Hi all

With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building Societies, where 
is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?

TIA

Phil

On 7 Aug, 09:53, "TheScullster"  wrote:
> Hi all
>
> With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building Societies, where
> is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
>
> TIA
>
> Phil

Northern Rock or National Savings & Investments

Toom

"TheScullster"  wrote in message 
news:tvmdnVhxP6t_KwfVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Hi all
>
> With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building Societies, 
> where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
>
If your total ISA savings are less than £35k, then all banks and building 
societies are equally safe.  I'd go for the best rate you can find for your 
requirements.
-- 
Hungerdunger
To reply by email, remove the MARX from my address

On 7 Aug, 23:57, "hungerdunger" 
wrote:
> "TheScullster"  wrote in message
>
> news:tvmdnVhxP6t_KwfVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...> Hi all
>
> > With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building Societies,
> > where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
>
> If your total ISA savings are less than £35k, then all banks and building
> societies are equally safe.  I'd go for the best rate you can find for your
> requirements.
> --
> Hungerdunger
> To reply by email, remove the MARX from my address

That assumes the Financial Services Compensation Scheme would be
adequate in event of meltdown. It's not clear that would be the case
for major meltdown.

The reason Northern Rock and NS&I are consider 'safest' is because of
the government guarantee.

Toom

> > "TheScullster" wrote
> >> With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building Societies,
> >> where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
> >
> "hungerdunger" wrote:
> > If your total ISA savings are less than £35k, then all
> > banks and building societies are equally safe. I'd go
> > for the best rate you can find for your requirements.
>
"Toom Tabard" wrote
> That assumes the Financial Services Compensation
> Scheme would be adequate in event of meltdown. It's
> not clear that would be the case for major meltdown.
>
> The reason Northern Rock and NS&I are consider
> 'safest' is because of the government guarantee.

But - would even the govt "be adequate
in the event of major meltdown" ??

On 8 Aug, 17:09, "Tim"  wrote:
> > > "TheScullster" wrote
> > >> With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building Societies,
> > >> where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
>
> > "hungerdunger" wrote:
> > > If your total ISA savings are less than £35k, then all
> > > banks and building societies are equally safe. I'd go
> > > for the best rate you can find for your requirements.
>
> "Toom Tabard" wrote
> > That assumes the Financial Services Compensation
> > Scheme would be adequate in event of meltdown. It's
> > not clear that would be the case for major meltdown.
>
> > The reason Northern Rock and NS&I are consider
> > 'safest' is because of the government guarantee.
>
> But - would even the govt "be adequate
> in the event of major meltdown" ??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, but it's got more money than the FSCS can raise. The question was
about the 'safest'.

The FSCS covers defaults by a levy on the other members. For bank
retail deposits it can raise £1.8 billion per year from banks. If
thet's not enough it can levy all types of members bringing the total
to £4.1 billion per year. For major meltdown there would be a problem
if the larger, or several major banks, defaulted, because they would
be normal source of some of the levy.

Toom

> >> > "TheScullster" wrote
> >> >> With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building 
> >> >> Societies,
> >> >> where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
> >
> >> "hungerdunger" wrote:
> >> > If your total ISA savings are less than £35k, then all
> >> > banks and building societies are equally safe. I'd go
> >> > for the best rate you can find for your requirements.
> >>
> > "Toom Tabard" wrote
> >> That assumes the Financial Services Compensation
> >> Scheme would be adequate in event of meltdown. It's
> >> not clear that would be the case for major meltdown.
> >
> >> The reason Northern Rock and NS&I are consider
> >> 'safest' is because of the government guarantee.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > But - would even the govt "be adequate
> > in the event of major meltdown" ??- Hide quoted text -
>
"Toom Tabard" wrote
> No, but it's got more money than the FSCS
> can raise. The question was about the 'safest'.
>
> The FSCS covers defaults by a levy on the other members. For
> bank retail deposits it can raise £1.8 billion per year from banks.
> If thet's not enough it can levy all types of members bringing the
> total to £4.1 billion per year. For major meltdown there would
> be a problem if the larger, or several major banks, defaulted,
> because they would be normal source of some of the levy.

Do you really think that, if the standard FSCS resources (which
you detail above) were insufficient, but the govt could still afford
it, that the govt wouldn't inject extra funds into the FSCS?

If you think not, then why not?

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, hungerdunger wrote:

> "TheScullster"  wrote in message 
> news:tvmdnVhxP6t_KwfVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> > Hi all
> >
> > With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building Societies, 
> > where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
> >
> If your total ISA savings are less than £35k,

It has been increased to 50K (per financial institution).

-- 
Chris

Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, hungerdunger wrote:
> 
> > If your total ISA savings are less than £35k,
> 
> It has been increased to 50K (per financial institution).

Has that yet come into force?

Peter

"Chris Lawrence" <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Pine.BSF.4.64.0808091219500.6043@ochre.gradwell.net...

It has been increased to 50K (per financial institution).

No it hasn't.  They are looking at the possibility, but no decision has yet 
been taken.
-- 
Hungerdunger
To reply by email, remove the MARX from my address

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008, hungerdunger wrote:

> "Chris Lawrence" <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:Pine.BSF.4.64.0808091219500.6043@ochre.gradwell.net...
> 
> It has been increased to 50K (per financial institution).
> 
> No it hasn't.  They are looking at the possibility, but no decision has yet 
> been taken.

Practically you can treat it as 50K now; by the time you've shuffled 
your money around it will be.

-- 
Chris

On 9 Aug, 11:04, "Tim"  wrote:
> > >> > "TheScullster" wrote
> > >> >> With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building
> > >> >> Societies,
> > >> >> where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
>
> > >> "hungerdunger" wrote:
> > >> > If your total ISA savings are less than £35k, then all
> > >> > banks and building societies are equally safe. I'd go
> > >> > for the best rate you can find for your requirements.
>
> > > "Toom Tabard" wrote
> > >> That assumes the Financial Services Compensation
> > >> Scheme would be adequate in event of meltdown. It's
> > >> not clear that would be the case for major meltdown.
>
> > >> The reason Northern Rock and NS&I are consider
> > >> 'safest' is because of the government guarantee.
>
> > "Tim" wrote:
> > > But - would even the govt "be adequate
> > > in the event of major meltdown" ??- Hide quoted text -
>
> "Toom Tabard" wrote
> > No, but it's got more money than the FSCS
> > can raise. The question was about the 'safest'.
>
> > The FSCS covers defaults by a levy on the other members. For
> > bank retail deposits it can raise £1.8 billion per year from banks.
> > If thet's not enough it can levy all types of members bringing the
> > total to £4.1 billion per year. For major meltdown there would
> > be a problem if the larger, or several major banks, defaulted,
> > because they would be normal source of some of the levy.
>
> Do you really think that, if the standard FSCS resources (which
> you detail above) were insufficient, but the govt could still afford
> it, that the govt wouldn't inject extra funds into the FSCS?
>
> If you think not, then why not?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On the same principle that the Chancellor can refuse the Bank of
England permission to act as lender of last resort to banks if public
money is at risk, and given that the government does not step in
willingly in other areas where pensions are lost or with profits
annuities devalued, I'm not aware that intervention would be
guaranteed. I'd be interested in any information about the existence,
or likelihood, of any government guarantee for bank deposits.

