25% of Iceland voters don't want Icesave cash repaid to British savers

If they are contractually obliged, then surely there will just be a suit and Iceland's(government) assets anywhere in the EU will be siezed.
 
ghost101 said:
If they are contractually obliged, then surely there will just be a suit and Iceland's(government) assets anywhere in the EU will be siezed.
Click to expand...
I don't think the government themselves have much assets outside Iceland apart from Embassies and all the bank assets were seized back when it happened.

If this deal isn't agreed then in all likelyhood the UK, Netherlands and other affected parties will block IMF funds going to Iceland. Money which Iceland needs.
 
I don't think any Icesaver customer should get their money back. I am disgusted that the government bailed everyone out - they should have received the FSA saver insurance minimum, like everyone else is entitled to who save in an FSA regulated bank.

People investing in foreign banks are speculators. It is their own risk, their own fault.
 
Jokester said:
The Icelandic banks, were required by European and UK law to provide an insurance scheme to operate in the UK. That's our basic beef with Iceland.
Click to expand...

Linky please (I'm interested) as I thought if it was a UK bank, UK government secured it. If you were paying money into foreign banks then there was no such safeguards.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
I don't think any Icesaver customer should get their money back. I am disgusted that the government bailed everyone out - they should have received the FSA saver insurance minimum, like everyone else is entitled to who save in an FSA regulated bank.

People investing in foreign banks are speculators. It is their own risk, their own fault.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, why are people getting more than the FSA guaranteed amount. Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that it is not a UK bank and thus does not 'hurt' us if we force a foreign entity to pay up more than we would do our own banks.

It is my view tantamount to bullying by the UK, nothing more and nothing less.
 
Paying back the money to us will happen, its a long term investment.

Paying it back will allow them to enter the EU and cream off far more money out of that system. A lot of it from us.

Just look at Ireland with the EU treaty. They declined it at first and then voted for it with their begging bowls out once their ecomomy went **** up only because they take so much more out of Europe than they contribute.
 
Sounds despicable tbh

All that money went somewhere in Iceland,to just say "oh sorry we lost it nvm". Hope the party in charge do the right thing.
 
The UK Government should never have bailed out the British savers with money in these foregin banks. Savers went to iceland becasue it was paying a higher rate of return. This SHOULD have meant they were taking on a higher risk, but as usual we've bent over and taken it up the chuff by guaranteeing their deposits. What disincentive is there for UK investors to continue sending their money abroad?

Also, Iceland is such a tiny country - IIRC it's about the size of Dundee! How did it ever get into such massive problems?
 
Jokester said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave
Click to expand...

That reads like it was outside teh FSA and as such not guaranteed.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings
And is under the list of Banks NOT covered by the UK scheme as they are under the passport scheme.


So it is silly they are getting it all back. Although by the sounds of it is for economic and Europe reasons. Especially as it says
Kaupthing used to have full UK registered protection, meaning if it went bust you'd get £50,000 per person back from the UK scheme
Click to expand...

But since ING has taken over
This means in the event that ING Direct goes bust, 100% of the first €100,000 (around £91,000) will be guaranteed. However it's important to understand this is NOT protected by the UK scheme but by the Dutch Investor Protection Scheme, meaning it would have to be claimed from the Netherlands authorities.

So surly that means Uk government foots the bill and Netherlands has no contractual obligations.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
That reads like it was outside teh FSA and as such not guaranteed.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings
And is under the list of Banks NOT covered by the UK scheme as they are under the passport scheme.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it was outside the FSA scheme, it was covered by Icelands equivalent scheme - except when it actually came to paying out time the Icelanders realised they couldn't meet their obligations and gave everyone else the FRO.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
I don't think any Icesaver customer should get their money back. I am disgusted that the government bailed everyone out - they should have received the FSA saver insurance minimum, like everyone else is entitled to who save in an FSA regulated bank.

People investing in foreign banks are speculators. It is their own risk, their own fault.
Click to expand...

The government watchdog wants councils to get as much for savings as possible, government had these banks listed as superproof investment.

It all goes boobs up, and a lot of councils reveal staggering losses.

The councils can't be blamed as they are forced to invest surplus cash, and the government did not warn of any problems.

I don't think its in icelands favour to wriggle out of this, for future financial industry.
 
AcidHell2 said:
But that only applies if you live there. The article says it was covered by the uk scheme and as such uk government should fit the bill.
Click to expand...
No, Icesave entered the UK market under the passport scheme, meaning UK investors are covered by the parent countries scheme

Some European banks don't count as UK subsidiaries, as they’ve opted for a slightly different protection, called the Passport scheme. Not only does it become more difficult for the UK to step in, but the compensation comes from elsewhere too.

This 'passport scheme' allows some banks from the European Economic Area to rely, in the first instance, on their own country’s compensation schemes. Banks from outside the EEA CAN’T take part in this and must have the full FSCS compensation.

It's worth noting if you have savings in a European bank that's currently fully covered by the FSCS, and it then decided to opt for the passport scheme, it would have to inform you of the change.

It’s the passport scheme that caused the problem with Icesave; after nationalising its parent bank, the Icelandic government signalled it was not going to honour this EEA agreement, and thus left UK savers in the cold, until the UK government stepped in. Whether that can happen again is anyone's guess, and either way most of the banks in the scheme come from bigger countries.

The exact protection you get depends on the level of compensation offered, compared to the UK's £50,000...

Where the country’s compensation is LESS than the UK's.

If the EEA country’s compensation scheme is lower than £50,000, it operates as follows:

* The home country provides compensation. The first amount would need to be claimed from that bank's home country's own compensation scheme, though this may logistically take place through the FSCS.

* The UK scheme tops up the rest. Any amount not covered is topped up to £50,000 by the UK scheme. e.g. if the overseas scheme covered £20,000 the UK scheme would cover the remaining £30,000.
Click to expand...
The first part is what Iceland were required to provide under the passport scheme (to a value of 20,000 Euros I think).
 
Another example of why popular opinion can be so very wrong.

Making this compensation payment will go some way to restoring confidence to invest in iceland again.

Doing nothing will continue the idea that Iceland is an irresponsible country with no ethics.

Which one makes more sense in the long run?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom