Stash The Cash

[Zodiac]

You are forgiven and shows character you accept the error.......

(B or HC!)

[chiang mai]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this - make no mistake, Naam knows full well the answer to this. By purchasing an interest rate swap for a fixed amount over a fixed period of time the bank can then sell that product on in small parcels to the likes of you and me. The question Naam will eventually ask is whether the underlying instrument that the bank purchased is secure now that the investment banks have mostly gone belly up. I don't know is the answer but I think it's largely irrelevant - the more important part to this all is that we understand that banks such as AIB use derivatives whereas the government does not, hence the lower rate on government bonds. I continue to believe that deposits into such bonds are fully insured under the deposit insurance scheme because the customer deposit is into the bank and not directly into the underlying derivative. Why do banks offer such schemes? It's a great way to attract customers and increase the account base and in the long run the bank will make money. The cost of the underlying derivative is spread across all participants in the fixed rate offering by means of a small interest rate spread so it doesn't really cost the bank anything in the first place - most importantly, when individual bonds mature a large percentage of people will forget to move their money into new investments which means the bank will have use of those funds at a paltry rate for as long as the customer leaves the funds in place. (did you ever see a notice that there is a penalty for early withdrawal?) Come 2011 under EU rules banks must begin to notify customers that a deposit bond has matured so that will end the period of free money for the banks. Finally, none of this is cause for alarm since all UK banks follow the same practice and they are allowed to do so under current FSA regulations.

Edited October 1, 2008 by chiang mai

[lannarebirth]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this. By purchasing an interest rate swap for a fixed amount over a fixed period of time the bank can then sell that product on in small parcels to the likes of you and me. The question Naam will eventually ask is whether the underlying instrument that the bank purchased is secure now that the investment banks have mostly gone belly up. I don't know is the answer but I think it's largely irrelevant - the more important part to this all is that we understand that banks such as AIB use derivatives whereas the government does not, hence the lower rate on government bonds.

I wouldn't worry about the discrepancy in rates if I were you. I'm sure the bank knows what it's doing. I mean, if it didn't know what it was doing, someone would be regulating it, right?

[chiang mai]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this. By purchasing an interest rate swap for a fixed amount over a fixed period of time the bank can then sell that product on in small parcels to the likes of you and me. The question Naam will eventually ask is whether the underlying instrument that the bank purchased is secure now that the investment banks have mostly gone belly up. I don't know is the answer but I think it's largely irrelevant - the more important part to this all is that we understand that banks such as AIB use derivatives whereas the government does not, hence the lower rate on government bonds.

I wouldn't worry about the discrepancy in rates if I were you. I'm sure the bank knows what it's doing. I mean, if it didn't know what it was doing, someone would be regulating it, right?

touche!

[tommyj4]

AA fix for 1 year 7.21% paid monthly but need to send the deposit in by cheque. Only 1st 35k covered possible legislation change to 50K.

Allied Irish 6.8% paid monthly fix for 1 year, again need to pay by cheque. Covered upto 78K

ING 6.5% paid monthly, again initial deposit by cheque covered up to 35K.

BE CAREFUL WITH THE ICELANDIC, NIGERIAN & CYPRIOT BANKS, THEY MAY COME UNDER EU PROTECTION WHICH MEANS YOU WOULD GET YOUR MONEY UPTO 35K IN TWO STAGES IF THEY GO BELLY UP.

NATIONWIDE IS PAYING 6.5% FOR A 1YEAR FIX PAID MONTHLY, MUTUALS ARE PRETTY SAVE COMPARED TO BANKS. ALL THE RATES QUOTED ARE GROSS, SO IF YOU ARE NON TAX PAYER COMPLETE YOUR R85 OR DEDUCT 20% SAVINGS TAX OR 40% IF YOU ARE HIGHER RATE TAX PAYER

[LaoPo]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this. By purchasing an interest rate swap for a fixed amount over a fixed period of time the bank can then sell that product on in small parcels to the likes of you and me. The question Naam will eventually ask is whether the underlying instrument that the bank purchased is secure now that the investment banks have mostly gone belly up. I don't know is the answer but I think it's largely irrelevant - the more important part to this all is that we understand that banks such as AIB use derivatives whereas the government does not, hence the lower rate on government bonds.

I wouldn't worry about the discrepancy in rates if I were you. I'm sure the bank knows what it's doing. I mean, if it didn't know what it was doing, someone would be regulating it, right?

