Save Our Savers Campaign

[Guest]

Given that this forum gets the volume of traffic, the recent threads on 'protesting by withdrawing cash', general outrage at the bailout of the over-indebted, and low rates on savings, I thought it would be appropriate to highlight the Save our savers campaign as per as per this HPC thread

Come on people, sign up, link and notify your reallife/facebook/twitter friends, etc.

oz

[Pent Up]

Thanks. I'm in.

[PopGun]

The savers got bailed out when the banks did.

Sure your rates are the square root of feck all, but there's never such a thing as a free lunch.

[Guest]

The savers got bailed out when the banks did.

Sure your rates are the square root of feck all, but there's never such a thing as a free lunch.

No they didn't. My savings are protected by Financial Services Compensation Scheme, had the banks gone belly up I would have still had my savings. If the FSCS was not in place then I would not be prepared to keep my savings in the institution without accepting a higher interest rate (i.e. I am prepared to accept a lower interest rate on my savings in a UK bank, a risk free rate of return).

The debtor on the other hand have this little clause in their contract, something about "Your home or property may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage", only they didn't keep up their repayments did they, and because they couldn't we dropped the rates to help them out.

So, no, the government didn't bail out the savers when they bailed out the banks, they bailed out the debtors by raping the savers with a negative real interest rate.

Edit: Yes I am prepared to accept a 'lower' interest rate because of the 'risk free' nature of cash, but not a below inflation rate just to protect the reckless.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Guest

[Lepista]

...My savings are protected by Financial Services Compensation Scheme ... the banks gone belly up I would have still had my savings.

Are you sure?

[shindigger]

No they didn't. My savings are protected by Financial Services Compensation Scheme, had the banks gone belly up I would have still had my savings. If the FSCS was not in place then I would not be prepared to keep my savings in the institution without accepting a higher interest rate (i.e. I am prepared to accept a lower interest rate on my savings in a UK bank, a risk free rate of return).

The debtor on the other hand have this little clause in their contract, something about "Your home or property may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage", only they didn't keep up their repayments did they, and because they couldn't we dropped the rates to help them out.

So, no, the government didn't bail out the savers when they bailed out the banks, they bailed out the debtors by raping the savers with a negative real interest rate.

Edit: Yes I am prepared to accept a 'lower' interest rate because of the 'risk free' nature of cash, but not a below inflation rate just to protect the reckless.

Yes.

[Dorkins]

The savers got bailed out when the banks did.

Sure your rates are the square root of feck all, but there's never such a thing as a free lunch.

The main beneficiaries were the bondholders and shareholders, not depositors.

If the banks had been wound up and their assets sold off, the depositors were first in line to get the cash, then the bondholders, then the shareholders. The FSCS exists to make up any depositor shortfall after that process, and had it been called upon it would have been a lot cheaper than the way the bailouts were actually done. As it stands, bank bondholders are making risk-free government-guaranteed returns thanks to your tax money.

[Stars]

No they didn't.

Yes they did

My savings are protected by Financial Services Compensation Scheme, had the banks gone belly up I would have still had my savings.

if the banks had gone belly up, you would have got nothing. You would just be another person with a valid claim that couldn't be met

Edited November 24, 2010 by Stars

[Guest]

Yes they did

if the banks had gone belly up, you would have got nothing. You would just be another person with a valid claim that couldn't be met

Part of their unwinding would be asset sales. I would have been first in line (with all other deposit holders). I would have accepted a reposessed house in lieu of cash to assist their asset unwinding

[Stars]

Part of their unwinding would be asset sales. I would have been first in line (with all other deposit holders). I would have accepted a reposessed house in lieu of cash to assist their asset unwinding

You would have been first in line for (more or less) squat all

The problem would have been deposits that represented claims on wealth that couldn't be met - ergo, your claim wouldn't be met

[Smog]

Although I'm with you in principle 100%.... it is a fait-accompli.

Savers are going to continue suffering.

Never be a saver when the government is a huge borrower. Time to live by this maxim.

[gf3]

I don't think saving rates are all that bad Just yesterday I opened up a monthly savers account paying 8%. My ZOPA account would get over 8% if it wasn't for the bad debt that keep knocking the rates, but the banks are being hit by bad debt as well. Try and see if you can achieve better rates after bad debts than the banks.

as for risk free I have a 5 year bond at 5.15% and last month took out a 5 year ISA at 4.25%

[PopGun]

You would have been first in line for (more or less) squat all

The problem would have been deposits that represented claims on wealth that couldn't be met - ergo, your claim wouldn't be met

Yep

It disappoints me (especially on such a forum as this) that people are still taken in by false promises.

[Guest]

You would have been first in line for (more or less) squat all

The problem would have been deposits that represented claims on wealth that couldn't be met - ergo, your claim wouldn't be met

At the end of the day, I'm not an anarchist, I wouldn't want to see complete civil unrest, a complete ecnomical collapse. So in that regards I'm glad the a solution was put in place that prevented this.

However, moral hazard abounds, the over-indebted are protected at the moment to protect house prices the economy.

The immediate credit crisis has gone, inflation is persistent, real interest interest rates are negative, yet the economy is growing. Time to up rates.

