Channel 4 News coverage will be TOMORROW NOW (Thurs 23rd Oct)

  • Elpasout
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 22/10/2008 - 20:39

Channel-4 News will screen a piece about us tonight (Thurs 23-Oct)

I think this piece will be a stunner! Fingers crossed. Lets hope its worth the wait/planning.

(Moderated to remove program details)

0
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

working lunch

  • aikom
  • 16/10/08 21/06/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 11:46

just had a small mention on working lunch bbc 2, Just outlining wanting assets returning to IOM


e-mail to Jon Snow

  • 208
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 10:50

Dear Jon,

Re: Your statement referring to offshore jurisdictions during last evening's news broadcast

" You know as well as I do one of the reasons why these tax havens exist is for tax evasion, tax avoidance and for money laundering" .

My wife and I were deeply distressed by the above remark which we feel to be offensive, callous and incorrect.

We live in the Isle of Man and, along with many other residents, used KSF (IOM) as our high street bank, having both instant access and savings accounts with the bank. Your remark only added to the anguish we are feeling.

Many island residents have been left without access to their day to day money and potentially without their savings. Some are feeling suicidal. In addition to individuals, charities on the Isle of Man also stand to lose a lot of money. (Please see attached report). Do you consider Isle of Man residents and charities as tax evaders or money launderers ? I am sure that you are not interested in tales of island farmers whose life savings appear to have been wiped out or people whose retirement savings may be lost and are too old to work to rebuild their pension, tradesmen who now cannot access their money and may go out of business, hospice money that may now have gone. Need I go on?

I have been told of too many stories of suffering, not only on the island but worldwide, caused by this situation. As you know there are people living overseas who were unable to leave their savings in the UK and so had no alternative but deposit their money offshore. Many of these people find themselves destitute and living on the good nature of neighbours -their hard earned savings wiped out.

I hope I have made it clear that people bank in the Isle of Man for practical and legal reasons.

David xxxxxxx

I attached a report concerning the Isle of Man Hospice

PLEASE SEND A SIMILAR MESSAGE OUT TO WHOEVER "WE DEPOSITORS ARE NOT TAX DODGERS".
TAX DODGERS DO NOT GET PUBLIC SYMPATHY WHICH WE NEED TO FURTHER OUR CAUSE.


C4 News - shall we write to Treasury to explain the telephone

  • sabi Star
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 10:37

Shall we write to Treasury to ask them to explain their telephone message to Channel 4 News last night???
Who would we write to to?


Ch4 news last night

  • Stormy
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:23

I can get last nights report in France at:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/manx+crisis+blamed+...
I turned my proxy server off and still got it so good luck!


outside Europe we cannot see C4 news ...is there a

  • neilbkk
  • 10/10/08 08/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 10:49

transcript or can it be posted to YOutube........everyone is saying how good it was ...but we would like to say it was good as well but cannot........frustrated in Asia!

Tried the proxy server route no luck..


C4 news outside Europe see youtube reply to neilbbk

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:11

To all we have our own youtube vids

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/node/261


It's the Thai goverment -

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 10:54

It's the Thai goverment - there are still blocks on from some ISP's - what I can see in Ayutthaya, I can't see in Angthong - try using a simple youtube proxy to watch C4, it is not caused from the UK, I can open it here.


Ayutthaya

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:31

What are you doing in Ayutthaya? Not on a royal barge, I hope?


problems watching Channel 4 outside Asia use this ->

  • neilbkk
  • 10/10/08 08/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:06

Thanks to Captain M!!

https://youtubeproxy.org then type in www.channel4.com


I'll be in BKK next week some

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:11

I'll be in BKK next week some time, do you fancy a pint in say Jools bar Soi 4 if you have a moment? I understand that fat Dave exploded one night and it is now under new management, but still OK.


Jools

  • neilbkk
  • 10/10/08 08/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:50

Great idea..will email you.


Jools

  • neilbkk
  • 10/10/08 08/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:52

Captain M...can you enable your email!! or email me instead..Thanks


UK TV for those not in the UK

  • JS
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 08:50

ENGLISH TV ON THE NET. It uses a proxy server to trick the host site that you are in the uk..also useful for watching videos etc on bbc website.

