Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Handy guide to the GBP85K protection situation -- MSE calls it "Government-backed FSCS". http://www.moneysavi...gs/safe-savings and yet, they go on to say: All UK-regulated deposits - including money saved and accumulated interest - in bank or building society savings products, are covered by the FSCS. This is an independent fund set up by UK financial bodies and regulated by the FSA, which promises that, in the event of a bank collapsing, you get some of your money back, though it's likely you'll lose access to the cash while compensation is being dished out. so, it is a government regulated scheme...maybe thats "backed", but in the normal sense of the word, "backed" means guaranteed in case it doesnt work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 and yet, they go on to say: All UK-regulated deposits - including money saved and accumulated interest - in bank or building society savings products, are covered by the FSCS. This is an independent fund set up by UK financial bodies and regulated by the FSA, which promises that, in the event of a bank collapsing, you get some of your money back, though it's likely you'll lose access to the cash while compensation is being dished out. so, it is a government regulated scheme...maybe thats "backed", but in the normal sense of the word, "backed" means guaranteed in case it doesnt work. In the event of the fund not being sufficient to cover the sub £85k deposits, the government would almost certainly, in my opinion, print sufficient money to cover the shortfall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inflating Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 so, it is a government regulated scheme...maybe thats "backed", but in the normal sense of the word, "backed" means guaranteed in case it doesnt work. Backed all the way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 In the event of the fund not being sufficient to cover the sub £85k deposits, the government would almost certainly, in my opinion, print sufficient money to cover the shortfall. all we'd need, is a bank to put it in...because while they get round to doing that, there will be tanks on the streets. what they might do is transfer balances to a Government bad bank, hand everyone a card, and limit withdrawals to £53.19 a week....enough to live on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 all we'd need, is a bank to put it in...because while they get round to doing that, there will be tanks on the streets. what they might do is transfer balances to a Government bad bank, hand everyone a card, and limit withdrawals to £53.19 a week....enough to live on. More likely tanks in the streets if they didn't as people believe that £85k is safe and the vast majority of deposits will fall within that figure. People lose their small deposits = tanks in the street or a new government. Sterling devalues 20-30-40-50-60%, most people wouldn't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 More likely tanks in the streets if they didn't as people believe that £85k is safe and the vast majority of deposits will fall within that figure. People lose their small deposits = tanks in the street or a new government. Sterling devalues 20-30-40-50-60%, most people wouldn't understand. when NR and Icelandics broke, IIRC...there were something like 2% of accounts had the then limit of £35K. I dont suppose that figure has changed much....probably less. still, losing all your savings is going to hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 when NR and Icelandics broke, IIRC...there were something like 2% of accounts had the then limit of £35K. I dont suppose that figure has changed much....probably less. still, losing all your savings is going to hurt. The then Labour government should have paid up to cover the sub £35k deposits only. But, they were chasing every vote so they covered the lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr 0.01% Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 The then Labour government should have paid up to cover the sub £35k deposits only. But, they were chasing every vote so they covered the lot. I sometimes wonder how Gordon brown sleeps at night for the way he handled everything. He waited, what, 10 years to be an unlected PM then cocked pretty much everything up, each step of the way. Looking back to the 'golden days' of 97 onwards he seemed to have decent cred - wasn't he known as the iron chancellor? Then it just all went Ts up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I sometimes wonder how Gordon brown sleeps at night for the way he handled everything. He waited, what, 10 years to be an unlected PM then cocked pretty much everything up, each step of the way. Looking back to the 'golden days' of 97 onwards he seemed to have decent cred - wasn't he known as the iron chancellor? Then it just all went Ts up. A name made up by the Labour spin doctors . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 The then Labour government should have paid up to cover the sub £35k deposits only. But, they were chasing every vote so they covered the lot. They also realised the FSCS only covered 4.x billion in total....probably not enough to cover even 1 Northern Rock, and even then, the money would come from the other banks....and they were being bailed at the time already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 'kin hate that advert Yeah, how any chick in a purple top and black leggings can tell a guy his shoes are a no no is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 The then Labour government should have paid up to cover the sub £35k deposits only. But, they were chasing every vote so they covered the lot. The govt. held an emergency meeting with Cameron due to the seriousness of transferring the bankrupt private sector bank balance sheets onto the taxpayer. Cameron agreed to the bailouts. Strange for Tory party apparatchicks to deny involvement. Strange indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I sometimes wonder how Gordon brown sleeps at night for the way he handled everything. He waited, what, 10 years to be an unlected PM then cocked pretty much everything up, each step of the way. Looking back to the 'golden days' of 97 onwards he seemed to have decent cred - wasn't he known as the iron chancellor? Then it just all went Ts up. He was always just a cast iron chancer, they all are, it is just about ego gratification and out-pointing other politicians. GB pretty ill in the head is you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 The govt. held an emergency meeting with Cameron due to the seriousness of transferring the bankrupt private sector bank balance sheets onto the taxpayer. Cameron agreed to the bailouts. Strange for Tory party apparatchicks to deny involvement. Strange indeed. Cameron...never opposed in opposition....hasnt changed tack in leadership... the current crop of both parties really are yes men to keeping the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Cameron...never opposed in opposition....hasnt changed tack in leadership... the current crop of both parties really are yes men to keeping the job. Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 The govt. held an emergency meeting with Cameron due to the seriousness of transferring the bankrupt private sector bank balance sheets onto the taxpayer. Cameron agreed to the bailouts. Strange for Tory party apparatchicks to deny involvement. Strange indeed. Better dead than red . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 The then Labour government should have paid up to cover the sub £35k deposits only. But, they were chasing every vote so they covered the lot. ...they should not have compensated anyone ....these were dilatory greed driven people chasing high interest rates..typical Labour move of rewarding ineptitude and failure .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 ...they should not have compensated anyone ....these were dilatory greed driven people chasing high interest rates..typical Labour move of rewarding ineptitude and failure .... not the reason at all...on the friday before the Government and the Bank Of England declared all was ticketeeboo. Crashing would have revealed the lot of them to be provable liars...and shortly afterwards, "special people " with deposits would have been found to have removed funds weeks beforehand. confidence is all banks have to prevent a run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) not the reason at all...on the friday before the Government and the Bank Of England declared all was ticketeeboo. Crashing would have revealed the lot of them to be provable liars...and shortly afterwards, "special people " with deposits would have been found to have removed funds weeks beforehand. confidence is all banks have to prevent a run. ..yes agreed ...I was on cross purpose here ..for some reason I thought we were discussing the UK depositors in Icelandic Banks which had not subscribed to the UK deposit guarantee scheme...jumping threads to quickly ... Edited April 7, 2013 by South Lorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Thought of this, for entertainment purposes only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 ..yes agreed ...I was on cross purpose here ..for some reason I thought we were discussing the UK depositors in Icelandic Banks which had not subscribed to the UK deposit guarantee scheme...jumping threads to quickly ... related and highly relevent though...people are STILL talking about Government FSCS scheme...they forget what happened just 5 short years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) related and highly relevent though...people are STILL talking about Government FSCS scheme...they forget what happened just 5 short years ago. ..yes...it is important the depositor is aware they are protected by making sure their Bank is on the list ....and ensure their Bank is not in the same Group a la ..RBS and NatWest where the max £85,000 is spread across both ..when spreading is necessary .... Edited April 7, 2013 by South Lorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.