Latest on the old Kaupthing Bank ( now Arion Bank) - scandals? What was the Icelandic regulator, F.M.E., doing?
I wonder what developments, scandalous or not, are emerging from the relics of the Old Kaupthing Bank, now the Arion Bank. In criticising the FSC and the FSA, in the collapse of KSFIOM, I wonder what the Icelandic financial regulator, the F.M.E., was doing. They were in the "know". They saw the mighty rise of the Icelandic banks and must have been aware of their over-extended nature by late 2008. They must have also been aware of the nepotism in the financial and banking world in Iceland - always a hot bed for unethical practises. What were they doing to supervise activities within their banks? The level of fraudulent activities being exposed in Icelandic banking now somewhat intimates they weren't patrolling their financial institutions very well. I include a few articles of interest.
Deutsche Bank Investigates Former Landsbanki’s Principal Players
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_i...
04/04/2010 | 12:11
Deutsche Bank Investigates Former Landsbanki’s Principal Players
According to Ríkisútvarpid the German banking giant Deutsche Bank is now investigating the actions of the owners and managers of Landsbanki prior to the October 2008 collapse to see if any laws were broken. The station claims the investigation aims at finding out whether those involved might be prosecuted in either Iceland or Germany and if some lost money can be recovered.
Björgólfur Gudmundsson
Deutsche Bank was the biggest lender to Iceland and has presumably lost a very large sum of money. The burning question is if there was some fraud involved, misleading or false information. At the heart of the matter is the question on whether some money made it to so-called tax heavens, in the Caribbean or elsewhere.
Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson/ Photo Geir Ólafsson
The story said that the investigating team has obtained information from the fallen bank and the NBI, the new bank built on its ruins. The work of the two CEOs Sigurjón Árnason and Halldór Kristjánsson are said to be scrutinized as well as the two main owners, Björgólfur Gudmundsson and his son Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson. Both father and son were thought to be among the thousand richest men in the world in 2007 according to Forbes.
None of those named in the news item seems to have been contacted for comment.
Deutsche Bank Investigates Former Landsbanki’s Principal Players
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_i...
04/04/2010 | 12:11
Deutsche Bank Investigates Former Landsbanki’s Principal Players
According to Ríkisútvarpid the German banking giant Deutsche Bank is now investigating the actions of the owners and managers of Landsbanki prior to the October 2008 collapse to see if any laws were broken. The station claims the investigation aims at finding out whether those involved might be prosecuted in either Iceland or Germany and if some lost money can be recovered.
Björgólfur Gudmundsson
Deutsche Bank was the biggest lender to Iceland and has presumably lost a very large sum of money. The burning question is if there was some fraud involved, misleading or false information. At the heart of the matter is the question on whether some money made it to so-called tax heavens, in the Caribbean or elsewhere.
Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson/ Photo Geir Ólafsson
The story said that the investigating team has obtained information from the fallen bank and the NBI, the new bank built on its ruins. The work of the two CEOs Sigurjón Árnason and Halldór Kristjánsson are said to be scrutinized as well as the two main owners, Björgólfur Gudmundsson and his son Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson. Both father and son were thought to be among the thousand richest men in the world in 2007 according to Forbes.
None of those named in the news item seems to have been contacted for comment.
@hopefull
That is the big question, how do we now progress this matter. If anyone has a sensible idea, then lets air it. Obviuosly this is a matter we need to press as are the Landbanski DAG. Its another tiny chink of light as far as I am concerned, we still need to press for a UK Enquiry into this debacle.
progressing the matter
Expat wrote
"In the Report from Justice Select Committee regarding Crown Dependencies issued today there are some interesting comments.I'm sure people will see that the point that we keep raising about why were the IoM and for that matter Guernsey, not given the same 100% coverage from Iceland that the UK extracted, is of some embarrasment to the MoJ and something we need to consider pursuing"
There must be a process whereby the MOJ can be called to account for not representing the Crown Dependencies even if the respective governments have not made a request for them to do so (seems to be the case with the IOM at least). Sir Alan Beith seemed very helpful at the TSC. Perhaps DAG, along with Guensey DAG, should approach him for advice as to how the situation can be pursued (copied to the Tynwald Select Committee) . DAG may have been following this up but we do not know. Many of us who wrote to the MOJ feel angry about their refusal to be involved.
re Alan Beith
Just to set the record straight, Alan Beith was (is) chairman of the Justice Committee and not a member of the Treasury Committee. He remains supportive of our cause and has signed the EDM.
But what has he done, Anrigaut? And why?
These guys are playing 'causes'. We have to sit on top of them. Most of them are bullshitting.
Beith stinks. let us hear a statement from Beith. Hang the bastard. Yes you Beith... post an answer!!!!!!!!!!!
You think I'm behove to you? I think you a a ------- -----. You have any integrity at all Señor Beith? I don`t really have any faith in you. I don't live on dreams. And you insult me as far as I can see.
What do you do when your champions stink?
Hit harder!
Are you guys getting it?
From the MoJ Report chaired by Sir Alan Beith
Good government
5. We note the depth of feeling of some witnesses to this inquiry who have indicated
serious grievances with various aspects of the governance of the Crown
Dependencies and their desire for the UK Government to step in to address their
concerns. However, the Crown Dependencies are democratic, self-governing
communities with free media and open debate. The independence and powers of
self-determination of the Crown Dependencies are, in our view, only to be set aside
in the most serious circumstances. We note that the restrictive formulation of the
power of the UK Government to intervene in insular affairs on the ground of good
government is accepted by both the UK and the Crown Dependency governments:
namely, that it should be used only in the event of a fundamental breakdown in
public order or of the rule of law, endemic corruption in the government or the
judiciary or other extreme circumstance, and we see no reason or constitutional basis for changing that formulation. (Paragraph 41)
"free media and open debate"??? .. in the IoM?!
Is Alan? Beith an idiot? I believe he is a compromised 'twat' (you can reply Mr Beith) . Oh sorry you are too clever. Screw the rest of us. You are OK aren't you Mr Bieith?
So I have alienated him? What a shame. You understand Mr Beiith? You know you are an accomodative traitor? Well you would be protecting the misbehaviour of the Scottish. The trouble is you have lost your honour.
You are a disgrace Bieth. What do want? A backhander? Realpolitik?
Hooray Beith, And hooray to those that expected anything from an UK politico. Our politicos stink. The whole damned system stinks internationally. Do we really have any doubt? Do you have any doubt Bieth? Or do you just cash your pay cheque?
I don-t care that you might shed crocodile tears, you know that if you don-t fight you lose.
Now I don-t believe you have exhausted legitimate avenues Bieth. I think you are lying,. Just my opinion.
Who negotiated with Hitler? We think that these bastards are not the current political equivalent. Yes they would like us to believe that. But are you fooled?
The bastards are in it together. The whole system has become too corrupt.
Were you involved?
Who are you protecting Beith. You don-t like me do you? You don-t even care, do you?
How long befor the British public react? Who knows? If you damned politicos are lucky the stupid English will never react. But I will.
@ From the MoJ Report chaired by Sir Alan Beith
What happens when it's the UK that limits free media and open debate, has endemic corruption in the government and judiciary and 'good government' is a hypothetical construct ?
Iceland has its Truth Report into the financial crisis
Rowena Mason writes about energy for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. Iceland has its Truth Report into the financial crisis – now what about one for the UK?