  1. Go to the proxy server site :

http://slypimp.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2J...Y29t&hl=3ed

  1. Use the proxy site to go to the website :
    http://www.tvcatchup.com/
    i.e. simply type in the tvcatchup.com web address into the box on the proxy website and hit enter. You need to use the proxy site as it tricks the registration process into thinking your computer is in the UK.

3 You are now on the TVcatchup website, but going through a "proxy" server

4.Register with tvcatchup. i.e. create a logon and password. Give an email address. Note down password and logon

5.Close the internet browser.

  1. Open browser and go directly to
    http://www.tvcatchup.com/
    No need to use the proxy site any more as your "British" account is already created.

  2. Enter your login and watch as much TV as you want.


TV catchup

  • julianm
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 10:55

thanks for the info JS! Did exactly as you said and it works a treat. I live in Germany but was still able to watch yesterdays C4 news directly from their website without using the proxy server. Maybe there is some sort of european reciprocal arrangement. Didn't know about tvcatchup so that's going to be very useful as long as its all legal - terms and conditions say you must have an address at the location for which the original broadcast was intended.


slypimp

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:44

the server slypimp is not found
boo!
Ooh, that would have been nice!
The good news is I had no trouble with the Channel 4 link.
www.channel4.com


proxy server link for those outside UK..not work

  • neilbkk
  • 10/10/08 08/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:05

Hi JS

Can you confirm this is correct since I have tried numerous times no result....we are desperate for something like this since we cannot view the channel 4 news expat was on...nor BBC etc

Grateful if you can confirm. If this works it will be great.

Thank you

neilbkk


http://www.publicproxyservers

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 10:50

http://www.publicproxyservers.com/page1.html

79.99.43.128 - on port 3128 (isn't that a squid port?) works OK for me - follow the instructions from the URL above.


Channel 4 programme last night-- HMG late announcementTreasury

  • coleridge
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 08:33

Dear All

I hope I wasn't the only one who listened to the whole Channel 4 news-- including the part after KSFIOM.

Reason is that towards the end of the programme John Snow reported a rather mysterious comment from HMG Treasury to the effect that the £550m was NOT held in a KSFUK account, and therefore not subject to administration could this allude to the fact that this might precipitate the release of the money.

Snow and his fellow presenter were as confused as I was- over the ramifiactions. Did anyone tape the whole programme? Is this a get out for HMG ahead of today's meeting-- ie they can say that the £550m may be repatriated - having seen the head of steam that has been developed.

Haven't read the papers yet-- boat in late today.

Can we find out EXACTLY what was said to Snow in the HMG message?

regards
etc


C4 Treasury Quote - There or Here

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:27

Jon Snow looked totally bemused by the quote he was reading out and his co-presenter Carl just put his hands out as if to say what the hell did that mean. The exact words were:

"Returning to our report about depositors on the IOM since we've been on air we've had a call from the Treasury pointing out that although they did transfer deposits from Kaupthing UK into another bank they didn't freeze the assets of the Icelandic bank there. I hope that's clear. More 4 news.....

There - where is there? I would assume they mean the IOM and indeed they didn't freeze the assets of KSF IOM in the IOM but they have frozen the assets of KSF IOM in the UK - that would be "here"....


If the UK or the IoM doesn't have the Funds then

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:20

They must be back in Iceland.


Wrong Tree

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:29

Guys... I think you are all barking up the wrong tree here about that Treasury statement to Channel 4, I don't think there is any significance to it.
The Treasury is correct, neither they nor anyone else did "freeze" the assets of KSFUK.
KSFUK's assets are not frozen.
KSFUK was put into "administration" and remains that way.
The two things are different, and presumably the Treasury called up to correct.
I'm not an expert but this is my understanding.


absolutely right

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:53

Occam is absolutely right. The only significance of the Treasury statement is that it is trying to obfuscate the matter of the missing £600m. It is unfortunately already a matter that causes journalists' eyes to cloud over, and the Treasury are merely taking advantage of that.


plausable deniabily and the

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:55

plausable deniabily and the good journos don't get caught


Beeing picky

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:33

I realise this may seem like I'm being picky but no assets of KSFIOM have been 'frozen' anywhere...they have been 'seized'.

