When ING started up in the UK in March 2003 their rate was 4.5% against a BoE base rate of 3.75%. The difference between the two rates was 0.75%. Now everytime that there is a BoE base rate change, ING seem to shave a little bit more off the difference so now it is down to 0.45%. All other things because equal over a year (interest rate, etc) on a 10K balance that can mean a difference of around 30 (gross).
ING opened in the UK to the fanfare that their rates weren't introductory offers, however, it it obvious they are now heading in the same direction as most well established saving organisations. It's a shame really, I thought they would be different.
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
Really? Haven't you got your threes and fives mixed up? According to the horse's mouth, ING launched their account in *May* 2003 at 4.*3*%.
But down to .45 from .55 is not as bad as down to .45 from .75.
Still lamentable, but where else can you get 4.7%?
C
Chris Blunt
I suppose ING think that as long as they offer even slightly better rates than the competition, they'll still get as much business as they would if they were marginally more generous.
I'm currently looking for an investment which will give me monthly income from the proceeds of a house sale, and ING still seems to be the best bet. I could get around 0.2% more elsewhere, but only by tying the money up for a couple of years at a fixed rate. There doesn't seem to be much point in doing that in view of the likelihood of further interest rate rises.
Chris
T
Tracy Ramsden
try Alliance and Leicester Online Saver for 4.85% no catches
C
Chris Blunt
Not bad, except that interest is paid annually as compared to monthly with ING. Also maximum balance allowed is £25,000
Chris
J
Joe Hunt
Compared to ING's of 2 million
Joe
T
Tracy Ramsden
T
Tanuj Shah
Why? Will they run away with your money or something?
R
rob
No, they can go under.
P
PeterG
On Fri, 28 May 2004 22:24:32 +0100, rob wrote (in article ):
It has to do with the maximum that will be paid out should things go wrong. IIRC it is 90% up to £30k or something like that. Sadly the limit is not something that has had to concern me. :-o(
G
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Bitstring , from the wonderful person PeterG said
Purely in the interests of accuracy, it's actually £35k, per depositor (so you can stick £70k into a joint account).
P
PeterG
On Sat, 29 May 2004 01:04:57 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote (in article ):
Fair do'es for others but, it is still an academic moot point in my case. :( In days gone by...
Just curious, are you SURE it is per investor as in a joint account?
C
Clifford Frisby
If you were over the compensation limit, but happened also to have a mortgage with the same institution, with a balance greater than or equal to your savings, could you then sleep easy at night?
R
rob
Deposits
FSCS provides protection for customers of deposit-taking firms (for example banks, building societies and credit unions). The Scheme is triggered when an authorised firm goes out of business.
The Scheme may also be triggered when the FSA considers that an authorised firm is unable to repay its depositors, or is likely to be unable to do so.
The maximum level of compensation you can receive from the Scheme for a deposit claim is £31,700 (100% of £2,000 and 90% of the next £33,000).
The compensation limit applies to each depositor and covers the total of all their deposits held with that firm. Each individual in a joint account is eligible to receive compensation up to the maximum limit in respect of their share of the deposits (FSCS will assume the split is
50/50 unless evidence shows otherwise). [1].
rob
[1]
formatting link
G
GSV Three Minds in a Can
No. The creditors could come after you for the mortgage (in pecking order, i.e. government first), without you getting a look-in. Now if it was an offset mortgage you'd be fine, since you'd never be a depositor in the first place, AIUI.
J
john boyle
In message , Clifford Frisby writes
Sadly not. The liquidator/administrator etc., would still chase you for the debt.
T
Tim
"john boyle" wrote
"Debt" being: (1) the *mortgage*, or (2) the *difference* between the mortgage and the savings??
J
john boyle
In message , Tim writes
(1)
T
Tim
"john boyle" wrote
Oh - I thought there was a rule of "set-off" - or something like that ....
T
TJM
What's the definition of firm?
eg If I had 30,000 with Halifax, 30,000 with Birmingham Midshires and
30,000 with Intelligent Finance (all of which are part of the Halifax Bank of Scotland plc group) - are all three lots covered, ie 3 x (2,000 + 90% x
28,000) or just the total at 2,000 + 90% x 33,000 (max limit 35,000)?
J
john boyle
In message , Tim writes
Yes, I've been thinking about my reply since I sent it.
The rule of 'set-off' can apply usually in a banks favour BUT the ultimate test will come down to the wording of the underlying form of legal charge.
In days gone by, a banks charge form would cover 'all monies' and would cover, for example, the house purchase loan PLUS the overdraft, personal loan, Access card (although all of these latter items were apparently 'unsecured') etc., and so, equitably, I can see a judge going along with 'set off' in these circs.
Nowadays, the charge form (otherwise known as 'mortgage deed') for a domestic house purchase loan restricts its scope to a specific that loan it secures. This would imply that the debt is separate. BUT if a deposit taker went bust, and the protection scheme was insufficient to cover their liability to you, then what would happen?
After a long think I cant see how a bank's implied 'right of set off' would apply in reverse here, because of the nature and wording of the mortgage deed and loan agreement. This seems wrong and is a result of the Govts intervention in separating mortgage scope.
Although there is a debt of, say, £100,000, none of that is due today, only the next payment and the loan agreement makes this quite clear. So if you have a current account with the bust lender then all you could offset would be the payment currently due. The terms of the debt would still exist and you would still be obliged to keep making the payments.
I reckon a suit for any overall shortfall could only be resolved in equity and could go either way.
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.