I have to admit I never heard about this Bank but that doesn't mean they're not doing a good job. But it also means they could, like any other (Large Bank) go under.

I didn't concentrate on the guarantees as some of you did already.

Some figures from their website:

Interim Results 2008; period Six months ended 31 March 2008:

* Profit before tax up 17% € 647 Million

* Lending growth of € 6,1 Billion

* Strong growth in customer deposits, UP € 5.6 Billion to € 54.5 Billion

* Interim dividend of 7.78 cent, UP 20%

* 15% increase in earnings per share to 69.7 cent.

Credit Ratings not shocking good but reasonable (......) http://www.angloirishbank.com/Investors/Credit_Ratings/

Personal Savings Rates in Sterling/Dollar/Euro: http://www.angloirishbank.co.im/Personal_Savings/index.htm

Winner Best Offshore Account Provider http://www.angloirishbank.co.im/Personal_S...ducts/index.htm

Major Shareholders:

Shareholder------------Percentage Holding

Janus Capital Management LLC 7.12%

Invesco Perpetual 7.10%

Allianz SE 5.96%

Lehman Brothers International (Europe) 4.81%

Shares got a stiff beat in the past six months from just under € 10 down to € 2,5 and closed Oct. 1 at € 4.15

http://www.angloirishbank.co.im/index.htm

LaoPo

[taxexile]

A pledge too far?

Oct 1st 2008

From the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire

The government in Ireland guarantees all bank deposits

The Irish government has pledged to safeguard all deposits and debts of six of the country's leading financial institutions for a two-year period, in a bid to improve the banks' access to short-term funding. The move has restored a degree of calm to the markets after a sharp slump in domestic stocks, but the fragile outlook for Ireland's economy and the banks' considerable exposure to sliding property markets could yet scupper the government's plans.

Promises, promises

On September 30th the Irish government took action to guarantee all the deposits and borrowings of the country's six main financial institutions, in an effort to "safeguard the Irish financial system" and calm investors' concerns following a hit to Irish banking shares in the aftermath of Monday's global turmoil. The guarantee, which comes into effect immediately and will run for a two-year period until September 2010, covers all retail, commercial and inter-bank deposits as well as covered bonds, senior debt and dated subordinated debt at the Allied Irish Bank (AIB), Bank of Ireland, Anglo Irish Bank, Irish Life & Permanent (ILP), Irish Nationwide Building Society and the Educational Building Society. The combined liabilities of these six institutions are estimated at around €400bn (US$570bn), just over twice Ireland's annual GDP in 2007.

This bold move by the government came in response to the unprecedented events in the world's financial markets on September 29th, which saw two US and four European banks having to be saved from various stages of collapse by a combination of private- and public-sector support, followed by US lawmakers unexpectedly rejecting a planned US$700bn financial-rescue plan. As concerns spread over the financial well-being of banking institutions across Europe, the share prices of Ireland's banks plunged downward, in addition reflecting investors' fears over the banks' exposure to the country's sinking property market and an emerging economic slump. Ireland recently became the first euro area country to fall into recession, with GDP contracting by 0.5% (on a quarterly basis) in the second quarter of 2008, after a 0.3% decline in the first three months of the year.

Shares across the banking sector as a whole fell by 26% on September 29th—the largest one-day fall in two decades—with Anglo Irish Bank (whose loan portfolio comprises a high share of property investments) tumbling by 45% and ILP (Ireland's largest mortgage provider) sliding by 34%. Shares in the country's two dominant retail banks, AIB and Bank of Ireland, which together account for around three-quarters of all deposits, fell by 16% and 15% respectively.

<A name=funding_problems>

Funding problems

Although Ireland's banks have been highly profitable over a long period and are thus well capitalised, their considerable exposure to the domestic property market (as well as that of the UK), together with a reasonably high degree of dependence on interbank funding, had stoked concerns earlier in the year that the banks could encounter serious financing problems should the international credit crisis escalate further.

This is now what has transpired, with the freezing of money markets (in response to a sharp rise in counterparty risk) effectively cutting off the banks' main source of short-term funding. This, in turn, had raised the prospect of the banks encountering liquidity problems as the refinancing of term loans fell due in the coming months. The government will hope that by providing a wide-ranging guarantee, the country's banks will find it easier to access funds on the international market, since counterparty risk will be reduced by lenders knowing that their money is now backed by the state.