There is a big big difference in the two and we need to make sure this gets out. 'Freeze' implies they've been temporarily put out of reach until some sort of agreement is reached at which time they will be returned. 'Seized', on the other hand, implies that they have been taken for good. Taken to pay for Gordon's guarantees. There is no suggestions in the word 'seized' that the assets will ever be returned.

If you get in front of the press don't let them talk about 'frozen assets'....push the fact that they were seized,and if necessary explain the difference to them.


Exact words. What was said at the end of C4 news last night

  • madmax836
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:03

Just had a call from the treasury......................
"Although tey did transfer deposits from Kaupthink UK to another bank, they didnt FREEZE assets of the Icelandic Bank There (IOM)"
"I hope that helps"


the money has never been

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:31

the money has never been frozen cold-dose made that clear 10 days agom, KSF London is inreccievership becaue of an action by the UK gov, which came from
1 a stupid comment bt darling
2 poor judgement by the fsa/fsc, who took an action that caused a run

that is the story that has to get out and will be out in the FT this weekend i hope


transcript of Late Treasury annouchment on C4 News last night

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:01

I recorded the whole news and this is what was said
"since we have been on air we have had a call from the treasury, they want to point out that although they did transfer deposits from Kraupthing UK into another bank , they didn't freeze the assets of the Icelandic bank there, I hope thats clear"

Not for me it isn't ................


re transcript of Late Treasury annouchment on C4 News last night

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:31

What I think they were trying to say - yes they did transfer the assets of one bank (Kaupthing UK) to another bank (ING) but did not freeze assets there (Kaupthing IoM).

ie they didn't freeze the assets of Kaupthing IoM in the IoM

quite right they took the assets of Kapthing IoM deposited in Kaupthing UK --- subtle play on words


Letter to Chief Secretary Mary Williams..

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 10:25

Here is a copy of an email sent early this morning to the Chief Secretary IoM Civil Service. She is meeting today with the UK Treasury and FSA. Might explain something...

Dear Mary Williams,

In recognition of Lord Turner's position as Chairman of the Financial Services Authority UK, I have emailed the letter below this message to him in support of the Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Depositors Action Group.

I am aware that you are heading a Senior Delegation of the Isle of Man Government due to meet today with the UK Treasury and FSA, and respectfully offer a copy of the letter to Lord Turner for the consideration of your party in their efforts to bring a satisfactory conclusion to the depositors and residents of the Isle of Man caught up in this tragic affair.

One question I did not pursue in my letter to Lord Turner is by what mechanism does the UK FSA continue to hold these assets? My understanding, gleaned from a variety of media sources and public announcements, is that the UK Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act was invoked in response to circumstances pertaining to Landsbanki UK Ltd. Although the UK Government publicly announced a freeze on all Icelandic assets, this proclamation was clarified in a letter to PM Geir Haarde two days later stating that it was only the assets of Landsbanki that were in fact 'frozen'.

The announcement toning down the freeze on all Icelandic assets to one relating only to Landsbanki assets went without fanfare, but enough time had by now passed for the seriously worried UK public to start a run on ALL Icelandic banks - including Kaupthing UK. This bank was put into Administration, but as it was not the bank subject to frozen assets under the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 should have been subject to different legislation.

Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (IoM) was/is a subsidiary of the parent bank Kaupthing H.f. (Now New Kaupthing) in Iceland, and not a subsidiary of Kaupthing UK. The Isle of Man is a British Island and not part of the United Kingdom or the EU, and the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act was not in force on the island. As announced by Mr Aspden, the FSC was responsible for moving £555,000,000 of the Icelandic subsidiary's assets from the Isle of Man's jurisdiction into that of the United Kingdom. These assets were placed on deposit within the United Kingdom bank of Kaupthing currently under the control of the UK FSA. These expropriated assets belonged to the subsidiary of an Icelandic bank not subject to the freezing order placed on Landsbanki under the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act. Had these assets been placed on deposit with e.g., Lloyds TSB bank UK, they would almost certainly be back on the Isle of Man by now.

