So, Iceland says "sod off you cant have your money back"

[Eric Mc]

National boundaries regarding bank ownersghip is very blurred these days.

Many people might not have realised that the UK Post Office Savings (something which would be rated extremely "safe" by the general public) is actually owned by Bank of Ireland - a Republic of Ireland bank which is on its knees and totally dependent on Irish government/IMF/ECB support.

[Globs]

Eric Mc said:

National boundaries regarding bank ownersghip is very blurred these days.

Many people might not have realised that the UK Post Office Savings (something which would be rated extremely "safe" by the general public) is actually owned by Bank of Ireland - a Republic of Ireland bank which is on its knees and totally dependent on Irish government/IMF/ECB support.

It doesn't matter, the principle of making a population pay for a failing private bank is fundamentally wrong and has huge moral hazard. I don't understand how you fail to see that.

[tinman0]

Globs said:

Eric Mc said:

National boundaries regarding bank ownersghip is very blurred these days.

Many people might not have realised that the UK Post Office Savings (something which would be rated extremely "safe" by the general public) is actually owned by Bank of Ireland - a Republic of Ireland bank which is on its knees and totally dependent on Irish government/IMF/ECB support.

It doesn't matter, the principle of making a population pay for a failing private bank is fundamentally wrong and has huge moral hazard. I don't understand how you fail to see that.

Didn't hear all the PH city boys complaining when the taxpayer stepped in and bailed them out from the CDs fiasco.

If we go with their logic, then they should all have been tossed into a burning fire with IceSave savers and Fairpak savers. But then the average PHer is more important than the average punter.

[Eric Mc]

Globs said:

Eric Mc said:

National boundaries regarding bank ownersghip is very blurred these days.

Many people might not have realised that the UK Post Office Savings (something which would be rated extremely "safe" by the general public) is actually owned by Bank of Ireland - a Republic of Ireland bank which is on its knees and totally dependent on Irish government/IMF/ECB support.

It doesn't matter, the principle of making a population pay for a failing private bank is fundamentally wrong and has huge moral hazard. I don't understand how you fail to see that.

Not if there are set boundaries.

There is a world of difference in ensuring that a stable banking system available to the general population who have no real interest in speculative investments is maintained. Those who wish to "gamble" in more speculative types of investment should be allowed to sink or swim.

I think it is EXACTLY what the state should be doing. If high street banks were allowed to collpase you could end up with societal collapse. It has happened elsewhere in previous eras and was a real possibility three years ago.

The difficulty is knowing where the line should be drawn - but that is for the politicians to decide. So far, Britain's response to the emergency of 2008 seems to have been one of the more successful respnses.

[youngsyr]

Haven't we all missed the pertinent tree whilst looking at the woods?

BBC said:

The actual cost to the state was expected to be much less than the 4bn euros owed, as the government said most of the repayment would come from selling the assets of Landsbanki.

The government has said it did not expect the cost to exceed 50bn kronur (£168m).

Hardly worth getting your nickers in a twist over. How much did the two referenda cost?

[matsmith]

Globs said:

Eric Mc said:

National boundaries regarding bank ownersghip is very blurred these days.

Many people might not have realised that the UK Post Office Savings (something which would be rated extremely "safe" by the general public) is actually owned by Bank of Ireland - a Republic of Ireland bank which is on its knees and totally dependent on Irish government/IMF/ECB support.

It doesn't matter, the principle of making a population pay for a failing private bank is fundamentally wrong and has huge moral hazard. I don't understand how you fail to see that.

In Iceland there is/was (not sure on current situation) a deposit protection scheme like our FSCS which was meant to protect deposits up to around €21000, and then as I understand it the FSCS was protecting deposits between €21000 and £50000. I don't know for certain, but I would hope that meant that a fee was paid to the FSCS to insure these deposits.

What I find to be a urine boiler is that when the st hit the fan gordon brown pledged that the treasury would repay ALL of the money deposited by UK savers, not just the money that was covered. I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with the upcoming election.

[tinman0]

youngsyr said:

Haven't we all missed the pertinent tree whilst looking at the woods?

BBC said:

The actual cost to the state was expected to be much less than the 4bn euros owed, as the government said most of the repayment would come from selling the assets of Landsbanki.

The government has said it did not expect the cost to exceed 50bn kronur (£168m).

Hardly worth getting your nickers in a twist over. How much did the two referenda cost?

But who has access to the assets though?

Surely if the Icelandic Government does, we just got royally stitched up, as they aren't about to pay anything out to anyone, so the referendum just made the average Icelander about £20k on the deal?

[youngsyr]

tinman0 said:

youngsyr said:

Haven't we all missed the pertinent tree whilst looking at the woods?

BBC said:

The actual cost to the state was expected to be much less than the 4bn euros owed, as the government said most of the repayment would come from selling the assets of Landsbanki.

The government has said it did not expect the cost to exceed 50bn kronur (£168m).

Hardly worth getting your nickers in a twist over. How much did the two referenda cost?

But who has access to the assets though?

Surely if the Icelandic Government does, we just got royally stitched up, as they aren't about to pay anything out to anyone, so the referendum just made the average Icelander about £20k on the deal?

I believe Landsbanki was split in two, one part being a state owned "good bank", the other "bad bank" part being controlled by the Icelandic equivalent of the FSA.

So, it seems the Icelandic government does control the assets of Landsbanki that still have some value.

[NoelWatson]

Corsair7 said:

Actually, most of them were following advice from that tit at 'MoneySavingExpert'. I'm surprised he's never been sued.

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/04/01/icesa...

They should've stuck to PH

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...

[Willie Dee]

Fittster said:

And iceland made that guarantee?

Did the Icelandic govt guarantee the savings, if not why are people upset?

[Willie Dee]

"Legal arguments

The arguments of the British and Dutch governments are based on their interpretation of the law of the European Economic Area (EEA), and around two positions in particular:

that the Icelandic government is obliged to guarantee at least the first €20,000 in Icesave accounts;
that Iceland's actions surrounding the collapse of Landsbanki are discriminatory against non-Icelandic creditors.

The Icelandic government disputes these positions."

Never mind, Wiki has it all.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Eric Mc said:

Many people might not have realised that the UK Post Office Savings (something which would be rated extremely "safe" by the general public) is actually owned by Bank of Ireland - a Republic of Ireland bank which is on its knees and totally dependent on Irish government/IMF/ECB support.

Yes indeed. Attracted by the Post Office interest rate I opened an account with a nominal sum a few months back only to find when the paperwork came through it was "Bank of Ireland" in the small print. Following the Northern Rock/Icesave fiascos (from which I was very pleased to see my cash rescued safely - more or less) I shan't be making further deposits with good old Mr Post Office anytime soon!!

[Murph7355]

Eric Mc said:

...
And what about those who had not put a single penny into any of these banks but found that their savings were at risk - through pension funds, money brokers and even councils?

Not every person who loses money when an institution goes bust is guilty of being stupid or naive.

I understand the sentiment, but still fail to see why it's the taxpayer's problem.

I would guess that many who invest in these pensions are doing so because the proposed rate of return is higher than other products out there. Perhaps ones that have a less risky product balance? Or perhaps better fund managers?

These sort of things are very rarely the result of stupidity or naivety. "Maximising returns", to put it politely, is usually at the root.

The regulators should, IMO, have much better safeguards on such things as pensions.

I actually think that financial institutions shouldn't be allowed to bank the benefit of instruments until the instrument itself (in as many legs as it's been created over) matures. And that the benefit should be directly linked to the actual outcome. Will never happen though. Probably can never happen with the financial house of cards we've built.

Also, where do you draw the line with investments that go sour? (An interest bearing account is an investment). I've invested in plenty of stuff in the past. Some of it pays off. Some doesn't. But I do not expect the taxpayer to pay me back for the latter...