The government had also earlier raised the limit on the country's deposit insurance scheme from €20,000 to €100,000, now the highest in the EU. The subsequent announcement of the guarantee arrangement lent solid support to the country's financial stocks during Tuesday, with the share prices of Ireland's leading banks recovering ground, albeit not entirely offsetting recent losses. According to the government, the scheme will be subject to specific terms and conditions to protect taxpayers' interests, including a charge levied on the six banks concerned. Opposition parties have demanded an immediate debate in parliament on the plan, having raised some concerns about the finer details of the guarantee and the potential exposure to taxpayers.

http://' target="_blank">

Unfair advantage?

The move by the Irish government can hardly be seen as a vote of confidence in the country's banking sector, but could nevertheless help to ease some of the strains that have developed within the domestic system, while providing some reassurance to depositors in these uncertain times. Should it also prove to facilitate the strengthening of Irish banks' capital base and restore confidence to the market, it may quickly come to be seen as a template for other countries to follow. Indeed, concerns have already been raised by some European governments that the guarantee has handed Ireland's banks a competitive advantage, at the expense of their own financial institutions, which could now find it even harder than before to access wholesale funding and be more at risk of a run on their retail deposits.

That said, there is also no guarantee at this stage that the guarantee arrangement will work. Ireland's fragile economy, with its rapidly deteriorating fiscal position, high levels of debt and the banking sector's over-exposure to declining property markets does not present the most appealing prospect to investors. Should the money markets continue to withhold funding to the banks, the government may come to regret making such a lavish pledge.

[Naam]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this. By purchasing an interest rate swap for a fixed amount over a fixed period of time the bank can then sell that product on in small parcels to the likes of you and me. The question Naam will eventually ask is whether the underlying instrument that the bank purchased is secure now that the investment banks have mostly gone belly up. I don't know is the answer but I think it's largely irrelevant - the more important part to this all is that we understand that banks such as AIB use derivatives whereas the government does not, hence the lower rate on government bonds.

I wouldn't worry about the discrepancy in rates if I were you. I'm sure the bank knows what it's doing. I mean, if it didn't know what it was doing, someone would be regulating it, right?

are you trying to be sarcastic LRB or do you really mean it? the latter is not your style! but perhaps i'm wrong considering you always to be an icecold realist?

did the banks worldwide know what they were doing before they had to write off losses of 550 billions and expect now a 700 billion bail-out not to solve but to ease the mess?

[Naam]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this - make no mistake, Naam knows full well the answer to this.

yes i know the answer Chiang Mai and that's the reason why i act as advocatus diaboli. but let me assure you that i am not teasing you. all what i try to do is putting facts on the table and try to analyse and discuss them rationally without emotions, wishful thinking or wet dreams. i am also convinced YOU know very well how volatile and dangerous derivatives have become nowadays. all what i am trying to say is "there is no free lunch" and "if something looks to good to be true, it most probably is!"

[Naam]

I use Anglo Irish and believe me have been trying to get to the bottom of it.My Money is in the Isle of Man and is safe under the Irish Governments 2 year thing.Guess that means offshore.

EPG.

Never check these banks are fakes you will be crying soon.

They are all owned by New York Bankers

I have an icelandic account. Internet online and its pretty good

Knight... tenn hutt! take off your helmet and kneel down for prayers!

Edited October 2, 2008 by Naam

[chiang mai]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this - make no mistake, Naam knows full well the answer to this.

yes i know the answer Chiang Mai and that's the reason why i act as advocatus diaboli. but let me assure you that i am not teasing you. all what i try to do is putting facts on the table and try to analyse and discuss them rationally without emotions, wishful thinking or wet dreams. i am also convinced YOU know very well how volatile and dangerous derivatives have become nowadays. all what i am trying to say is "there is no free lunch" and "if something looks to good to be true, it most probably is!"

The AIB deal at 7% is a market leader currently and I doubt it can be beat for a rate of return. I also think they bought that product some time ago when Libor was very high and the cost to them was minimal. But because everyone was scared of what might happen people were afraid to buy into the product hence it stayed out there for some time. As of todays reports AIB yesterday had to stop answering telephone calls because they were swamped with so much new business and they will likely pull some of their products today as being fully subscribed. Similarly Northern Rock, a bank that few people wanted to have much to do with a few months ago is now approaching that point where they will not be allowed by the EU to accept any more new business (maximum percentage of business by state owned banks). I reckon that by next Monday only bland vanilla products will be available such as the 3.80% one year government bond you mentioned earlier. The risk now is that pendulum will swing too far the other way and that consumers will suffer as a result.