Kaupthing UK was placed under Administration by the UK authorities because a silent run instigated by injudicious comments made by HMG reduced its liquidity below set limits, but KFSIOM was not in their jurisdiction, and expropriating assets belonging to another Government's Administration was beyond their remit. Those assets were not theirs for the taking under the Anti Terrorism law because Kaupthing H.f. and its subsidiaries were not included in the freeze on assets - as admitted by the UK Government in the letter to Iceland.

There is growing conjecture that the UK FSA working under sealed orders of the UK High Court intends to use these assets to help pay back the millions of pounds used to 'bail-out' depositors using UK mainland banks. Action must be taken and announcements made to end this speculation soon. It cannot be legal - let alone moral - for the property of one country, under the care and control of another governance, to be taken and impounded by yet another State using an Anti Terrorism Act not specifically targeting the company whose assets have been taken.

I am indebted to you for taking the time to consider these matters.

Yours sincerely
......................
KSFIOM Depositor

The Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008 (effective Oct 8)

http://www.sa.is/files/Public%20Notice%20171008_1360918010.pdf

Letter to Lord Turner attached to original

IceCrusher


Very clearly articulated

  • David9J
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 10:25

Thanks Icecrusher.


They're playing with words here!

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:20

Of course they transferred deposits from Kaupthing UK in to another bank....ING!!!!!! And they're hardly going to freeze ING!!!! They're trying to muddy the water for the people listening to the news.

Where is the £555million? Did they transfer this to ING? If so was it their money to transfer?


its called plausable

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:28

its called plausable deniability


Lets get this out in a press

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:24

Lets get this out in a press release and see if we can get a response.


I think I get it...

  • 491
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:05

Its the difference between some kind of legislative seizure of assets and a more diplomatic approach: push the assets out of Iceland's immediate reach - then use FSA to declare a technical default so that all assets fall under the receiver's control. End result is the same isn't it? Blair


offer an explanation

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:57

I think you have misunderstood. If it helps, this is my understanding:

The IOM bank is a creditor of the UK bank, because it holds an account with the UK bank (just as each of us holds an account with the IOM bank). According to what we have been told, that account showed a balance of £550 million in favour of the IOM bank. However, there is/was not a little pile of money stored in the UK bank with a label on it saying "KS&F(IOM)", so what has been written above makes no sense.

Now, when the UK bank was taken over, any liquid money it had was effectively frozen. Doubtless that was much less money that the amount owing to all its creditors, including the IOM bank. Now that money has been transferred to another bank, and there is nothing left at all in the UK bank. That money is now being used to pay UK depositors in the UK bank, and as I understand it the UK government will make up the difference, if there is one, using its own funds. The IOM bank will then remain an unsatisfied creditor of the UK bank.

However, if that is what is happening then it means that the IOM bank has effectively subsidised the pay-outs made to UK depositors. because the amount of UK depositors' money that will have to be topped up by the UK government is reduced. This is because the return of 100% of money to UK depositors is taking priority over the return of any money to the IOM bank and certain other creditors of the UK bank. The end result is that there will be no money left in the UK bank's kitty to give to creditors of the UK bank, such as the IOM bank.

If that is what happens, then the IOM bank will not recover the £550 million it is owed by the UK bank, and its own depositors will not recover the bulk of their deposits. That means that the UK government has reduced its own liability to depositors in the UK bank (who will get 100% return) by ensuring that they are first paid out of funds that would otherwise have been used to pay creditors (depositors) in the IOM bank. The end result is that depositors in the IOM will get far less than 100% return.

Does that make sense now?


Elgee & Cold-Dose

  • 491
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 21:50

Elgee - Re your above comments. Yes, thank you - it does help to make a bit more sense of this.
Cold-Dose - Your comments below help to clarify also. Put together it's a very good picture.

We (KSFIoM) are an unsecured creditor in the UK bank. Got it. And of course there is no giant pot of money there with our name on it. So we must prepare ourselves for the likelihood that liabilities exceed assets and get in line.