Toom

> >> >> > "TheScullster" wrote
> >> >> >> With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building
> >> >> >> Societies,
> >> >> >> where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
> >> >> >
> >> >> "hungerdunger" wrote:
> >> >> > If your total ISA savings are less than £35k, then all
> >> >> > banks and building societies are equally safe. I'd go
> >> >> > for the best rate you can find for your requirements.
> >> >>
> >> > "Toom Tabard" wrote
> >> >> That assumes the Financial Services Compensation
> >> >> Scheme would be adequate in event of meltdown. It's
> >> >> not clear that would be the case for major meltdown.
> >> >>
> >> >> The reason Northern Rock and NS&I are consider
> >> >> 'safest' is because of the government guarantee.
> >> >
> >> "Tim" wrote:
> >> > But - would even the govt "be adequate
> >> > in the event of major meltdown" ??- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> > "Toom Tabard" wrote
> >> No, but it's got more money than the FSCS
> >> can raise. The question was about the 'safest'.
> >>
> >> The FSCS covers defaults by a levy on the other members. For
> >> bank retail deposits it can raise £1.8 billion per year from banks.
> >> If thet's not enough it can levy all types of members bringing the
> >> total to £4.1 billion per year. For major meltdown there would
> >> be a problem if the larger, or several major banks, defaulted,
> >> because they would be normal source of some of the levy.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Do you really think that, if the standard FSCS resources (which
> > you detail above) were insufficient, but the govt could still afford
> > it, that the govt wouldn't inject extra funds into the FSCS?
> >
> > If you think not, then why not?
>
"Toom Tabard" wrote
> On the same principle that the Chancellor can refuse the
> Bank of England permission to act as lender of last resort
> to banks if public money is at risk, and given that the
> government does not step in willingly in other areas where
> pensions are lost or with profits annuities devalued,
> I'm not aware that intervention would be guaranteed...

So why do you think that they'd help Northern
Rock in the event of a major meltdown? ...

Northern Rock is still a limited liability company, isn't it?
 - With the Govt holding shares in it.  If it goes under,
the shareholder(s) can just walk away with no liability...


"Toom Tabard" wrote
> ... I'd be interested in any information about the existence, or
> likelihood, of any government guarantee for bank deposits.

On 10 Aug, 17:42, "Tim"  wrote:
> > >> >> > "TheScullster" wrote
> > >> >> >> With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building
> > >> >> >> Societies,
> > >> >> >> where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
>
> > >> >> "hungerdunger" wrote:
> > >> >> > If your total ISA savings are less than £35k, then all
> > >> >> > banks and building societies are equally safe. I'd go
> > >> >> > for the best rate you can find for your requirements.
>
> > >> > "Toom Tabard" wrote
> > >> >> That assumes the Financial Services Compensation
> > >> >> Scheme would be adequate in event of meltdown. It's
> > >> >> not clear that would be the case for major meltdown.
>
> > >> >> The reason Northern Rock and NS&I are consider
> > >> >> 'safest' is because of the government guarantee.
>
> > >> "Tim" wrote:
> > >> > But - would even the govt "be adequate
> > >> > in the event of major meltdown" ??- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > "Toom Tabard" wrote
> > >> No, but it's got more money than the FSCS
> > >> can raise. The question was about the 'safest'.
>
> > >> The FSCS covers defaults by a levy on the other members. For
> > >> bank retail deposits it can raise £1.8 billion per year from banks> > >> If thet's not enough it can levy all types of members bringing the
> > >> total to £4.1 billion per year. For major meltdown there would
> > >> be a problem if the larger, or several major banks, defaulted,
> > >> because they would be normal source of some of the levy.
>
> > "Tim" wrote:
> > > Do you really think that, if the standard FSCS resources (which
> > > you detail above) were insufficient, but the govt could still afford
> > > it, that the govt wouldn't inject extra funds into the FSCS?
>
> > > If you think not, then why not?
>
> "Toom Tabard" wrote
> > On the same principle that the Chancellor can refuse the
> > Bank of England permission to act as lender of last resort
> > to banks if public money is at risk, and given that the
> > government does not step in willingly in other areas where
> > pensions are lost or with profits annuities devalued,
> > I'm not aware that intervention would be guaranteed...
>
> So why do you think that they'd help Northern
> Rock in the event of a major meltdown? ...
>
> Northern Rock is still a limited liability company, isn't it?
>  - With the Govt holding shares in it.  If it goes under,
> the shareholder(s) can just walk away with no liability...
>

Because of the memorandum of understanding of the circumstances in
which the the Bank of England will act as a lender of last resort. The
intervention was more designed to restore general stability and faith
in the banking system, and, it is claimed, public money is not
ultimately at risk.

