Latest from Tynwald Select Committee investigating collapse of KSFIOM - Mr Bell's evidence

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 29/01/2010 - 22:08

Bell noncommittal whether UK conspired over collapse of KSF (IOM)
27 January, 2010 05:15:00 Herald Editor

Treasury Minister Allan Bell MHK - whose rearranged appearance before the Tynwald Select Committee investigating the collapse of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (IOM) had been awaited with eager anticipation - told the Committee he did not believe the UK authorities had deliberately set out to harm the IOM when it took action to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks in the UK.

In his opinion the UK, reacting to considerable concerns about the deteriorating situation in the UK, “failed to take account of the repercussions” for the IOM. “Things were moving fast”, he said “and they didn’t think” about what would happen – “but it wasn’t a deliberate act.”

He earlier described the situation in the UK, and elsewhere, as “frenetic”, especially with the collapse of Lehmans, and pointed out the authorities in the UK were under tremendous pressure from the huge workload; adding he had no evidence the IOM authorities were deliberately mislead over the KSF situation.

So having effectively dismissed the idea of a ‘conspiracy’ he then conspiratorially added a caveat to his evidence.

He said he was hesitant in saying that it had not been a ‘deliberate act’ as the UK Treasury must have drafted the Order in advance of it being sent to the UK parliament for passing. Therefore, he “couldn’t help but think they could have had time to think of the repercussions”.

In some ways this was the pattern of Mr Bell’s evidence, initially giving a fairly robust response to questions and then pulling back slightly from his initial position following further questioning.

His evidence regarding when he first knew of the failure of the bank was less than convincing, as was his evidence that the timing of the revised Depositor Compensation Scheme (DCS) was purely coincidental to the failure of KSF (IOM).

He also frequently started answers to questions with “we” as opposed to ‘I’, and it is assumed he was referring to himself and Treasury officials and not the royal ‘we’.

The session commenced with Mr Bell recounting his recollections of the emerging Icelandic situation in 2008 and said there had been no specific concerns in relation to KSF.

In fact he had no knowledge, until the morning of the 9th October 2008, how bad the situation had become.

He went on to explain he had sought feedback a week to 10 days before the collapse, and again four to five days before; speaking directly to the bank’s Chairman, Donald Gelling, on the latter occasion. He said Mr Gelling had assured him everything was fine.

Apparently he tried to contact Mr Gelling again on the 8th October, but said he had been unavailable to talk as he was in a meeting all day.

Therefore, it was Wednesday morning, he repeated, he first knew of the collapse, and he immediately passed the information on to the Chief Minister.

In response to a follow up question from Committee Chairman, Rushen MHK Juan Watterson, Mr Bell said his first call had been prompted by press speculation about the Icelandic banking situation and for no other reason.

Asked whether Treasury had had any concerns about the takeover of S&F by Kaupthing, Mr Bell, and not for the only time, emphasized that Treasury had to keep a clear demarcation between the roles of the Treasury and the Financial Supervision Commission, particularly following the IMF report. The takeover was “strictly the domain of the FSC” he said; but helpfully added no issues had been raised with him.

Mr Watterson wondered what Treasury’s response was to the growing concerns regarding the banking situation; to which Mr Bell replied they were looking at updating the DCS. However, the advice was to wait and see what would emerge from the EU and the UK and then align to the international standard.

Mr Watterson inquired what concerns were being expressed in the spring/summer of 2008 regarding risks of the Icelandic situation to the IOM.

Mr Bell said “no alarm bells were ringing” in respect of Iceland; the concern related to the banking system in general, of which Iceland formed one part.

Mr Watterson questioned Mr Bell about the exposure of the IOM government; but Mr Bell assured him the exposure was limited and to date 40% of the £2.8m on deposit had been recovered on par with other creditors.

At this point proceedings stopped for a few moments as the Hansard clerk complained his recording was being interfered with by 3 mobile phones in the room.

Having resolved that little problem Mr Watterson asked Mr Bell if he thought the collapse had been avoidable, leaving aside the Treasury’s failed attempt at a Scheme of Arrangement.

Mr Bell replied that all the information he had pointed to the bank being profitable and solvent, and if it had had access to the funds in London he thought it would still be in business today. He added the predicted 94% recovery of assets gave further weight to this assertion.

So who was responsible for the collapse was the next question.

Mr Bell suggested it was a combination of the “over exuberance of the Icelandic banking system”; the concern of Alistair Darling the Icelandic authorities would only protect Icelandic interests, which triggered his response that precipitated the collapse; and the total inaction of the UK Financial Supervision Authority (FSA) to communicate, to the FSC, the intended action and this precipitated the collapse in the IOM.

He pointed out the Bradford & Bingly situation had been handled completely differently, with the FSA talking to the FSC a few days prior to the expected collapse, and as a result matters were taken in to hand, the situation managed, and nobody lost any money.

In his view had the same action been taken with KSF the bank could have been protected, but instead there was a “complete breakdown of the relationship.”

Mr Watterson asked Mr Bell to explain the delineation between the Treasury and the FSC; to which Mr replied a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is available on the FSC’s website. He went on to say Treasury sets the policy and the FSC implements it “and the delineation is very clear and crucial in light of the international financial arena.” They have to be quite separate, he emphasized.

Mr Bell couldn’t recall Treasury having issued a ‘direction’ to the FSC and said they consult over any new policies and listen closely to them. For example, if the FSC suggest new business opportunities that offer an economic advantage to the IOM without damaging its reputation, Treasury would support it.

Essentially Treasury will only intervene or oppose things if they appear to be against the national interest or come with reputational risks.

So the takeover of S&F had not been considered sufficiently important for Treasury to become involved, suggested Mr Watterson; to which Mr Bell said, not at the time.

Mr Bell also confirmed he had been unaware of Tony Shearer’s concerns until he heard then being expressed at the UK Treasury Select Committee hearing.

In respect of new regulations passing through Tynwald, Mr Bell said they scrutinize them very closely but if the IOM attempted to be “whiter than white it would have no industry to regulate”. So a balance has to be struck.

Mr Watterson ask if he was content with the remit of the FSC; to which Mr Bell replied it is working well but it is an evolving situation with a world wide review. He suggested there maybe a tightening of regulation so a local review was likely in light of new standards.

In hindsight did he have any concerns over the FSC’s handling of the KSF (IOM) situation, was the next question from Mr Watterson.

Mr Bell said that with the information he has now he is very content and his biggest concern relates to the FSA.

Mr Watterson raised the issue of conflicts of interest, with active members of the industry being board members of the FSC; and was it a mistake.

Mr Bell acknowledged it presented a dilemma but for a small jurisdiction, like the IoM, it is difficult to get the best possible people to serve on these types of body.

He suggested if people who are “whiter than white” are appointed they wouldn’t be able to do the job as they wouldn’t have the experience and current knowledge of the industry.

The Manx Herald, perhaps unsurprisingly, disagrees with this patronizing and unsubstantiated attitude.

Mr Watterson put it to Mr Bell the perception is the current situation damages the reputation of the IOM; but Mr Bell thought this only relates to some “off-island people”, and it is unfortunate. He added deposits had for quite a period increased which provided evidence there is confidence in the IOM.

Mr Watterson inquired of Mr Bell if he planned any changes; to which Mr Bell said it is his intention to have a “root and branch review” of the Insurance and Pensions Authority (IPA) and the FSC to see if they are “fit for purpose”; whether two regulators are needed and a review of membership. He also said he would look at any new emerging standards and, almost as an after thought, told the Committee he would “listen to any comments you have to make”.

Committee advisor, Phil O’Shea, quizzed Mr Bell about the issue of removing the risk to Iceland; but Mr Bell said it was an FSC issue, not the Treasury’s, so he couldn’t comment.

Mr Bell was then questioned about the IOM’s ‘up-streaming banking model’; and again he said it was an issue for the regulator. Under further questioning he said it was a model that was adopted by all the offshores, had worked well, had contributed substantial amounts of tax and only recently had it become an issue.

Mr Watterson suggested the model may need greater controls, but again Mr Bell reiterated these were matters for the regulator and any interference from Treasury would move them into grey areas.

Mr Watterson said he was looking at this from a systemic perspective, was it not also a political issue regarding risks and rewards.

Mr Bell said he saw no reason for the government to get involved but expected governments, world wide, to now take a look at the issue and he would review the outcome in due course.

Mr Watterson wondered if a predicted recovery rate of high 80’s/low 90’s highlights a weakness in the upstream model; but Mr Bell didn’t think so.

So was a 10% loss an acceptable amount, inquired Mr Watterson; but Mr Bell said he wasn’t sure, although he thought a recovery of over 90% was a good indication of how good the business had been.

Referring to some of the other bank collapses in the IOM, Mr Bell said this one was different and the others had been business models that he would not encourage in the IOM or elsewhere.

This report covers about half of Mr Bell’s evidence and a further report will be published in due course. Ed.)

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (9 votes)

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

Conversation tao, you never

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 16/03/2010 - 09:21

Conversation tao, you never had anything to say, you're a sit behind a screen merchant, be annonymous and blame everyonme else for you situation.
You do waffle on a lot of rubbish don't you, you know so very little. Not a sensible suggestion in all the time you're wasted space posting. And certainly not a single usefull action. The problem with your position tao is that its all hot air and no action, no facts and no strategy. Who's the "we" tao? If you don't like it do something for yourself and cut out the self pittying time waster stuff, cut out the abusive letters to people like Adrienne, cut out the crap and do something about it for yourself and not expect others to do it for you.

Nobody was steamrollered, far from it, in fact the biggest complaint was always the lack of contact, not the contact, because there was so little. For instance Bell knew very early on that I had the FSC targetted and Dougherty, but how to get them was and still is a different matter. It's a myth people like you like to live with to cover your own lack of action and anger at the situation, which by the way is a bank going bankrupt and had been heading that way for about two years.

Your Simple Simon version events doesn't actually fit the facts, other than I'd agree that the FSC and the management did nothing, but then that's true of every regulator in the western world. Every regulator in th Europe that allowed Kaupthing to operate as they did, knowing that they were in fact far from being liquid. They went bankrupt with our money in their hands. Was it not ringfenced as a criminal act? Or was it just stupid and if so what are you going to do about it tao? What makes you think you know more than the legal people that have been all over this and still don't have a case? So perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all and tell me which law has actaually been broken, perhaps you'd be so good as to enlighten me on whch clause in the IoM banking Laws has been contravened. Oh and you can forget the Basel Accord because it doesn't apply. You might also like to enlighten us all on which exact clause says the IoM Gov, or any other Gov for that matter, has to pay when a bank goes bankrupt; or exactly what Duty the Directors have breached so we can litigate against them. I'm all ears tao!! It'd save those depositors giving money to for legal advise a lot of money.

The problem you have is that you don't really get it, and you're not alone on that score, you don't grasp the matrix at all about who could/should have done what and when, you just blow off steam and accusations. And for all that where is the litigation promised against the directors and the regulators? Talk is cheap tao.

tata


@tao

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/03/2010 - 07:46

Good to see you're still making friends and influencing people! But seriously tao, you are not alone in your frustration, of that you can rest assured, a great deal of time and energy, let alone depositors money, has gone into trying to prove a case. The problem word is "prove", prove intent to de-fraud; prove a fraudulent act; prove malfience etc. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you sit, or which group you think you follow, all have gone to a great deal of trouble to make a case to get a return. All it seems have hit a brick wall on this issue. There may be areas untouched yet, there may be things nobody has thought about, its possible of course. So if you think you can outline what a lot of good, well intentioned and even at times learned people are missing, then pleae go ahead.

But rhetoric is empty as surely you've seen with all the accustaions and bile that has flown here and to what end? In the end just because what is being said isn't appealing doesn't mean it's wrong, just because it's not what we want to hear shouldn't mean it's dismissed. If you have a real strategy, as bellyup said, get on with it!


@expat: They haven't explained....

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/03/2010 - 23:44

As far as I can see 'they' have not explained why the up-streamed funds were not ring-fenced from KSFUK.
That was what the FSC appropiately recommended initially.
Negligence is not following the reasonable course, it is really that simple.

Yes I too saw the report on Sants overview of what has happened industry wide.
You watching the stuff on Lehmans? Not to mention AIG, just models...

