I am pleased to see that charities have been hit hard by gambling on the 
stock market. This hopefully will bring down some of the most insidious 
of this growth industry. I am sure that the Government operate some of 
these "charities" in order to casually gather information whilst masking 
their true purpose.

"Phi"  wrote in message 
news:tLOdnZK1Zs4I03LVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> I am pleased to see that charities have been hit hard by gambling on the
> stock market. This hopefully will bring down some of the most insidious
> of this growth industry. I am sure that the Government operate some of
> these "charities" in order to casually gather information whilst masking
> their true purpose.

These charities were not 'gambling on the stock market' - they placed their 
reserves into savings accounts with Icelandic banks. These banks were touted 
as 'rock-solid' and given excellent credit ratings by the ratings agencies.

I have money in Icesave, and the only reason I put it there was because the 
account was awarded 'best-buy' status on all the financial web-sites and 
even by organisations such as Which? I was assured that my money was safe 
because it was protected by the deposit guarantees of Iceland and the UK. 
Who, six months ago, would have expected the country of Iceland to go 
bankrupt?

You cannot blame the charities - they were merely trying to make the 
donations grow by investing in high interest savings accounts that they were 
advised were safe.

Ret.

"Phi"  wrote in message 
news:tLOdnZK1Zs4I03LVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> I am pleased to see that charities have been hit hard by gambling on the
> stock market. This hopefully will bring down some of the most insidious
> of this growth industry. I am sure that the Government operate some of
> these "charities" in order to casually gather information whilst masking
> their true purpose.

Putting money into a bank is not considered gambling on the stock market.

Gaz

On Oct 11, 3:41 am, "Gaz"  wrote:
> "Phi"  wrote in message
>
> news:tLOdnZK1Zs4I03LVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > I am pleased to see that charities have been hit hard by gambling on the
> > stock market. This hopefully will bring down some of the most insidious
> > of this growth industry. I am sure that the Government operate some of
> > these "charities" in order to casually gather information whilst masking
> > their true purpose.
>
> Putting money into a bank is not considered gambling on the stock market.
>
> Gaz

Isnt it lovely that the plod pension has been hit...but just look at
the fucking disgusting response, the fucking UK gove tried to get the
money back by using *terrorist laws * and decalring Iceland aterroist
state....what fucking wankers......well done iceland, fuck the poms

Gaz wrote:
> 
> "Phi"  wrote in message
> news:tLOdnZK1Zs4I03LVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> >
> > I am pleased to see that charities have been hit hard by gambling on the
> > stock market. This hopefully will bring down some of the most insidious
> > of this growth industry. I am sure that the Government operate some of
> > these "charities" in order to casually gather information whilst masking
> > their true purpose.
> 
> Putting money into a bank is not considered gambling on the stock market.
> 
> Gaz

Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a gamble.

On Oct 11, 3:54 am, johannes  wrote:

>
> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a gamble.

You'd be correct, however, the Metropolitan police force did not
consider this agamble and have unfortunately lost the entire pension
fund....hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha

johannes  posted
>
>Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a gamble.

You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two 
weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks 
operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.

-- 
Les

Big Les Wade wrote:
> johannes  posted
>>
>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a 
>> gamble.
> 
> You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two 
> weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks 
> operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.
> 
I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would 
have known about the Icelandic banks. They have been at the top of the 
list, when it comes to interest rates, for a long time.

Of course, anyone with any sense would realise that wasn't because of 
their longing to give money away - they needed to pay those sorts of 
rates to get the cash they needed.

Which is why those with any sense didn't go for fixed term and 
transferred their money away from such banks as Northern Rock sank or 
month by month afterwards, as things got worse rather than better.

Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed rate 
accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, *after* 
Northern Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.

--
Sue

On Oct 11, 4:46 am, Palindrome  wrote:

>
> Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed rate
> accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, *after*
> Northern Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.

I take it afuckwit like you choses to ignore that the boys in
blue...you know them as the police forces of England went after the
higher yielding plays on offer and got caught and a shit like you
would also wish to ignore that yesterday Terrorist laws were invoked
against Iceland in order to get that money back...with that shitty PM
of yours conieving, you simply are a pathethic lot.

Big Les Wade wrote:
> 
> johannes  posted
> >
> >Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a gamble.
> 
> You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two
> weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks
> operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.

Sure I didn't know. But I would consider it a risk to use an unknown
non-domestic bank which is not regulated by FSA. I actually once tried
to use an UK branch of a Danish bank for simpler money transfer, but was
told they only dealt with commercial customers.

Palindrome wrote:
> 
> Big Les Wade wrote:
> > johannes  posted
> >>
> >> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a
> >> gamble.
> >
> > You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two
> > weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks
> > operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.
> >
> I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would
> have known about the Icelandic banks. They have been at the top of the
> list, when it comes to interest rates, for a long time.
> 
> Of course, anyone with any sense would realise that wasn't because of
> their longing to give money away - they needed to pay those sorts of
> rates to get the cash they needed.
> 
> Which is why those with any sense didn't go for fixed term and
> transferred their money away from such banks as Northern Rock sank or
> month by month afterwards, as things got worse rather than better.
> 
> Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed rate
> accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, *after*
> Northern Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.

