Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
crashmonitor

Think Tank : Scrap Fsa 75K Guarantee

Recommended Posts

People aren't bright enough to tell which bank is the riskiest. If the regulators can't and if the managers can't then how can someone with a couple of hundred quid and no info tell.

Pretty dumb. All they have is rumour and panic to work on. In other words let's bring back frequent meaningless bank runs and market panics.

However, I do support no bank guarantee ....just those depositors of that amount who represent a tiny proportion of the total.

I also support plenty of jailtime for the reckless like Fred who let's face it will have resulted in hundreds or even thousands of deaths due to the ensuing crisis and cutting back.

I'm not sure it is such a dumb idea, and is something I have also thought about in the past.

The benefit would be that the public should become aware (be made aware) that they are actually loaning money to the bank when they deposit it, and there is no guarantee of getting it back. I imagine this might lead to "safest bank" type tables in the papers in the same way that we now get "best interest rate" comparison charts, and it would lead to banks being rewarded for prudence instead of punished. A big contributor to the last crash, IMO, was banks having to out compete each other (at the direction of their shareholders) to offer more and better deals on this and that - far beyond anything prudent. If you didn't want to play the game, your share price suffered and you got replaced with someone who would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More scientifically illiterate free market crap from the bankster apologists at the Mt Pelerin Society.

If only it were free market and the banks would have gone bust.

Privatise the profits, socialise the losses, as always,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People would pull the money out and buy btl with it...

But then the banks would be bust* and could not lend, so houses would be bought for cash only and prices would fall. Bring it on!

* Of course the banks can never fail :(

Edited by Eddie_George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People aren't bright enough to tell which bank is the riskiest. If the regulators can't and if the managers can't then how can someone with a couple of hundred quid and no info tell.

Pretty dumb. All they have is rumour and panic to work on. In other words let's bring back frequent meaningless bank runs and market panics.

However, I do support no bank guarantee ....just those depositors of that amount who represent a tiny proportion of the total.

I also support plenty of jailtime for the reckless like Fred who let's face it will have resulted in hundreds or even thousands of deaths due to the ensuing crisis and cutting back.

It was pretty obvious that the Icelandic banks which were paying huge interest rates were not a good place to put your money. The infuriating thing was that Brown/Darling, not only bailed out all UK investors for the principal, but the interest too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of their vote IN scares for the eu referendum. As the guarantee is an eu rule it can only be cancelled if the UK leaves the eu.

At least that's the way it's presented.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you and I are better informed, perhaps more intelligent, doesn't mean the ignorant and weak of mind should lose their money.

The people who should lose their money are the larger deposit holders who represent by far the lion's share of deposits.

And their 8% interest, paid in full?

Edit: A significant number of local authorities were keeping "their" money in Icelandic banks.

Edited by Bruce Banner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your bank deposit was not guaranteed then why would you put money into a bank? Because massive savings interest rate (haha)?

It would encourage people to store cash at home, which would in turn present a huge security problem, people demanding they be allowed to have defensive guns etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your bank deposit was not guaranteed then why would you put money into a bank? Because massive savings interest rate (haha)?

It would encourage people to store cash at home, which would in turn present a huge security problem, people demanding they be allowed to have defensive guns etc.

I think we would be looking for alternatives. First port of call would be National savings but I guess they would pull the plug on new deposits, second port index linked bonds which would no doubt have an even more negative yield as the price adjusts to demand and thirdly gold.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The size of their deposits means that regardless of their attitude to the bank's riskiness it was completely immaterial. If you're suggesting that punishing small depositors will stop banks behaving badly, you're badly wrong. So, it doesn't matter whether it is paid or not. I certainly wouldn't pay it to larger depositors and I would honour any liabilities to small depositors from the bailing in of large depositors.

EDIT: For the avoidance of any doubt, I am completely against the bailing out of banks.

Like the local authorities?

Edit: Repaying small depositors their deposit, but without interest, could hardly have been seen as a punishment.