Why was Bell so (sneeringly) dismissive of the 'collateral damage' we suffered?
How was it possible for him to say that the upstreaming model worked? Why did he respond so apparently stupidly?

I'll pull back from 'bile', I would suggest that the directors are still lawyered up to the hilt, in cahoots with Bell and Aspden, and praying that their judicial system continues to act in a prejudiced manner to their advantage.

Now possibly we wait a bit longer before we act.

My position was, is, and will be 'No Quarter'. Tell me, did rolling over work?

Is this diplomatic enough for you?


@tao

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 15/03/2010 - 12:26

Diplomatic enough? No not really tao, the rolling over comment is, frankly rubbish if you mean that trying to talk is better than abusing and as you might have noticed the abuse and threats dished out have achieved exactly nothing, except to elicit contempt. But then you don't actually know anything about what was said between the IoM depositors and the IoM do you, you just prefer to live in a little delusion on that one. But I'll let it pass for now, because you weren't there now were you!

So let's take the upstreaming, which is a model that continues today, and negligence. Sorry tao, but every lawyer involved in this disagrees with your simplistic ascertion. But as you're following the Lehmans story perhaps you've read this comment on the debacle: “People might not like the rules but, prima facie, nothing illegal happened. Do you blame the rules or the people who abide by the rules?” .

I am and always have been critical of the lack of ringfencing, in fact I was one of the first to realise that had happened, but it doesn't make it illegal. Stupid yes, but illegal?

"Robert Mintz, a former government prosecutor and now white collar crime expert at law firm McCarter & English said bringing charges against bankers would be tricky as Lehman’s collapse happened amid a global financial meltdown.

“These are very difficult cases to bring. The issues are generally very complex and a lot of what happened was influenced by forces outside the company’s control,” he said.

Fuld and co may escape criminal prosecution. Their advisers, too, may walk free. “Historically it’s quite hard to pin stuff on a Big Four firm and it’s nigh-on impossible to pin stuff on lawyers,” said one City source.

“This is embarrassing for E&Y and Linklaters but does it mean they caused Lehman to collapse? No. Is this Enron? No. Is this criminal? No.”

It takes evidence and proof of a premeditated act tao, or hasn't that message struck home yet?

Why was Bell so dismissive? You'd better ask him tao. But I'd have thought it was a bit obvious given that the central excuse is that the FSA didn't comply with the MoU. As to acting stupidly, you probably need to understand that the the IoM Gov didn't need to act at all, and that the UK didn't seemingly look after their interests in dealing with Iceland.

Now why that is is a different matter, given that the myth that the UK simply saved depositors in the UK has known been shown to be untrue, they put a very big gun at the collective Icelandic head in fact.

Maybe you also need to grasp that the DCS (a rubbish scheme if I may say so and again that was spotted by some pretty quickly) was never going to pay out before October 2009 and that a quick liquidation wasn't going to be much better.

The rest of your contentions are just supposition and have no basis in fact. Except to say that discussion might (a slim chance, but a chance nonetheless) have produced a modicum of support, whereas the threats and abuse have produced an actively dismisive attitude and killed of any chance of real support.

As to your "No Quarter" stance, frankly its meaningless tao, or hasn't that sunk in either. So we're still waiting for you lead on how to redress this situation to the collective advantage, aside from blowing off steam here that is. Although I suppose you could listen to Page and Plant! Still waiting for a constructive comment or signs of you actually doing something, or is it all huff and puff eh??


Not again expat!!!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 16/03/2010 - 04:26

Remember our "conversation"?

What was it I reported back To ICDBrazil after the call. Well it was basically that you 'steamrollered'.

It appears that you are still doing the same.

Perhaps you would enlighten us all and tell us what you have achieved. On second thoughts I withdraw that invitation to avoid more pontification.

You naievty is starting to make me feel quite worldly.

I am not going to waste many more words addressing your ever more confused arguments. My stupidity here lies I suppose in not realising that if you didn't get it 'then' then you wouldn't get it now. I just hope that I've distracted you long enough for those who might actually be on top of the situation to get on with what may actually be possible.

Finally as for your response to 'No Quarter': The IoMG stiffed us, there is no other way of putting it.
The legal system is adversarial. You still think that making eyes at Bell & Brown, front men for the IoM finance community, is going to produce anything then I am really lost for anything to say.

The only way forward is legal action. Or equally important the surfacing of more hard evidence of negligence.

The directors, with the collusion of the FSC, managed to turn a bank that potentially had the capacity to survive the 'Iceland debacle' into a disaster for us, as far as I can see unnecessarily due to reasons not detailed but that correspond near perfectly with 'the man on the Clapham omnibus's view of negligence (You have just seen the legal profession's behaviour in enabling Lehman to go jurisdiction shopping... let's see what the politicians make of this!!) They failed to take the obvious action to protect the KSFIoM operation as an independent entity. Their job was not to protect KSFUK or Kaupthing Iceland. They signally failed. And the only sense I can make from the TSC testimony is that they are lying.

I'm sorry that this viewpoint means that I cannot find it in myself to be accommodating to their phoney sensibilities. If you really think that they actually care what I think rather than that my interpretation makes more sense to the thinking public then you are ,once again, you are still wandering around lost in a fog of naievety.

Here's to realpolitik. You just carry on there making deals over suppers and pints at the bar.

If the directors, Bell, Brown et al are actually reading this then perhaps they might do us all a favour and point out to you that my commentary is quite reasonable and they understand and are using whatever measures they can shamelessly justify to themsleves to protect their own backs.


Evidence

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/03/2010 - 13:46

I hold a copy of the Parental Guarantee that was accepted by the FSC and agreed by them that its existence could be published on the KSFIOM website in order to lure depositors. Surely this document, which is missing all the very basics of a legal document i.e. Countersignature, Witness details, KSFHF Stamp the fact that it has been registered clearly shows that the FSC was not performing its function as a body for overseeing the banking industry of the IOM? After all it is called the Financial Supervision (management by overseeing the performance or operation of a person or group) Commission.

Negligence springs to mind at the very least!


