How safe is your money in the Bank?

[Bruce Banner]

2 hours ago, Ah-so said:

Incredibly unlikely. The risk is frankly too all to even worry about. There will always be people on this site who will say otherwise, but they talk from ignorance. 

If the chips are down, the Bank of England will print money. 

Indeed.

It doesn't matter so much where you keep it, as long as it's covered by the FSCS, but what it will buy.

[Ah-so]

1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

Indeed.

It doesn't matter so much where you keep it, as long as it's covered by the FSCS, but what it will buy.

Exactly - the FSCS will cover it and it will likely be printed money. 

Since the financial crisis the Bank has printed a lot of money but it hasn't bled into massive price inflation. Except for house price inflation of course. 

[HovelinHove]

I will say again, as I said a few pages ago, and some idiot who doesn’t know his premium bonds from his saver accounts. NS&I does not have any amount protected...it is ALL protected, every penny as it is a government account not a bank. If you put 1 million quid in an NS&I savings account (not a premium bond account which some f%^ktard on here can’t understand), the only situation in which you would not get your pounds back is if the government went bust...and then you can also kiss goodbye to 85k in HSBC because it is also the government underwriting that. If you have more than 85k, NS&I saver accounts are the place to go. Useful quote for plonkers who still don’t understand:

”This might make NS&I an attractive option for savers with a nest egg larger than the amount backed up by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).”

https://www.gocompare.com/savings/national-savings-and-investments/

Edited April 4, 2020 by HovelinHove
Added link

[longgone]

5 minutes ago, HovelinHove said:

I will say again, as I said a few pages ago, and some idiot who doesn’t know his premium bonds from his saver accounts. NS&I does not have any amount protected...it is all protected, every penny as it is a government account not a bank. If you put 1 million quid in an NS&I savings account (not a premium bind account which some f%^ktard on here can’t understand), the only situation in which you would not ge your pounds back is if the government went bust...and then you can also kiss goodbye to 85k in HSBC because it is also the government under writing that. If you have more than 85k, NS&I saver accounts are the place to go.

 

https://www.gocompare.com/savings/national-savings-and-investments/

exactly  they are not a registered bank 

 

https://www.nsandi.com/why-save-with-us

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, HovelinHove said:

I will say again, as I said a few pages ago, and some idiot who doesn’t know his premium bonds from his saver accounts. NS&I does not have any amount protected...it is all protected, every penny as it is a government account not a bank. If you put 1 million quid in an NS&I savings account (not a premium bind account which some f%^ktard on here can’t understand), the only situation in which you would not ge your pounds back is if the government went bust...and then you can also kiss goodbye to 85k in HSBC because it is also the government under writing that. If you have more than 85k, NS&I saver accounts are the place to go.

NS&I don't have much to offer at he moment, although we still have on at reasonable rate, but you can put £85K per person in as many institutions as you like. Just make sure that the FSCS guarantee is not shared.

[HovelinHove]

Just now, Bruce Banner said:

NS&I don't have much to offer at he moment, although we still have on at reasonable rate, but you can put £85K per person in as many institutions as you like. Just make sure that the FSCS guarantee is not shared.

Example of aforementioned f%^ktard.

[HovelinHove]

Sorry Brucy babes, but I don’t get what you are saying. It’s not about interest, it’s about safety.

Edited April 4, 2020 by HovelinHove

[HovelinHove]

Why have a savings account with a government backed scheme (which is what the FSCS scheme is), and which you have to apply for your money afterwards, when you can you have your money held by the government. No scheme, no claims. Safe as the UK government is safe, and if UK gov is not safe, no savings account is safe.

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, HovelinHove said:

Sorry Brucy babes, but I don’t get what you are saying. It’s not about interest, it’s about safety.

We'll Hovely Honey, if you have a wife, and you each put £85K in 20 institutions with full FSCS, that's £3.4M on top of the £1M you can put in NS&I. It works for smaller amounts too.

I know all about NS&I, had growth bonds for years.

[HovelinHove]

21 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

We'll Hovely Honey, if you have a wife, and you each put £85K in 20 institutions with full FSCS, that's £3.4M on top of the £1M you can put in NS&I. It works for smaller amounts too.

I know all about NS&I, had growth bonds for years.

Fair enough, but seems a lot of effort compared to just sticking it all in one place. 

[solentmuppet]

Obviously I didn't word my question very well, sorry about that. What I was trying to elicit was the likelihood of a Cyprus type skim, whether we'd be in the target demographic and for how much. We are well aware that nobody, repeat nobody is going to give us interest of any kind and that QE plus rampant inflation is going to give us a metaphorical haircut. Are we going to wake up one morning and find we're 5k poorer overnight sort of thing. I have several times suggested to the wife that the last place to get an involuntary "trim" is NS&I, as of yet she hasn't acted, although that may be partly due to being ill recently. 

[Bruce Banner]

4 minutes ago, solentmuppet said:

Obviously I didn't word my question very well, sorry about that. What I was trying to elicit was the likelihood of a Cyprus type skim, whether we'd be in the target demographic and for how much. We are well aware that nobody, repeat nobody is going to give us interest of any kind and that QE plus rampant inflation is going to give us a metaphorical haircut. Are we going to wake up one morning and find we're 5k poorer overnight sort of thing. I have several times suggested to the wife that the last place to get an involuntary "trim" is NS&I, as of yet she hasn't acted, although that may be partly due to being ill recently. 

Very unlikely, in my opinion they'll just print and inflate. 

How are you feeling now?

Edited April 4, 2020 by Bruce Banner

[solentmuppet]

Fairy nuff, we can buy something if it comes to that, presuming we would get enough notice of course......

[Bruce Banner]

5 minutes ago, solentmuppet said:

Fairy nuff, we can buy something if it comes to that, presuming we would get enough notice of course......

What to buy though?

We have most things we need so prefer to stick with cash.

[solentmuppet]

Well, the wife's rover 25 is 19 years old last month and we have been thinking about a hybrid 4x4 style of kidney if a trade in is good value. If not, I have friend who would use it and look after it as it has sentimental value, being the last car her late mother was in.  As I rather suspect trade in values will be slightly less than a sack of 2 week old horses**t, I guess my friend will get it. It's all about timing I suppose. 

[longgone]

29 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

We'll Hovely Honey, if you have a wife, and you each put £85K in 20 institutions with full FSCS, that's £3.4M on top of the £1M you can put in NS&I. It works for smaller amounts too.

I know all about NS&I, had growth bonds for years.

what`s the point of having all that in cash 

[Bruce Banner]

8 minutes ago, solentmuppet said:

Well, the wife's rover 25 is 19 years old last month and we have been thinking about a hybrid 4x4 style of kidney if a trade in is good value. If not, I have friend who would use it and look after it as it has sentimental value, being the last car her late mother was in.  As I rather suspect trade in values will be slightly less than a sack of 2 week old horses**t, I guess my friend will get it. It's all about timing I suppose. 

Yes, if you need a new car. I bought one for the wife last year.

[Bruce Banner]

7 minutes ago, longgone said:

what`s the point of having all that in cash 

What do you think would be better? At least with cash you can draw it out at short notice, although with loss of interest if in a fixed term account. The exception is NS&I who are changing their new fixed term accounts from 3 months loss of interest to no withdrawals until full term.

[longgone]

4 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

What do you think would be better? At least with cash you can draw it out at short notice, although with loss of interest if in a fixed term account. The exception is NS&I who are changing their new fixed term accounts from 3 months loss of interest to no withdrawals until full term.

That kind of cash  

Land

if i had cash like that before HTB i could have doubled it by now. 

[Bruce Banner]

5 minutes ago, longgone said:

That kind of cash  

Land

if i had cash like that before HTB i could have doubled it by now. 

The figures were illustrative of the amount that can be covered by FSCS. As for land, you pays your money and takes your choice.

[Locke]

On 03/04/2020 at 23:44, longgone said:

not every burger eating phatphuck is diabetic though, just saying. 

 

A third of them are diagnosed diabetics, however to get diagnosed as diabetic you have to be shockingly far down the diabetic road. As diabetes is a progressive disease, it would be fair to label someone with some progression on the spectrum as diabetic. 

If you use the criterion "has some metabolic disregulation", which to analogise cancer, would be a small malignant tumour, then 4/5 of them have diabetes.

Quote

weight loss will cure diabetes. 

Mm. No. 

Firstly, excess body fat and diabetes are both symptoms of metabolic disorder, which is caused mainly by refined carbs and seed oils. Eliminate those insults and you address both symptoms simultaneously. This is evident in the fact that very fat people can have no markers of diabetes or heart disease, while thin people can have massive diabetes, fatty livers and heart disease.

Secondly, even if that were the case, losing weight through calorie restriction and increasing exercise is near impossible for 95% of people. Even if it did work, why would you recommend a treatment which was only viable for 5% of people, while you have low carb which has a compliance of something like 85%?

On 04/04/2020 at 12:47, longgone said:

sugar is the main culprit, i still don`t buy cutting out all carbs but bleached refined carbs yes we can do without those. 

It is true that fructose has almost an identical effect on your liver as alcohol and that sugar is 50% fructose, however the main cause of metabolic dysfunction is the combination of refined carbs and seed oils.

