So the moral of the story is...

.... never lend an Icelander money (no matter what the incentive),
they'll welch on the deal.

Or did I miss something?

 

Much like never lend to a Lehmann, a
Northerner(Bradford/Bingley/Halifax/Newcastle), or a Jock (Royal or
Halifax variety) cos they'll welch on the deal, then get the gubmint
to pay you back with your own money.

Then give themselves a bonus for being so clever.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Salad Dodger

Mmm-hmm...

<stacks mattress just a little higher>

 

That's what you get from Quantative Easing, at least your bed will be
well padded. Give it a few years and you might be able to wallpaper your
house with 50 quid notes like they did in Germany in the 1920s with the
worthless Mark.

I'm not surprised that the Icelandic taxpayers said 'no'. I doubt that
they had been asked in the past if they'd like their banks' profits
privatised and the risks socialised in such a way that it would screw up
the whole economy. And Gordon & friends didn't exactly come out of this
smelling of rose after using anti-terror legislation as a means of
diplomatic interaction.

And that's before we even get to certain UK authorities depositing large
amounts of our money in Iceland two days before they defaulted and then
doing a headless chicken impression when it disappeared (Kent County
Council, I'm looking at you). That was after some UK consumer finance
already warned that there were concern about the stability of the
Icelandic banking system (moneysavingexpert.com, IIRC). Did Kent tax
payers get asked if they wanted their council to **** up like this? I
certainly didn't.

Call me a stick-in-the-mud but banks usually have to pay a higher
interest rate if their deposits are riskier. While I can understand that
the ordinary tax payer didn't necessarily make that connection - after
all, we've all grown richer and all that thanks the NuLab and it will
continue forever like this - you'd think that people who are supposedly
looking after our money for the gubmint are a little bit more clued up.

 

I am more concerned with their whaling TBH. Asking the populace who
were not a party to the banks shenanigans to further cripple their
economy and themselves is unlikely to be successful.

 

A bottle of bolly for everyone involved, sweetie dahling!

Mmm-hmm...

<stacks credit card just that little bit higher>

 

Votes.

 

I had a fairly substantial amount of money[1] in an Icelandic bank - I
thought you did too.

Luckily for me (us?), a Dutch bank came to the rescue.

[1] a six figure sum, having sold my flats.

 

I always thought that you earned money from your capital because you
have *risked* your capital to make gains. There seems to be a perception
that there is *no* risk in putting your money in a bank and and yet it
still entitles you to make a gain ?

I lost a fair bit of my pension when Equitable Life went bang, tough
break indeed. Should have realised the gains up till then were too good
to be true.

If the tax payer hadn't bailed out RBS and BOS I wonder how much would
have been lost ?

 

And the dutch are the other party chasing Iceland for reparations, no?

 

Oh, are they? You didn't think I'd actually read up on this and check
the facts, do you?

 

AIUI it didn't pay out, in respect of Icesave, under its *own*
guarantee.

Under European Directive, Iceland set up its own scheme similar to the
British one, which should have paid out to British Icesave depositors.
Rather than letting this process take its potentially uncertain and
protracted course, however, the British government, rightly or
wrongly, decided to pay its citizens itself and recoup the money later
from Iceland. This is what its currently attempting to do. The
question remains whether it is reasonable to expect the Icelanders to
fork out. Personally I'd have thought a compromise both fair and
achievable.

 

In communiqué <>, DozynSleepy

That's the difference between 'savings' and 'investment', as my IFA
tells me. As a rough rule, the higher the potential earnings (which
implies more than just matching inflation) the greater the risk.

From savings stashed in National Savings bonds at one end of the
spectrum to possibly direct investment in shares at the other, with
differing degrees of volatility, equity linked funds in between. A
balanced portfolio is wise.

Time was, when a building society was considered safe as houses.
Northern Rock changed that.

I think it is reasonable for the government to underwrite, for want of a
better word, simple deposit accounts up to a certain maximum. Not sure
why they should have to do this for totally 'off shore' setups though.
Caveat Emptor innit? Presumably, in this case, it was all part of the
plan to avoid total global financial meltdown.

The tricky bit comes when an institution starts offering significantly
better than normal rates on such accounts. If it seems too good too be
true, it usually is. The bubble usually bursts eventually.

As to Equitable Life, the Parliamentary Ombudsman seems to have been not
very impressed with the level of financial regulation - surprise,
surprise.


--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

Thanks for that clarification Colin.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

<waves>
Though not quite on that scale.

I'm less worried about that part.

 

Not to forget they are trying to join the EU. Which I assume requires our
agreement.

Before having our money back I think they should sign a declaration
admitting
"Before Cod we admit all the fish belong to Great Britain"

 

For the Icelandic banks to operate in the UK they had to comply with
UK law with regards to the protection of savings , both the bank and
the Icelandic government agreed to this on UK opened accounts ,
unfortunately the running of the bank was so disastrous when it went
tits up the Icelandic equivelant of the bank of england effectively
went broke , it could not meet its obligations

 

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010...risis_7398986.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

"REYKJAVIK, Iceland -- Icelandic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir
says she's hopeful of reaching a deal in the next couple of days over
the payment of $5.7 billion to Britain and the Netherlands."

 

Interesting article here:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings#foreign
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

You say all this as if we're talking about where Philip Green puts his
billions, not where thousands if not millions of small savers put their
rainy-day fund.

In that context, maybe you can understand why the first n thousand of
any sum held in a financial institution is guaranteed but the rest
isn't.