50k guarantee on deposits is a joke.
 

So anyone who has just sold a house for 200k has to fanny about splitting it between 4 accounts. If they dont and the bank went bust, and the government did nothing, and they lost 150k, there would be anarchy on the streets. The whole economy would collapse. Knowing this, why dont the government reassure us it wont happen.

The 50k limit is just meaningless.

Because the government hasn't got £950 Billion to guarantee everyones deposits i guess.

Who has more than 50k in one account anyway?

I'll start - No.

Er, no. HTH :)

germany and iceland have followed ireland and gaurentee'd 100% of money
g brown will have to follow suit :wonder:

i erm no....50p maybe lol.

Me,7 accounts, but one bank.

Also anyone else who has sold a house, is renting and looking for a new one.

They have tried to reassure us it won't happen. If it looks like a bank is going to go bust, they'll just bail it out - the alternative is anarchy as you say. The problem is that if they guarantee all deposits, those debts appear on their accounts - which has big implications. Mad really. :rolleyes:

I have to say, i do trust Gordon Brown in this situation. I dont think he would ever let anyone lose money, but it is scary.

:lol1:

You may scoff, but i have to say, i do trust him on this,more than that toff Cameron.

Aye, I hear what you're saying. I just don't trust any of them :)

But that where the problem lies. You HAVE to,because they have the finger on the button. You cant opt out of society, much as Maggie would like us to.

Isn't it just a gesture more than anything? I mean the Irish guarantee covers the 6 largest banks, not all banks - and the German Guarantee could never be fulfilled if it actually came to *all* deposits falling over.

Brown could say " Yes I'll guarantee all savings, but its a bit of an empty promise (Irelaise it wouldn't be the first one). Ultimatley I suspect he will have to make the gurantee, but, if you thing that if all the banks collaspe you'll get all yuor money back, I suspect you would be dissapointed.

Of course, the likelyhood of all UK banks collapsing is remote in the extreme

National Savings are a safe bet at the mo.

and Greece

To some extent the people who have benefitted from such 'wealth' created ( rolleyes) from the last few years are quite possibly going to have to prop up the whole system with thier ill-gotten 'gains'

Yep, wasn't saying I'm not a voter etc. I just don't trust their word. I may have to, to a certain degree, but I won't like it.

Plus, I don't know where all the money would be found to cover everyone and all banks.

I don't see how it could. The government get £600billion a year to run the country, and has to borrow on top of that.

Quite how it would compensate around a trillion pounds I dont know.

I think they have Dr Evil running the financial calculations! :lol1:

The chance of every bank going bust is imposible though, so they'll never have to find £950 Billion.

A promise would help the current crisis though.

The thing that got me, was that the £50k limit covers 98% of savers, but the other 2% of people covers 50% of the saved money!

Regardless of the risk of banks going bust it just makes total sense as far as I can see to spread it around. The chances of all four banks going bust are quite low whereas if the one holding your 200k did go bust, and the government didn't bail them out by nationalising them, then you could be waiting many months to get you money out of the FSA. At least with it spread around you'd still have access to 150k of your money whilst waiting to get the other 50k back.

The problem is that we won't appear to lose money, but he can just phone up the printing presses and run off a few hundred billion - making us all poorer.

Erm, not 100% on this but the impression i got from watching a discussion on this on question time the other night was that the government would on guarantee 50k per BANK not account, because the discussion has about certain savings institutions which were part of the same bank and that the saver would only be covered for 50k, even if he had 200k in 4 account which were all part of the same group, i.e online savings account etc..

Like i said though, not 100%

What was interesting was on GMTV this morning.

Say you had 50k in Bank 'A' and 50k in bank 'B' Just because they are seperate banks does not mean that your 100k is safe, only 50k is.

You are only covered up to 50k per financial institution!!!! the thing is they wont tell you which financial institution they belong to so you would have to find out on the internet and make sure your 100k say is deposited with different financial institutions.

What was also interesting was the joint accounts, say you both had 80k in a joint account, yet another one of you had another 20k in another account, if the bank went belly up then you wouldn't get all your money. You'd lose 10 grand.

How?

Well your joint account would be safe - 80k divide 2 = 40k each, but you've already used up your allocated 40k so your 20k you'd only get 10k back out of the 20k.

Sounds silly i know, but thats how it is.

If you've got more than £50k, speak to an accountant/financial advisor. You can make your money safe. off shore, selective use of accounts here etc....A far better option than crapping yourselves...

Correct if you've got more than 50k in one institution and not per BANK then you are only covered up to 50k.

He didn't have a problem robbing the funds from the private pension funds in the first place though. So where do you think the money will come from to ensure savers don't loose out? Oh yeah, the tax payer and more than likely those who have lost their savings. Hardly a re-assurance is it?

If you keep it under the mattress, you can light the fire with it when galloping inflation has rendered it worthless!

Les