[Misty]

A pledge too far?

Oct 1st 2008

From the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire

Thanks for posting the above Economist article, Taxexile--hadn't seen it yet.

Separately, anyone have knowledge on deposit guarantees regarding cash in HSBC Jersey offshore accounts? Had a look at the Jersey Financial Services Commission website, where it says:

Q: Does Jersey have a depositor-protection scheme?

A:There is presently no depositor-protection scheme in Jersey but the introduction of such a scheme is being considered.

As the UK's GBP35k protection doesn't extend to offshore places like Jersey, my initial guess is there's no protection.

Cheers, Misty

[taxexile]

jersey offshore accounts have no protection , but the parent onshore banks usually offer protection to their offshore company based on the 35000 uk protection , i wouldnt like to have to rely on that should any of these banks go under , which is doubtful ....... but these are uncertain times and anything could happen.

[lannarebirth]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this. By purchasing an interest rate swap for a fixed amount over a fixed period of time the bank can then sell that product on in small parcels to the likes of you and me. The question Naam will eventually ask is whether the underlying instrument that the bank purchased is secure now that the investment banks have mostly gone belly up. I don't know is the answer but I think it's largely irrelevant - the more important part to this all is that we understand that banks such as AIB use derivatives whereas the government does not, hence the lower rate on government bonds.

I wouldn't worry about the discrepancy in rates if I were you. I'm sure the bank knows what it's doing. I mean, if it didn't know what it was doing, someone would be regulating it, right?

are you trying to be sarcastic LRB or do you really mean it? the latter is not your style! but perhaps i'm wrong considering you always to be an icecold realist?

did the banks worldwide know what they were doing before they had to write off losses of 550 billions and expect now a 700 billion bail-out not to solve but to ease the mess?

Sorry Dr. Naam, I'm emoticonically challenged and seldom know which is the correct one to choose to convey my sentiments. Yes, sarcastic. You know, another thing I noticed about this bank was it's rather rapid growth through acquisition. Always a warning sign for me.

[lannarebirth]

I know poster chiang mai has been waiting for this, so I won't delay it's posting any longer.

"They say that more money has been lost chasing yield than in any other area of investing." -Richard Russell

Anyhow, chasing yield, rather than identifying value is how we got into this mess isn't it?

Edited October 2, 2008 by lannarebirth

[chiang mai]

I know poster chiang mai has been waiting for this, so I won't delay it's posting any longer.

"They say that more money has been lost chasing yield than in any other area of investing." -Richard Russell

Anyhow, chasing yield, rather than identifying value is how we got into this mess isn't it?

I think this is a discussion about risk tolerance and where a person wants to be on the risk scale. I for one do not want to be at either end of the scale with government bonds and deposits in Jamaican Dollars being at either end of the scale. I'll happily go for a fixed rate bond from a major UK bank or similar as long as there are some guarantees thrown in. So I don't think this is a discussion about chasing yield entirely - I personally have no appetite for equities which is why I sit further down the risk scale with fixed term deposits.

[Naam]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this. By purchasing an interest rate swap for a fixed amount over a fixed period of time the bank can then sell that product on in small parcels to the likes of you and me. The question Naam will eventually ask is whether the underlying instrument that the bank purchased is secure now that the investment banks have mostly gone belly up. I don't know is the answer but I think it's largely irrelevant - the more important part to this all is that we understand that banks such as AIB use derivatives whereas the government does not, hence the lower rate on government bonds.

I wouldn't worry about the discrepancy in rates if I were you. I'm sure the bank knows what it's doing. I mean, if it didn't know what it was doing, someone would be regulating it, right?

are you trying to be sarcastic LRB or do you really mean it? the latter is not your style! but perhaps i'm wrong considering you always to be an icecold realist?

did the banks worldwide know what they were doing before they had to write off losses of 550 billions and expect now a 700 billion bail-out not to solve but to ease the mess?