One thing still gets me: We've been told that the KSF IoMs deposit in KSF UK was at the behest of Mr. Aspden because of his concerns for the "Icelandic bank". If he was so concerned, then why, in your minds, did he feel so much more comfortable pushing these funds to the UK sub of the same bank that concerned him. And then (two things get me) - I've worked in banking for years and have never seen a regulator assume an asset management role without the whole jig being up. What say you on this?


I can't speak for cold-dose ...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 23:03

I can't speak for cold-dose, but no-one should rely on my postings as being authoritative. Whereas many of those here have acquired a great deal of money and must therefore be highly proficient at whatever it is they do, I barely have a pot to piss in and the amount I lost in this fiasco was less than £10k, almost all of which was money saved for one of my children.


Pot of money

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:29

The good news is that any pot of money that KSF UK have will still be there - it hasn't been spirited away by HMG.

I too am puzzled by the FSC statement. At lot of things about it don't add up. For a start, what is known about the historical practices of S&F IOM and Derbyshire IOM is that they upstreamed funds to the UK. The annual accounts seem to suggest this as well, and finally - it would be more fiscally efficient to remit Sterling into a Sterling economy where it can be more directly invested or loaned.

Also, if there were concerns about the health of the overall Kaupthing group, why move the money to another subsidiary? Given the worsening state of the financial world, wouldn't it have been more prudent to have regulated to ensure that banks spread their assets across a range of other institutions - not put a very large percentage into one corporate entity? Bring in a maximum percentage to stop the 'eggs all in one basket' scenario we have here.

The FSC would naturally be in backside-covering mode - I wonder if they are talking up a bit of informal 'advice' they passed on rather than a direct asset management instruction?

The suggestion they were stepping in and explicitly directing the bank as to where to put its funds is rather odd, and whichever way this statement is looked at, it isn't the indication of prudent regulation that the FSC seemed to think it was when they made it.


as far as I can tell

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:07

It appears that Aspen's decision in this respect was dictated by the FSA (that means, of course, the UK government), back in the spring or early summer.

That would be the same UK government that was somehow able to foresee, on 6 October, that Darling would be having a telephone conversation the next day that would alert him, much to his great surprise, to the (most probably misunderstood) intention of Iceland not to honour its guarantees.

What more can I say?


when n(unknowns) > n(equations)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:44

It doesn't add up because there are facts missing and/or lies are being told, or more likely we are given only as much of the truth as may be required to mislead us.


Nothing Add Up

  • 491
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:32

Agreed - I can't see IoMs regulator making this decision without FSA involvement. But to "dictate"? There is just no line of authority there. (Soft power?) And then there is the timing - there was a reference to this begining in the Spring like you say, but I'm pretty sure Kaupthing was experiencing good deposit growth well into the Summer - so what is to alert anyone in the spring? No big sucking sound from Iceland. And probably, given Kaupthing UK's need to fund its rapidly growing domestic loan book, the funds would have been flowing to the UK anyways.

And then there's the whole matter of Aspden's regulatory intervention by degrees: "I'm concerned enough to start directing fund flows, but not concerned enough to blow the whistle. I'm concerned enough to push funds away from Iceland, but not enough to avoid their dodgy-by-association subsidiary in the UK." Neither FSC nor Kaupthing have to press release this intervention?? Kaupthing hf doesn't go apesh*t about the interference?? None of it adds!

Blair


The explaination

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 20:54

Elgee,

This is the most coherent history of this saga anyone has written so far.

Everything is bang on up to the second paragraph. The sequence of events at that point was:

  • The FSA assessed KSF UK as not meeting banking licence conditions any longer (exactly what conditions, not known)
  • HM Treasury made an order under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008. That order transferred the deposits (i.e. only the debts, not the actual money) of the Kaupthing Edge UK accounts to ING. It also stated that KSF UK - or the administrator, if it went into administration (hmm, they could see the future!) - was obliged by law to give priority to helping ING get the Kaupthing Edge accounts operating, and needed to provide interim access to records, computer systems, and so forth. All the money for ING came from the Government (£1.9bn was made up of Depositor Guarantee payments from FCSC, £600m from the Treasury)
  • As a result, KSF UK owed the entire £2.5bn to the UK Government instead of owing it to the depositors
  • The UK Government applied to put KSF UK into administration. The petition to the court etc. showing the reasons they gave the court for this action is sealed, and therefore secret.
  • By entering KSF UK, all liquid funds were frozen.
  • The priority for the administrator, as per the ING transfer order, was to assist ING with records and computers and the like. (Incidentally, ING has to pay all the administrator's fees for this)
  • The UK Government is still owed all £2.5bn - they are just another unsecured creditor.

