by Twilight » Fri 01 Feb 2008, 21:19:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', 'S')orry twilight.
No, you misunderstand, it's OK, the issue is more important than whose post sparks the discussion. If this gets a response here, that's a good thing.
Anyway, for me the most worrying revelation here is the state of the FSCS. I already knew it was too small to safeguard the deposits of a large bank, and that its budget covers a whole range of other situations, not exclusively deposits, but this thing about it being stuffed full of IOUs is news to me.
Banks don't have to pay into the FSCS until someone implodes, and right now they can't afford to?
. . .
My eyes nearly popped out of my sockets when I read that. Firstly, it truly is a fair weather mechanism. You can tell the people who put it together came from a country which had not had a retail banking crisis/run in living memory. Secondly, how complacent must the government be, drawing attention to this fact in plain view? Thirdly, how disconnected from reality must the people of this country be, not even giving this a passing mention on the comments page one click away, when a recent bank failure and run is involved in the discussion?
It effectively means the FSCS will not pay out in the event of multiple large bank failures unless it receives government funding.
This is like reading in the NYT that FDIC doesn't really contain that much money because everyone took a payment holiday.
And yet no-one cares because the government makes everything better, right?
The pointless comparison of different countries' deposit insurance arrangements we had in the news media last autumn focused exclusively on
amounts, oh if only they had instead educated the public on the basics of the different funding models while they had their attention.
I guess my money isn't insured after all. Silly me. Someone post a facepalm.
As for everything else in the story, the government is basically saying it's OK to file a misleading statement provided you run it past them for approval first. Am I being cynical in reading it this way?
Oh yeah - sigged.