Hector Sants latest views on the regulators!!!!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/03/2010 - 07:39

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7430522/...

and also from the Daily Telegraph

Hector Sants, chief executive of the Financial Services Authority, has called time on the era of "light-touch" or "principles-based" regulation and said that a new "outcomes-based" approach was needed in the wake of a financial crisis that many blame on the previous regime.

Speaking at Oxford University's Saïd Business School, Mr Sants said the FSA would no longer wait for problems to occur before acting and would instead intervene "in a proactive way", saying the regulator would hire more staff in the next year, despite the uncertainty over its future.

The Conservatives were unmoved and Mark Hoban, shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, said the reforms announced by Mr Sants were not enough and maintained the party's pledge to abolish the FSA if elected and split its powers between the Bank of England and a new Consumer Protection Agency.

"We argued in our White Paper last July for a more pro-active approach to regulation, tackling problems as they emerge," said Mr Hoban.

"The FSA's announcement today recognises the strength of that argument but it also reminds us that in the run up to the banking crisis, the FSA lacked focus and it failed to both protect consumers and tackle the risks building up on banks' balance sheets."

The FSA has come in for heavy criticism in the wake of the financial crisis, which saw the first run on a British bank in more than 150 years and the near collapse of two of the country's largest lenders, as well as for a continued slew of mis-selling scandals that have cost consumers billions of pounds.

Mr Sants admitted the FSA should have "stepped in earlier in the past".

"At the end of the day you'd have to say the results were not acceptable to society and therefore it is right that we should change and step in earlier," he said and promised a more intrusive approach going forward. He said additional staff would be hired to enable the regulator to conduct more inspections of financial services providers and mystery shopper operations in an attempt to prevent mis-selling scandals such as that over payment protection insurance.

"The old FSA's reactive philosophy focused on ensuring firms had the appropriate systems and controls," said Mr Sants.

"Judgements were rarely made on the consequences of management actions. In the new intensive approach to supervision the FSA is taking a view on management action."

A spokesman for consumer watchdog Which? said the reforms were "broadly in the right direction" and said it welcomed the change of direction by Mr Sants who had been a strong proponent of less intrusive regulation.

Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com said the proposals lacked detail, in particular how and when the regulator will intervene.

"There is currently a ticking time bomb in the mortgage market as interest rates rise and what I would like to know is when the intervention by the FSA starts and stops," he said.


@Done Like a Kipper

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/03/2010 - 20:24

I hope you're right, I made a great deal out of this issue at the Enquiry and await the reactions. If this document proves to be invalid, and as yet we do not know that, then I would like to think there is scope for litigation. But against who remains to be seen, there's a trail of poor management on that one if it's invailid.


Parental Guarantee

  • ianw
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:12

I also have an original letter dated 20th Nov 2007 signed by Fiona Passey as a director on behalf of Derbyshire IOM Ltd and Doherty on behalf of KSF (IOM) ltd stating:

"KSF (IOM) Ltd agrees to operate your account in accordance with the T&Cs, save that with effect from the Transfer Date in the T&Cs (ii) the reference to the Derbyshire Building Society having given an irrevocable and binding undertaking to ensure that, whle Derbyshire Offshore remains its subsidiary, it will at all times be able to discharge its financial obligations as they fall due will no longer apply but will be replace by reference to Kaupthing Bank hf having given an irrevocable and binding undertaking to ensure that, while KSF (IOM) Ltd remains its subsidiary, it will at all times be able to discharge its financail obligations as they fall due."

There can be no doubt that depositors IN KSF IOM were told in very explicit terms that the parental guarantee by KSF was in force. However, as Expat has very correctly pointed out, if the parent has no value then the presence or otherwise of the guarantee is irrelevant. As Expat also says: like it or not, the parental guarantee probably has no value.

If it could be proven that Derbyshire (now Nationwide) failed to conduct due diligence in sufficient depth to show KSF held fincial capacity equivalent to Derbshire, then Nationwide can be sued for negilgence. However, there is of course a problem as illustrated by today's revelations regarding Lehman: it's alleged Lehman's public accounts were cooked - despite being signed off by Lehman's auditors E&Y. Yet another case of "snouts in the trough" - How can one expect the so-called "independnet" auditors to get tough on their client and cut off the hand that feeds them?

Another black hole is the role of the Building Societies Commission (BSC) in pacing restrictions on the activities of Derbyshire (IOM) at the time it was established by Derbyshire Building Society. There is a strong suspicion that by the terms if its established, Derbyshire was supposed to apply to the BSC (now the FSA) for permission to sell and terms were agreed that included retention of liability in the event KSF collapsed. My MP has tried to get to the bottom of this, but Turner has in writing refused to reveal details of information present at the FSA due to "commercial confidentiality".... I just wonder whether Turner has been lent on by his public school pals at the Nationwide.....?


Thank You

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/03/2010 - 17:02

Yes indeed, a HUGE thank you to both .......


Who is/are the Partially Protected Depositors Group?

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/02/2010 - 17:45

Intrigued to hear of the positive comments relating to the presentation to the TSC by Stephen Thomas, but this is the first I have heard of this group, who are they? If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it?


PPDG

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/02/2010 - 09:30

Just for clarity and not in the least wishing to promote further polemic:

"Partially Protected Depositor Group" (PPDG) is the name decided upon some while back by the members of the group formerly known as the High Net Worth Group (HNW) who prefer not to be represented by DST. It was under this name that they submitted written evidence to the Tynwald SC and were invited to give oral evidence (task undertaken on their behalf by expat).

Personally, I have always found this a curiously inappropriate choice of name, since - as bellyup quite rightly points out - those of us who are still left fighting for our money are all partially protected (or even worse in the case of bondholders who were basically not protected at all). With the exception of a few stalwart fully-paid up depositors who have chosen to continue to assist in the fight, the vast majority of those who remain (myself included) are ppd (small letters), but not necessarily PPD!

Hope that helps anyone who is still confused!


What's in a name?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/02/2010 - 11:49

Time to put aside all this petty nonsense over whose who.

We are all the DAG and have I believe one aim.

TO GET OUR MONEY BACK.


Re what's in a name

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/02/2010 - 12:53

Bellyup: I totally agree. I was simply responding with factual information to a question by grapow. I explicitly said I wanted no part whatsoever in any polemic. So yes please, let us stop this petty nonsense.


