• Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 07/07/2009 - 17:26

This website article in SHELTER OFFSHORE http://www.shelteroffshore.com/index.php/offshore/more/why-shelter-offsh... on "why readers hate the IoM" needs bombarding with your stories & reasons why you would never again bank in the IoM. They have had the URL to my blog which scared them silly & several members wrote to them after I posted reference to them. WELL DONE!


Look at the reasons some members have given in the PREPARING FOR WAR post http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/preparing-war and let them have it straight. There's several inaccuracies in their article as well! TELL THEM TO GET THEIR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE PROMOTING THE IoM.

Why not send the URL of this article to your local newspaper with a copy of your reply to the editor of this website?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (11 votes)

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

Shelter Articles

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/07/2009 - 12:29

I have sent my opinions in reply to two of their recent articles - There doesn't seem to be anywhere that they publish them - or have I missed it .

The point is I have registered my distrust of the IOM and everyone else should BOMBARD THEM with mails - they are condoning the actions of the IOMG that isn't right!!

Why we mistrust the Isle of Man

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/07/2009 - 11:31

Canon balls are not my strong point, but I've done my best. This is what I sent:

Dear editor,

In a recent article you ask « why do Shelter Offshore readers hate the Isle of Man so much? Are so many of them victims of the collapse of Kaupthing, Singer & Friedlander or are they victims of the misinformation that has been spread about the island ever since? »

My guess is that yes, many of them are, like myself, victims. I do not « hate » the Isle of Man, but am very angry at the inadequate and self-serving response of the authorities there to our plight and their abyssmal response to the effects of the global financial crisis.

I would like to point out some of the inaccuracies I perceive in your article.

« Yes, Kaupthing, Singer & Friedlander collapsed and resultant concerns have not been handled swiftly, efficiently or comprehensively enough for some victims…however, that is only one part of the story. »
Maybe (?), but it is a very large and important part of the story.

« However, the Isle of Man authorities have been relatively quick to act and raise the upper limit of the deposit compensation scheme and to set aside £150 million for ongoing future potential compensation. »
Indeed, the compensation limit for retail depositors was immediately raised from £20,000 to £50,000, but – 9 months down the line – depositors are still waiting for the first pay-out. Moreover, you omit to say that the limit is set to return to £20, 000 in October 2009. Apart from temporarily raising the compensation limit, what the IoM authorities actually did was to buy as much time as they could by feigning to be develop (at great cost to their taxpayers) a Scheme that would offer a better deal to creditors than a liquidation. In the event, it was no such thing; after 8 long months of prevarication, the long-suffering creditors were offered a liquidation under another name and without the statutory protection and full legal rights of the real thing. Unsurprisingly, they rejected the deal and finally got the liquidation they could have had months earlier. But now the IoM, having had time to get their act together, will be able to tell the world that their compensation scheme was put into operation with great speed! Not a bad conjouring trick! And all for their « reputation ».

« It is alleged by the government that three quarters of all savers affected by the collapse will be fully compensated – this is far better than those affected when Landsbanki in Guernsey failed for example. »
.. but far worse than those affected by in the UK and in almost all other jurisdictions (except Guernsey) where ordinary savers have been fully compensated in line with the recommendations of Gordon Brown to vouchsafe the savings (not investments) of retail depositors affected by the present crisis. It is small comfort to depositors in KSFIOM to know that those in Guernsey are even worse off.

« However, the Isle of Man is the best in terms of what it can and does offer non-resident savers. If you save your money elsewhere in tax havens around the world you can find yourself 100% unprotected in even leading and respected jurisdictions. »
Conclusion?: if the IoM represents the best on offer, then - if you are not out to evade tax - don't bank in a tax haven. In this case, DON'T BANK ON THE ISLE OF MAN.

« Therefore, we feel that the jurisdiction should be respected for what it has done and continues to do to maintain its reputation as a leading and reputable financial centre. »
Right: you've hit the nail on the head - « to maintain its reputation » (see above). But the point is what has it done – when the chips were down - for those who entrusted their hard-earned savings in a AAA-rated bank in their reputable financial centre?

« All individuals can potentially benefit from the Isle of Man’s offerings, it is not an elite centre for the super wealthy – it has modest offerings for every day savers, expatriate pension savers, those seeking a secure banking environment, ... . »
Yes, that's what many of us thought and believed. For all those reasons, we put our trust in the Isle of Man. But the benefit turned out indeed to be only « potential ». How are those expatriate pension savers, many now retired and looking to reap the benefits of their hard-earned savings accumulated over many years, expected to cope now?

There is every reason to believe that serious regulatory failures played a major part in the bank's failure. These include the approval by the FSC in late 2007 of the take-over of Derbyshire Offshore (IoM) by an Icelandic bank, along with a 'back of envelope' parental guarantee hastily drafted to replace the original guarantee by the UK parent (Derbyshire Building Society), leaving depositors with ongoing fixed term accounts with Derbyshire no choice in the matter and encouragement in the placing of 60% of the bank's total funds unsecured in an Icelandic subsidiary in another jurisdiction (the UK).

In order to shed more light on the whole affair, the following motion is now before Tynwald and will be discussed on 14 July:

Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (IOM) Limited - (adjourned debate)
Motion made -
That Tynwald appoints a Committee of three Members with powers to take
written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald
Proceedings Act 1876, as amended, to investigate and report on -
(1) the cause of the collapse of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (IOM)
(2) the role of the Financial Supervision Commission in ensuring the
proper management of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (IOM)
Limited to protect depositors’ funds;
(3) the credibility of the Depositors’ Compensation Scheme; and
(4)any other relevant matter

May I respectfully suggest that further promotion of the IoM as a safe haven for savings should be put on hold until the proposed Committee has completed its work and published its conclusions?

@anrigaut.. great shot!..

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/07/2009 - 15:04

Terrific! That's a super load of cannon balls... you sure knows how to handle a cannon, lass! (:

Don't bank on the Isle of Man

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/07/2009 - 05:20


Don't bank on the Isle of Man - it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

1 No bank of last resort.
2 No funding in the DCS for even one bank failure, never mind two or more.
3 No representation: no vote no hope.

How dare you promote this despicable OSC when its regulator encouraged the placement of 60% of a single bank's total funds in an Icelandic subsidiary in another jurisdiction. You have no bloody idea what you're talking about. You should be absolutely and thoroughly ashamed of yourselves; 11400 depositors have had their money taken from them (taken = misappropriated) after decades of saving up for their retirement. The Isle of Man may well crow about how many will be compensated, but the truth of the matter is that the 30% left uncompensated hold some 70% of the total assets. Even 5 or 6 years from now only a small proportion of this money will be returned (to those still left alive) nearly 70% were already in retirement or near-retirement.

In short, you are so, so, wrong about the Isle of Man, no country with such a small population should expect to support a multi-billion OSC - especially without a bank of last resort, and especially being in such a fundamentally weak position with the UK that they can only nod and jump when told to.

@IceCrusher - a great cannon ball!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/07/2009 - 06:31

Well done, IC....another great cannon ball smack on the poop deck!

Posting responses here helps members to see what has been said already so that they too can fire a shot having regard to what has gone before.

In the light of the article & members' response to it I hope to draft a Press Release for the DST, so keep firing folks!

PS: OFFSHORE SHELTER is going to get another blasting on my blog: http://ksfiom-blog.blogspot.com & I will be posting a warning about the site on Facebook.

Shelter Offshore

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/07/2009 - 07:11

I have written 2 e-mails to Shelter Offshore but I don't know how to put them here unless I re-type them. I would rather spend the time sending more mail out.

icecrusher thats brilliant as always..

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 08/07/2009 - 06:06

This is just the start, hopefully in time there will be a nice little film about this all...


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/07/2009 - 20:49

Comments sent

Firing off another cannon ball at the site: 'Shelter Offshore'

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 07/07/2009 - 20:29

To the editor of 'Shelter Offshore'
I was astonished to read your article 'Why do Shelter Offshore Readers Hate the Isle of Man?'

First it is not 'hate' that depositors feel; it is utter contempt at an offshore financial centre that has no sense of justice, or moral integrity. There is a blog on the IoM whose message is now fast circulating around the world. Here is an extract:

The Isle of Man is living in a little world of its own. Its government & Treasury behave as though there were no global financial crisis and that the conclusions & recommendations of the g20 do not apply to them. When it comes to knowing whether your money is safe, the best it can do if your bank can't pay you is offer compensation up to £50,000. Even then it is conditional and does not pay out on demand because it is not funded.

In doing so the IoM is totally out of step with other governments who if necessary have been prepared to nationalise a bank in order to protect savers if it is unable to meet its liabilities to depositors. But in the Isle of Man John Aspden the chief of the FSC has said that a bank should be allowed to fail, & that savers should understand that there are 'risks' to depositing as there are with investing.

Though the IoM does not have a bank of last resort it does have over 30 banks with something in the order of £60billion in deposits between them. What is it that stops the Treasury negotiating a loan from the banks to repay KSFIOM depositors the money they have lost because of the serious regulatory failure of the Island's FSC? The figures show that the loan could be repaid in 6 years from the recovered assets of the bank.

Instead of being imaginative the Treasury choses to stick to the easy way out, namely allowing the DCS to take care of the first £50,000, leaving depositors who have lost more than this having to take pot luck in what is left in liquidation of the bank after £30++million is taken out in paying liquidators, bank staff, administration charges, legal fees, etc...

Does the IoM government believe that ignoring the special & specific
circumstances that led to the crash of a solvent bank will not have an impact on the future of deposit taking? Does it seriously think the Kaupthing Depositors' Action Group will give up & go away? Does it believe that by its banks offering higher rates of interest than elsewhere people will feel secure in trusting the Isle of Man with their hard earned savings when they find out the great risk they are taking in doing so? The answer is: 'NO!'

Your article was inaccurate on a number of points.
- it is NOT the first time the Depositors Compensation Scheme has been triggered due to a bank failure;
- it is NOT 75% of depositors who have deposits of less than £50,000 -- it is 70%, leaving 30% who will have to wait 6 years to get what is left in the liquidation of the assets.
- the IoM is not 100% better than other onshore centres. Onshore centres might offer less interest but in Europe governments vouchsafe people’s savings. Banks should be safe places in which to put one’s savings; if not then why put your money in a bank?

In resolving the global banking crisis The British Prime Minister made a policy statement on 18 February saying that a global solution required all governments to safeguard savings & deposits in banks in their jurisdiction. The IoM Government is the only one in the whole of Europe to refuse to accept this policy. Thus it arrogantly cocks the snook at Her Majesty's Government.

The reputation of the Isle of Man is getting more & more tarnished as outraged citizens are posting blogs & websites, and condemnatory messages are being posted on Facebook which is now accessed by 170,000,000 people every day!

Your website is out of touch with the reality of what is happening. It would be better if you were to reflect the truth about how the Isle of Man is now being perceived as a thoroughly tarnished & disreputable place in which to trust ones hard earned life savings.