But it is only the recent major problems involving many banks which
has shown-up the possible major inadequacy of the FSCS - it just
wasn't an issue before. It is not clear to me that any system,
including government compensation, could immediately guarantee savers
deposits if there was a serious meltdown involving several major
banks.

Toom

hungerdunger wrote:

> "TheScullster"  wrote in message
> news:tvmdnVhxP6t_KwfVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>> Hi all
>>
>> With all the issues surrounding stability of Banks/Building Societies,
>> where is the safest place to get a good rate on a cash ISA?
>>
> If your total ISA savings are less than £35k, then all banks and building
> societies are equally safe.  I'd go for the best rate you can find for
> your requirements.

Except possibly Icelandic banks that are covered by the Icelandic scheme.

If one of the big Icelandic banks were to go down, it is difficult to see
how other Icelandic banks or the Icelandic Government could afford to bail
them out.  It is not clear what happens if the Icelandic FSCS were to
default.

Tim wrote:

>> The FSCS covers defaults by a levy on the other members. For
>> bank retail deposits it can raise £1.8 billion per year from banks.
>> If thet's not enough it can levy all types of members bringing the
>> total to £4.1 billion per year. For major meltdown there would
>> be a problem if the larger, or several major banks, defaulted,
>> because they would be normal source of some of the levy.
> 
> Do you really think that, if the standard FSCS resources (which
> you detail above) were insufficient, but the govt could still afford
> it, that the govt wouldn't inject extra funds into the FSCS?
> 
> If you think not, then why not?

HSBC's assets are somewhere in the region of £1.2tn, RBS and Barclays are
about £1tn each, HBOS is about £600bn and Lloyds about £350bn.

The government's entire tax take is in the region of £600bn per year, so it
would seem that the Northern Rock bail out, about £25bn of actual cash paid
out, is at the limits of what the government could afford.

>>> > "Toom Tabard" wrote
>>> >> The reason Northern Rock and NS&I are consider
>>> >> 'safest' is because of the government guarantee.
>>> >
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> > But - would even the govt "be adequate
>>> > in the event of major meltdown" ??- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>> "Toom Tabard" wrote
>>> No, but it's got more money than the FSCS
>>> can raise. The question was about the 'safest'.
>>>
>>> The FSCS covers defaults by a levy on the other members. For
>>> bank retail deposits it can raise 1.8 billion per year from banks.
>>> If thet's not enough it can levy all types of members bringing the
>>> total to 4.1 billion per year. For major meltdown there would
>>> be a problem if the larger, or several major banks, defaulted,
>>> because they would be normal source of some of the levy.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Do you really think that, if the standard FSCS resources (which
>> you detail above) were insufficient, but the govt could still afford
>> it, that the govt wouldn't inject extra funds into the FSCS?
>>
>> If you think not, then why not?
>
"Jonathan Bryce" wrote
> HSBC's assets are somewhere in the region of £1.2tn, RBS and Barclays
> are about £1tn each, HBOS is about £600bn and Lloyds about £350bn.
>
> The government's entire tax take is in the region of £600bn per year,
> so it would seem that the Northern Rock bail out, about £25bn of
> actual cash paid out, is at the limits of what the government could 
> afford.

So the govt can afford to bail out other banks around the
size of NR, but the FSCS couldn't.  Now answer my
question - "Do you really think that, if the govt could afford
it, that the govt wouldn't inject extra funds into the FSCS?"