Sorry Dr. Naam, I'm emoticonically challenged and seldom know which is the correct one to choose to convey my sentiments. Yes, sarcastic. You know, another thing I noticed about this bank was it's rather rapid growth through acquisition. Always a warning sign for me.

i thought as much but to be sure i thought i'd rather ask

[Misty]

jersey offshore accounts have no protection , but the parent onshore banks usually offer protection to their offshore company based on the 35000 uk protection , i wouldnt like to have to rely on that should any of these banks go under , which is doubtful ....... but these are uncertain times and anything could happen.

Agreed. Not likely to happen, but worth it to understand the situation and try to mitigate any potential risk. I should add that I have no reason to suspect this bank or any other for that matter, just thinking hypothetically.

It seems like it could get complicated if it came to a troubled parent bank trying to guarantee offshore accounts. Does the UK gov't then do like the Irish and offer gov't guarantees for offshore banks....Or maybe the offshore banks all carry adequate additional private insurance....

Guess I'll quit guessing and call and ask...

[LaoPo]

The point that Naam is trying to tease out of us all here concerns a banks ability to offer an interest rate that is higher than the the rate offered by the government and the answer of course is that it uses derivatives to achieve this - make no mistake, Naam knows full well the answer to this.

yes i know the answer Chiang Mai and that's the reason why i act as advocatus diaboli. but let me assure you that i am not teasing you. all what i try to do is putting facts on the table and try to analyse and discuss them rationally without emotions, wishful thinking or wet dreams. i am also convinced YOU know very well how volatile and dangerous derivatives have become nowadays. all what i am trying to say is "there is no free lunch" and "if something looks to good to be true, it most probably is!"

The AIB deal at 7% is a market leader currently and I doubt it can be beat for a rate of return. I also think they bought that product some time ago when Libor was very high and the cost to them was minimal. But because everyone was scared of what might happen people were afraid to buy into the product hence it stayed out there for some time. As of todays reports AIB yesterday had to stop answering telephone calls because they were swamped with so much new business and they will likely pull some of their products today as being fully subscribed. Similarly Northern Rock, a bank that few people wanted to have much to do with a few months ago is now approaching that point where they will not be allowed by the EU to accept any more new business (maximum percentage of business by state owned banks). I reckon that by next Monday only bland vanilla products will be available such as the 3.80% one year government bond you mentioned earlier. The risk now is that pendulum will swing too far the other way and that consumers will suffer as a result.

It's 7.12% actually..BUT:

1. That's for Sterling only and since this is an internationally orientated thread I posted the relevant link, earlier, with Sterling/Dollar and Euro rates as well; again here:

http://www.angloirishbank.co.im/Personal_Savings/index.htm

2. I gave some info in this link: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Stash-Cash-t...86#entry2249386

...and like Lannarebirth already mentioned, the bank grew enormously in a short period of time by means of -online- and word of mouth acquisition.

However, the share prices dropped, within 6 months from close to € 10, down to €2,50 and now around € 4.15 or so. That's a 60 to 75 % drop in 6 months....

3. I'm always reluctant with banks who give a lot higher rate than others in the market; the same with Icelandic and Turkish Banks. They also give higher rates then others...but I'm scared with such banks. UNLESS, like some stated that the deposits are fully guaranteed by the government. I have no idea with Turkish or Icelandic banks.

So....are those governments guaranteeing also for foreigners (non-UK) and to which extent/amount/currency ?

But, in fact you answered that question already, more or less, in your last sentences.

LaoPo

Edited October 2, 2008 by LaoPo

[Naam]

I know poster chiang mai has been waiting for this, so I won't delay it's posting any longer.

"They say that more money has been lost chasing yield than in any other area of investing." -Richard Russell

Anyhow, chasing yield, rather than identifying value is how we got into this mess isn't it?

I think this is a discussion about risk tolerance and where a person wants to be on the risk scale. I for one do not want to be at either end of the scale with government bonds and deposits in Jamaican Dollars being at either end of the scale. I'll happily go for a fixed rate bond from a major UK bank or similar as long as there are some guarantees thrown in. So I don't think this is a discussion about chasing yield entirely - I personally have no appetite for equities which is why I sit further down the risk scale with fixed term deposits.

CM, as you don't worry about your cash and your fixed deposit pays nearly double what U.K. Gilts pay your view has to be accepted.

my case is totally different because i DO worry keeping the lion share of assets in cash in ANY bank in these times. the cash in the bank would have yielded a pittance more (~0.23% p.a.) than my german "Gilts" so my decision was indeed a no-brainer. and that i switched nearly all my remaining cash Dollars into Euros was a no-brainer too as i can still speculate on a stronger Dollar by forward selling Euros at ZERO cost because the interest differential covers the cost. facit: my cash is safe, i can relax and i am still free to act as i deem fit.