You should be able to trust that FSA does their work. That was the main
problem with NR; FSA didn't.

johannes wrote:
> 
> Big Les Wade wrote:
>> johannes  posted
>>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a gamble.
>> You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two
>> weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks
>> operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.
> 
> Sure I didn't know. But I would consider it a risk to use an unknown
> non-domestic bank which is not regulated by FSA. I actually once tried

 From the icesave website:

"Landsbanki Islands hf is Authorised by the Fjármálaeftirlitið (FME) in 
Iceland and by the Financial Services Authority and is Regulated by the 
Financial Services Authority for the conduct of UK business. FRN: 207250."


> to use an UK branch of a Danish bank for simpler money transfer, but was
> told they only dealt with commercial customers.

"Palindrome"  wrote in message 
news:YaPHk.488128$J72.217266@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> Big Les Wade wrote:
>> johannes  posted
>>>
>>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a 
>>> gamble.
>>
>> You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two 
>> weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks operating 
>> in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.
>>
> I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would have 
> known about the Icelandic banks. They have been at the top of the list, 
> when it comes to interest rates, for a long time.
>
> Of course, anyone with any sense would realise that wasn't because of 
> their longing to give money away - they needed to pay those sorts of rates 
> to get the cash they needed.

But you could argue that about any bank. If we followed the mantra that the 
best way to ensure safe savings is to go for the lowest interest rates, we'd 
all have our money in 'Liquid Gold' (?) accounts paying miserly rates. Some 
banks offer very low savings rates and others pay higher rates. Visit any 
financial advice web-site, or read  newspapers' financial pages and what do 
they say?: "Many banks offer high initial rates to attract savers and then 
drop them. It pays to keep your eye on the market, and on the best-buy 
tables and be prepared to move your  savings when your rate drops."
That's what I did when the rates offered by ING dropped significantly after 
initially offering very high rates. Most small investors are not financial 
wizards and look to financial web-sites such as www.thisismoney.co.uk for 
advice on best buys. Right up to the day before Icesave went toes-up it was 
still being touted as a best-buy by sites such as this one (and in the 
financial pages of the papers).
Just where do ordinary savers go for accurate advice?  How many financial 
web-sites were warning of forthcoming problems with Iceland? None so far as 
I am aware.

Ret.

"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message 
news:E9SdnXsRxrSD5m3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Palindrome"  wrote in message 
> news:YaPHk.488128$J72.217266@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> johannes  posted
>>>>
>>>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a 
>>>> gamble.
>>>
>>> You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two 
>>> weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks 
>>> operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.
>>>
>> I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would have 
>> known about the Icelandic banks. They have been at the top of the list, 
>> when it comes to interest rates, for a long time.
>>
>> Of course, anyone with any sense would realise that wasn't because of 
>> their longing to give money away - they needed to pay those sorts of 
>> rates to get the cash they needed.
>
> But you could argue that about any bank. If we followed the mantra that 
> the best way to ensure safe savings is to go for the lowest interest 
> rates, we'd all have our money in 'Liquid Gold' (?) accounts paying 
> miserly rates. Some banks offer very low savings rates and others pay 
> higher rates. Visit any financial advice web-site, or read  newspapers' 
> financial pages and what do they say?: "Many banks offer high initial 
> rates to attract savers and then drop them. It pays to keep your eye on 
> the market, and on the best-buy tables and be prepared to move your 
> savings when your rate drops."
> That's what I did when the rates offered by ING dropped significantly 
> after initially offering very high rates. Most small investors are not 
> financial wizards and look to financial web-sites such as 
> www.thisismoney.co.uk for advice on best buys. Right up to the day before 
> Icesave went toes-up it was still being touted as a best-buy by sites such 
> as this one (and in the financial pages of the papers).
> Just where do ordinary savers go for accurate advice?  How many financial 
> web-sites were warning of forthcoming problems with Iceland? None so far 
> as I am aware.
>
Indeed.
Which is why, in part, the government are garenteeing savings.

