Should I split my savings between banks?
Discussion
I currently have all my savings (£100k) in one single bank (ING). Never crossed my mind until recently that this may not be such a good idea given I'm only covered for £35k of this should the bank go down. I guess it would be prudent to split the money between banks, but is this really necessary? I mean, what's the actual likelihood of someone like ING going down and even if it did, how could the government not bail it out like happened with Northern Rock?
Advice please? Once bitten, twice shy on the stock market, so I always figured a large bank was the safest place to put my savings. Seems like can't even rely on this any more. FFS - maybe I should just take it all out and stick it under the bed?
Advice please? Once bitten, twice shy on the stock market, so I always figured a large bank was the safest place to put my savings. Seems like can't even rely on this any more. FFS - maybe I should just take it all out and stick it under the bed?
pikey said:
YES.
Also note the guarantee is per INSTITUTION, not bank.
First questionAlso note the guarantee is per INSTITUTION, not bank.
Have you put in £30k for you & your wife into premium bonds? Tax free savings which is 100% safe - well as close to risk free as you can get? Given the amount of savings I'd assume your H/R tax payer therefore its a good return.
Second - that gives you a balance of £40k split that between you & the wife and you dont have any issue what so ever.
Short answer is YES - split it. Even with less than 35k it makes sense to split as, although it is guaranteed, it might take time for the money to get back to you in the even that something went wrong for the bank in question.
Remember that the 35k is per person and per FSA registration number - some groups of banks operate under the same FSA reg so take care.
See: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savi... for some good advice.
Alex
Remember that the 35k is per person and per FSA registration number - some groups of banks operate under the same FSA reg so take care.
See: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savi... for some good advice.
Alex
k i need some cash!
little tip'ski's for all. We all know the 35k rule but this i found interesting. Abby, part of the Santander group is a safe bet at the moment for money and mortgages. Because Santander is spanish and own abby the following spanish laws apply. They are not allowed to get into the sub prime market overseas as the spanish government don't want any risky debts, they essentially cannot gamble as freely as other groups. Subsequently abby and the santander group have no bad debts as we commonly call them at the moment. They might well do else where but they are not involved in the american housing market.... this i am sure can be explained much better by some boffs out there, i have been informed of this by a family friend who sorted my mortgage..... so my two pence worth.
Oh and i know of a very secure bank call GingerWizardbanking services... just pop the 100k through the door.
Oh and i know of a very secure bank call GingerWizardbanking services... just pop the 100k through the door.
Thanks for the advice. My savings are proceeds from a house sale that I was going to re-invest in another property last year, but have decided to wait until prices bottom out some time next year maybe. So just looking for somewhere safe and with a decent return to put the money in the interim. Abbey and NR seem like reasonably safe bets it seems?
Aren't premium bonds a bit hit and miss though - i.e. a remote chance of getting the £1million prize, but far more likely to get zip every month, especially as even more people will be turning to these thus increasing the number bonds issued and decreasing the chance of winning?
Aren't premium bonds a bit hit and miss though - i.e. a remote chance of getting the £1million prize, but far more likely to get zip every month, especially as even more people will be turning to these thus increasing the number bonds issued and decreasing the chance of winning?
From a risk and resilience point of view, you're always going to be safer splitting your saving between institutions. That's surely Risk Management 101. I've split my £17 eight ways.
From a personal point of view, I always prefer to use a 'Clarks' shoebox, carefully selected for it's size and longevity. Store cash in this, and then keep safely under one's bed.
For added security, fill your house with *exactly* the same shoe boxes, for the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" effect.
From a personal point of view, I always prefer to use a 'Clarks' shoebox, carefully selected for it's size and longevity. Store cash in this, and then keep safely under one's bed.
For added security, fill your house with *exactly* the same shoe boxes, for the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" effect.
blade runner said:
Aren't premium bonds a bit hit and miss though - i.e. a remote chance of getting the £1million prize, but far more likely to get zip every month, especially as even more people will be turning to these thus increasing the number bonds issued and decreasing the chance of winning?
But that's the point - what do you want? Security/low reward or risk/higher reward?Edited by bigandclever on Thursday 18th September 11:50
bigandclever said:
Your lowest risk (and hence most likely lowest return) would be £35k in NS&I and £35k in Northern Rock (both guaranteed by the govenment), and then the final £30k somewhere else that is guaranteed by the FSCS.
I was under the impression all your deposits with Northern Rock are safe, and not just the £35KGingerWizard said:
little tip'ski's for all. We all know the 35k rule but this i found interesting. Abby, part of the Santander group is a safe bet at the moment for money and mortgages. Because Santander is spanish and own abby the following spanish laws apply.
Surely safer than a granite lighthouse build on a firm bed of raspberry sorbet then 
If their financial laws are anything like property laws, then this means they can take all of your money and change the rules at *any* point
Sod that
And I'm pretty sure they have some sub-prime exposure. The only bank that didn't was LloydsTSB, mainly for two reasons:
1. Old style, traditional banking board with proper risk management background.
2. Limited available funds to invest in sub-prime unlike many other institutions(which almost renders point 1 useless...) - - Choose which you believe the most
Edited by Kuroblack350 on Thursday 18th September 11:55
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff