We WILL be screwed

  • peterthailandudon
  • 18/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 20/12/2008 - 03:49

I believe that unless we really put some real pressure on the IoM government we will get screwed.

It may have been the UK govt that disgracefully took our money and ensures it is not returned, but it is from the IoM government ( directly or via the DCS or the LP or restructuring) that we will get money back. Their problem and ours is that the IoM doesn't have the money to pay us.

The 1000 pounds is just one of many signs of the contempt with which we are treated by the IoM;
They don't keep us informed, they've set up no links between us and them, they have a DCS without money, and they don't raise any funds for it.
They won't even let us get back OUR money i.e. the 100 million plus that's already held in KSF IoM by the LP.

We really do need to put pressure on them so that they take us seriously. The bus driving around Westminster...great idea, but what about the same bus driving round the IoM. We'll surely get lots of publicity, it'll be one outstanding bus, not one amongst hundreds in London; and I bet the UK press will notice.

Writing to MP's yes yes but we should also bombard the MP's in the IoM. Let them put pressure on their Chief Minister etc. If the IoM govt don't have money, and apparently they are even worried about paying us 1000 each, let them borrow it; that's what governments do.

Let them realize that the costs of borrowing will be less than the cost of the finance industry in the IoM declining . Let those who work in the finance industry in the IoM see for themselves the power of our PR and let them put pressure on their elected representatives

Why should we focus efforts on the IoM govt ? Because they are fully culpable for whats happened. What kind of govt/regulator who feels that deposits may be at risk,orders the funds to be sent out of its juristriction. At least the UK govt did everything to make sure that KSF funds were not removed from its power.. It is a pretty strange regulator that ask for funds to be moved outside of his area of authority.....and that simple principle has nothing to do with hindsight..

The law may be an area we resort to, but if you look at the latest posting by the IoM advocate.......you'll see how complicated lawyers can make things and how uncertain legal action can be.

Pressure, pressure pressure on the IoM govt or we will get screwed

0
Your rating: None

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

Pressure on the IOM government

  • Fred
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 22:51

I agree that putting pressure on the IOM government/agencies would be helpful. They ultimately are at lease partially culpable in this matter, it is inherent that they have support to give them the backbone to stand up to the UK. They must demand that the UK negotiate in the best interests of the IOM to find a way to save KSF IOM. Surely they can see that the IOM stands to be hurt severely if the depositors are not made whole.

QUESTION:

I have tried to find the e-mails for the important contacts on the IOM, but can only find a "general" question submittal form for the treasury and for the IOM government.

Can anybody supply a list of persons on the IOM, and their e-mail addresses, that should be contacted??
This should also include the FSC.


Too nice

  • peterthailandudon
  • 18/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 15:39

I think we are in danger of being just too nice.
If we are really going to put pressure on the IoM I can't see what's to be gained by waiting until 15th Jan. Also I recall that John Aspden ,head of the FSC said he advised KSF IoM to move funds to London as there was some concern about the Iceland banking system way back in March. As I said before, I can't fathom the rationale of a regulator who advises a bank to move funds out of his juristriction. and it was this act that initiated the whole disaster we are now in.

I think the discussion about upstreaming/downstreaming funds; ring fencing or not, the appalling behaviour of HMG etc etc are all important points but miss a central point.....if there was concern about KSF IoM by the FSC etc, money should never have been allowed to leave the IoM, yet alone encouraged to do so.

Also, it will be via the IoM govt that we get all our money back. They appear to be scared of HMG ( viz their re-action to Darling and Brown's comments about reviewing relationships with the IoM ) , if there is any truth in the re-action of other IoM banks to the DCS being activated, the IoM govt is scared of them too......and unless we can make them scared of us via the power of publicity, all we'll get is what's left in the hind tit


Too nice

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 22/12/2008 - 10:23

Peter,
I don't have a quibble with your first paragraph, but I believe the FSA discussed the Icelandic banking situation with the FSC back in the Spring; before that, KSFIoM monies were transferred to the parent, Kaupthing h.f. in Iceland.

My understanding is that the UK FSA were concerned that these monies might in the future be retained by the Icelandics for domestic purposes (a concern that was reiterated by Mr Darling several months later when it all went phut). Based upon this concern the FSC discussed matters with the bank, and KSFIoM directors opted to invest the money via its sister bank in the UK instead. In all likelihood the discussions with the FSA did not include any possibility of HMG enacting an Anti Terror power against IceSave, or putting KSFUK under Administration.

