Icelandic bank and British investers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by YouAreHavingALaugh, Oct 9, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Well,

    I always thought that if you want to invest your money offshore to make profit, it is up to you.

    However, now it all goes wrong they all bleat to the goverment and say I want my money gauranteed.

    Hello,

    you took the gamble

    And as for most of the counties in the country and many other organisations also doing the same, something was either too good to wish for or very dodgy.

    The bank has now collasped

    make your own decision.


    So if I decide that i want to invest in an adventure abroad and it all goes wrong, all I now have to do is ask for my money back from the goverment.

    hello, smell the coffee
     
  2. Well! If they won't divvy up we'll just have to send a couple of dozen frigates, that'll frighten 'em!


    Oh! Hang on ----------------------- deja vu!

    2BM
     
  3. Your talents are clearly wasted in S/Ms as it is evident you are a financial guru of the highest order :bball:
     
  4. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I had a laugh today listening to the ignorant morons on radio 2 ranting about this and sensed an awful lot of envy. Savings in ICEsave were not what anyone can realistically describe as "investment" and certainly not an offshore investment! The ICEsave account was pushed as being a UK subsiduary account, regulated by the FSA, the fact that they actually weren't, having only signed up to part of the agreement seems to me to have been deceptive. These savers were paying uk tax on their savings interest at either 20% or 40%. If you think all these people were investing their "millions" in high risk offshore investments think again, in fact have a look at their website still available: http://www.icesave.co.uk/regulatory-details.html or details of their supposed financial protection: http://www.icesave.co.uk/financial-protection.html


    Most, if not all of the private savers were just trying to get their money growing safely to beat inflation, the interest rates are hardly enormous at 6.5% gross (that's before they pay UK TAX on interest for the uninitiated)! These are retired people and families who wouldn't dream of gambling their life savings away. neither are they shareholders who would have (should have) known the risks.

    Having savings is what everyone should be aspiring to, when people lose those savings (often life savings that people have worked bloody hard and given up much to accumulate) we should be sympathetic and helpful, not envious and accusing.

    I don't have an icesave account by the way, the interest rate wasn't competitive in my opinion especially given the risk that I had to dig deep to discover. I get 10% gross on my savings in an institute that is regulated by the UK FSA and fully signed up as a UK registered bank, not investments but savings!!
     
  5. Be nice to know where you get 10% gross, are you a millionaire?
     
  6. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    Far from it, just very quick off the mark and it's only for a year, at the end of this year I'll find another though, paying 40% tax means that I'm still only getting a rate barely above the rise in cost of living so I'm unlikely to become one anytime soon. :thumright:
     
  7. Still be nice to know where you get 10% Gross.
     
  8. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

  9. I wish you well, but an Indian Bank is not for me, good luck.
     
  10. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    India ranks two places above the UK in international gold reserves and currently has an economic growth rate of about 8%, which is by the by really as my savings are in a UK bank and so fully regulated and protected by the UK FSA agreements......... Not offshore or any other "alternative investment" as a savings account it's fine, although I probably wouldn't use them for anything else, the bank as a whole lost $280M in the sub prime market but have audited assets of $100bn - the biggest bank in India so even were it not a UK bank risk would be small.
     
  11. Look on the bright side guys - you could be a West Ham supporter - I bet poor Gianfranco Zola (who I thought was one of the best foreigners ever to grace an English football pitch) is thinking about what a FUBAR he made going into English football management about now...........
     
  12. I find this particularly disturbing:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7662027.stm

    Remind me what the "anti terrorist" measures were about?
     
  13. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I find it reassuring that the UK govt had the nounce to use the quickest available legislation available to protect assets of UK citizens. What it doesn't mention is that Iceland started electronically transferring all uk held funds back to the Icelandic HQ, exactly what Lehman Bros are accused of doing days before they declared themselves bankrupt, once it's gone it's very difficult to get back, currently all is frozen...... bargaining power.
     
  14. Perhaps this is one of the times whe being poor is good, not investments to loose.
     
  15. Feel sorry for Iceland- their banks, like ours, got it badly wrong in the risks they chose to take. Unlike us, the Icelandic economy is tiny and they can't afford to bail their banks out (not that it looks to be working here- FTSE below 4000: it was at 6,500 a year ago).

    Their economy has collapsed. Gordon Brown, by threatening to seize assets in Icelandic companies is going to make their misery worse: it's bullying by a larger country pure and simple. What the hell were our local authorities doing investing our money in overseas banks? And why, when it first emerged that the Icelandic banks were a tad dodgy (see: http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/ )did they not withdraw the investments? And who's idea was it to get LAs to invest their cash, sorry, our cash from taxes, in the first place? Gordon Brown? Surely not.

    The real cherry on top of this particular cupcake of festering sh*te is the Government's use of anti-terror legislation to seize assets from a law-abiding nation. Yes it was expedient, but on that basis why not use antt-terror legislation to arrest people without trial? Much more convenient. It's also immoral.

    So LAs have lost about £1bn in Icelandic banks. Boo hoo. How big is the international development budget? £1bn. Bargain. Let's spend our taxes on services for our citizens. Or, if we have £50bn for our banks then presumably we have a reserve somewhere for councils.

    Or, just maybe, if we think that bankers should suffer for the risks that they took, then investors should suffer too for choosing to use those risks to get rich quick. Moral hazard applies to them to.

    Rant off.
     
  16. The person from the Goverment that recomennded it was:


    Two Jags Himself

    John (I am doing a runner) Prescott
     
  17. I must admit I don't feal that sorry about Iceland at all, they have enjoyed the good times from what may well have been dodgy dealing and now there is the pay back, as for GB bullying, the real problem was the suck back of cash from UK subsiduaries to pay of debts in Iceland, hence the freezing of assets, a bit like the suck back of cash from Leman which left UK employees without redundancy money whilst US bonuses were being paid.

    LAs need cash on deposit both to manage their cash flow and to maintain reserves for rainy days. UK law requires them to invest at reasonable risk for the best return hence if Icelandic banks were offering good returns and were showing OK risk levels they would have been wrong not to invest. The problem seems toi have been that to get the best returns they went for term investments where the pay back date was fixed so could not 'suck back' when the first signs of trouble appeared. One clear result will be even more red tape for LAs covering their investments and as a result higher taxes for us.

    One of life realities is that who ever cocks it up you and I pay. Get used to it.
     
  18. Looks like war again, if Brown is to be believed. As I don't, I think all will be well.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/7662599.stm

    I share the view that local authorities ought to have known better. As an amateur investor I have always understood that the accounts offering better interest (usually) incur greater risk to one's capital, more so with offshore investments. These were private banks which the government of Iceland have been obliged to nationalise. Iceland is in no economic position to reimburse foreign investors' the defaulted capital. If HMG recommended LAs invest in these private banks then they should foot the bill - after all they think nothing of bailing out British banks this week alone to the tune of £50bn whilst many of these same banks are about to award £3.5Bn in bonuses to senior staff.
     
  19. Have you seen how much some of the Bodies have invested there ? The Met - 30 million, Transport for London - 40 million. And the Councils - wow, some people's council tax bills are going to go up more than a little. Lucky old Guzz has 13 million there, whereas Kent has 50 !! Glad I came back home.
     
  20. Not that simple P2000,much of the money was invested in a Bond of some sort which required the cash to be left untouched for a period of time.If it was removed before that time finacial penalties would be levied and the Ratepayers would lose.With benefit of hindsight it is easy to say they should have seen it coming but with the UK Government squeezing their spending they were looking to make a little extra to spend on local services.
     

Share This Page