This afternoon, 45 men and women will begin the long task of reciting an astonishing saga of manipulation, deception and the betrayal of thousands of people at a theatre in central Reykjavik.
The unusual story – a 2,000 page political report – will take them four to five days to intone, taking in the events leading up to Iceland’s far-reaching financial collapse that saw three banks go down in three days and its currency crippled. Some people have mocked the earnestness of this gesture, but 18 months after the collapse, it seems the Icelanders are taking the consequences of their crisis seriously and putting some effort into finding out what happened.
There are signs that this parliamentary investigation report – also known as the Truth Report or the Black Report – will not be a whitewash. Pall Hreinsson, the supreme court judge in charge of the report, has repeatedly delayed its publication, but warned several months ago: “No committee has ever had to bring to its nation such bad news.”
There are already formal criminal investigations into suspected market manipulation, fraud, excessive loans to related parties and tax evasion connected to the banks, Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki. But we should care about this political report because it ought to provide some explanation of how billions and billions of pounds in British money was lost in the Icelandic banks and where it went to.
UK councils, charities, universities and hospitals had deposited more than £1bn and are still waiting to be fully compensated. The Treasury is also owed around £3bn for the compensation it paid to customers of Icesave and Kaupthing Edge.
Then there are the lessons we can learn about the chronic failure of oversight in the UK that allowed these banks to operate in a regulatory black hole on our soil. The banks did not just lure British savers to deposit money. There were extensive and tangled corporate links between Reykjavik and London, where the Icelandic banks did two-thirds of their business financing high-profile property and retail ventures like Woolworths, House of Fraser, Debenhams, Oasis, Karen Millen and Iceland Foods.
And finally, the report should lift the lid on failures of corporate governance among shareholders, and examine the relationship between the banks and the billionaire Icelandic families behind them. These men – now vilified back home but steadfastly denying any wrongdoing in connection with the collapse – have since all set up home in London and seem to be blithely carrying on their business affairs from here many miles from the financial decimation of their native country.
Jon Asgeir Johannesson, the major shareholder of Glitnir Bank, is still chairman of Iceland Foods and a director of House of Fraser. He lives is London and is reportedly considering setting up a chain of supermarkets over here. Back home in Iceland, he has been disqualified as a director over charges of false accounting, faces a tax evasion case and is being sued by the winding-up committee of Glitnir Bank over alleged misuse of his influence to gain personal loans.
Bjorgolfur Thor Bjorgolfsson and Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, the father-and-son team who were the largest owners of Landsbanki and Icesave, also have offices on Park Lane in London. Bjorgolfur Thor, until recently still estimated to be a billionaire by the Forbes rich list, lives in a house in Holland Park, worth an estimated £7m.
He has denied all responsibility for the Landsbanki’s failure, insisting in a recent documentary: “I have nothing to say to [those who blame me for the crash]. I am not a criminal and never have been.” The collapse of Landsbanki – sparking a bitter diplomatic row between Britain, Iceland and the Netherlands over E5bn of its debts – will nevertheless form a cornerstone of today’s report.
And finally there’s the Gudmundsson brothers, Agust and Lydur, who reportedly live in West London and have been battling to keep control of the Bakkavor food empire that employs 5,000 people in the UK. They were the major shareholders of Kaupthing – which has been under the closest scrutiny by Iceland’s special investigator so far. The brothers borrowed billions in loans to their companies, and Lydur was vice-chairman of the bank.
Icelanders want to know who was responsible for the failure of oversight at their publicly-listed banks. They have already realised that some of the biggest shareholders and business associates were borrowing huge sums of money to finance their own investments. So will this report tell them anything new? Iris Erlingsdottir, at the Huffington Post, believes it’s an important refusal to sweep unpleasant truths under the carpet.
“Although many within Iceland do not believe that the Black Report will have any effect on the old Icelandic power structure, I believe that it will be an important brick in the wall of a new structure for governing Iceland. The gross abuses of the past decade were possible only because of a complete lack of transparency and oversight. Public disclosure of the incompetence and fraud that led to the worst recession our country has known in recent times is necessary to ensure that in the future, bankers, businessmen, regulators, and politicians realize there are adverse personal consequences for their dishonest actions and lax oversight.”
An inquisition is not a painless way of recovering from a colossal economic collapse, and the usually stoical people of Iceland are understandably fatigued with the miserable details of the “kreppa”.
But in both Britain and Iceland, understanding how the damage was done in the first place is the only way to prevent this uniquely reckless situation arising all over again.
Like my colleague, Lawrie Holmes, I’m dismayed at the contrasting complacency in Britain – how everything appears to have gone back to normal. It’s time to lay bare old City practices
Maybe the UK would need a similar wholesale collapse, rather than a near-catastrophe, for the City to engage in any similar introspection and hand-wringing. But I’d still like to see independent report, or series of reports, snooping into those darkest corners of the British banking system that are undeniably still in the shade and poorly understood by those politicians and taxpayers that stumped up the cash to bail them out.
Iceland may have failed in many ways, but at the moment, its efforts at catharsis are an example to us all.
THROUGH THE CRACKS
Dear Expat,
Quote.....
"UK councils, charities, universities and hospitals had deposited more than £1bn and are still waiting to be fully compensated. The Treasury is also owed around £3bn for the compensation it paid to customers of Icesave and Kaupthing Edge"
......Unquote
Looks like we fell through the cracks once again...........................
'Collateral Damage' only has real meaning once one becomes part of it!!
As always, thanks your continued efforts to keep us all informed.
Trust all well with you and yours?
Kind regards,
Mike
@Mikepapa and the Icelandic Report Conclusion
I remember making the point about "slipping through cracks" in October 2008 to the BBC I think it was, or it could have been ITV! The current UK Gov don't want an enquiry into this as far as I can see, it's to embarrasing, inept regulators, panicing PM and Chancellor; useless laws that allowed KSF and others operate in the UK in the way they did; the knowledge that Icesave and Edge were only there to add liquidity to the Icelandic system and still the FSA did nothing. All to embarrasing for HM Treasury and the FSA, let alone Downing St.
Still at least the Icelandic fiasco is beginning to see daylight and at least there seems to be a will for accountability there, not something I can say about the UK, even the IoM is having an Enquiry, only Guernsey and the UK refuse to look at their own shortcomings at the moment.
Lets hope a change of government changes that attitude, although I've always been amazed how little political hay the opposition have made from this though. So I don't hold my breath!
Here's the conclusion of the Icelandic Black Report, I haven;'t by any means the whole thing yet and there is still more to come!!!
"The three largest Icelandic banks pursued policies of rapid international
growth and rapid domestic credit expansion. They applied relatively weak
underwriting standards, particularly for loans to large holding companies,
and relied too much on thinly-traded equity as collateral. In autumn 2007,
the FME’s on-site inspectors concluded that the banks’ IT systems were
inadequate for tracking loan collateral values, and that the banks were underreporting
the extent of their loans to related entities. These are classic shortcomings,
which have accompanied rapid bank expansion in many countries.
Despite their unusually rapid loan growth, the banks’ loan loss allowances
never reflected credit problems that had likely emerged in 2007 or 2008,
when the Icelandic economy and stock market turned downward. Outsiders
had been noting the opaqueness of the banks’ financial statements for some
time, yet the managers were unable or unwilling to provide more detailed
information about their credit risk exposures.
The banks also failed to secure reliable funding commensurate with their
asset growth. The effort to diversify funding sources away from the wholesale
Euromarkets met with very limited success, and their internet offerings in
the UK and other European countries attracted mobile (“hot”) retail deposits.
Not only did the deposit volume fall off when the banks stopped offering
best-in-market interest rates, but depositors’ concerns about the reliability
of IceSave’s insurance protection (from DIGF) lead to a debilitating run in
late September, 2008.
It is quite possible that the banks were insolvent when they were closed
in October. Subsequent valuations of the domestic portion of the banks’ asset
portfolios uncovered large losses attributable to poor underwriting and overreliance
on equity shares as collateral.
The sub-prime financial crisis surely added pressure on the banks, particularly
after Lehman Brothers failed in mid-September. However, the banks
had ignored repeated warnings that their size and rapid expansion exposed
them to great risks. It seems likely that they would have come to grief eventually,
even without a worldwide financial crisis".
Family fine after a sunny little sojourn in Brittany and some riding!
@Mikepapa and the Icelandic Report Conclusion
Expat, glad you're back and with, as always, valuable contribution. The fact that Iceland have progressed this initiative has given me some faith that some people do care. I cannot say the same for those holding authority over the IOM or the UK in respect of events that led to our situation and that of many whose misfortune it was to find themselves in the same boat as us.
We now have a seven year sentence to serve for being dumb enough to deposit money in a bank. Irresepective of any loss of interest or what those funds would have earned over time, I wonder what the real value of what we recover will actually be as a result of inflation when the saga finally ends.
Perhaps when the Black report is aired and has been digested by those who were a part of events, a stone hiding some small truth will be overturned and (one can only hope) it will touch the concience of a wistleblower to put their hand up and push open the door of truth.
Glad to hear you had a good break. My wife's from Brittany and I know it well.
@StunnedMullet
StunnedMullet
Nice place Brittany, its 25 years since I'd been there, so riding across the sand at Mont St Michel, moules in St Malo with my daughter was a pleasure. Yes life goes on and I'm not going to let this debacle ruin my families life! The consequential losses are huge for us all I imagine, a point I made at the IoM Enquiry I seem to remember.
Suffice to say this report is a very big step and at last Icelands central role in this is being exposed, let's remember that it's KSF in the UK an that went down, bringing us down with it; lets keep in mind that it was very poor management, to say the least, by the the Kaupthing Group and the Icelandic Central Bank under David Oddssen that is the prime reason for our predicament.
That the FSA and the B of E were so poor does not speak well of the UK gov at all, and their conduct needs an Enquiry just as Iceland have done. Although it's self evident that Downing St, HM Treasury etc do not want any such thing given that they will be exposed as totally inept as well as complicit in this. No doubt thats why Treasury Minister Ian Pearson has refused a request from MPs for an Enquiry.
At least the IoM are having an enquiry over this and to be quite straight about all of this, no report of any description has pointed a finger in their general direction to date. If anything the impression is building of duplicity and cover-ups in the UK. That the FSC should have done much more to ascertain the facts, as should the KSF IoM management, is a fair assessment. However, even the MoJ Report indicates that the UK left the Crown Dependencies hanging out to dry in negotiations.
Everyone has a view on this and that's quite right, but it's time to face the facts that Kaupthing was a badly run operation and the UK provided the ground for them to play in, the FSA did nothing even though they and HM Treasury knew they were in big trouble and had done since 2006. It would even appear that KSFUK hid the facts from the IoM, so inept the KSFIoM Management and the FSC may have been, but the perpetrators of the crime are in London and Reyjkavik, unless anyone has evidence to the contrary of course.
exactly what happens when the
exactly
what happens when the UK uses its dominant position to foist an unjust situation on a crown dependency in circumstances where the crown dependency is put under extreme economic and political pressure not to react or protest?
Surely here there should be an equitable arbitration process available where matters could be decided by eg a board composed of representatives of other dependencies, rather than the UK/dependency involved?
He is so supportive angriaut,
He is so supportive angriaut, that he is a friend on my facebook page!! And has even commented on his support there. Ah the wonders of modern communication! Anyway let's not forget that the MP designated by Dave "Boy" Cameron to keep this matter moving is Mark Hoban. Maybe we can ask again that as these MPs and others have asked for an Enquiry into this debacle, that that if Master Cameron forms the next government they will actually have an Enquiry. I have put that to my MP who rather stumbled with his response!
Enjoy Easter one and all and lets keep positive that one day we can get accountabiulity as a minimum.
@barrona
I try not to think about it!! It's the same with all of the Enquirys, the Treasury Select Committee, The Icelandic Government Enquiry, they all have vested interests to one degree or another. We just have to use the moment to make our points. I will say that I made a fair few of them at the last sitting, a number of the questions I asked then are now formailised and have been sent to the TSC.
Ministry of Justice Report on the Crown Dependencies
In the Report from Justice Select Committee regarding Crown Dependencies issued today there are some interesting comments.
One is of the lack of effective International Representation provided to the Dependencies, in particular when their views are at variance with those of the UK, and specific highlight is made of negotiations with Icelend. Item 89 stipulates:
Anothrer interesting point is that "he Ministry of Justice has been told to give clearer guidance to other Whitehall departments which conduct business with the islands"
The full report can bee seen here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/56/560...
I'm sure people will see that the point that we keep raising about why were the IoM and for that matter Guernsey, not given the same 100% coverage from Iceland that the UK extracted, is of some embarrasment to the MoJ and something we need to consider pursuing.
Expat, thinking out loud. If
Expat, thinking out loud. If the MoJ needs to advise other government departments that they must act in the best interests of the Crown dependency would it follow that the FSA ( A govt department) should at all times consider the best interests of the dependnecy, in this case the IoM. If that is the case they should have considered the effects of their actions when dealing with KSF UK and Iceland and advised the FSC accordingly?
Any thoughts?
John
Good point
Wasn't Alan Beith part of the TSC last year?
Given that the "Icesave" debacle isn't done and dusted yet, can't we argue that the UK retains a duty to try and represent the IOM's interests in this - ie to try and get Iceland to make up our losses?
The problem I guess is the refusal of the IOM authorities to press the Uk for a fair resolution to our problems?
Can we not complain to Beith etc that the behaviour of the UK in this case (ie deliberately ignoring their constitutional duties and flagrantly acting in breach of IOM's interests) made it impossible in this case for the IOM to resolve it independently and this is in fact a one-off event which should be resolved by bringing both governments together for a fair bilateral solution?
After all - Gordon Brown achieved with us exactly what he criticised in the Lehman case - one jurisdiction in an international group case allowing all the group assets to end up there to swell the pot of the group member to be liquidated in that jurisdiction, at the expense of the other group members' pots in other jurisdictions.
By suspending the inter-regulator communication and imposing the secret trust account HMG achieved exactly the same effect as the "unethical" alternative of moving money around - meaning HMG may as well have ordered KSFUK to channel all the IOM and Iceland money into their UK pot as do what they actually did, since it created the same effect.
The behaviour is even more open to criticism since the only reason KSFIOM is losing money is because of the misregulation of the UK bank by the hapless FSA. That makes it even more disgusting that HMG use these measures to make sure that bank has the big pot when you might otherwise expect HMG/FSA to stand up and say they should pay all KSFUK liabilities in any case since that bank lost customer's monies because of its incompetent practises.
I think the KSFUK Foster or other sources have said they were under orders not to say anything to Dougherty and KSFIOM from UK authorities, which was another factor of this sting.
Anyway, for me that all makes up a big case of very unethical behaviour by the UK:-
1) They allowed KSFUK to be run in a totally inappropriate way under the noses of the FSA/ Shearer etc;
2) When it went wrong they used their state power to deprive KSFIOM of knowledge of what was happening and prevented inter-regulator communication and put restraints on cash movements from KSFUK, in order to maximise the amount of money in the KSFUK pot at the expense of the KSFIOM pot;
3) They then bullied and slandered both us and the IOM bank and deliberately kept the IOM Bank off the KSFUK creditors committee, in order to maintain the consequences of 2);
4) HMG had a personal interest in doing this as they were thus appropraiting our money to pay back Brown for what he had to pay to bail out UK savers;
5) This is in sum appalling behaviour and bullying of the worst kind in which a major large state acts in a way it has already condemned other countries for, in order to cover up and minimise losses from its own organs' failings, by grabbing the savings of many of its own citizens.
6) You might have had some sympathy if KSFIOM was "the baddy" in all this, but KSFIOM had nothing to do with the collapse of the Kaupthing Group and was a net creditor of the UK bank! And at the end of the day KSFIOM is just us - decent honest UK savers on the whole.
Surely this injustice cannot remain unrighted forever?
A GOVERNMENT STING OR JUST KSFUK PROTECTING ITSELF
Good discussion but
A GOVERNMENT STING OR JUST KSFUK PROTECTING ITSELF USING QUESTIONABLE MEANS
If "Foster" however from KSFUK was told to deliberately conceal facts in the run up to the Issue of the UK Statutory Instrument in October 2008 , and whether or not there was a raid on the Securities held by KSFIOM ( As suggested in the Tynwald Inquiry, as I recall) as security for its deposits with KSFIOM, then we are approaching a clear situation in Insolvency Law where the rules related to Unjust/Unfair/Illegal PREFERENCES against the interests of one creditor (KSKIOM & Depositors ) in favour of another (ie KSFUK) . In such a circumstance the KSFIOM Liquidator would arguably have a cause of action against Ernst & Young to recover their funds AS IF KSFIOM continued to be subject to the continuing existence of the security.
Can the DAG DST or COI kindly look into this issue ?
Incidentally , I haven't had time to catalogue it, but there is a heap of evidence in Armann Thorvaldsson's Book "Frozen Assets" [John Wiley ISBN 978-0-470-74954-8] which needs to be put up against and cross-related to the evidence furnished to the Tynwald Committee.
Best wishes
@wombat761
I have just passed on your comments to the PPDG Reps on the COI. Thanks.
@steveservaes, thesunnysouth, jmf, hopefull
To all of those of you responding to this can I say I am now on my way for a long awaited holiday! However, I'm sure we are all feeling the same that something needs to be done. Alan Bieth is a good start, but he is not alone, there are other MPs who need to be involved such as Mark Hoban. I suggest we all have a think over easter and over the next two weeks construct a letter. I am of the opinion that the UK acted very badly here and hung both IoM and Guernsey out to dry as negotiations took place with Iceland, as well as possibly keeping them in the dark about the imminent breach of terms by KSFUK, but that's conjecture and not proven fact. It does however remind me of a statement Alan Bell made to me in Jan 2009 when I flew to the IoM to complain about how little matters had progressed since November. His response was that "things hadn't gone as he'd expected". That was never elaborated on, but I assumed it meant some sort of HMG act i.e. they wouldn'y hand over the money from London. Obviously what was meant was what we'd now see as the bullying by HMG of IoM and Guernsey to shut up and go away. At which point I suspect that's what they did given the public mauling they were taking from some.
That does not by the way absolve the various regulators for the original cock-up and their laissez-faire approach!! I am still of the belief that this is not a single incident issue, there are all sorts of issues involved here, some directly connected, others not. So to bring them back to the table now......................
I don't doubt that the UK put themselves first and basically sank the offshores, then made hay and took it to G20 just to make sure that the lesson struck home. So lets see if we can stitch a letter together based partly on what has come out of this Report and also from, as it happens, checking back on some of the IOM Gov statements that indicate that the UK didn't lift a finger, even if the IoM didn't push them hard enough. "Collateral damage" I think was Alan Bells phrase at the IoM Enquiry.
This is probably the part of the Crown Dependencies Report that most will want to read:
Concerns of the Crown Dependencies about international representation by the UK
Despite the specific undertaking in the Framework that the UK will seek to represent differing interests, in cases where there is a potential or actual conflict between those interests, the Crown Dependencies feel that their interests are of subsidiary importance to those of the UK and that the end result is more than likely to favour the latter.[97]
A recent example was the role of HM Treasury in representing the interests of the UK on the one hand, and Guernsey and the Isle of Man on the other, in its negotiations with the Icelandic authorities during the banking crisis.[98] In its written evidence, the Guernsey government stated that the UK Government apparently prioritised its own interests over those of Guernsey in negotiations with the Icelandic government. In order that they might put their case directly to the Icelandic government, the Ministry of Justice stated that HM Treasury facilitated direct contact between the Islands and the Icelandic authorities.[99] The Guernsey government, however, criticised HM Treasury for a delay in sending a letter to the Icelandic authorities requesting that they meet with a delegation from Guernsey, this delay resulting in the letter being sent only after the Guernsey representatives had made their visit to Iceland.[100] On a more general level, the Guernsey government expressed serious concerns about the extent to which its interests are represented internationally, given that its representatives are normally excluded from relevant negotiations.[101]
The Isle of Man government has expressed similar concerns in cases where the interests of the UK and the Island conflict. It describes the support of the UK in such cases as insufficiently robust and the Isle of Man government is concerned about "the intractable position of not being able to represent itself, but also not being able to gain the full support of its "representative".[102] It calls for the inclusion of an Isle of Man representative in international negotiations where there is a conflict of interest between the UK and the Isle of Man.[103]
We were told that, in areas of policy which the UK has ceded to the EU, there is an additional problem for the Crown Dependencies. In the case of the World Trade Organisation, for example, the UK is represented by the EU and does not send a delegation of its own. Given that the Crown Dependencies are neither members of the EU nor represented by a UK delegation, they remain essentially unrepresented in that forum.[104]
In evidence to us in December 2008, Lord Bach confirmed that the UK Government "looks after the interests in international affairs of the Crown Dependencies", but then appeared to suggest that the Government's duties in this respect were subsidiary to the interests of the UK.[105] In relation to the situation with the Isle of Man and the Icelandic banking crisis, he told the Committee that:
We represent the interests of the Isle of Man where it is appropriate to do so but we are part of Her Majesty's Government, and of course that is our prime responsibility. The Isle of Man runs its own fiscal affairs, as it runs its own legal system and it runs everything itself; it runs its own parliament. Our position, under this set-up, is to be the department in the United Kingdom Government that has the closest relationship with the Crown Dependencies and looks after its interests where appropriate, particularly in the international forum. …
… This is an issue that the Isle of Man Government has, and [it] is quite capable of talking to the Treasury itself. We talk to the Treasury too, of course. In the end, however, we are not dealing here with a sort of colony; we are dealing here with a Crown Dependency that, in the case of the Isle of Man, is self-governing, has its own systems, has its own financial systems. It is not our job to nanny the Isle of Man in any sense. Our job is, in the broadest sense, to have a close relationship with them and to assist.[106]
88. This explanation of the UK Government's role appears to ignore the fact that Crown Dependencies have no external personality in the international community. It is for this reason that the Crown Dependencies pay an annual sum to the UK Government in return for international representation and defence.[107] Lord Bach's statement would also appear to put the UK Government at odds with the International Identity Framework, within which the UK Government undertakes to "seek to represent any differing interest when acting in an international capacity".[108]
Possible solutions to the issue of international representation
During our visits, we discussed a variety of possibilities to address the Island' governments' concerns that their interests were not being represented on the international stage. The Island governments appear to have taken a pragmatic view that the UK has been unreliable in its representation of their interests internationally and that the time has come for them to take a more active role on the international stage themselves. This approach is supported by the International Identity Framework referred to above.[109] Although the legal status of agreements made directly by the Crown Dependencies with third countries, without the intermediary of the UK Government, is unclear, Professor Sutton points out that they are practical arrangements which have not, so far, given rise to any disputes requiring resolution under public international law.[110]
All representatives of the Island governments agreed that the current processes did not serve their interests in cases of conflict and recognised the extreme difficulty in one individual or negotiating team seeking to represent two conflicting interests simultaneously with any degree of credibility. This conceptualisation of the problem led to the conclusion that a separate individual or negotiating team should be designated with specific responsibility for representing the interests of the Crown Dependencies.[111] This might be achieved in several ways:
The Ministry of Justice could appoint an official to a negotiating team whose sole responsibility is to present the view of the Crown Dependencies, possibly supported by Island officials.