Ret. wrote:
> 
> "Palindrome"  wrote in message 
> news:YaPHk.488128$J72.217266@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> johannes  posted
>>>>
>>>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a 
>>>> gamble.
>>>
>>> You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two 
>>> weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks 
>>> operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.
>>>
>> I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would 
>> have known about the Icelandic banks. They have been at the top of the 
>> list, when it comes to interest rates, for a long time.
>>
>> Of course, anyone with any sense would realise that wasn't because of 
>> their longing to give money away - they needed to pay those sorts of 
>> rates to get the cash they needed.
> 
> But you could argue that about any bank. If we followed the mantra that 
> the best way to ensure safe savings is to go for the lowest interest 
> rates, we'd all have our money in 'Liquid Gold' (?) accounts paying 
> miserly rates. Some banks offer very low savings rates and others pay 
> higher rates. Visit any financial advice web-site, or read  newspapers' 
> financial pages and what do they say?: "Many banks offer high initial 
> rates to attract savers and then drop them. It pays to keep your eye on 
> the market, and on the best-buy tables and be prepared to move your  
> savings when your rate drops."
> That's what I did when the rates offered by ING dropped significantly 
> after initially offering very high rates. Most small investors are not 
> financial wizards and look to financial web-sites such as 
> www.thisismoney.co.uk for advice on best buys. Right up to the day 
> before Icesave went toes-up it was still being touted as a best-buy by 
> sites such as this one (and in the financial pages of the papers).
> Just where do ordinary savers go for accurate advice?  How many 
> financial web-sites were warning of forthcoming problems with Iceland? 
> None so far as I am aware.

Note that I wrote "They have been at the top of the list, when it comes 
to interest rates, for a long time." This isn't banks with initially 
high interest rates. They were having to pay these rates to get income.


If they are small investors, they don't have a problem. They can take 
the risk knowing that their dosh is protected. Indeed, many now have 
more more of their dosh is protected as their 50k GBP protection has 
been replaced by an ING 100k Euro limit.

Anyone with >50k does have to chose whether to maximise income - with 
maximum risk - by leaving all the money in the highest earning account. 
Or, yes, of losing income by reducing the risk.

Investing more than the protected maximum in long term fixed rate 
deposits with a bank paying abnormally high rates, at a time when banks 
are failing, is sheer folly.

The difference in income that they generate over instant access accounts 
for the same amount is a small insurance policy to pay for keeping the 
option of moving funds out, if the situation appears to warrant it.

The difference in income that they generate over fixed rate accounts 
with Northern Rock is a small price to pay, as insurance policies go.

Ditto for the loss in moving funds to the big banking groups, like ING, 
Santander, HSBC, etc.

I'm sorry but all these people that put large chunks of money into the 
highest interest rate were *gambling* - much like a stock investor who 
puts all his money into one company is gambling. They knew that they 
were only protected up to 35k (at the time). Yet they chose to do that 
and not "pay the insurance premium" of lower interest rates at less 
potentially risky institutions. I don't see why the taxpayer should meet 
their gambling losses - the taxpayer wouldn't have got a penny extra off 
their extra income, if their gamble had succeeded.

--
Sue

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:46:49 GMT,
    Palindrome  wrote:
>
> Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed rate 
> accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, *after* 
> Northern Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.
>
Except for those who already had long term savings in excess of the
Icelandic guarantee. Putting more money in carried no more risk than
putting it into Barclays or HSBC.

And the limit went up from 35K to 50K the day Icesave went down. I can
just see the outcry if people with 15K lost everything but people with
50K got an extra 15K on the day.

I suspect that the FSCS will look long and hard at these passport
schemes in the future. It will probably be an all or nothing thing.

Tim.

-- 
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," 
and there was light.

  http://www.woodall.me.uk/    http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

"Palindrome"  wrote in message 
news:UH%Hk.436225$vn1.217035@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> Ret. wrote:
>>
>> "Palindrome"  wrote in message 
>> news:YaPHk.488128$J72.217266@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>> johannes  posted
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a 
>>>>> gamble.
>>>>
>>>> You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two 
>>>> weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks 
>>>> operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their 
>>>> creditworthiness.
>>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would 
>>> have known about the Icelandic banks. They have been at the top of the 
>>> list, when it comes to interest rates, for a long time.
>>>
>>> Of course, anyone with any sense would realise that wasn't because of 
>>> their longing to give money away - they needed to pay those sorts of 
>>> rates to get the cash they needed.
>>
>> But you could argue that about any bank. If we followed the mantra that 
>> the best way to ensure safe savings is to go for the lowest interest 
>> rates, we'd all have our money in 'Liquid Gold' (?) accounts paying 
>> miserly rates. Some banks offer very low savings rates and others pay 
>> higher rates. Visit any financial advice web-site, or read  newspapers' 
>> financial pages and what do they say?: "Many banks offer high initial 
>> rates to attract savers and then drop them. It pays to keep your eye on 
>> the market, and on the best-buy tables and be prepared to move your 
>> savings when your rate drops."
>> That's what I did when the rates offered by ING dropped significantly 
>> after initially offering very high rates. Most small investors are not 
>> financial wizards and look to financial web-sites such as 
>> www.thisismoney.co.uk for advice on best buys. Right up to the day before 
>> Icesave went toes-up it was still being touted as a best-buy by sites 
>> such as this one (and in the financial pages of the papers).
>> Just where do ordinary savers go for accurate advice?  How many financial 
>> web-sites were warning of forthcoming problems with Iceland? None so far 
>> as I am aware.
>
> Note that I wrote "They have been at the top of the list, when it comes to 
> interest rates, for a long time." This isn't banks with initially high 
> interest rates. They were having to pay these rates to get income.
>
>
> If they are small investors, they don't have a problem. They can take the 
> risk knowing that their dosh is protected. Indeed, many now have more more 
> of their dosh is protected as their 50k GBP protection has been replaced 
> by an ING 100k Euro limit.
>
> Anyone with >50k does have to chose whether to maximise income - with 
> maximum risk - by leaving all the money in the highest earning account. 
> Or, yes, of losing income by reducing the risk.
>
> Investing more than the protected maximum in long term fixed rate deposits 
> with a bank paying abnormally high rates, at a time when banks are 
> failing, is sheer folly.
>
> The difference in income that they generate over instant access accounts 
> for the same amount is a small insurance policy to pay for keeping the 
> option of moving funds out, if the situation appears to warrant it.
>
> The difference in income that they generate over fixed rate accounts with 
> Northern Rock is a small price to pay, as insurance policies go.
>
> Ditto for the loss in moving funds to the big banking groups, like ING, 
> Santander, HSBC, etc.
>
> I'm sorry but all these people that put large chunks of money into the 
> highest interest rate were *gambling* - much like a stock investor who 
> puts all his money into one company is gambling. They knew that they were 
> only protected up to 35k (at the time). Yet they chose to do that and not 
> "pay the insurance premium" of lower interest rates at less potentially 
> risky institutions. I don't see why the taxpayer should meet their 
> gambling losses - the taxpayer wouldn't have got a penny extra off their 
> extra income, if their gamble had succeeded.