[Murph7355]

tinman0 said:

...
The fact they weren't actually insured is something that the FSA should be taking up for the future. If you want to advertise a financial product in the UK, then it must conform to our standards, and have our protections built in. I'm sure that already exists, but why isn't the common bank account run the same way?

No idea, but I agree with you.

Those protections should also be geared to come out of the pockets of the private institutions making hay.

Not sure how you'd do this without crippling the market though...

[Eric Mc]

Murph7355 said:

Eric Mc said:

...
And what about those who had not put a single penny into any of these banks but found that their savings were at risk - through pension funds, money brokers and even councils?

Not every person who loses money when an institution goes bust is guilty of being stupid or naive.

I understand the sentiment, but still fail to see why it's the taxpayer's problem.

I would guess that many who invest in these pensions are doing so because the proposed rate of return is higher than other products out there. Perhaps ones that have a less risky product balance? Or perhaps better fund managers?

These sort of things are very rarely the result of stupidity or naivety. "Maximising returns", to put it politely, is usually at the root.

The regulators should, IMO, have much better safeguards on such things as pensions.

I actually think that financial institutions shouldn't be allowed to bank the benefit of instruments until the instrument itself (in as many legs as it's been created over) matures. And that the benefit should be directly linked to the actual outcome. Will never happen though. Probably can never happen with the financial house of cards we've built.

Also, where do you draw the line with investments that go sour? (An interest bearing account is an investment). I've invested in plenty of stuff in the past. Some of it pays off. Some doesn't. But I do not expect the taxpayer to pay me back for the latter...

Because some things are so fundamentally viatl to a country that governments MUST step in.

When simple, seemingly low risk, deposit and current accounts suddenly start disappearing like the morning mist you have a potential revolution on your hands.

[GavinPearson]

Willie Dee said:

"Legal arguments

The arguments of the British and Dutch governments are based on their interpretation of the law of the European Economic Area (EEA), and around two positions in particular:

that the Icelandic government is obliged to guarantee at least the first €20,000 in Icesave accounts;
that Iceland's actions surrounding the collapse of Landsbanki are discriminatory against non-Icelandic creditors.

The Icelandic government disputes these positions."

Never mind, Wiki has it all.

So if the Icelandic govt had to pay out the first €20,000 in Icesave accounts then how much would that cost them?

[Globs]

Eric Mc said:

Because some things are so fundamentally viatl to a country that governments MUST step in.

When simple, seemingly low risk, deposit and current accounts suddenly start disappearing like the morning mist you have a potential revolution on your hands.

Which would be bad because?

Governments have on money, it's OUR money. They created this disaster by eliminating Glass Steagall and equivelants, it would be nice if they paid for it.

When a bank collapses deposits are protected up to an amount, and there will be less people losing money than via a 'bailout' which punishes every single taxpayer.

Getting taxpayers to 'bail out' banks is fundamentally immoral and creates many more problems than it solves.

[Oldred_V8S]

Eric Mc said:

Not any more.

We still have subs that can throw a lot of expensive cruise missiles at them, just ask Gadaffi.

[Dangerous2]

The Icelandic people were asked if they thought tax payers should be billed when private companies, who incidentally make big profits when things go well, screw up.

If I could own a business where I kept the profit, but was insulated from any risks by the magic hand of government, I'd be delighted.

Is it a surprise they said no?

[Globs]

Dangerous2 said:

The Icelandic people were asked if they thought tax payers should be billed when private companies, who incidentally make big profits when things go well, screw up.

If I could own a business where I kept the profit, but was insulated from any risks by the magic hand of government, I'd be delighted.

Is it a surprise they said no?

If I could own a business where I kept the profit, but was insulated from any risks by the magic hand of government, I'd do it again and again and again, and again.

Moral Hazard - bust banks must fall, it's the only thing that keeps them 'honest'.