The bank's directors would have been under commercial pressure to keep rates up - everyone expects offshore banks to offer a little better than their mainland partners. In hindsight, everyone involved would have preferred a lower rate to the bank failing, but at the time what would have been on people's minds if their return dropped due to KSFIoM offering 3.75% when every other bank was pushing 6%+? I don't think anyone expected HMG to carry out the extreme measures that it did, surprising all and sundry with its 'shock and awe' campaign (or bullying a small Atlantic island). That said, ring-fencing the assets should have been an expected priority given that it was such a large deposit - and made in uncertain times.

The IoM Govt has no bargaining power with the UK, it is at the latter's whim and mercy, and as you say, IMG's fearful position is quite observable. I think IMG is probably testing the water; seeing how much of a liberty they can take with depositors before they start squeaking. The trick is to reach and maintain a point just below squeak level and extend it for as long as possible. It's a wait and see approach to discover who caves first. I think that the IoM Treasury wields a lot of power and Mr Bell is a politician; I have trouble believing all that politicians say. I agree with you that waiting until this date or that date weakens our position and our resolve - and probably undermines any gains that we have made.

We depositors worked for years to accumulate our respective savings, we didn't deserve to have them taken from us or for HMG to be so callously dismissive of us - let alone be so blatantly discriminatory and defamatory. In my opinion, we need to continue the campaign on both fronts, HMG and IMG.
Ice


email to Alan Bell

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 16:00

Well Peter I have fired off yet another email to Alan Bell and hope that everyone else does so just to remind him that we are still alive and kicking and arent going to go away.

If KSF depositors go down its tantamount to pulling the plug on IOM as a banking centre.

Short of an barrage of email / any mail what else can we do before the 29th?


there are options .....

  • rbirch
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 16:58

3 options as i see it to resolve this, given that the party who can really only find a solution to this is the IoM government.

  1. kindly ask Alan Bell how the DAG can help the IoM find a solution ... and by the way what exactly is that solution likely to be
  2. carry on as we have been doing .....
    or, what i think we should do ....
  3. find a way to 'force' the DCS into operation - this would focus the IoM minds wonderfully i think ..... and actually is still the only plan on the table today to get any money back.

if there is no clear IoM plan B in place by 29th Jan, and/or there is a request for further delay .... I'm think then option 3 is the only alternative - even for those >50kers


E-mails for IOM gov

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 09:09

Here's a list of e-mail address for all depts. of IOM gov: http://www.gov.im/emails.gov?dept=


Screwed

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 06:41

Peter,
I believe there are questions to be asked of the FSC; the Directors of KSFIoM; and the Isle of Man Treasury amongst others, and writing to MHKs' is one way of highlighting this need. The bus driving around Douglas with conspicuous advertising of our plight would likely be another legitimate avenue we could pursue and might be very effective.

The assets were moved voluntarily to London - a commercial decision undertaken by the management of the bank according to HMG ministers. The process of 'upstreaming' funds to a sister or parent bank is apparently common practise and is neccessary due to limited resources in the IoM for utilising the money (making interest). The main point here is why the assets were not safeguarded (ring-fenced). I know nothing of banking procedures, but would hazard a guess that non safe-guarded monies could be put to work for more interest than ring-fenced monies. That decision and the responsibiity for it rests squarely with the bank's Directors' and would appear extraordinary reckless and foolhardy given the briefings that went between the FSC and FSA - and safeguarding was the fundamental reason behind these movements in the first place. Unless of course, the FSA told them otherwise...
KSFUK had plenty of opportunity to employ their own funds in the UK and had no need to move them out of the UK jurisdiction.

The Isle of Man is a Crown Dependency and in the incongruent position of not being allowed to incur National Debt because it is not a Sovereign state - even its Government is not stricly legal beyond British boundaries and must seek representation by UK HMG in international affairs (making nonsense of a few of Lord Bach's utterances). The budget must balance, IMG cannot borrow money that will bring about Sovereign debt. This puts us all in great difficulty: the IoM Govt doesn't appear to have the money; doesn't appear to have any means of raising the money; and cannot rely upon the UK Treasury loaning them the money. IMG could /should still ask, though how would such a low Manx population pay back the debt - let alone be made responsible for it in the first place?

I still think that HMG should loan back the KSFIoM asset in kind (equivalent value) and accept the Sovereign debt itself until the assets of KSFUK are realised and HMT/FSA recovers its monies from the proceeds (in similar fashion to the 'Edge' funding). This is what we should pressure IMG to pursue. Otherwise all legal bartering (and vast expenditure) will not bring us a penny IMO.
Ice


The FSC should have stepped in THEN

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 15:59

With regard to the common practice of moving funds to a parent or sister bank, then I'm sure the FSC or the bank were faced with a dilemna at that point sometime in early 2008, or whenever it was that our deposits were moved to UK.