Yes - I agree that savers should certainly have known not to put more than 
£35k (now £50k) into any one banking organisation - and people that did were 
asking for trouble. I had £19k in Icesave (part of my retirement nest-egg) 
and for a couple of days I lost sleep worrying that I was going to lose the 
approx £16,300 that was supposedly protected by the Icelandic equivalent of 
the FSCS. I could have kissed Alastair Darling when he announced that the 
government would guarantee all Icesave savings. Peter Oborne, in today's 
Daily Mail argues that savers were 'foolish' to put money into Icelandic 
banks, but when the very newspapers that he writes for were touting them as 
'best-buys' with savings up to £35k fully protected, I don't accept his 
criticism.

Ret.

On Oct 11, 7:01 pm, Palindrome  wrote:

> I don't see why the taxpayer should meet
> their gambling losses - the taxpayer wouldn't have got a penny extra off
> their extra income, if their gamble had succeeded.

Are you drunk again Sue?

This sort of critic wont go down well with Plod or the very many UK
council who have gambled their members pension funds...the real point
of your concepts should surely be why were the Icelandic nation
branded a terriost nation when it was realsied that it was the Plod
pension fund thats gone down the drain...perfidiouse albion no doubt

"Palindrome"  wrote in message
news:YaPHk.488128$J72.217266@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> Big Les Wade wrote:
>> johannes  posted
>>>
>>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a
>>> gamble.
>>
>> You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two
>> weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks operating
>> in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.
>>
> I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would have
> known about the Icelandic banks. They have been at the top of the list,
> when it comes to interest rates, for a long time.
>
> Of course, anyone with any sense would realise that wasn't because of
> their longing to give money away - they needed to pay those sorts of rates
> to get the cash they needed.
>
> Which is why those with any sense didn't go for fixed term and transferred
> their money away from such banks as Northern Rock sank or month by month
> afterwards, as things got worse rather than better.
>
> Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed rate
> accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, *after* Northern
> Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.
>
> --
> Sue
I wonder how much of the Iceland money had earlier been withdrawn in panic
from Northern Rock?
Derek.




 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
                http://www.usenet.com

"Phi"  wrote in message 
news:tLOdnZK1Zs4I03LVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> I am pleased to see that charities have been hit hard by gambling on the
> stock market. This hopefully will bring down some of the most insidious
> of this growth industry. I am sure that the Government operate some of
> these "charities" in order to casually gather information whilst masking
> their true purpose.

These were regular bank deposits, and although remitting the money to a 
foreign country outside UK jurisdiction might have been a little risky for 
"widows' and orphans' funds", it was hardly gambling.

Compare the situation of  Robert Tchenguiz.  He bought 25% of M&B pubs. 
Their finance director took a hedge postion (actually I suspect he wrote 
options) but didn't close them out losing ~£400M.  Now his Icelandic bankers 
have made him sell out his shares after the market has just slumped losing 
him even more money!  see 
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSL85900420081008?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10001

On 10 Oct, 14:13, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

> These charities were not 'gambling on the stock market' - they placed their
> reserves into savings accounts with Icelandic banks. These banks were touted
> as 'rock-solid' and given excellent credit ratings by the ratings agencies.

At least one of the banks involved was downgraded to BBB+ by S&P this
spring. For a bank, that's pretty damn bad.