Island officials could be included in the UK delegation so that they can put their own case directly to other negotiating parties.[112]
Increased use of Letters of Entrustment, either for specific issues or for a category of issues, which have the effect of delegating legal power to the Islands to conclude agreements on their own behalf. This mechanism has been used successfully in the past and the Crown Dependencies would like its use to be extended further to give them increased autonomy and an ability to engage directly with international partners.[113]
92. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice considers alternative models for the representation of the interests of the Crown Dependencies internationally. It is imperative that a means is found by which the Islands are represented effectively and we strongly recommend that certain officials, either from the UK or from the Islands, be specifically designated as representing the Islands in international negotiations. Clear and unambiguous representation of the Crown Dependencies' interests on the international stage will assist them in building their relationships with third countries and international organisations and, consequently, help them to develop their international identities, as envisaged in the Framework document agreed with the UK.
I will get in touch with Landbanski DAG and see if we can co-ordinate an approach.
In the mean time as I posted a few days ago a letter has been sent to EFTA regarding the Icelandic situation. This letter was sent by the COI after an initiative by PPDG, which itself followed a discussion with Landbanski DAG. PPDG felt that it would be better if such a letter eminated from the COI, not simply an action group such as ourselves. The correspondance can be seen:
http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.im/Pages/2010/April/01April2010.asp
Very Interesting Expat re MOJ Report
Whilst the MOJ has confirmed in their report that the UK Government has an obligation to represent the interests of Crown Dependencies with international affairs this clearly did not happen in the case of the negotiations that took place with Iceland over the banking collapse.
The UK Government have therefore let the IOM Government down big time but the big question for us is how do we persuade/influence the IOM to take up this issue with the UK Government.
Well that's going to make
Well that's going to make interesting reading, or not as the cover up/case may be. Nonetheless if anyone is interested there is also "2008-2009 Icleandic financial crisis" by Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome and John McBrewster as background info; Roger Boyes "Icelandic Meltdown; "Why Iceland" by Asgeir Jonsson, himslef a man who should be in the centre of any enquiry.
My bet is that they will blame the hedge funds and of course those bullys from HM Treasury. No blame will be attched to Financial Risk Managers who were formerly Trawler Captains; or regulators who looked the other way; or politicians that manipulated a privatisation process; or reckless owners that hadn't got a clue about banking.
Unless they recognise that to be part of the EU, as they seem to desire, a legal requirement of membership is that there be a deposit protection scheme in place in the event of a bank failure which treats all EEA depositors equally. Whereas Iceland has tried to do a runner and disown foreign depositors.
Despite having dismal form on the subject the IMF agreed to bail Iceland out. A condition of that aid was that the honour the EEA depositors made good by the UK and Dutch governments. Which begs the question why weren't the IoM and Guernsey included as part of that deal, given that HMG has a responsiblity to those Crown Dependencies?
Nonethels, the IMF said you can have some money, but only as long as you use a chunk of it to resume normal civilised trade relations with the international community.
Iceland said fine and once again took a large slug of other peoples' money, including yours and my taxes, and - who would have ever seen this one coming? - said "Ah, sod it, we'll spend the IMF money on ourselves. Because we're worth it. The rest of the world are just a bunch of greedy shits and the Brits are bullys".
This notwithstanding that further tranches of IMF aid are still to be paid and now may never be.
Is it at all surprising that in these circumstances the world is fully entitled to conclude that Iceland is bankrupt, not creditworthy, not to be trusted, a serial liar, and no longer to be considered a business partner for any purposes whatsoever?
So maybe they will see sense and we'll see some accountabilty, but I won't be holding my breath given previous form.
Missing the point!
They are playing 'pass the parcel'.
They have always been playing pass the parcel.
They have had the agreement of some during this still ongoing process.
FRAME THE DEBATE FOR OUR PURPOSES NOT THEIRS.
If you look to the other side of the Atlantic you will see some guidelines.
The 'picture' is rather grand because they were all 'looting'. The game is to avoid the particularised fallout.
Now I would suggest "the bastards" actually knew what they were doing. This is what makes them negligent.
At this point I'm not going to elaborate. WORK IT OUT YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!
The appropriate response is to hone our response. Mediocre (expensive) legal teams don't help. We need crusaders.
Let's find some crusaders.
We have to rupture the terms of the debate. "History is written by the victors": paraphrase- get a grip you lot.. you want to fight, then you fight! Their judiciary is a force, but this force is not inexhaustible. It does npt have right on its side. Each reasonable response by ourselves weakens it more. The obvious conclusion is to keep up the pressure.
How low can they go? And they are already in the gutter. You don't think people have noticed?
Icelandic banking report due after Easter - get your copy!!!
Icelandic banking report due after Easter
Posted on23 March 2010.
Iceland’s long anticipated parliamentary report into the banking collapse will be handed over and made public on Althingi’s first day back after Easter: Monday 12 April.
The report, which was initially scheduled for release last November, is currently being printed. It is around 2,000 pages long and will be released in nine volumes. It is being printed under tight security every weekend at Reykjavik’s Oddi Press; but normal publishing activities continue on weekdays.
The first seven volumes are concerned with the lead-up to the collapse and its underlying causes. The eighth volume contains a working group report which had the task of answering whether explanations for the fall of the Icelandic banks, and related economic shocks, could to some extent be found in the banks’ practices and ethics, according to RUV.
Selected appendices make up the ninth volume of the printed report. A more extensive selection of appendix material will be available in the internet version which will be publicly available on the website rannsoknarnefnd.althingi.is. The sections of the report translated into English will also be publicly available on sic.althingi.is. The printed report will be for sale in Icelandic book shops.
Suspected currency criminal building luxury home
Not really the right forum for this but shows that those who brought down the Icelandic banks continue remain undamaged, whilst we continue to suffer.......
Suspected currency criminal building luxury home
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/03/22/suspected-currency-criminal-b...
Posted on22 March 2010.
One of the four Icelandic men suspected of large scale illegal currency speculation, the investor Gisli Reynisson, is in the process of building a massive new house near Reykjavik.
The unfinished house is nearly 500 square metres in size, with the garage alone coming in at around 50 square metres. At the same time, the investigation by the Icelandic police financial crimes unit is in full swing, DV reports.
Reynisson and his wife invested in the plot in the Reykjavik suburb of Gardabaer in April 2008, but plans for the luxury house floundered at the time of the banking collapse in autumn 2008. However, construction has gone ahead full steam over the last year.
The site is teeming with workmen today and will be worth at least ISK 150 million (USD 1.2 million) upon completion.
Reynisson’s legal registered address is in the UK, as are the addresses of the other three men arrested in the police investigation: Karl Love Johannesson, Markus Mani Michaelsson and Olafur Sigmundsson.
The men are suspected of having broken Iceland’s currency exchange rules in speculative trade through the Swedish firm Aserta. The company’s illegal currecny trade is thought to be in the region of ISK 13 billion.
The four men’s assets have been frozen, meaning the Gardabaer house cannot be used as security or sold, but construction work continues. Police detective Helgi Magnus Gunnarsson would not discuss the case in detail but said that an investigation of this scale does not take place without significant evidence already having been amassed.
Black economy existed within the banks
http://icelandweatherreport.com/2010/03/black-economy-existed-within-the...
Black economy existed within the banks
by alda on March 17, 2010
The government called a press conference yesterday to announce that an investigation has been launched into large-scale tax evasion by the [old] Icelandic banks, which apparently had their own “black economy”. Over 1,000 cases are being investigated as it is suspected that hundreds of billions of ISK were funneled past tax authorities.
The alleged tax evasion extended to derivatives, shares, foreign currency, foreign services, loan write-offs and payments of private costs for owners and directors. Other cases being investigated concern share option agreements, suspension of liability, goodwill and leveraged takeovers.
According to RÚV, the investigation focuses on [large] customers of the banks, directors, employees, companies that owned large shares in the banks, and others.
Apparently, this is nothing new in the banking sector. According to Jóhanna [PM], Alþingi [Iceland's parliament] has, in the past 10-15 years, received two separate reports about these sorts of offenses. Five years ago tax and customs authorities estimated that tax evasion in the banking sector amounted to some ISK 40 billion. Yet the Independence Party did not see reason to crack down on those evasions.
Clearly that is about to change. Perhaps this shows us what the government is capable of when it is not being consumed whole by THE BLOB Icesave — which appears to be temporarily on hold, for better or for worse.
Interesting stuff glen07, if
Interesting stuff glen07, if I thought it'd do any good I'd be demanding an Enquiry into the FME's conduct given that the root of our collective problem stems from their lack of supervision. On top of which I think you can safely assume that the FSM, as well as the Icelandic Government, knew by the end of 2006 that their banks were in deep cack!
In fact the Icelandic Central Banks David Oddsson (the architect of the banking expansion) says that he submitted a memo to PM Geir Hardie in February 2008 on the parlous state of the three banks. Interestingly in a previous testimony to a parliamentary committee on Decemeber 7th 2007, Hardie didn't make any mention of such a memo! And yet three days after the supposed memo was sent Hardie called an emergency meeting with his Finance Minister, Foreign Minister, Banking Minister and the four top Icelandic bankers to discuss the situation. On February 24th 2008 the official policy had become Icelands banks were "bold but not irresponsible" and that they would survive as long as Iceland was stongly sold. i.e. the banks and their guarantees are fine. Pretty much the same cheerleader dogma that Oddsson had used in 2006 when the first collpase of confidence had occured and Kaupthing Edge and Icesave were born!
Of course Eva Joly says that as Iceland is a small island of 300,000 people (the IoM is 80,000 by the way), and the UKs FSA should have realised they were probably useless and acted accordingly.
I don't accept that line of thinking at all myself, I am of the opinion they should be held just as accountable as the FSC and the FSA, but no doubt they won't be, because they're a small island and we're bullies for wanting our money back!
If anyone is interested the cesspool of corruption that surrounds the Icelandic banks emergence into the light can be seen through this link;
https://secure.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?e...
Arion Bank’s bizarre acrobatics
http://icelandweatherreport.com/2010/02/arion-banks-bizarre-acrobatics.html
by alda on February 10, 2010
God, there are so many corruption scandals emerging these days that my head is spinning. I’d love to inform the World at Large [that's you] about them but honestly, I wouldn’t know where to start.
Except maybe with Kaupthing Arion Bank’s bizarre and completely outrageous settlements with this country’s former tycoons.
First, Hagar. Hagar is a company formerly owned by Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson* and his father Jóhannes Jónsson of Baugur renown. It holds a whopping 60 percent market share in grocery retail in this country, runs Bónus and Hagkaup and 10-11, as well as a slew of other shops like Zara, Debenhams, All Saints, Top Shop et al. When Baugur went bust last year, they managed to pull a few acrobatic stunts with Hagar so it didn’t go under with the rest. Long story short, Hagar is now owned by Kaupthing Arion [or AriJón as it's dubbed by some people around here], who have reportedly been tossing it around like a hot potato, at a loss as to what do with it.
First, Jón Ásgeir and Jóhannes asked if they could kindly have it back, minus the colossal debts that are on it. The logic was that there was no one else in the entire country better equipped to run it than they were, what with their vast experience in insanely leveraged takeovers food retail operations. Kaup Arion hummed and hawed about that one for a while until the roar of indignation from the Icelandic public managed to penetrate the glass walls of their castle and they refused.
Now, a few months later, they have decided to put Hagar on the market, i.e. list it on the Iceland Stock Exchange, allowing “the public” [who of course are swimming in money these days] to buy shares. Meanwhile, Hagar staff are allowed to own a piddly 15 percent, of which Jóhannes Jónsson may own only ten percent. Jóhannes, however, gets to stay on as Chairman of the Board, i.e. run the company.
The trouble with the above arrangement is the aforementioned lack of funds amongst the Icelandic public AND as of yet there is no discernible method for preventing shell companies formed in tax havens [but surely not by JÁJ and JJ, no no no] to buy large chunks of the company, thereby regaining control of it.
So that’s one stunt. But Arion has pulled more. For instance, allowing Ólafur Ólafsson, formerly one of Kaupthing’s owners and renowned for his involvement in the Sheik Al-Thani deal shortly before the bank collapse, to maintain control of his shipping company Samskip. Not only does Ólafur owe the bank BILLIONS of krónur, he is also under investigation by the Special Prosecutor’s Office and had his homes and other properties raided a few weeks ago.
Happily, though, Arion has rejected the request by the two Björgólfurs that it write off the loan they took to acquire Landsbanki back in the early noughties and is now initiating proceedings against them to try to reclaim that capital. It does, however, beg the question – why do JÁJ, JJ and ÓÓ hold such favour, when the two B’s do not?