Thank you so much Steve Angela DAG PPD one and all

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/02/2010 - 12:09

Yes quite right all of us above 50,000 are Partially Protected Depositors - 30% of the KSIOM Depositors who held 70% of the assets of KSFIOM. So all of us have been seriously misled and robbed of a great deal of money and we remain a "force to be reckoned with". Many wonderful highly motivated people in the PPD and DAG groups have been working very very hard on a daily basis for nearly 18 months now to get 100% of our money rightfully returned to us. Thanks everyone may we all remain and continue as a united team until justice is done


I think you should let people

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/02/2010 - 09:47

I think you should let people read the transcripts and make thier own minds up about who said what.


Just a point about why I

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/03/2010 - 07:11

Just a point about why I specifically attacked the MoU and the FSC and FSA at the enquiy, oh and the FSM in Icleand, this bit from Lord Turner might clarify, points I was aware of by the way.

"(The Turner Review A regulatory response to the global banking crisis) it was obvious that that philosophy had to change. I therefore argued that at least in retail banking, we could not avoid either 'more Europe or less Europe' ie, greater coordination to make a single banking market safer, or limits to single market rights, with host country powers to demand bank subsidirisation, local capital and local liquidity."

He said a commonly agreed and enforced rule book was required for the industry, which needed balance between political oversight and delegation to technical experts.

Lord Turner said it would require "technicians devoted to good regulation and supervision …. independent of apparent national interests (such as influencing the location of activities)" and a robust process of peer review between different regulators that would include resourcing and supervisory processes.

Lord Turner also warned about the risks that remain for host countries from cross-border banking business.

He said the structures for cross-border business need to recognise the national interests of the host country".

In other words it needs not a vacuous Memo, but considered obligations, agreed proceedures and lines of communication to regulate. And that was incumbent opon the FSC to organise.


MOU

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/03/2010 - 14:20

Please can you clarify the implications of this MOU ?

Bearing in mind that there are MOUs between Iceland and the IOM and the UK and the IOM?


@bellyup

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/03/2010 - 22:44

If you mean the MOU between the UK and Iceland Bellyup, the implication is that it has no contractural or legal basis. In other words as it has been the central plank on which the FSC has based its defence, i.e. that the FSA didn't tell them of a problem, its worthless. The MOU doesn't place any obligation upon the FSA that it has to tell the FSC anything, if the FSC wanted obligation they should have set about getting a document between the parties that reflected that. I can't imagine the FSA bothering because the IoM is small fry to them, but he FSC needed someting with clarity in.

That is what Lord Turner is alluding to generally, that if regulators are going to convrerse with each other, then it needs to have meaning. "A commonly agreed and enforced rule book" as he put it, its not only the IoM that hasn't sorted this out.

Whether we can sue on that of course is what we all want to know, and no is the almost certain answer, but it's a step in the right direction. At least it's proveable that the MOU has no basis in law! That there are other MoUs is simply indicative of the failure of this type of so called "light touch" regulation with no legal recourse, all part of the Anglo-Saxon Economic model that has just taken a serious pasteing, "the market knows best" concept, so don't tell us what to do. So I wouldn't get to wound up about there being other MoUs, its par for the course.


So it was the IoM's screwup?!!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 06/03/2010 - 01:42

It was the IoMG's screwup thru their reliance on their agent the FSC.

Have we not spent a lot of time reaching this rather obvious point?

Now sue their ass!


@tao

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 06/03/2010 - 12:19

Ah no, not exactly. It was the FSC's error of judgement and the KSF managements error of judgement, not the IoM Gov, they are separate institutions and are independent of governments. Just as the FSA are not the UK Gov, or the Fed is not the US Gov, otherwise people would sue the Fed for the collapse of Lehmans wouldn't they. Or the FSA for the collpase of the UK system and a bill of £150billion+ to the Britsh tax payer. It is rather important to correctly understand the relationships here Tao. Not that the IoM Gov are above criticism given Allan Bells statement they they realised there was an Icelandic problem in the summer of 2008. Read the transcripts of my testimony, its all in there.

Secondly a lot of us have known for a very long time that poor management and structure was at the root, not a conspiracy, well except of silence of course. And it's also fair to say that a lot of us have known that you can't sue stupidity! To sue you need to prove malfience and or malpractice, and for all the efforts and costs expended by some, that has manifestly not been the case now has it. And that issue was dealt with at the enquiry if you'd care to check. And the answer was "no, I cannot say that".

So could you please outline the case that we can sue for?

None of that by the way exonerates the FSA who allowed Kaupthing to operate in the UK as they did (the subject of the SFO these days); the FSM in Iceland for allowing an ill-judged expansion; the UK Gov for a paniced reaction to something they'd known was on the cards for two years; or the FSA for not tipping the wink to the IoM; or HM treasury for not ensuring that the funds were returned, which they could have done.


@ expat

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 06/03/2010 - 17:02

Thanks so much again expat for representing us at the TSC.
Re your post above: "To sue you need to prove malfience and or malpractice" - surely this is is an area in which we could/should have a case. "breach of contract" also - this pertains to their knowledge of failure yet continuing to sell us as new customers only weeks/days before the collapse with 100% gaurantee on glossy brochures- telling us it was a "Northern Europen" Bank not Icelandic (careful coice of words and avoidence- who ordered the bank staff to lie?).

Re: "malpractice" : If you saw a doctor with a condition that needed an operation which could save your life and he wrote on his medical records his (correct) diagnosis and that an opertion was necessary which could/would save your life, but he chose not to tell you or your family what the condition/daignosis/prognosis was and just decided for some crazy inexplicable reason not to act or operate knowing he could save your life, this would be a full proof case to sue the docter and win, as the case notes held the proof of his malpractice. This applies to your statement in your post quote " not a conspiracy, well except of silence of course".

I still think we should try and get them especially as we have been the only branch of Kaupthing left high and dry thanks to their malpractice right down the line. Fraud alos comes to mind - to knowingly extract money from us or steal our money knowing that the bank is in dire straights in the UK and Iceland without proper gaurantee - hmmm I wish we could get further guidence from our legal team. They should not continue to get away with this at the expense of thousands of innocent depositors.


hello fight theft, I'll try

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 08/03/2010 - 18:48

hello fight theft, I'll try to answer the questions you pose, sorry about the dealy in this, but real life has intervened so to speak!

