»

[treader.]

i'm really not clued up on this, but i'm with barclays and RBS.


am i (in theory) going to be okay!?

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by Hugh_Jazz

Don't think so. You're covered up to £35k per "authorised institution". If the merged bank, retains separate authorizations (eg. RBS and Natwest) for the individual banks and you've savings in both, you'll be covered up to £70k

Read this on the BBC yesterday.

I don't actually think this is right - the BBC is notoriously wrong at times, and it's been quite public that it's regarded as 35k per institution. I'm pretty sure that for instance, 35k with the Halifax and 35k with Cheltenham and Gloucester would now be seen as one institution.

Are your savings safe?: Full guide to protect your cash ...

Seemingly, you're right about RBS and Natwest - which is strange, seeing as it's all part of the RBS Group. I'm very surprised the FSA has allowed this - the Royal Bank of Scotland and Natwest have shared back office functions in a lot of respects, and are one bank under the covers.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by ed howson

am i (in theory) going to be okay!?

Yes.

Everyone's going to be ok.

But Barclays and RBS are massive, bigger than HBOS or LLoyds (until yesterday anyway) so would never be allowed to collapse. They also don't have the same exposure as HBOS did by being the UK's biggest mortgage lender.

[treader.]

ace.

i should probably pay attention to the news sometime...

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by ed howson

i'm really not clued up on this, but i'm with barclays and RBS.


am i (in theory) going to be okay!?

Barclays have just stuck $7 billion into a slush fund with a bunch of big American banks for each to use as it needs, so I wouldn't worry about them. They also avoided potential disaster in the form of ABN Amro, which RBS ended up owning part of (and suffered as a result).

RBS are a huge company and aren't likely to be in trouble anytime soon. They've suffered with their exposure to sub-prime lending, but nothing likely to seriously trouble them. They also own quite a few subsidary companies with nothing to do with banking - in short, they'll be fine.

RBS also own Coutts. Say no more.

Edit : as an aside, the trouble in the world is being reflected quite keenly here. I was getting about 4.05zl to the pound when I arrived here, yet I'm now getting 4.22-4.24 without any logical explanation.

Bad times, as I'm earning in Zloty.

[Hugh_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Cloud

I don't actually think this is right - the BBC is notoriously wrong at times, and it's been quite public that it's regarded as 35k per institution. I'm pretty sure that for instance, 35k with the Halifax and 35k with Cheltenham and Gloucester would now be seen as one institution.

Are your savings safe?: Full guide to protect your cash ...

Seemingly, you're right about RBS and Natwest - which is strange, seeing as it's all part of the RBS Group. I'm very surprised the FSA has allowed this - the Royal Bank of Scotland and Natwest have shared back office functions in a lot of respects, and are one bank under the covers.

That's the point....a merged bank CAN retain multiple authorizations for its constituent banks if it chooses to do so even though it may merge many of it's operations behind the scenes . In this event, you're covered up to £35k per authorized institution.

Whether Lloyds will do this with HBOS though is anyone's guess.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Hugh_Jazz

Whether Lloyds will do this with HBOS though is anyone's guess.

I think they might as they've said BOS will continue to print Scottish bank notes, which if it didn't retain separate PLC status I'm not sure it would be allowed to do.

[Hugh_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Cloud

RBS are a huge company and aren't likely to be in trouble anytime soon. They've suffered with their exposure to sub-prime lending, but nothing likely to seriously trouble them. They also own quite a few subsidary companies with nothing to do with banking - in short, they'll be fine.
.

Because HBOS being a huge company did them a load of good didnt it?

I think what is an irrefutable fact is that none of us have a fucking clue which company could be next. The whole market is totally unpredictable just now.

RBS have struggled as much as anyone recently, and to glibly say that "they'll be fine" is ridiculous.

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by Hugh_Jazz

Because HBOS being a huge company did them a load of good didnt it?

I think what is an irrefutable fact is that none of us have a fucking clue which company could be next. The whole market is totally unpredictable just now.

RBS have struggled as much as anyone recently, and to glibly say that "they'll be fine" is ridiculous.

HBOS wasn't that big though - they weren't much of a player on a world scale, yet had managed to build up a huge exposure to the mortgage market in the UK. If anything, they were being punished for exactly the same reasons as Northern Rock - and hence why Lloyds were in a much stronger position with their relative lack of exposure and sensible lending.

I don't think the UK government would risk RBS failing. If they did fail, then the confidence in the UK banking sector could be fatally destroyed. Brown is still clinging on - but any hint of RBS being in trouble and he'll be gone.

Originally Posted by Hugh Jazz

That's the point....a merged bank CAN retain multiple authorizations for its constituent banks if it chooses to do so even though it may merge many of it's operations behind the scenes . In this event, you're covered up to £35k per authorized institution.

Whether Lloyds will do this with HBOS though is anyone's guess.

The word is that the merged bank will retain the Lloyds TSB name, with BoS being dropped (and I suspect spun off somehow...though no-one is agreeing with me on this) and Halifax retained in some capacity. With a merged branch network, they'd surely be forced into having only one authorisation.

This concept of some banks having multiple authorisations and some not is utterly ridiculous - if the banks are completely seperate and simply owned by one company, fine - but how can RBS and Natwest be truly seperate if the back office functions are merged? Dreadful, dreadful regulation.

[Hugh_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Cloud

The word is that the merged bank will retain the Lloyds TSB name, with BoS being dropped (and I suspect spun off somehow...though no-one is agreeing with me on this) and Halifax retained in some capacity. With a merged branch network, they'd surely be forced into having only one authorisation.

Exactly whose word is this? Havent heard this anywhere.