Ian

Palindrome  posted
>Big Les Wade wrote:
>> johannes  posted
>>>
>>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a 
>>>gamble.
>>  You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that 
>>two  weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks 
>>operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.
>>
>I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would 
>have known about the Icelandic banks.

But most of the individuals who are now saying that they would never 
dream of putting money in an Icelandic bank (and this apparently 
includes Johannes), do not fall into that category.

>They have been at the top of the list, when it comes to interest rates, 
>for a long time.

Sometimes at the top, sometimes not. People are now talking as if they 
were offering rates far higher than any other institution. They weren't. 
They were simply among the highest, jostling for position with the 
traditional British building societies who everyone is now saying people 
should have had their money with all along.

And the interest rates being offered by all these various institutions 
were separated by a tiny fraction of a percentage. For example, here is 
a table from The Guardian's money best buys column of 20 September, 
listing the top no-notice accounts:
West Bromwich BS - 6.56%
Scarborough BS - 6.51%
Kent Reliance BS - 6.45%
Heritable Bank - 6.41%
Anglo Irish Bank -  6.40%

And here is the table from the same date for notice accounts:
Heritable Bank - 6.60%
West Brom BS - 6.56%
Whiteaway Laidlaw Bank - 6.56
Anglo Irish Bank - 6.55
Derbyshire BS - 6.55

You see? This stuff of Icelandic banks offering obviously dodgy deals, 
whereas British building societies offer low interest but are rock 
solid, is just an after-the-event myth. Someone always has to be top of 
the table even in a very tightly clustered list, and risk is usually not 
the reason. Often it is that the particular institution finds it has 
some good opportunities to lend, or wants to expand, and therefore needs 
to attract more deposits - which is exactly what building societies are 
supposed to do.

>Of course, anyone with any sense would realise that wasn't because of 
>their longing to give money away - they needed to pay those sorts of 
>rates to get the cash they needed.

That is so obvious it doesn't need saying, but it doesn't imply that the 
bank is risky. Notice, for example, the absence from those top-rate 
lists of "rock solid" UK building society Bradford & Bingley, now 
busted.

I might also point out that the same issue of The Guardian also ran a 
special feature on how to protect your savings during the financial 
crisis. It didn't even *mention* Icelandic banks - this was only two 
weeks before they all folded. Now I personally don't have a high opinion 
of financial journalists, but at least they do tend to be better 
informed than the public. So if they didn't see this coming, how could 
anyone else? And if so many ordinary people like you did see it coming, 
how come none of you mentioned it before? It's pure hindsight.

>Which is why those with any sense didn't go for fixed term and 
>transferred their money away from such banks as Northern Rock sank or 
>month by month afterwards, as things got worse rather than better.
>
>Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed 
>rate accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, *after* 
>Northern Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.

As I have shown, they were *not* abnormally high interest rates.

-- 
Les

On Oct 12, 5:41 pm, Big Les Wade  wrote:

>
> As I have shown, they were *not* abnormally high interest rates.

Les Sue is a drunk pretending to be an academic, shes a perminant out
patient of *Broadmoor Hospital*, she is aged 69 she is always
delusional but currently being treated for depression, be kind to her.

Big Les Wade wrote:
> Palindrome  posted
>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> johannes  posted
>>>>
>>>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a 
>>>> gamble.
>>>  You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that 
>>> two  weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks 
>>> operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their creditworthiness.
>>>
>> I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would 
>> have known about the Icelandic banks.
> 
> But most of the individuals who are now saying that they would never 
> dream of putting money in an Icelandic bank (and this apparently 
> includes Johannes), do not fall into that category.
> 
>> They have been at the top of the list, when it comes to interest 
>> rates, for a long time.
> 
> Sometimes at the top, sometimes not. People are now talking as if they 
> were offering rates far higher than any other institution. They weren't. 
> They were simply among the highest, jostling for position with the 
> traditional British building societies who everyone is now saying people 
> should have had their money with all along.
> 
> And the interest rates being offered by all these various institutions 
> were separated by a tiny fraction of a percentage. For example, here is 
> a table from The Guardian's money best buys column of 20 September, 
> listing the top no-notice accounts:
> West Bromwich BS - 6.56%
> Scarborough BS - 6.51%
> Kent Reliance BS - 6.45%
> Heritable Bank - 6.41%
> Anglo Irish Bank -  6.40%
> 
> And here is the table from the same date for notice accounts:
> Heritable Bank - 6.60%
> West Brom BS - 6.56%
> Whiteaway Laidlaw Bank - 6.56
> Anglo Irish Bank - 6.55
> Derbyshire BS - 6.55
> 
> You see? 

Thank you for proving my point. UK interest rates were falling and 
expected to fall further. So why was Heritable offering high notice 
account interest rates?

 > And if so many ordinary people like you did see it coming,
> how come none of you mentioned it before? It's pure hindsight.

I did mention it before, to those I discuss financial matters with - BTW 
I transferred (in May) all but the minimum needed to keep my Heritable 
account open.