[Naam]

2. I gave some info in this link: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Stash-Cash-t...86#entry2249386

...and like Lannarebirth already mentioned, the bank grew enormously in a short period of time by means of -online- and word of mouth acquisition.

However, the share prices dropped, within 6 months from close to € 10, down to €2,50 and now around € 4.15 or so. That's a 60 to 75 % drop in 6 months....

LaoPo

i wouldn't overrate that. hardly any big bank exists which did not lose big due to the sub-slime crisis and the same goes for the share prices.

[chiang mai]

I know poster chiang mai has been waiting for this, so I won't delay it's posting any longer.

"They say that more money has been lost chasing yield than in any other area of investing." -Richard Russell

Anyhow, chasing yield, rather than identifying value is how we got into this mess isn't it?

I think this is a discussion about risk tolerance and where a person wants to be on the risk scale. I for one do not want to be at either end of the scale with government bonds and deposits in Jamaican Dollars being at either end of the scale. I'll happily go for a fixed rate bond from a major UK bank or similar as long as there are some guarantees thrown in. So I don't think this is a discussion about chasing yield entirely - I personally have no appetite for equities which is why I sit further down the risk scale with fixed term deposits.

CM, as you don't worry about your cash and your fixed deposit pays nearly double what U.K. Gilts pay your view has to be accepted.

my case is totally different because i DO worry keeping the lion share of assets in cash in ANY bank in these times. the cash in the bank would have yielded a pittance more (~0.23% p.a.) than my german "Gilts" so my decision was indeed a no-brainer. and that i switched nearly all my remaining cash Dollars into Euros was a no-brainer too as i can still speculate on a stronger Dollar by forward selling Euros at ZERO cost because the interest differential covers the cost. facit: my cash is safe, i can relax and i am still free to act as i deem fit.

Unfair comments I think, inaccurate at best, I worked hard to earn my savings and I do worry about their security and well being but I'm not yet ready to put them under the mattress. I pay close attention to counterparty, risk, duration risk, currency risk etc - that I might chose to place some cash with a bank such as AIB would only happen as a part of an overall plan that considers all the risk factors within the context of low appetite for investment risk. Anyway, how is that the pot can call the kettle black when you the FOREX markets without any technical support! If that's not high risk I don't know what is.

[LaoPo]

2. I gave some info in this link: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Stash-Cash-t...86#entry2249386

...and like Lannarebirth already mentioned, the bank grew enormously in a short period of time by means of -online- and word of mouth acquisition.

However, the share prices dropped, within 6 months from close to € 10, down to €2,50 and now around € 4.15 or so. That's a 60 to 75 % drop in 6 months....

LaoPo

i wouldn't overrate that. hardly any big bank exists which did not lose big due to the sub-slime crisis and the same goes for the share prices.

I agree, but I'm not overrating it; just wanted to let others know how the share moved in the past 6 months and that was not very promising versus the results.

However, those interim results are known until March 31, 2008. The next 6 months until, including, September just finished and results aren't published yet of course and it remains to be seen HOW those results will be, taking the sub-slime crisis into consideration.

No idea IF and into what extent they were/are involved in the housing market in the US and/or UK...I mean, 7.12% interest is a LOT for a relatively small unknown bank. What industries could they possibly have invested their (clients') dosh to make MORE then the 7.12%

Scary to me.

LaoPo

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

The majority of my cash sits in banks in Australia and New Zealand which both pay a nice interest rate 7.8% and 8.7%. However in the last month or so I have seen a drop of about 15% from the high to where they are now in currency conversion. I'm not really to concerned as I brought the majority of the money in several years ago and the currency exchange rate was lower than it is now. Have no need to move the money out so I can afford to be patient and let the currency exchange go up before I need to move any.

I feel very comfortable with the NZ banks as they do not appear to be into the subslime mess. The banks hold their mortgage loans and only .12% are in trouble compared with 6% in the US. If you default on the loan you still owe any loss to the bank. Unlike the US where in 20 states ( I've heard) you can walk away from your loan with no recourse to you other than your credit rating. Of course if you have a poor credit rating it can be very difficult to rent. So if you do walk away from your mortgage you had better arrange a place to live first. Sorry seemed to have waundered off track.