For many people, cutting out the sugar will be enough to tip the scales, but I must also point out that sugary foods tend to be extremely carby and so cutting them out will naturally tend to reduce carb intake generally.

[rantnrave]

5 minutes ago, Locke said:

For many people, cutting out the sugar will be enough to tip the scales, but I must also point out that sugary foods tend to be extremely carby and so cutting them out will naturally tend to reduce carb intake generally.

Concentrated fruit juice to be avoided IMO

[Locke]

53 minutes ago, rantnrave said:

Concentrated fruit juice to be avoided IMO

Definitely. Your body doesn't know or care where the sugar (and glucose is sugar, and starch is made of glucose) came from.

[longgone]

2 hours ago, Locke said:

A third of them are diagnosed diabetics, however to get diagnosed as diabetic you have to be shockingly far down the diabetic road. As diabetes is a progressive disease, it would be fair to label someone with some progression on the spectrum as diabetic. 

If you use the criterion "has some metabolic disregulation", which to analogise cancer, would be a small malignant tumour, then 4/5 of them have diabetes.

Mm. No. 

Firstly, excess body fat and diabetes are both symptoms of metabolic disorder, which is caused mainly by refined carbs and seed oils. Eliminate those insults and you address both symptoms simultaneously. This is evident in the fact that very fat people can have no markers of diabetes or heart disease, while thin people can have massive diabetes, fatty livers and heart disease.

Secondly, even if that were the case, losing weight through calorie restriction and increasing exercise is near impossible for 95% of people. Even if it did work, why would you recommend a treatment which was only viable for 5% of people, while you have low carb which has a compliance of something like 85%?

It is true that fructose has almost an identical effect on your liver as alcohol and that sugar is 50% fructose, however the main cause of metabolic dysfunction is the combination of refined carbs and seed oils.

For many people, cutting out the sugar will be enough to tip the scales, but I must also point out that sugary foods tend to be extremely carby and so cutting them out will naturally tend to reduce carb intake generally.

we all know there are people walking around in very poor heath but not diagnosed, high bloods pressure being one of them.  i can only comment from my own experiences as i am walking proof this is not theory based i am the proof. 

"increasing exercise is near impossible for 95% of people" what does that comment even mean  ??

i started off at 315lbs 2016 end of last year i got down to 219lbs  when i started this journey i was exercising light everyday an 8 mile walk every day light weights limited calories to around 1000-1200 per day for around 6 months i still went out once a week and drank beer  and was still shifting weight, maximum weight loss was 1 stone per month for 2 months whilst still going out drinking beer, i guess you could call it a bad 5:2 diet. most of the weight lost was in the first year. 

yes i did limit carbs and was only eating wholewheat breakfast cereal in the morning and chicken and salad for dinner veggies and tuna for lunch.  so carbs were minimal  but still not severely restricted. 

white refined flour  and sugar and beer are all carbs, but why did i still lose weight while not limiting alcohol at all ? 

 

[Locke]

1 hour ago, longgone said:

we all know there are people walking around in very poor heath but not diagnosed, high bloods pressure being one of them.

Yep, but you would still be shocked just how many people are in such poor health if we were testing them correctly.

btw cutting carbs drops blood pressure within 2 weeks.

1 hour ago, longgone said:

"increasing exercise is near impossible for 95% of people" what does that comment even mean  ??

The whole sentence was

3 hours ago, Locke said:

losing weight through calorie restriction and increasing exercise is near impossible for 95% of people

The vast majority of people initially lose weight on the CICO strategy, but then put it all back on and more within 6 months. It also comes off as fat  + muscle, but comes back on as fat.

1 hour ago, longgone said:

yes i did limit carbs and was only eating wholewheat breakfast cereal in the morning and chicken and salad for dinner veggies and tuna for lunch.  so carbs were minimal  but still not severely restricted. 

white refined flour  and sugar and beer are all carbs, but why did i still lose weight while not limiting alcohol at all ? 

So the other strategy is intermittent fasting, which can also reverse metabolic syndrome. It sounds like you were doing that combined with occasional longer fasts.

I just think that most people can't accept not eating for 16 hours (or 2 days as you may have done) though, whereas they might more easily understand that carbs and at the very least sugar are bad for them. Additionally, a low carb diet forces you to ramp up fat metabolism, which will then make it easier to go for periods without eating, making intermittent fasting (IF) easier. I think low carb->IF is a good synergism.

Anyway, even a reduction in carbs is going to improve your health, although an optimal level is going to be closer to zero than further.

Alcohol is actually not so bad for you if you stay below the level at which your liver is able to handle, which is influenced largely by your diet. I still wouldn't recommend it and don't drink myself. There is a study in rats on alcohol-induced liver disease and in the high fat diet arm, they actually failed to induce any liver damage through any amount of alcohol.