However, clearly there was a problem at that point, and although you say Icecrusher that it is common practice, what should have happened at that point, is for the FSC to step in and if necessary, for KSF Isle of Man to be put under some supervision, or if necessary administration.

If that had happened, there would not have been such a large hole in the assets - but the opportunity for the bank to be liquidated if necessary, or sold to another organisation. That is what I believe should have happened.

But instead the management tried not to accept the inevitable - that the Icelandic parent was in trouble and would eventually lead to the IOM subsidiary's downfall.

Ultimately I think we will almost certainly have a strong legal case against the bank's management, Doherty and the others, in addition to the FSC, for not resolving this issue when it needed to be.

Also, the argument that the funds needed to go to UK in order to generate income is, I believe, irrelevant. Surely the safety of the deposits is of paramount importance? Faced with such a decision, having the deposits sitting idly in a bank in Isle of Man, without generating income would have been preferable to having them lost. KSF IOM's issues should have been resolved and depositors' money, whilst not earning interest, would be then available to move elsewhere. What is a gap in a few months' interest, compared with the loss of one's life savings?


I wonder...... If Doherty and

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 15:40

I wonder......

If Doherty and Co have decent professional indemnity insurance? When I say decent, I mean to the tune of £550M.

Of course the chances of it going this way are close on zero, but it would be nice to know that he may read some of this and that he will suffer a bit of ring flutter, just like we are having to.


Drag them through the Courts then

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 23/12/2008 - 09:24

Even if they do not have Professional Indemnity Insurance, the prospect of us dragging Doherty, and the others through the Courts, would be an incentive for them to do something on our behalf instead.

They certainly deserve it - here we have a situation where the bank and the FSC were in a position to protect our money during the early part of this year. There was an opportunity, even if the funds would have generated zero interest, to protect our savings. Instead they deposited the funds in a very peculiar way. Why the UK?

And why within the subsidiary company of a bank that was already dodgy? Why not within another safer bank within IOM?

I cannot for the life of me, think why moving them to Kaupthing London, was any safer than them being in Kaupthing IOM. If Iceland were trying to get the deposits from IOM to strengthen their cash, what was to prevent them from trying to do so from London too.

And what would London have done, in order to safeguard their deposits from Iceland? Move them to IOM? It's crazy.


International court

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 23/12/2008 - 10:06

It seems to me we are in situation both the UK and IOM governments are possibly responsible for our plight. Probably neither expected the situation to happen. The UK cannot take our 557M out of the pot since it has been declared that we are just another depositor and all the others would demand the same treatment. The IOM put the 557M in the UK bank in good faith but did not ring fence it. The UK government then seized all the assets of KSF UK (probably with no real knowledge at that time that the IOM had a big deposit there) under the anti-terrorism law. It as then necessary to seal the papers relating to this seizure suggesting very strongly that something "not quite right happened".
In my opinion the IOM is failed in it's professional duty by not ring fencing the deposit, if they were advised by the FSA the FSA should also take responsibility. The quietness of all governments treasuries and the the statement from the UK treasury to MPs questions that no comments will be issued again suggests wrong doing on their part, as does Lord Bachs refusal to answer direct questions with straight answers. This really upset me and proves there is actual real justice now in the UK.
It is my opinion there is certain amount of collusion between both the IOM and UK governments to protect one another. If that is the case the legal direction should be through an international court.


no win no fee

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 23/12/2008 - 10:15

is there a law firm that would do that no win no fee and take this on, it would have to be a very big firm who would be confident that we would win, take a percentage of our deposits as payment on success


Ring Flutter

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 15:53

If you are saying would the directors if found personally liable, for say breach of fiduciary duty, have insuramce in place then the type of insurance that would coverthis is Directors & Officers Liability Insurance (DOLI). I have needed to look at this in the past for some other banks, and the level of cover for some fairly large banks was under £20M. It is by no means certian that DOLI was in place.

PI Insurance usually covers negligence of the Company, and not any claims against the directors personally (unless extended to include DOLI)

I agree that this would cause some ring flutter, particularly for the FSC Commissioner who is also a director.

However as always, it would be the lawyers that would be the winners here, their fees being paid by the insurers.


nice summary IceCrusher

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 14:05

Anybody having trouble knowing how we got here: read this.
I suppose the IoM people trusted their UK counterparts. The UK people should have told the IoM side what was likely to happen to KSFUK before it happened, so allowing the IoM to get the money out.

Are the banks refusing to go along with the DCS? Hasn't the DCS been used before? I remember somebody posting about another bank that went bust thirty years ago.


IoM banks and DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 14:27

The information I have is that a substantial number of banks have threatened to pull out of the IoM if the DCS goes ahead (one estimate put the figure at 30 - 40% of banks, which means around 12 - 15 banks). Other banks have threatened litigation over the size of their contribution.