[Naam]

Anyway, how is that the pot can call the kettle black when you the FOREX markets without any technical support! If that's not high risk I don't know what is.

my belly is my technical support since i made my first "real" money about three decades ago. at that time i had no bloody idea about economics or investing and asked silly questions such as "why does the U.K. Treasury pay 12 and 13% interest and i get only 2% on my german savings account?" of course sometimes my belly fails to give me correct information and i lose money. but as i mentioned before "important is to make more money than losing and spending".

technical support and similar (in my eyes) voodoo might work for some people. i don't deny that. but a couple of my former classmates were with technical support till recently slogging in their banks waiting to reach their pension age and enjoy retirement, whereas my [not so] humble self retired without the technical support you mentioned 18 years, 10 months and 2 days ago

but mentioning technical support in context with forex is totally irrelevant to the discussed point "is our cash safe?" i accepted your view that you are comfortable with cash in the bank

quote: CM, as you don't worry about your cash and your fixed deposit pays nearly double what U.K. Gilts pay your view has to be accepted.

what you can obviously not accept are valid opinions and facts. that's why you try to divert with unwarranted statements

quote: Unfair comments I think, inaccurate at best.. and "pot calling the kettle black"

when i am mentioning an investment possibility which i have used most probably more than a hundred times.

make up your mind whether you worry about your cash or you don't because it is guaranteed by the Irish Government. presently i am at a loss to understand because of your contradictions.

[ThaiLife]

Northern Rock cuts savings deals

Northern Rock has withdrawn a number of savings deals to new customers to ensure it does not abuse any competitive advantage.

The nationalised bank is one of few financial institutions that has a 100% guarantee for the safety of customers' savings, as it is government-backed.

On Thursday, it said that it had seen a "sizeable inflow" of deposits in recent days owing to financial turbulence.

It must cap its market share of UK retail deposit balances at 1.5%.

This commitment was made as part of the nationalisation deal.

The move comes as the Irish government confirmed legislation to guarantee the safety of 100% of savings at six institutions.

Savings shift

There have been widespread reports of savers moving their savings to financial institutions regarded as secure.

But savers setting up new accounts will generally have to wait a few days before they can put money in.

National Savings & Investments - the government's savings scheme - has a 100% guarantee, in the same way as Northern Rock.

A spokeswoman for NS&I said its call centre had seen "in increase in volumes of calls" in the last few weeks, but did not provide figures to show the level of the increase.

The Anglo Irish Bank said it had received a lot of calls from savers following the Irish government guarantee.

In the UK, only the first £35,000 is guaranteed but Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this was planned to be raised to the first £50,000.

Official figures for the flow of money out of accounts on Wednesday is unlikely to be available for another 10 days.

UK payments association Apacs said that no significant peaks had been spotted on transactions through the Chaps transmission service.

This service allows money to be transferred from one account to another in a day and is generally used for large sums of money.

The system that underpins internet and telephone banking did not show any big spikes either, Apacs said.

Rock cuts

Northern Rock cut its Silver Savings, Silver Savings 30, Business Reserve and a range of fixed rate bonds on Thursday.

This follows the recent withdrawal of its Fixed Rate Asset Bond and online E-Saver products.

"The self-imposed framework is designed to ensure Northern Rock does not take unfair advantage of government support during the period of temporary public ownership," a spokesman said.

When it was nationalised, Northern Rock said it would limit its share of retail deposit balances to 1.5% of the market in the UK and 0.8% in Ireland. Its share of gross new mortgage loans would also be no more than 2.5% of the UK market, it said.

A number of media commentators advised savers to turn to Northern Rock at the weekend. Northern Rock does not advertise its 100% guarantee.

Moving savings

One customer who has decided to move around his savings is retired accountant David Roots, from Somerset.

The 43-year-old had £102,000 saved with ING, £52,000 with Bradford & Bingley and £21,000 in an Isa with Alliance and Leicester.

He has decided to keep £35,000 with B&B and A&L owner Santander, another protected £35,000 with ING and the remaining £105,000 with the fully protected Anglo Irish Bank.

"I know it is selfish but I am concerned about what is happening," he said.

"If people move money around then it might destabilise the banking sector, but you have to act for yourself."

He called for the UK government to protect 100% of savings, and for more regulation to prevent banks lending beyond their means.

He is one of relatively few people who have more than £35,000 saved in one account.