Flygill February 10, 2010 at 11:52 am
Michael Lewis February 10, 2010 at 1:12 pm
New Board of Directors of Arion Bank
18.03.2010
New Board of Directors of Arion Bank
New Chairwoman is former deputy CEO of Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken
A new Board of Directors of Arion Bank was elected today at a shareholders' meeting of the Bank. At a board meeting held after the shareholders’ meeting, Monica Caneman was elected Chairwoman of the Board of Directors. The other board members are Gudrún Johnsen, Vice-Chairwoman, Kristján Jóhannsson, Steen Hemmingsen and Theodór S. Sigurbergsson. The alternate board members are: Agnar Kofoed-Hansen, Jóhannes R. Jóhannesson, Ólafur Helgi Ólafsson, María Grétarsdóttir and Gudrún Björnsdóttir.
During the selection process a keen emphasis was placed on appointing directors with diverse educational backgrounds and broad experience of the banking and corporate sectors. The appointments also took into account the particularly challenging conditions in the Icelandic economy and the task of reconstruction facing the Icelandic business sector. Bringing in non-Icelandic board members with far-reaching expertise was a further important consideration. Two of the new board members are from Scandinavia and have broad experience of international finance and are experts in their respective fields. The Chairwoman, Monica Caneman, is the former deputy CEO of Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken (SEB), where she worked for 25 years. Since 2001 she has developed a career around corporate board assignments.
The new board is the first since the Resolution Committee of Kaupthing, on behalf of its creditors and the Icelandic government, reached an agreement on the ownership of Arion Bank. Under this agreement Kaupskil ehf, the holding company of Kaupthing, controls Kaupthing’s 87% share in Arion Bank and appoints four board members, while the Icelandic State Banking Agency controls the government’s 13% share and appoints the fifth board member.
The Board of Directors has been appointed in accordance with the terms stipulated by the Icelandic Financial Supervisory Authority (FME) on Kaupskil’s ownership of Arion Bank, which stated that the majority of board members, including the Chairperson, should be independent of Kaupthing and individual creditors. In addition, one board member may come from the Resolution Committee. The Icelandic State Banking Agency has appointed one board member in accordance with the proposals of a selection committee. Following the appointment of the board the FME will assess whether the board members meet the stipulated requirements on relevant expertise and experience in the financial sector.
Supervisory nature of the FME - what it is supposed to have done
Supervision
There is one consolidated financial market regulator in Iceland, the Financial Supervisory Authority (FME). The FME is a state authority with its own board of directors. Its role is to ensure that the activities of parties subject to supervision are in accordance with laws and regulations and that they are in every respect consistent with sound and proper business practices.
Parties subject to supervision are:
Several other financial institutions, which operate in accordance with special legislation, are also subject to supervision by the FME, most notably the Housing Financing Fund.
Regulatory Framework
Structural and legislative reforms, along with the massive expansion in financial services and activity that they have engendered, have made Iceland’s financial system more international in character and broadly on a par with European norms.
Under its obligation to transpose into national law all existing and future EU legislation in the field of financial services, Iceland has implemented all the EC directives on banking, insurance and securities trading whose general objective is to accomplish an integrated European market for financial services, in particular with respect to the right of establishment, provision of services, prudential rules and capital movements.
Icelandic authorities, in close cooperation with market participants, have been implementing policy objectives and specific measures on the basis of the EU’s Financial Services Action Plan aimed at enhancing harmonisation, competition and effectiveness of financial services, payment systems and electronic commerce throughout Europe.
Source: Financial Supervisory Authority and Central Bank of Iceland
Blah. Blah, Blah.
So many words! Wow! How clever of you of all. Why won't you do something positive instead of all this silly 'intellectualizing.' What are you trying to prove? This is not an exercise in demonstrating knowledge, (or not) of banking systems. This is about getting our money back, end of story. Why won't you exercise as much energy in getting over there to the IOM and creating hell! Enough of all this regurgitation of newspapar reports.
And here's the sort of
And here's the sort of snippet that makes the research worth it, this was in the Telegraph last week and shows why we have to keep pressing for an Independent Enquiy into the FSA and the FME.
"Robert Wade, professor of political economy at the London School of Economics, says Iceland's banks were doomed to fail before the impact of the financial crisis and their activities were prolonged by the void of responsibility at the heart of both the British and Icelandic regulatory systems.
"Beyond the banks, the whole Icelandic business model involved converting firms into investment funds, where productive assets were used as collateral to support foreign borrowing used for purposes of speculation or prestige," he says.
So you see this isn't just academic is it, nor is it a single solution answer!
@peter and louise
This isn't an exercise in "intellectualizing". It is putting points forward that might spark an idea which might be worth following up. It's to stimulate reactions and maybe ideas for some pursuit for justice. I find your comments unhelpful and negative. If I remeber rightly it was you who suggested direct action some weeks back. Well where is it? What have you planned? What research have you put into getting our money back. Or are you the people who expect others to do the hard graft, do the planning for you? At least expatt did go to the Isle of Man and stood before the Tynwald Select Committee looking into the collapse of KSFIOM bank. Why aren't you there, on the IOM, demanding action? I asked, weeks ago, what direct action you were planning, seeing how you demanded there should be some and I am yet to hear from you. So what are your plans if we're being so ineffective??? I'm sure we'd all love to hear from you about some positive plans.
@Peter and Louise
I have read you comments over many months and can certainly sympathise with you anger, I suspect there are many that do. However, allowing that anger and despair to effect your thinking isn't going to to help. I don't doubt your lives have been effected, so has mine, so have many others, but unless we all grasp the reality of the situation, grasp what can be done and not just wish a solution, then it is unlikley anything further can help.
We are, whether we like it or not, in a bankruptcy situation, having knowledge of the events that led to that, the laws and processes that govern that scenario are all we have. Blind anger isn't of much use to us.
Simply saying "it's the IoM wot done it", isn't going to get anywhere, let alone very far, we need to prove whatever case we can piece together and be sure who or what it is directed at. To suggest that the Icleandic Government, the FSM, The FSA, HM Treasury and even Downing St and the owners of Kaupthing Group do not have blood on their hands, so to speak, is palpably incorrect. It is all very well decrying the conduct of the IOM Gov, the FSC and the Directors and management of KSF IOM, and that's quite right, but it needs to be done with facts and not rhetoric. And it is wise to remember ALL of the others issues that surround this case. Such as the Iceklandic banking expansion and how it happened; what knowledge the FSA and FSC had of the liquidity of those banks going back at least to 2006; what actions the UK took to protect us via their constitutional obligation to negotiate on behalf of Crown Territories etc., etc.
Sorry its not simplistic, but that's the way it is, to demonstrate over the situation we are all in it's wise to recognise which island(s) needs the demonstation. So sorry yes it is about knowledge and exchange of opinions and information. As Gordon45 stated over a year ago, the 100% return scenario is a myth and always was, it's a banner headline that's all, to achieve 100% it takes facts and law or a great deal of luck. Take a look at the Landbanski Guernsey situation. I may want well over 100% back under the circumstances and have stated that at the Enquiry, but saying it doesn't make it real.
By the way how many times have you been to the IoM to "make a fuss"? I've been three times now, nothing has changed the basic cirumstances now has it. I'm sorry you're call to arms isn't getting much, if any support, but that doesn't give you the right to criticise those who do try to underastand the situation we're in. If you want to demonstrate that's your choice it, doesn't mean the majority agree with you it seems.
Grasping Reality
This is grasping at reality, my reality, and not at straws:
1. I put money into the Derbyshire IOM, BECAUSE it had a Parental Guarantee.
2. Derbyshire sells my money to a 'North European Bank.'
3. Find out later that the 'North European Bank' isn't even in Europe. It is based in Iceland
4. Told all is OK, by bank officials, as Parental Guarantee is still in place
5. When the shit hits the fan we find out London won't help in the way they did with Bradford and Bingly because our money had been taken out of British jurisdiction.
