The following is an extract from a just-published article by Nadeem Walayat on securing your bank deposits in the UK:
UK Savers Emergency Plan:
a. Ensure that you have at least 2 current accounts across banking groups.
b. That you have procedures in place to ensure that you can act fast to initiate transfer of funds from instant access savings accounts, especially if your total funds with a particular banking group exceeds £50k / £83k (1st Jan 2011).The best strategy is to limit exposure per banking group to the limit.
c. Do not have ANY savings are fixed deposit exposure to banks that do not fall under the UK Financials Services Compensation Scheme.
d. Limit exposure to PIIGS banks, that is Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy as these are at the most risk of going bust thus triggering a lengthy process of Savers having to wait for compensation.
The following list represents Britians' largest deposit taking banking groups and the banks that fall under each.
Note whilst banking groups may have multiple licences as a consequence of mergers and takeovers, however they also may be in the process of merging licences so for ultimate safety one should remain focused on banking groups.
LLOYDS BANKING GROUP
Lloyds TSB Bank
AA Savings
Bank of Scotland / HBOS
Birmingham Midshires
Capital Bank
Cheltenham & Gloucester Savings
Halifax
Intelligent Finance
Saga
SANTANDER GROUP
Santander bank
Abbey National
Asda Savings
Alliance and Leicester
Bradford and Bingley
Cahoot
Moneyback
Honycomb
Nationwide Building Society
Nationwide Building Society
Cheshire Building Society
Derbyshire Building Society
Dunfermline Building Society
BARCLAYS GROUP
Barclays Bank
Standardlife Bank
HSBC GROUP
HSBC Bank
First Direct
Marks and Spencer Financial
ALLIED IRISH GROUP
Allied Irish Bank
First Trust
CITI GROUP
Citibank
Egg
CO-OPERATIVE GROUP
Co-operative Bank
Britannia
Smile
Unity Trust Bank
RBS Group
Royal Bank of Scotland
Nat West Bank
Direct Line Savings
Lombard
The One Account
Drummonds
Ulster Bank
Additional comments
Foreign Banks under UK FSCS Scheme - ICICI (India), First Save (Nigeria)
Small business are covered by the FSCS on the basis of 2 of following 3 conditions - upto a turnover of 6.5 million, less than 50 employees, balance sheet total not more than £3.26 million
Banks not under the UK FSCS.
Post Office - Currently Guaranteed by the Irish Government, pending coming under the UK FSCS.
ING Direct, Tridos - Dutch
Anglo Irish, Bank of Ireland - Ireland
Don't delay! Act today to form a quick personal savings protection contingency plan, otherwise you may wake up one day to find yourselves locked out of your funds Iceland style!
For more on how to protect your wealth from debt default bankruptcy see the Inflation Mega-trend Ebook (FREE DOWNLOAD)
Comments and Source: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article24572.html
By Nadeem Walayat
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk
Copyright © 2005-10 Marketoracle.co.uk (Market Oracle Ltd). All rights reserved.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Using our brains
It is common wisdom that the Soviet Union and associated states collapsed because of the failures of centralized planning. Then why do we allow and encourage the same kinds of structures in large corporations and government in the West?
The ostensible reason given is easy to defend: large entities can be much more efficient. As a secondary reason (not usually stated), large entities also mean a concentration of power and wealth.
The problem with efficiency is that it comes at a price. This is not only the loss of jobs and transfer of wealth, but more disturbingly the catastrophic nature of any breakdown. We saw it in 2003 with the power grid in the US, in 2008 with the collapse of the banking system, and in new cars, which are much more reliable and efficient than those from the 1970’s, but harder and more expensive to repair.
The key to preventing or mitigating future disasters in finance, oil, energy and water appears to be the opposite of our past practices. Rather than make everything bigger, we should take a hint from the designers of the World Wide Web, and decentralize as much as possible. This will take planning and cooperation, and a thought process unlike anything since World War II. Just consider: how many large purchases for homes, business or government consider the long-term costs of maintenance?
The ostensible reason given is easy to defend: large entities can be much more efficient. As a secondary reason (not usually stated), large entities also mean a concentration of power and wealth.
The problem with efficiency is that it comes at a price. This is not only the loss of jobs and transfer of wealth, but more disturbingly the catastrophic nature of any breakdown. We saw it in 2003 with the power grid in the US, in 2008 with the collapse of the banking system, and in new cars, which are much more reliable and efficient than those from the 1970’s, but harder and more expensive to repair.
The key to preventing or mitigating future disasters in finance, oil, energy and water appears to be the opposite of our past practices. Rather than make everything bigger, we should take a hint from the designers of the World Wide Web, and decentralize as much as possible. This will take planning and cooperation, and a thought process unlike anything since World War II. Just consider: how many large purchases for homes, business or government consider the long-term costs of maintenance?
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Doing the same idiot thing ...
What makes the scientific community different from most groups of humans is the willingness of the group (but not necessarily individual scientists) to let go of emotionally-satisfying hypotheses when they are not supported by the data.
By contrast, consider education and government.
