Could assets be evaporating while we wait for action?

  • two time loser
  • 10/10/08 21/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 12/10/2008 - 13:43

While one welcomes Michael Simpson of Pricewaterhousecooper's appointment as liquidator of the company one can't help being concerned about the media attention to Councils and Charities who have some £1 billion in other KSF group co's as well as UK depositors on whose behalf UK Gov't have sent a delegation to Iceland and have seized £7 billion of Icelandic assets in UK.

But what about us poor IOM depositor's? We should be in a superior posiiton because we have the parent co. guarantee and that co. has been Nationalised so effectively we have the Iceland Gov't guarantee. But are we being represented? I believe UK Gov't looks after the foreign affairs of IOM but isn't there a conflict here? The UK is more concerned with UK savers to whom they'll have to pay compensation than IOM savers who are out of their jurisdiction and yet I read that some 60% of IOM funds were loaned to the UK operations of KSF. Does this mean that our money could end up in UK savers hands who did not have a perent co. g'tee, while we don't have a claim on the UK FSA guarantee?

While I appreciate the need for restraint and to allow time for the situation to unravel could assets that might have been available to compensate us evaporate i.e., our share of the £7 billion of Icelandic assets seized in UK?

As one reads the erudite comments on this site I can't help wondering whether we are preaching to the converted. We're letting of steam to each other but who is hearing us?

I have written to the Liquidator suggesting that he circulates all KSF IOM depositors to direct them to this site to make them aware of its existence so that they might up-date themselves with the position and suggesting he use it as a means of conveniently addressing many of the concerned savers out there as to the current position and what action he as Liquidator is taking to protect our interests.

I asked him to pause for just a moment and reflect on how he would feel if all the cash in his bank account had suddenly been frozen and he had no access whatsoever to the funds he had set aside for living and various other liabilities one may quite reasonably have taken on. I said that while I appreciate the magnitude of the task that confronts him a brief reassurance that someone is acting in our interests and a statement about how we, as IOM depositors are being looked after in the talks going on in Iceland would be some comfort.

Two time Loser (I took my money out of Bradford & Bingley and put it in KSF IOM) is up for more immediate action before assets disappear, anyone else agree?

0
Your rating: None

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

"But what about us poor IOM

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 12/10/2008 - 14:23

"But what about us poor IOM depositor's? We should be in a superior posiiton because we have the parent co. guarantee and that co. has been Nationalised so effectively we have the Iceland Gov't guarantee. But are we being represented? I believe UK Gov't looks after the foreign affairs of IOM but isn't there a conflict here? The UK is more concerned with UK savers to whom they'll have to pay compensation than IOM savers who are out of their jurisdiction and yet I read that some 60% of IOM funds were loaned to the UK operations of KSF. Does this mean that our money could end up in UK savers hands who did not have a perent co. g'tee, while we don't have a claim on the UK FSA guarantee? While I appreciate the need for restraint and to allow time for the situation to unravel could assets that might have been available to compensate us evaporate i.e., our share of the £7 billion of Icelandic assets seized in UK?

From a Jersey perspective ... You could well be right on many levels, IMO, although there are other factors.

  • The IOM Government will want to retain credibility as a Financial Centre, and thus would not wish to upset the local voters [I read your post that you were local]. It would also wish to remain competitive with other offshore locations. In that context, the total lack of protection currently afforded by Jersey and Guernsey is pertinent. Thus I could envisage Tyndwald wishing to see a satisfactory resolution [albeit that it carries minimal weight in Inter-Governmental negotiations] to preserve its position.

  • The present UK Government cares nothing for the Crown Dependencies, per se, and given its current electoral standing would possibly see supporting those who bank offshore as an Electoral Negative. Thus I see the UK Govt doing little specifically to defend the interests of British expatriates and offshore investors..

  • Jersey and Guernsey Governments are depressingly inept, and akin to a UK Borough Council ... without the intellectual skills of officials living in adjacent Boroughs. The likelihood of any effective input from them, now and in the future, can be discounted.

  • The Finance Industry, in the IOM and the Channel Islands, has the most to lose. It also has the lawyers, and International contacts. I suspect that the salvation will not come from self-seeking, self-aggrandising Politicians ... but instead self-seeking, self-aggrandising Financiers who will be keen to restore some credibility in the aftermath. And Politicians NEED Financiers.