The UK Government cannot get it hands on the KSF UK money any better than KSFIOM's liquidator can. They cannot prioritise a creditor in that manner without getting the law changed. They'll both get paid at the same time, and both get the same percentage of the money they are owed.

It is currently all in the hands of the UK administrators, E&Y.

There are a couple of minor but important points that are slightly wrong though:


question for cold-dose

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 21:34

cold-dose,

I'm have a bit of trouble getting my head round your post, but I'll take it as read!

Given that you say " The UK Government cannot get it hands on the KSF UK money any better than KSFIOM's liquidator can. They cannot prioritise a creditor in that manner without getting the law changed. "

What possible way out is there for HMG - with regard to our issue - if it transpires that KSF-IOM funds get swallowed up in the KSF-UK administration?


Ways out

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:18

The government couldn't disadvantage unguaranteed UK depositors (i.e. companies) by changing the liquidation rules, because that really would be unfair. The process for a liquidation is also laid down by law, and cannot be changed by whim.

Therefore if HMG are shown to be 'at fault' and need to apply some kind of 'fix' to the KSFIOM situation then the only likely routes are paying for it out of their own funds, or some kind of loan fix-up if there's money owed by Iceland (or to bring the Icelandic parental guarantee into play).

Obviously, not all the funds would just 'disappear'. KSF UK will have assets of its own - it's just another version of what's going on with KSFIOM, but one step removed.

What we're lacking at the moment is any real information on where those assets are, and how they are doing at recovering them.

With Kaupthing Edge accounts appearing to be now up-and-running under ING, hopefully E&Y can stop running around helping them, and get into looking at where the money is, and report back (via Mike Simpson) to us.


Thanks

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 22:57

Cold-dose,

Thanks for your opinion.

Heaven forbid that HMG could be shown to be 'at fault' !!!


The explaination

  • arny
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 21:14

Thank you Cold-Dose, lots of of us can only retain our sanity thanks to you guys, with the knowledge.


far, far less...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:57

elgee
That's an insicive synopsis you have there; logical but dissapointing, because after all we've done, your conclusion brings us no reward...

IceCrusher


rewarding ..

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 13:11

I may be completely wrong. Anyway, there is some prospect of a reward, but only by political negotiation.


IOM Bank

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:40

Could you run that again please?

The Isle of Man has no bank/lender of last resort.

It has no central bank. Its central bank is the Bank of England.

Isle of Man Bank was part of NatWest and taken over by RBS. It does issue Manx bank notes but the natural note for the IOM is Bank of England (BoE). notes.

The BoE charges face value per note supplied. ie Seignorage.

In order the avoid this the Isle of Man prints its own notes but then buys UK securities etc and places these with HM Govt/UK Treasury in order to give notes issued by the Isle of Man Bank some value/backing and to enable direct exchange for UK Sterling.

The IOM earns interest on this collateral held in the UK.

Guest workers on the IOM like to send money home in BoE notes but the banks hate it as they have to buy BoE notes from UK so they fob them off with IOM notes issued by Isle of Man Bank.

There is no clearing bank for IOM which is why your money goes through London.

RBS looks fair set now to be under UK control so IOM Bank has a political master. See my item in Jersey Evening Post and Guernsey Press. It may be on the Internet version This Jersey/Guernsey.

This currency account is seen in the IOM "Pink Book".


Manx Money

  • barrie stevens
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 12:58

Manx Money. It might be easier for some of you if you think of Isle of Man notes as "Air Miles" or better still "Tesco Club Card" points...This does seem to be an obsession!