Breach iof contract, well I can't say that I can see breach here, I don't disagree that they should have know (see the transpripts of the enquiry, I did go into that), but at the end of the end its poor judgement, hiding your head in the sand whatever, but I'm informed it doesn't constitute breach. I am trying to get at a breach of duty, and I know it's being looked at by the COI team. What PPDG are trying to do is unlock the management matrix that seems to have been so ineffective, maybe there's a route there.

The adverising might be misleading, although to be fair I was well aware they were Icelandic, that's "caveat emptor" to a large entent. Whether it is fraud is I think beinmg looked at by the SFO, misleading certainly for some, fraud we'll have to wait and see.

If I may say so one thinmg we all need to be aware of is that we won't always hear what we want to hear, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Think about it.

Malpractice in this case means corruption etc, and as I said no evidence has ever come forward in spite of much rhetoric and money being spent. DST had the opportunity to elaborate at the enquiry and said "no, I cannot do that". If anyone has real evidence I'd be the first to support it, but to date nothing has ever emerged it seems. The "legal team" or whatever moniker they go under at the moment have never been able to substantiate any ideas of fraud or they'd be taking action by now I'd have thought. Part of my so called correspondence with DST or London Team or Legal Team whatever, over time.

That we have been the only branch left high and dry has as much to do with the IoMs commercial/political decision not to bail the bank out, and the UK attitude that we are not theeir problem. We need to keep in mind here that Kaupthing as a group failed because of seriously poor management, seriously poor regulatiion in three countires at least, the final nail might have been from lack of forsight and action on the IoM by regulators and management, but the empire was rotten from its core.


I do not understand the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/03/2010 - 04:29

I do not understand the confusion about the issue of negligence. The `postings' above mention "fraud". Do any of you have more than half a brain?

Fraud is criminal. Negligence is civil, if it is criminal negligence ( which we are blatantly obviously not talking about) someone is not posting pertinent known details.

"DST had the opportunity to elaborate at the enquiry and said "no, I cannot do that". If anyone has real evidence I'd be the first to support it, but to date nothing has ever emerged it seems. The "legal team" or whatever moniker they ..." enough innuendo 'expat', but on the other hand fair comment. Why can't the negligence be pinpointed? Is it virtual, imagined, or there by implication, or real (my proposition)?

The man on the Clapham omnibus would have removed exposure to KSFIoM, just as the FSC suggested. Why this wasn't done has not been explicitly detailed. This absence of such detail suggests negligence. The extent of the negligence needs to be decided by the courts.

The joke has gone on long enough. let's draw the line in the IoM sands.


I do not understand the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/03/2010 - 04:28

I do not understand the confusion about the issue of negligence. The `postings' above mention "fraud". Do any of you have more than half a brain?

Fraud is criminal. Negligence is civil, if it is criminal negligence ( which we are blatantly obviously not talking about) someone is not posting pertinent known details.

"DST had the opportunity to elaborate at the enquiry and said "no, I cannot do that". If anyone has real evidence I'd be the first to support it, but to date nothing has ever emerged it seems. The "legal team" or whatever moniker they ..." enough innuendo 'expat', but on the other hand fair comment. Why can't the negligence be pinpointed? Is it virtual, imagined, or there by implication, or real (my proposition)?

The man on the Clapham omnibus would have removed exposure to KSFIoM, just as the FSC suggested. Why this wasn't done has not been explicitly detailed. This absence of such detail suggests negligence. The extent of the negligence needs to be decided by the courts.

The joke has gone on long enough. let's draw the line in the IoM sands.


The Manx Heralds view

  • Anonymous
  • Offline

At last its hit IoM

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/03/2010 - 18:59

At last its hit IoM Today!

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/KSF-victim-hits-out-at.6112331.jp

I still have that red fleece y'know!!

However I have just sent this to the editor:
Dear Sir
Firstly thank you for publicising comments made at the KSF Enquiry last week, however, I would like to rectify an impression given in your article. You state that: "Those owed £50,000 or under have been paid in full by the Manx Government's depositors' compensation scheme. The remaining depositors have had 40 per cent of their money back following two dividend payments from the liquidator". What you do not say is that the Depositors Compensation Scheme that that has paid out that money, is in fact an unsecured creditor along with those remaining 40% of depositors and will recover the same percentage as we do, whether it is 85% or hopefully 93%. It is therefore not compensation at all, it is in fact taking money from larger depositors to pay smaller depositors, as was pointed out at the Committee hearings and is in fact money that could have been invested in a solution that would have seen 100% return to depositors; a saved bank and no damage to the IoMs reputation. In fact it may have enhanced the IoM as has been shown by the actions taken by the UK authorites who are about to profit from selling off their investment into the UKs banking sector.

Regards


EXPAT TRANSCRIPT

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/02/2010 - 11:51

Dear Steve,

Many thanks for your repesentation at the TSC. I have seen the transcrit of Angela's statement.
Any idea where we can get copy of your submission?

Kind regards,

Mike

PS: Trust all well on the home front!


Thank you Steve and Angela (and Bellyup)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/03/2010 - 09:39

Many thanks to Steve and Angela for representing us at the TSC. You were outstanding!
Bellyup also deserves praise for his perseverance on the manxforums blog(KSF Megathread 2). Well done Bellyup for putting our case so well to a very hostile audience.


Thanks aren't required, we

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/03/2010 - 10:12

Thanks aren't required, we said what needed to be said as forthrightly as possible. There will always be differing views about this whole issue, but when all is said and done we have always had to fight for a position in this.
And don't assume the UK didn't come in for a lot of criticism as well, but the essence of this was to demolish the plank that the FSA had let the FSC down! That I think might now be a very hard position to justify, as will the lack of clarity and action by KSF IoM and it's "management" team. This was after all an Enquiry into the situation on the IoM as that's all the gov their can deal with.
And just who did put a stop to an "imaginative solution". Next round I assume.


Hooray for expat and anrigout!!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/03/2010 - 12:54

Well thank you is in order. Usually the workers think, 'I do all this work and never even get a thank you.' It probably stops others from doing their bit. Thank you once again and thanks to all the other unappreciated workers behind the scenes.