[Democorruptcy]

I don't think saving rates are all that bad Just yesterday I opened up a monthly savers account paying 8%. My ZOPA account would get over 8% if it wasn't for the bad debt that keep knocking the rates, but the banks are being hit by bad debt as well. Try and see if you can achieve better rates after bad debts than the banks.

as for risk free I have a 5 year bond at 5.15% and last month took out a 5 year ISA at 4.25%

8% monthly saver = 4.33% interest on the total amount of cash deposited in the year i.e. 45.8% below the advertised rate.

[cica]

This is why I don't get these small businesses going on about being perfectly healthy companies if only the banks would lend. There are savers out there earning diddly squat who'd love to invest in your guaranteed return business.

Savers did get bailed out but they were the ones doing the right thing. They shouldn't ever have been in a situation where they were rescued from anything. Savers should be doing the rescuing but on their own terms i.e. selecting what they feel is valuable for themselves and in turn society.

Edited November 24, 2010 by cica

[Stars]

At the end of the day, I'm not an anarchist, I wouldn't want to see complete civil unrest, a complete ecnomical collapse. So in that regards I'm glad the a solution was put in place that prevented this.

However, moral hazard abounds, the over-indebted are protected at the moment to protect house prices the economy.

Really, it is the depositers that are being protected.

Part of the moral hazard problem is all the protection for depositors. They are protected from an individual bank failing and so banks can not compete on security.

[Ologhai Jones]

The savers got bailed out when the banks did.

Sure your rates are the square root of feck all, but there's never such a thing as a free lunch.

Kind of.

Savers only needed bailing out because they (unwittingly for the most part) are playing along with a monetary system that uses a representation of wealth whose value tends not to be preserved over time and encouraging people to store their accumulated wealth under circumstances where the wealth isn't really theirs any more (as they'd discover if their bank actually went bust) is an appalling situation.

Savers were bailed out because of the idiotic system.

In what I'd like to think of as a more sane world, savers' wealth would be represented by some medium whose value can't be messed about with, and savers would pay to keep it in custodial accounts so it REALLY was theirs -- and not the banks to gamble with.

Savers only needed bailing out because they generally don't understand how the system works and are given little alternative even if they do understand it.

[gf3]

8% monthly saver = 4.33% interest on the total amount of cash deposited in the year i.e. 45.8% below the advertised rate.

Yes but it's £124 pound up in a years time. Enough to pay 3 months interest on my £80,000 mortgage. Cant really grumble at that.

[Bruce Banner]

The savers got bailed out when the banks did.

Sure your rates are the square root of feck all, but there's never such a thing as a free lunch.

The savers who got bailed out were the ones with their money in dodgy banks that offered high interest rates to attract gullible savers.

[Stars]

Kind of.

Savers only needed bailing out because they (unwittingly for the most part) are playing along with a monetary system that uses a representation of wealth whose value tends not to be preserved over time and encouraging people to store their accumulated wealth under circumstances where the wealth isn't really theirs any more (as they'd discover if their bank actually went bust) is an appalling situation.

When you give your money to a bank you are giving it to somebody to look after and use. Sometimes they use it and lose it

[leicestersq]

Kind of.

Savers only needed bailing out because they (unwittingly for the most part) are playing along with a monetary system that uses a representation of wealth whose value tends not to be preserved over time and encouraging people to store their accumulated wealth under circumstances where the wealth isn't really theirs any more (as they'd discover if their bank actually went bust) is an appalling situation.

Savers were bailed out because of the idiotic system.

In what I'd like to think of as a more sane world, savers' wealth would be represented by some medium whose value can't be messed about with, and savers would pay to keep it in custodial accounts so it REALLY was theirs -- and not the banks to gamble with.

Savers only needed bailing out because they generally don't understand how the system works and are given little alternative even if they do understand it.

Different bailouts, different benefactors.

Shareholders (except Lloyds), bondholders and depositors were all bailed out by the banking rescue, not the borrowers. Their debts were unchanged..

Though you could say that QE and super low interest rates have bailed out borrowers, many of whom can now repay whereas they should have defaulted if the market had been left to its own devices.

If the banking system had been left to its own crisis (see what I did there, it rhymes with devices?), most likely the good banks could have jacked up their margins to the moon (0.5% for depositors, 10% rates for those on SVR's, that sort of thing), so by intervening, those borrowers on variable rates of interest have been indirectly bailed out.

Those on fixed rates of interest may also have had an incidental bailout. If banks had gone under, and deflation had collapsed the money supply, then all borrowers would have found it difficult to earn enough money to repay their obligations, so more money sloshing around the economy has been a bit of a godsend for them.

[Seydel]

The system operates through greed. Savers are lured in to become usurists. Their money is then lent out at a minimum of X 10 by the pro money for nothing sharks.

Anyone who has read their Bible, Quran, Torah, etc, know this is bad but avarice wins out.

[fellow]

Part of the moral hazard problem is all the protection for depositors. They are protected from an individual bank failing and so banks can not compete on security.

The banks should be secure by law, which is very easy to achieve.

[Stars]

The banks should be secure by law, which is very easy to achieve.

I disagree

A bank that provides interest to depositors is going to be less than 100% secure (no way around it)