> 
>> Which is why those with any sense didn't go for fixed term and 
>> transferred their money away from such banks as Northern Rock sank or 
>> month by month afterwards, as things got worse rather than better.
>>
>> Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed 
>> rate accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, *after* 
>> Northern Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.
> 
> As I have shown, they were *not* abnormally high interest rates.
> 
So how many other banks were *increasing* their term interest rates at a 
time of *decreasing* UK interest rates?  You consider that "normal"?

Look at the others in your list - the only other true bank is
Anglo Irish. 'Nuff said.


--
Sue

On Oct 12, 6:28 pm, Palindrome  wrote:
.
>
> I did mention it before, to those I discuss financial matters with

Is that your doctor or your nurse Sue, hopefully before your
medication kicks in

Palindrome  posted
>Big Les Wade wrote:
>>  And the interest rates being offered by all these various 
>>institutions  were separated by a tiny fraction of a percentage. For 
>>example, here is  a table from The Guardian's money best buys column 
>>of 20 September,  listing the top no-notice accounts:
>> West Bromwich BS - 6.56%
>> Scarborough BS - 6.51%
>> Kent Reliance BS - 6.45%
>> Heritable Bank - 6.41%
>> Anglo Irish Bank -  6.40%
>>  And here is the table from the same date for notice accounts:
>> Heritable Bank - 6.60%
>> West Brom BS - 6.56%
>> Whiteaway Laidlaw Bank - 6.56
>> Anglo Irish Bank - 6.55
>> Derbyshire BS - 6.55
>>  You see?
>
>Thank you for proving my point.

Rubbish. I have directly contradicted your point.

>UK interest rates were falling

I'm not sure what that might have to do with it, but it is cobblers 
anyway. Here are the five MPC announcements preceding publication of 
that table:

4 Sep  Bank of England Maintains Bank Rate at 5.0%
7 Aug   Bank of England Maintains Bank Rate at 5.0%
10 Jul  Bank of England Maintains Bank Rate at 5.0%
5 Jun   Bank of England Maintains Bank Rate at 5.0%
8 May   Bank of England Maintains Bank Rate at 5.0%

You have to go back as far as April to find a cut in bank rate.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/decisions/decisions08.htm


>and expected to fall further. So why was Heritable offering high notice 
>account interest rates?

I dunno, why were the West Brom and the Anglo-Irish? *Somebody* has to 
offer the highest rates, no matter what BoE rate is doing. Unless you 
believe that *any* bank offering a notice account is suspicious?

>> And if so many ordinary people like you did see it coming,
>> how come none of you mentioned it before? It's pure hindsight.
>
>I did mention it before, to those I discuss financial matters with -

No, it only counts as mentioning it if you stated it in a place that we 
can check now.

> BTW I transferred (in May) all but the minimum needed to keep my 
>Heritable account open.

Good for you, but I'd be interested to know the evidential basis for 
your decision.

>>> Which is why those with any sense didn't go for fixed term and 
>>>transferred their money away from such banks as Northern Rock sank or 
>>>month by month afterwards, as things got worse rather than better.
>>>
>>> Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed 
>>>rate accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, *after* 
>>>Northern Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.
>>  As I have shown, they were *not* abnormally high interest rates.
>>
>So how many other banks were *increasing* their term interest rates

Sorry, where have you shown that the Iceland banks were increasing their 
interest rates?

>at a time of *decreasing* UK interest rates?  You consider that 
>"normal"?

Firstly, I have shown that interest rates were not falling. Second, you 
haven't shown that the Iceland banks were increasing their interest 
rates. Third, *if* they did, it wouldn't be abnormal. Banks and BSs 
raise and lower their interest rates by fractions of a point all the 
time, because they have to compete with each other to attract deposits, 
no matter what the base rate is doing.

>Look at the others in your list - the only other true bank is
>Anglo Irish. 'Nuff said.

What is the relevance of this point?

