Moral Hazard

[ewx]

[Poll #1057683]

(FTAOD I'm not saying that the two situations are identical apart from the scale - I'd hoped 'actually' and 'potentially' would indicate that, if a hint was actually needed.)

Comments

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

By taking deposits Farepak was effectively operating as a bank and I think it should therefore have been regulated as one. If this had happened, it would of course have then fallen under the remit of the deposit guarantee scheme and its customers would have got back 100% of their deposits (since less than £2,000). However, the more likely result would have been that it wouldn't have been able to operate in the regulatory environment and its customers would have had to find other ways to save.

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

IAWTC.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

?

(I think I agree with Gareth above)

[lnr]

So did truecatachresis. "I Agree With This Comment".

[lnr]

And incidentally so do I :)

Given that it *wasn't* regulated as a bank I'm not sure what the answer is mind.

[angoel.livejournal.com]

The question is thus "how do you make people aware of which entities offer the guarantee provided by a bank".