PPDG

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/02/2010 - 21:29

Now more or less everyone that is left as far as I am concerned

Anyone who had over 50k was only partially protected.


PPDG

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/02/2010 - 22:07

Thanks, my wife and I are (sadly, still) members of this group!


Partially Protected Depositors group

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/02/2010 - 20:36

Previously known as the High Networth Group.
Thanks again Steve and Angela for all your efforts. It will be interesting to see what response we now get. We owe you both a lot.


HEAR HEAR

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 28/02/2010 - 11:22

My thanks to both Angela and Steve for representing us at the TSC.

Kind regards,

Mike


expat to go before Tynwald Select Committee

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/02/2010 - 22:39

On 24th Feb 2010, expat will be expounding DAG depositors' issues, at the Tynwald Select Committee, with reference to the collapse of KSFIOM. We wish expat well.


KSF directors come under fire - powerful performance by expat

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/02/2010 - 02:55

http://www.isleofman.com/en-gb/News/article.aspx?article=24568&area=2
KSF directors come under fire

Date Posted: 25/Feb/2010 07:07
Posted By: Manx Radio

< Back
KSF directors come under fire

Depositors with the failed Manx bank Kapthing Singer and Friedlander have given evidence before the Tynwald Select Committee investigating its collapse.

Dr Angela Downs of the Depositors' Action Group was first to testify before the committee, chaired by Juan Watterson MHK.

However, the session was dominated by the powerful performance of Stephen Thomas of the Partially Protected Depositors Group.

Mr Thomas told the hearing, as a professional manager of international companies, he was shocked by the quality of leadership shown by directors and regulators.
Clip 1


Thanks

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/02/2010 - 12:49

Steve / Expat

Thanks for doing us proud, and for your relentless efforts. Thanks also to Gavin and Peter for their efforts in preparing support material / briefing docs.

Adrienne


I can't resist...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 27/02/2010 - 09:19

Adrienne,
How about an apology?
Didn't you just pick the wrong tactics. And so arrogantly.


Tynwald Committe Meeting!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/02/2010 - 13:02

Expat/Steve

Yes may I take this Opportunity to thank you for all your Hard work and the way you have conveyed your Argument.. to The COMMITTEE.

Regards TO ALL

Aurora


DAG representation at TSC

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 23/02/2010 - 18:04

It should remembered what happened when Tony Brown appeared before the UK TSC: he gave those who defended the UK actions in relation to KSFIOM exactly what they wanted to hear.
DST notes that “expat” will appear before the Select Committee as the representative for HNW/MTFK/PPD. He is the high net worth depositor who insisted over a long period of time that IOMG would come up with a plan to make depositors whole, and that all blame for the collapse of KSFIoM lay with HMG and the FSA rather than with the island’s authorities. Accordingly, he commended the IoMG efforts in the media, backed the promotion of the SoA despite knowing that DAG appointed lawyers were contesting it, and assisted the IoMT in persuading the island’s court to delay the winding up of KSFIOM and the triggering of the DCS for 8 months, while assuring depositors that behind the scenes moves were afoot to put everything right.
We assume that he is there before the committee next week to give evidence as to the extent to which he was misled by the IOM government.

DST will be representing KSFIOM Depositors Action Group at tomorrows sitting.


Unwarrented and inappropriate

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 24/02/2010 - 02:49

I am disappointed to read this statement from the DST in my opinion it is both unwarranted and inappropriate.
We the DAG should be presenting a united front. .

It should remembered what happened when Tony Brown appeared before the UK TSC: he gave those who defended the UK actions in relation to KSFIOM exactly what they wanted to hear.

What exactly does the DST mean by this?

DST notes that “expat” will appear before the Select Committee as the representative for HNW/MTFK/PPD.

As all those who had 50k and under have been paid out all that are left are HNW/MTFK/PPD or whatever you like to call them so why the disdain?

He is the high net worth depositor

Does this matter ?
Expat is part of DAG the same as all of us.
I would rather someone who has a lot to lose plead my case rather than someone who has little or nothing to lose at all and is in it for reasons that are not clear to me.

who insisted over a long period of time that IOMG would come up with a plan to make depositors whole, and that all blame for the collapse of KSFIoM lay with HMG and the FSA rather than with the island’s authorities.

Expat was also the first person on the Isle of Man after the bank went down and brought the plight of the Depositors to the attention of the media.

Accordingly, he commended the IoMG efforts in the media, backed the promotion of the SoA despite knowing that DAG appointed lawyers were contesting it, and assisted the IoMT in persuading the island’s court to delay the winding up of KSFIOM and the triggering of the DCS for 8 months, while assuring depositors that behind the scenes moves were afoot to put everything right.

This is not quite true at first everyone was inclined against the liquidation of the Bank hoping that another solution would come to the fore .It was hoped that the SOA would have something to offer better than liquidation it didn’t and was defeated mainly by the sole vote of the KSF pension fund and the over 50 k depositors.THe DST has not been exactly open either about what they have done in the past behind the scenes either.

We assume that he is there before the committee next week to give evidence as to the extent to which he was misled by the IOM government.

Why do you assume this?
Surely Expat will be there to represent people there who still have money to lose ?
And instead of using the royal we all the time DST why don’t you name yourselves ?

DST will be representing KSFIOM Depositors Action Group at tomorrows sitting.

Which depositors are the self appointed DST representing?
Obviously not the HNW/MTFK/PPD

but isn’t that just about everyone?


Unwarranted and inappropriate

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 25/02/2010 - 02:49

Expat's complaint in this matter is essentially twofold: First, that he lost his savings. which is fair enough and applies to all of us and is quite obviously unjust. Second, that the IoM Government and its Treasury made a complete fool out of him. He put his trust in them over a very long period of time and that was a misfortune entirely of his own making. Moreover, he convinced other depositors to do the same, and he and they willingly gave considerable assistance to the IoMT in persuading the court to allow delay after delay so as to develop their SoA, thereby inflicting his mistake on all of us depositors.