-- 
Les

"Palindrome"  wrote in message 
news:ZikIk.518696$J72.39720@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> Big Les Wade wrote:
>> Palindrome  posted
>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>> johannes  posted
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I would consider putting money in a bank in Greedybankistan a 
>>>>> gamble.
>>>>  You only say that now because of what has happened. I'll bet that two 
>>>> weeks ago you didn't even know there *were* any Icelandic banks 
>>>> operating in Britain, let alone have any idea of their 
>>>> creditworthiness.
>>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but anyone with any significant savings to put away would 
>>> have known about the Icelandic banks.
>>
>> But most of the individuals who are now saying that they would never 
>> dream of putting money in an Icelandic bank (and this apparently includes 
>> Johannes), do not fall into that category.
>>
>>> They have been at the top of the list, when it comes to interest rates, 
>>> for a long time.
>>
>> Sometimes at the top, sometimes not. People are now talking as if they 
>> were offering rates far higher than any other institution. They weren't. 
>> They were simply among the highest, jostling for position with the 
>> traditional British building societies who everyone is now saying people 
>> should have had their money with all along.
>>
>> And the interest rates being offered by all these various institutions 
>> were separated by a tiny fraction of a percentage. For example, here is a 
>> table from The Guardian's money best buys column of 20 September, listing 
>> the top no-notice accounts:
>> West Bromwich BS - 6.56%
>> Scarborough BS - 6.51%
>> Kent Reliance BS - 6.45%
>> Heritable Bank - 6.41%
>> Anglo Irish Bank -  6.40%
>>
>> And here is the table from the same date for notice accounts:
>> Heritable Bank - 6.60%
>> West Brom BS - 6.56%
>> Whiteaway Laidlaw Bank - 6.56
>> Anglo Irish Bank - 6.55
>> Derbyshire BS - 6.55
>>
>> You see?
>
> Thank you for proving my point. UK interest rates were falling and 
> expected to fall further. So why was Heritable offering high notice 
> account interest rates?
>
> > And if so many ordinary people like you did see it coming,
>> how come none of you mentioned it before? It's pure hindsight.
>
> I did mention it before, to those I discuss financial matters with - BTW I 
> transferred (in May) all but the minimum needed to keep my Heritable 
> account open.
>
>>
>>> Which is why those with any sense didn't go for fixed term and 
>>> transferred their money away from such banks as Northern Rock sank or 
>>> month by month afterwards, as things got worse rather than better.
>>>
>>> Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed rate 
>>> accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, *after* 
>>> Northern Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.
>>
>> As I have shown, they were *not* abnormally high interest rates.
>>
> So how many other banks were *increasing* their term interest rates at a 
> time of *decreasing* UK interest rates?  You consider that "normal"?

It very much depends upon how the bank in question is running its affairs. 
Some banks, for example, did everything they could to increase their 
mortgage books (even at the expense of responsibility in that lending), 
other banks did little in that area. There are many banks today offering 
savings accounts with derisory rates of interest - does that make them the 
safest? The fact that one bank is prepared to offer higher rates of interest 
than others is not particularly indicative of unsafe practice. Some banks 
and building societies charge higher mortgage rates than others - that's why 
they may be able to offer higher rates to savers.
Bradford & Bingley are currently offering excellent internet savings rates 
now that they have been taken over by Santander. Does that indicate that 
they should still be avoided?

Ret.

Big Les Wade wrote:
> Palindrome  posted
<snip>
> 
> You have to go back as far as April to find a cut in bank rate.
> http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/decisions/decisions08.htm

Which rather ties up with my decision to transfer away from Heritable in 
May..

> 
> 
>> and expected to fall further. So why was Heritable offering high 
>> notice account interest rates?
> 
> I dunno, why were the West Brom and the Anglo-Irish? *Somebody* has to 
> offer the highest rates, no matter what BoE rate is doing. Unless you 
> believe that *any* bank offering a notice account is suspicious?

I wouldn't have taken out a term fixed rate with Anglo Irish either. 
That was before they had to have all their deposits underwritten by the 
Irish Government, of course.

And we are discussing *bnaks* not building society accounts.

> 
>>> And if so many ordinary people like you did see it coming,
>>> how come none of you mentioned it before? It's pure hindsight.
>>
>> I did mention it before, to those I discuss financial matters with -
> 
> No, it only counts as mentioning it if you stated it in a place that we 
> can check now.

It counts to me and to those I discussed it with.

> 
>> BTW I transferred (in May) all but the minimum needed to keep my 
>> Heritable account open.
> 
> Good for you, but I'd be interested to know the evidential basis for 
> your decision.

I've already stated them - these banks were offering what I considered 
to be abnormally high interest rates, over a sustained period, compared 
to other banks.
> 
>>>> Which is why those with any sense didn't go for fixed term and 
>>>> transferred their money away from such banks as Northern Rock sank 
>>>> or month by month afterwards, as things got worse rather than better.
>>>>
>>>> Now, as for those that locked their money away into long term fixed 
>>>> rate accounts with banks with abnormally high interest rates, 
>>>> *after* Northern Rock, really need to lose *their* pensions.
>>>  As I have shown, they were *not* abnormally high interest rates.
>>>
>> So how many other banks were *increasing* their term interest rates
> 
> Sorry, where have you shown that the Iceland banks were increasing their 
> interest rates?

Heritable increased its fixed term rates in April.


> 
>> at a time of *decreasing* UK interest rates?  You consider that "normal"?
> 
> Firstly, I have shown that interest rates were not falling. 
Nope, you chose a period to suit your own argument. I made it clear that 
I made the decision in May.

> Second, you 
> haven't shown that the Iceland banks were increasing their interest 
> rates.

David Black, Principal Consultant April 17, 2008 - Banking at Defaqto, 
said: “With many people thinking  that the base rate is likely to fall 
further this year some of the fixed rate products available now look 
outstanding value..While this is the case, savers can consider taking 
advantage of the situation by locking into some very attractive rates. 
Remember though, that only balances of up to £35,000 with any one 
institution are covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.”