For at least two decades, we have been warned by business and government leaders that we need more graduates in the technical fields, just to sustain our infrastructure. Even in these tough economic times, the graduates in Engineering, Mathematics and Geology are finding good jobs. These disciplines require a great deal of Mathematics training to succeed, and our Education College experts hold to the philosophy that the key to that teaching is pedagogy. To that end, they have tried to make it easier to learn, to reduce the speed at which the students learn the material, or to dispense with material altogether. These huge experiments have not made a significant difference in the graduation rates in these subjects.
To my experimental mind, this suggests that the difference is one of innate ability, which is anathema to the John Dewey philosophy of education as a social equalizer. Instead, we just try to pump even more money into failing ideas.
In the case of government, we can look at tax policies. Since the 1950’s, the tax burden has shifted from corporations to individual taxpayers. Within that latter group, the past 30 years have seen a shift, where the lowest 50% or so pay very little in taxes, and the marginal tax rates for the wealthy have gone steadily down. All of these changes were supposed to make our economy strong, and have utterly failed. Yet, what is the current mantra? Cut taxes for business and keep the tax cuts for the wealthy (including preferential rates on capital gains and no estate tax).
While I can readily understand that the rich and powerful would have this view, what is it that makes middle-income and poor Americans support this idea?
By contrast, consider education and government.
For at least two decades, we have been warned by business and government leaders that we need more graduates in the technical fields, just to sustain our infrastructure. Even in these tough economic times, the graduates in Engineering, Mathematics and Geology are finding good jobs. These disciplines require a great deal of Mathematics training to succeed, and our Education College experts hold to the philosophy that the key to that teaching is pedagogy. To that end, they have tried to make it easier to learn, to reduce the speed at which the students learn the material, or to dispense with material altogether. These huge experiments have not made a significant difference in the graduation rates in these subjects.
To my experimental mind, this suggests that the difference is one of innate ability, which is anathema to the John Dewey philosophy of education as a social equalizer. Instead, we just try to pump even more money into failing ideas.
In the case of government, we can look at tax policies. Since the 1950’s, the tax burden has shifted from corporations to individual taxpayers. Within that latter group, the past 30 years have seen a shift, where the lowest 50% or so pay very little in taxes, and the marginal tax rates for the wealthy have gone steadily down. All of these changes were supposed to make our economy strong, and have utterly failed. Yet, what is the current mantra? Cut taxes for business and keep the tax cuts for the wealthy (including preferential rates on capital gains and no estate tax).
While I can readily understand that the rich and powerful would have this view, what is it that makes middle-income and poor Americans support this idea?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A snapshot of the Irish disaster
In their third-quarter survey of credit default swaps (insurance against debt default), CMA Datavision rate Venezuela the riskiest country by far (see first graph); but currently (Tuesday, 23 November 2010 16:30 BST) the sub-investment grade of Allied irish Banks (AIB) is much, much worse (second graph).
Some might say that supporters of the Euro currency system are throwing good money after bad. It is not a good thing to let the markets sense an emotional attachment to a position, and the bond traders may find a way to exploit this weakness, just as George Soros did when the UK attempted to preserve its link to the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The crisis of "Black Monday" (16 September 1992) merely made Soros a billion dollars and cost the UK Treasury £3 billion sterling.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Some might say that supporters of the Euro currency system are throwing good money after bad. It is not a good thing to let the markets sense an emotional attachment to a position, and the bond traders may find a way to exploit this weakness, just as George Soros did when the UK attempted to preserve its link to the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The crisis of "Black Monday" (16 September 1992) merely made Soros a billion dollars and cost the UK Treasury £3 billion sterling.DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Inequality, housing costs and resetting the economy
Previously published on the Broad Oak Blog:
____________________________________
Charles High Smith posts (as many times before) on the widening inequality of income and asset ownership in the USA. This time he uses it to explain the apparent recovery from recession: "The top 5% of Americans by income are responsible for 37% of all consumer spending-- about the same as the entire bottom 80% by income (39.5%)."
Among the useful links at the bottom of his post is one to an earlier article of his entitled "Why We Keep Getting Poorer: High-Cost Housing." Back in April, I took a graph (below, with some style additions by me) from Calculated Risk to illustrate that point.
It seems to me that if the USA (and the UK, and Europe generally) wants to get competitive with the Far East, our wages will have to drop. But they can't until our debts are reduced.
____________________________________
Charles High Smith posts (as many times before) on the widening inequality of income and asset ownership in the USA. This time he uses it to explain the apparent recovery from recession: "The top 5% of Americans by income are responsible for 37% of all consumer spending-- about the same as the entire bottom 80% by income (39.5%)."
Among the useful links at the bottom of his post is one to an earlier article of his entitled "Why We Keep Getting Poorer: High-Cost Housing." Back in April, I took a graph (below, with some style additions by me) from Calculated Risk to illustrate that point.
(adapted graph from Calculated Risk) - click on image to enlarge
It seems to me that if the USA (and the UK, and Europe generally) wants to get competitive with the Far East, our wages will have to drop. But they can't until our debts are reduced.
Debt default, or debt forgiveness, may be the only way out.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)