norm. A good night's sleep on Saturday and Sunday would be heaven, as long as you don't need to catch up on work on Sunday evening. Yes wages might be good but it's not a long term career. Let's not forget that taxes eat a massive amount and there's no messing about with avoidance or your license is gone.

    It's a tough time for a lot of people that may earn big but also work for it. They are human and are just as upset as anyone at losing their jobs. It's nice to blame someone for things but perhaps the wrong people are being blamed.

  17. "(I work in the banking sector)" - I could tell you had a vested interest but working behind the counter in a high street bank hardly entitles you to insider knowledge.

    I have better things to do than discuss nothing with a 19 year old who thinks he is a funds manager. Enjoy your delusion.

    19 years old? :) I wish, I'd do everything all over again I think. Probably be in Mauritius right now. It matters not what I do, as it stands I work for an investment arm of a bank I'd rather not name but that's by the by, it might not be here tomorrow. It doesn't make me any more qualified, just a little more nervous :)

    But I do know a little of the banking system and I also have eyes and ears. I've pointed out the evidence I have, you have nothing. NADA. You're avoiding the subject because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

    The fact is, so far, no one has provided any evidence that the £35k guarantee is worthless. I'm still waiting.

  18. Where does that money come from then? If a major bank or two goes under and the banking system is in crisis, the government is ******ed, people don't get their wages paid and they can't buy food etc where is this 35k coming from? A pixies bottom? There is no 35k mate. It's an empty promise designed to stop panics and bank runs. If a major retail bank goes, the government will have bigger things to worry about than savers.

    :rolleyes: THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH. :rolleyes:

    You're just making things up now. Show me some proof of this (other than some X Files conspiracy crap) and I'll take some notice, until then you should spend your time hunting down some aliens rather than on HPC.

  19. cant remember how long bcci depositors had to wait for their 15k max

    anyone with better memory ?

    thanks

    Ah, BCCI :) A case study for all banks on how to run an honest business:) Hehe. It was a very different situation compared to today, the Govt via BOE was directly liable due to it's incompetence, (although not proven) and it was all prior to the 2000 markets act. I don't think it's comparable.

×
×
  • 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.