Edit 2: The FSCS, at the time, covered 100% of the first £2,000 and 90% of the next £33K, so the small depositors were already protected.

Edited by Bruce Banner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And their 8% interest, paid in full?

Edit: A significant number of local authorities were keeping "their" money in Icelandic banks.

I worked at a local authority that had a large amount of money in Icesave.

They claimed they were forced to put it in the bank paying the highest rate of interest by auditors, otherwise they weren't making best use of public money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no problem with the FSCS guarantee.

If you have less than 75k then you're fine. If you have more than 75k then you're big enough to take on some of the risk.

The banks should never have been bailed out. The billions in government guarantees would have been much better spent backstopping the FSCS, helping to set up new banks, and investigating the systemic corruption.

If you remove the guarantee all you are doing is ensuring that poor people remain poor, as all the risk of a global financial monster they have zero control over rests on ordinary people with a few thousand in the bank. It would just be another way of making society pay for the crimes of bankers.

Remove the guarantee and a lot of people will take out wads of cash to stuff under the mattress. Around 2008 when my trust in the banks reached rock bottom, I did something similar (despite being a renter with no real secure place to store valuables) - it took a few years before I figured money in the bank was safe enough that I could deposit my buffer and stop worrying about getting robbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrap all implicit subsidy of the state and its banks.

Put all bank workers pensions into a capital gap between the equity and the bond holders.

Have a 20 year instant claw back on failure salary for all directors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really believe if push comes to shove this guarantee is worth the paper it's printed on ?

I do, I would expect the government to print the necessary money. Of course nothing is certain, other than death and taxes, but I feel reasonably relaxed with my money spread around in tranches of £75K.

Edited by Bruce Banner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your bank deposit was not guaranteed then why would you put money into a bank? Because massive savings interest rate (haha)?

It would encourage people to store cash at home, which would in turn present a huge security problem, people demanding they be allowed to have defensive guns etc.

They could remove the promise to pay bearer on demand....and keep changing the design of the notes, old notes to become obsolete..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you get your £75k back. But it's worthless.

It's already worthless when measured against house prices.

For a priced-out saver, there's no sensible way to survive a hyperinflationary event, anyway. If we stop believing in the government's backing of the currency then we stop believing in the value of money, the illusion evaporates, and we're all paupers. Only some of the paupers live in nicer houses than others.

Guess I should take all my money out of the bank and run it through a shredder. Better than having the bankers or the government steal it off me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already worthless when measured against house prices.

For a priced-out saver, there's no sensible way to survive a hyperinflationary event, anyway. If we stop believing in the government's backing of the currency then we stop believing in the value of money, the illusion evaporates, and we're all paupers. Only some of the paupers live in nicer houses than others.

Guess I should take all my money out of the bank and run it through a shredder. Better than having the bankers or the government steal it off me.

Houses can be confiscated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already worthless when measured against house prices.

For a priced-out saver, there's no sensible way to survive a hyperinflationary event, anyway. If we stop believing in the government's backing of the currency then we stop believing in the value of money, the illusion evaporates, and we're all paupers. Only some of the paupers live in nicer houses than others.

Guess I should take all my money out of the bank and run it through a shredder. Better than having the bankers or the government steal it off me.

That all depends on where in the country you live, I doubt the cash savers of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire are too fussed with house prices pretty close to where they were ten years ago and fixed rate bonds of 7% available in 2007.

The only thing that has cataclysmically devalued is northern provincial housing, not the cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That all depends on where in the country you live, I doubt the cash savers of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire are too fussed with house prices pretty close to where they were ten years ago

Erm no they're up 30-40%, well asking prices are anyway. Edited by PopGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm no they're up 30-40%, well asking prices are anyway.

The stats would say otherwise..... Most northern cities hovering around zero since 2007, any idea what you would have compounded in the bank?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3326740/House-price-growth-UK-s-20-major-cities-set-hit-10-year.html

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   94 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.