Figures from the British Bankers' Association published last year suggest that 4% of the 150 million deposit accounts in the UK had funds in excess of the current guaranteed safety threshold of £35,000.

Some 2% of these contained funds in excess of £50,000.

However, these figures pre-date much of the banking crisis and it is highly likely that many of these savers have since spread these funds among various accounts.

Small businesses are also covered under the UK scheme for the first £35,000 of deposits.

They must satisfy two of the following three criteria: a turnover of not more than £6.5m, a balance sheet total of not more than £3.26m and a total number of employees of not more than 50.

Larger businesses are generally excluded from the scheme.

From ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7647914.stm

TL

[lannarebirth]

my belly is my technical support

You know that's where the entrails are kept, right Dr. ?

[Zodiac]

Do we have to be continually bored to death with Naam and his conceit and telling us about his tedious existence and what an expert he considers himself to be in financial matters?

He mentions voodoo, but what a witch-doctor is to medicine, he is to money matters.

This is the person who said in post number 12 re the Irish Government guaranteeing the Anglo Irish Bank IOM:

"unfortunately that guarantee is valid only for domestic but NOT for offshore banks".

That assertion was and is totally false and erroneous and he knows it, but has he not the courage to admit he was wrong.

Now it appears he has changed his tune but is all over the place giving all sorts of boastful and staggeringly bland bits of information.

Can't he get a life instead of giving us up to maybe 10 or more (often useless) postings daily for years?

[chiang mai]

Anyway, how is that the pot can call the kettle black when you the FOREX markets without any technical support! If that's not high risk I don't know what is.

my belly is my technical support since i made my first "real" money about three decades ago. at that time i had no bloody idea about economics or investing and asked silly questions such as "why does the U.K. Treasury pay 12 and 13% interest and i get only 2% on my german savings account?" of course sometimes my belly fails to give me correct information and i lose money. but as i mentioned before "important is to make more money than losing and spending".

technical support and similar (in my eyes) voodoo might work for some people. i don't deny that. but a couple of my former classmates were with technical support till recently slogging in their banks waiting to reach their pension age and enjoy retirement, whereas my [not so] humble self retired without the technical support you mentioned 18 years, 10 months and 2 days ago

but mentioning technical support in context with forex is totally irrelevant to the discussed point "is our cash safe?" i accepted your view that you are comfortable with cash in the bank

quote: CM, as you don't worry about your cash and your fixed deposit pays nearly double what U.K. Gilts pay your view has to be accepted.

what you can obviously not accept are valid opinions and facts. that's why you try to divert with unwarranted statements

quote: Unfair comments I think, inaccurate at best.. and "pot calling the kettle black"

when i am mentioning an investment possibility which i have used most probably more than a hundred times.

make up your mind whether you worry about your cash or you don't because it is guaranteed by the Irish Government. presently i am at a loss to understand because of your contradictions.

I think some things were lost in translation here because there are no obvious contradictions on my part: to imply that a person is not worried about their cash implies irresponsibility, laziness and other undesirable traits hence my rebuttal was to those aspects. Of course I am concerned about my investments and the underlying cash, who isn't - if you believe I have contradicted that sentiment you are mistaken. One of the reasons I am concerned is that I want to ensure a better return than the 3.80% government bond rate, a rate that actually costs the investor money because of erosion by inflation!

As for unwarranted comments regarding your forex trading without technical support, that was much more of a jocular poke in the ribs with the little finger than a severed limb using a butcher knife!

[chiang mai]

Do we have to be continually bored to death with Naam and his conceit and telling us about his tedious existence and what an expert he considers himself to be in financial matters?

He mentions voodoo, but what a witch-doctor is to medicine, he is to money matters.

This is the person who said in post number 12 re the Irish Government guaranteeing the Anglo Irish Bank IOM:

"unfortunately that guarantee is valid only for domestic but NOT for offshore banks".

That assertion was and is totally false and erroneous and he knows it, but has he not the courage to admit he was wrong.

Now it appears he has changed his tune but is all over the place giving all sorts of boastful and staggeringly bland bits of information.

Can't he get a life instead of giving us up to maybe 10 or more (often useless) postings daily for years?

A bit harsh I reckon. I thought Naam was actually doing quite a clever job (intentionally or otherwise) of trying to make people think about matters rather than being proscriptive, it certainly made me think about the subject. I think it's all down to a matter of style and taste.