For "outstanding value" read "abnormally high".

You don't think that the last line rather indicated that the writer, 
too, thought that there was substantial risk?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/saving-and-banking/article.html?in_article_id=424028&in_page_id=7


> Third, *if* they did, it wouldn't be abnormal. Banks and BSs 
> raise and lower their interest rates by fractions of a point all the 
> time, because they have to compete with each other to attract deposits, 
> no matter what the base rate is doing.

Of course. Some people treat "outstanding value" at face value. Others 
question why they have to offer "outstanding value". Personally, I 
considered that they were trying too hard to attract deposits.

> 
>> Look at the others in your list - the only other true bank is
>> Anglo Irish. 'Nuff said.
> 
> What is the relevance of this point?
> 

Where would Anglo Irish be now without the Irish Government's 
undertaking? In April, the names figuring in the top rates for the 
longer fixed rate accounts were Anglo Irish, Heritable and B&B.


--
Sue

On Oct 13, 12:05 am, Palindrome  wrote:

>
> Where would Anglo Irish be now without the Irish Government's
> undertaking? In April, the names figuring in the top rates for the
> longer fixed rate accounts were Anglo Irish, Heritable and B&B.

Fascinating stuff this high finance, eh Sue, but why are you getting
your knickers in a twist over 30grand or 1800pounds worth of interest,
its hardly enough for a return trip around the world let alone funding
a hotel or 3....Of you go to bed and dream of me.

"Palindrome"  wrote in message 
news:kfpIk.902$lM1.319@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>
> Which rather ties up with my decision to transfer away from Heritable in 
> May..
>
Aren't you so fucking clever.  Pretty nauseating that you saying that those 
who didn't should lose their money.  Contemptible.

Colonel Colt wrote:
> "Palindrome"  wrote in message 
> news:kfpIk.902$lM1.319@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> Which rather ties up with my decision to transfer away from Heritable in 
>> May..
>>
> Aren't you so fucking clever.  Pretty nauseating that you saying that those 
> who didn't should lose their money.  Contemptible.
> 
> 

When you put more money than the protected amount into a fund - it is 
called "gambling". For shareholders, there is no protected amount and 
they risk losing the lot. For investors chasing the highest returns, 
there is a protected amount and (generally) they will at least get that 
back. The rest was gambled and lost. That is what happens when you gamble.

Would you want all the shareholders to get fully reimbursed back to when 
the shares were trading at their maximum value? If not, why should 
investors, who took similar risks, fare any better?


--
Sue

On Oct 13, 3:20 pm, Palindrome  wrote:
>
> When you put more money than the protected amount into a fund - it is called "gambling".

Rubbish!!


>For shareholders, there is no protected amount and they risk losing the lot.

Rubbish!!

> For investors chasing the highest returns, there is a protected amount and (generally) they will at least get that
> back.

Rubbish!!

>The rest was gambled and lost. That is what happens when you gamble.

Are you drunk again wench!!
>
> Would you want all the shareholders to get fully reimbursed back to when the shares were trading at their maximum
> value?

Why not?

> If not, why should investors, who took similar risks, fare any better?

And why do you answer the question the way you would like to have it
answered...you bais or something

"Palindrome"  wrote in message 
news:LECIk.109130$h94.3199@fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Colonel Colt wrote:
>> "Palindrome"  wrote in message 
>> news:kfpIk.902$lM1.319@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>> Which rather ties up with my decision to transfer away from Heritable in 
>>> May..
>>>
>> Aren't you so fucking clever.  Pretty nauseating that you saying that 
>> those who didn't should lose their money.  Contemptible.
>>
>>
>
> When you put more money than the protected amount into a fund - it is 
> called "gambling". For shareholders, there is no protected amount and they 
> risk losing the lot. For investors chasing the highest returns, there is a 
> protected amount and (generally) they will at least get that back. The 
> rest was gambled and lost. That is what happens when you gamble.
>
What nonsense.  We are tlaking about funds worth millions.  There are only 
so many banks in which one can deposit £35k, certainly not enough to cover 
people with millions of pounds to bank.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:c15af4t7l2mtja9eqvacpqqnsskfpu70u9@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:13:40 +0100, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>I have money in Icesave, and the only reason I put it there was because 
>>the
>>account was awarded 'best-buy' status on all the financial web-sites and
>>even by organisations such as Which?
>
> Proving once again that Which are beyond any doubt the worst people to
> take any consumer advice from.

They are the only consumer body that is truly independent, and which buys 
its products for testing in the High Street, rather than being sent them by 
the manufacturers. I have been a Which? subscriber for well over 20 years 
and have rarely been  let down by their advice.

Ret.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:13:40 +0100, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>I have money in Icesave, and the only reason I put it there was because the 
>account was awarded 'best-buy' status on all the financial web-sites and 
>even by organisations such as Which? 

Proving once again that Which are beyond any doubt the worst people to
take any consumer advice from. 


--