His trust in IoMT was misplaced. Expat was misled and manipulated in spite of being repeatedly warned by members of the DST that he was being led up the garden path. Sadly, having got it all so hopelessly wrong, he was and still is unable to admit it. Our complaint about expat is not that he was taken for a ride by people much more skilled than he, but that he consistently disregarded advice from others and even now clings desperately to the claim that he was right all along in spite of manifest evidence to the contrary. There is a long chain of correspondence between expat and members of the DST that demonstrates this.

As to the Select Commitee hearing, we understand that he gave factual evidence of the first. The second is by now probably self-evident.


Pls. don't use this forum to squabble

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 25/02/2010 - 07:55

Let’s not forget that many depositors had faith in the IOMG and its SoA initially. At the time, it seemed that they were our only hope in getting 100% back. Darling and Brown showed from the very beginning that they were not going to budge in depositors’ favour. As it turned out, the IOM chose to take the same road as HMG, and proved their total incompetence and weakness.
Let’s not also forget that expat was one of the first depositors on the island when the bank collapsed. Unlike many major players on this forum, he was one of the very few who was brave enough to put a face to his name. He fought day and night for all of us for many weeks, and we all knew exactly who he was. Please do not blame him for his bad judgment, “making a fool out of himself”, or whatever you want to call it. At the time, nobody had a crystal ball letting him and others know what the outcome would be, or how the IOMG would let everyone down. When you have more than the 50k DCS limit, and your life savings at stake, you hold on to every little bit of hope possible, and explore each and every avenue. I’m sure that the IOMG gave expat and others every reason to believe in them. That’s what politicians do. There was never a glimmer of hope from HMG. Diplomacy is usually the way forward, but unfortunately, in this case, it backfired. I really don’t believe that expat trusted the IOMG just to spite those in DAG who differed in opinion. …he genuinely believed that they would find a solution for 100% return.
We are all aware that DST has also put in endless hours of hard work for the benefit of depositors. It seems that they have chosen to take a different approach in their attack, but we still do not have 100% return, so like expat, their tactics have not yet reached the desired outcome either. So until DST finds the magic formula to bring corrupt and incompetent governments, bankers, politicians etc etc to justice, please refrain from any squabbling and back-stabbing, as it benefits nobody. If you really must continue, you might want to consider doing so, on the DST private forum, where the rest of the world cannot witness the disaccord that is only adding more salt to depositors’ deep wounds. Let’s use this open forum as a vehicle to applaud ALL those who are still fighting for depositors’ savings, whatever strategy they choose to implement.
Lastly, let’s not also forget, that we have four very highly qualified depositors, who are acting as a unified body on our behalf on the COI, and who are doing everything possible to find the best outcome for all.


bellyup

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 24/02/2010 - 20:02

I agree with you totally on this. DST like their recent update keep spouting forth about what, never anything concrete. And totally out of place re expat.

Gordon 45


No time for petty differences

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 24/02/2010 - 23:58

I, for one, am glad that expat or any other member of the DAG (DST or HNW) are to go before the Tynwald Committee so at least we have a voice in the whole debate. I have always had good faith in expat who was the first to camp out in the IOM and highlight our cause and the injustice of what happened to us. He is a great realist about the whole situation - how it unfolded and how it is turning out and he tirelessly works hard on trying to get our money back. He is not alone but I, for one, am glad that he is off to the IOM to put a few truths out there. I do not see this as a time to allow petty differences to surface between the DST and HNW. The ordinary member is glad to have any voice in this debacle and any awareness that can be raised, out there, is good, in my eyes and I am pleased, from whatever camp, to have some representation. This is no time for "knocking". I say, good on you "expat". If he makes a difference, then I owe him my thanks and appreciation. If he doesn't, I still owe it to him for trying.


Re Expat.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 25/02/2010 - 09:38

I agree with this Comment Glen07 there is NO point whatsoever in arguing amongst ourselves we need as much support internally as we can... now we are in the Minority to get all our money returned.

The position is we need support from MP'S whatever party they're from as the Election Looms this will take away emphasis..

Regards Aurora


Manx Radio

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 26/02/2010 - 02:37

Expats interview on Manx Radio can be found here.

http://www.manxradio.com/audiovault/MandateTHURS.wma


Expat at the TSC

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 24/02/2010 - 09:45

Let's all hope (and the DST DO hope) that expat doesn't disappoint any of us.
In the past he has had more faith in the authorities on the IoM than they have deserved.

Anyway, we'll know within hours and I, personally, will be happy and glad to shake his hand if he gives it to them straight and shakes things up a bit.


Expat and DST in tune at the TSC

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 25/02/2010 - 14:30

Just back from the IOM, I am pleased to report that, in our different ways and with our very differing styles, the two of us who appeared at the TSC yesterday gave - I believe - a very clear and common message which I hope was received as such by the Committee (who at least seemed to be listening and attentive).

Namely that :
1. The FSC and the Directors failed depositors miserably: they COULD have prevented the collapse of the bank, but didn`t; alarm bells were clearly ringing and relying on assurances they reportedly had from the FSA and Iceland that all was well was just simply good enough; it was up to them to do their own due diligence and act accordingly to protect depositors in their jurisdiction
2. Responsibility for dealing with consequences lies fairly and squarely with the IOM in whose jurisdiction we put our money and our trust; in effect, the buck stops here.

First reports on Manx radio over breakfast indicate that these messages came through loud and clear.

Before the hearing, members of DST (who have worked as long and at least as hard as expat for our cause) were genuinely (and IMO justifiably) concerned that expat`s often expressed primary anger towards HMG and his rather more indulgent attitude towards the IOM authorities might be seized upon and used by IOMG to comfort them in their ridiculous stance that this was all the fault of big brother UK and that they were as much victims as we were.

In the event, this did not happen - and I for one rejoice in that. I saw no contradictions in the evidence presented to the Committee. So thank you expat for focussing so clearly and directly on the role of the FSC/Directors. As you said in your evidence "This is about HERE" (here being of course the IOM).

Getting to grips with what really happened has been a long and hard struggle for all of us. It`s not yet finished, but we have all learnt a lot in the course of the last 16 months. We have all been misled at some point by those out to mislead us. Not surprisingly, nobody got it right all the time and I personally have no interest in inquisitions. The essential is to get it as right as we can as often as we can and, as far as possible, as together as we can.