6. The Icelandics then reject the Parental Guarantee.
7. PWC are pursuing it in the courts.
So, either Iceland must pay, if the Court decrees the Parental Guarantee is valid, or, if the Courts decree it is worthless, then the FSC on the IOM has to be sued; they were Regulatory Body in charge of making sure the Parental Guarantee was valid.
It beggars belief some depositors think the Parental Guarantee isn't worth pursuing. That Parental Guarantee is EVERYTHING. Even Darling said about a year ago that the Derbyshire people might have a case. It is black or white; either Iceland pays or the FSC is sued. All the rest is academic. And let's hope it was the IOM 'wat dun it' and who allowed an illegal document to swindle people out of their money. No amount of consorting with the enemy, so to speak, and pussy-footing around is going to change a thing. The question which needs to be asked is whether PWC on the IOM will sue the FSC on the IOM (if Iceland is sucessful). Then there may well have to be some sort of more aggressive action by all of us. Of course, the IOM government may already suspect they are severely compromised, if the FSC is found at fault, and may want to do something about it. Best Wishes, Peter.
If you didn't know that
If you didn't know that Kaupthing was an Icelandic institution then I'm sorry, you should have checked, its called "caveat emptor" I'm afraid. The information was in the public domain. Its a sad fact that ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. When you say you were swindled you have to prove it, and to date nobody has been able to.
The parental gaurantee is being chased down, but is not everything at all, the returns from the sale of assets is as close to everything as we're ever likely to get, the guarantee would be a top up. If you think you'll get 100% from the PG, I suggest you've misunderstood the situation. The whole of the Kaupthing Group has gone down, not just one branch.
If it was black and white Peter then the FSC would already be suffering a litigation, my goodness they've been in my sights from the first day. But they're not be sued because at present nobody knows what they can be sued for. If it turns out the that the PG is invalid that may be the opening, but we'll have to wait and see. It is far from academic. Who was responsible for a "due dilligence"?
I sincerly wish it was simpler, but it isn't and anything A. Darling has to say on the matter better be taken with a pinch of salt given his conduct in this. As to aggressive actions well I'd suggest there's been plenty of that one way or another, threats, accusations, demos etc and where has that got us?? It's bankrupt bank, not a political matter at all, anymore than it was in the UK, who simply held a gun at Iceland and said you'll pay over time. Sadly the Parental Guarantee is only any good if there's a parent to pay!
Its all very unpalatable I know, I am still furious over a year later, but kidding myself of things that are unlikely to be achieved isn't going to put things back together. So if "consorting with the enemy" cajoles the IoM into putting up some money to bridge the gap, I'd rather be doing that than making enemies of the one group that might have been able to assist. They've already shown they won't respond to "more aggressive actions".
So if you have any info on how we can sue the FSC or Iceland or the Directors please let somebody know. Or if you have a route that will see 100% return, then please again, let somebody know. If not taking pops at people who thake the time to research and understand isn't doing you any justice. You may not like the answers Peter, but that's the way it is and has been since Oct 8th 2008, however any of us got caught up in it.
Regards and try to have a good day
Steve
Research!
The area of research and investigation we need (if it transpires that the Parental Guarantee doesn't stick to the Icelandics) is to establish who was sitting at the FSC table in the IOM and who was involved, to gain access to the documents relating to the handover of money from one bank to another, and to establish who finally approved Kaupthing's Parental Guarantee to the depositors of KSFIOM. I would suggest that the unfathomable, not to say, imponderable carryings-on elsewhere in the world are of no import to us at all. (It is understood the Parental Guarantee is nothing but a 'top up' by the way, but that will give us 100%). That Parental Guarantee cannot be argued away. Sometimes I feel it's a case with some people of not seeing the wood for trees. Best Wishes
Research!
If you feel that people can not see the wood for the trees, then, with research, if you can open up our eyes, that of the FSC, then we're all behind you. If you can undo the smoke screens, the blame game and get to who signed what, by whom, then I'll help you in any research you want pursued. We are all fed up with the situation and keeping postings, on this website, maintains the desire to fight. That's why I post regularly as, over time, there is dwindling "fight" left in members of DAG and I want to maintain the energy to pursue our case. I don't post to waste time. I post to keep members champing at the bit.....
Rgds
glen07
PeterThat is exactly what we
Peter
That is exactly what we have asked, who was doing what and when. A letter was sent from PPDG to the IoM Tynwald Enquiry some weeks ago asking such questions in detail. If you look at the transcripts of the last round of evidence you'll see the questions were asked then as well. I wholly agree, as do many others, that the PG cannot be allowed to disappear, there is a fundamental principle involved and in many ways its the issue that may be able to open the gate to litigation for compensation and or damages. Back to same question I asked at the Enquiry, who was responsible for the Due Dilligence on the PG and where is the paper trail?
As to the other matters, well we'll agree to disagree on that score, but I will inform you that a letter has gone to EFTA, the European Monitoring Agency regarding the Icelandic position. The letter has gone from the COI, following an initiative from PPDG. That in itself was after a conversation I had with the Landbanski DAG!
There is also still the little matter of the need for an enquiry into the FSAs actions or lack of it. Why did they allow Kaupthing to conduct its business in such a way on UK soil, so that now we have a Serious Fraud Office investigation? Why didn't the UK protect the Crown Terratories, which could also have secured depositors 100%? Why didn't the FSA inform the FSC of ongoing concerns, that's aside from the fact that the FSC seemed too idle to find out for themselves of course! So then it's why wasn't the money protected. As time goes along things emerge, as the Kaupthing loan book fiasco did. Never know, maybe the Icelandic Enquiry will be critical of what happened!
Don't know about you, but I know that 100% return won't cover the full losses for a number of people, so if there's a way we have to try to find it. The FX loss alone is about 12%, let alone consequential losses many have suffered.
Regards
Steve
Questions for Tynwald SC
Just to confirm that, since the last hearing, DST has also submitted a new list of targetted questions to be asked of the Directors and the FSC at Monday's session of the Select Committee. It remains to beseen how many of our questions, and those of PPDG, get asked - and what answers, if any, are offered.
Yes angrinaut I wait with
Yes angrinaut I wait with less than baited breath! I don't think they'll have enough time to answer all the questions that have been forwarded! I suspect that they wioll all have theire lawyers there and if they were American they'd all be quoting the 5th!!
expat
Do we have any legal representation at the IoM hearing or is it just one-sided.?
@barrona
The Enquiry is held by four people, three MHKs and the Clerk of the Tyndwall, they ask the questions. So no we don't have legal representaion, but our questions were in fact put together with a legal input. They aren't just questions dreamt up by PPDG I assure you. There are two lawyers as part of PPDG as a matter of fact. I think the point is we are not on trial so to speak, we ask the questions and those questions can only be put through the Committee. Who I think it is fair to say have incouraged us to be "critically robust".
As angrinaut says though, wheter they will be robust remains to be seen of course.
Hope that answers your question.
Expat
Thanks for your answer. It obviously would have been preferable if the enquiry was completely independent instead of being held in the IoM with a panel of IoM representatives. No one will persuade me that the enquiry will be completely independent but it appears the best that we can do under the circumstances.