Of course if banks pull out of the IoM once the DCS is triggered then they will no longer be required to contribute.


Disgusting lot

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 12:15

What a greedy disgusting lot are bankers.


IOM banks and DCS

  • jetski2
  • 10/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 03:23

You do love to stir things Elgee without any true facts. If you have facts to support your wild claims then let us all have them. Otherwise I'd advise you to keep these rumours to yourself.


Oh please don't. If you force

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 10:12

Oh please don't.

If you force Elgee to reveal the source of his "information" then you risk him threatening to leave the core group again.

As for confidentiallity and protecting the source of the info at the FSC - nail them both to the masthead.


IoM banks

  • peterthailandudon
  • 18/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 03:15

If,as you say,the IoM govt. is afraid that banks will pull out of the IoM if they trigger the DCS, let us make them, ( both the IoM govt and the banks,) even more afraid of us. Let us make all depositors aware of how pathetic is the supervision regime and how inadequate is compensation scheme scheme protects their deposits.

The IOM govt seems hell bent on placating the UK govt, the banks, its own FSC, in fact everyone except us, the victims. We'll get the leftovers. and those with deposits of under 50k, i.e.74% of depositors, just remeber the last time this happened in the IoM it took over 20 years for them to get their money. For those with over 50k, including me, it'll be along wait for a small payback.

Get that bus driving around the IoM


Timing

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 03:35

Peter agree with the sentiment but just want to give the IOM until 15th Jan to try and pull a solution out of the fire.

As for Elgee's wild statements, whilst true he doesn't offer any facts, there are enough hints from various places in the IOM and for that matter even E&Y to suggest that there is a suspicision that the FSA's advice was more than they are letting on. If after the 15th the IOM Gov't hasn't moved this forward Icount me to try and force the IOM Gov'ts hand in offering us some protection.


BC, Where did E&Y hint they

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 05:47

BC,

Where did E&Y hint they have suspicions about the advice given by the FSA. I am not doubting what you are saying but just interested in getting things straight in my own mind.


E&Y Hint

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 21:29

Expatfrance1 - I'm a bit hazy on this but the fact that they didn't come out with a statement that KSFIOM was an unsecured creditor until the Cafe Royal meeting plus the way the represented the KSFIOM funds as a separate item on the balance sheet. I'm going from comments made about the balance sheet at the time it was released by people better qualified to comment. Agreed this is hardly conclusive. Even so E&Y would not be party to conversations that took place between the FSA/FSC and Bank Directors - I think PWC would be.


elgee if banks pullout

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 22:40

elgee, I hope you are wrong.... Banks are unlikely to pull out - they don't like the DCS, but they do like the flow of deposits: that's why they are here, after all.

You are raising all sorts of surprising matters.


If any bank refuses to

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 10:18

If any bank refuses to subscribe to the scheme, then a quick withdrawal of their banking license should soon sort out that issue - they won't be refusing to do anything if they aren't a bank anymore. I suppose they could always club together and buy KSF IoM........


Go to another offshore crown dependency.

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 11:18

Captain. The IOM would not withdraw their banking licence for fear the bank would up and go to another offshore crown dependency.
I


They can't go anywhere, they

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 12:43

They can't go anywhere, they aren't a bank, they are a building with people and loads of frozen accounts.

Give KSF Iom its license back tomorrow, and so long as we don't pull out all of our money, it can trade, albeit distressed, but it CAN trade.


Captain, the directors of a

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 12:51

Captain, the directors of a company can't 'trade' if they cant meet their obligations when they fall due.
Its a matter of Company law - trading while insolvent is an offence.


Of that, I am well aware,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 13:10

Of that, I am well aware, however almost every bank is only paper solvent as we have seen.

A series of withdrawals quicker than any bank can call in deposits to cover them and we see a failed bank.

Solvency is a great deal more than a line in the sand - ans surely with that in mind, KSF IoM allowed themselves to be placed in an insolvent situation the moment they deposited in the UK such a large amount.....


Well there are two tests of

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 15:04

Well there are two tests of solvency. There is the balance sheet test (assets exceed liabilities) and also that able to meet their obligations when they fall due. It is because the bank couldnt meet the withdrawal requests that they originally petitioned the cout for the appointment of a liquidator.


Yes, as you say "could not

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 15:30

Yes, as you say "could not reasonably expect...blah blah blah", but any bank could well be in the same situation, with a trigger being reached in the event of a flood of withdrawals.

Of course KSF IoM balance sheet even now would show that it is solvent, until the extent of the potential loss at KS UK is known. It would be interesting to know what the bottom line really is - it's clear that not all of the 550M would be necessary to place KSF IoM in a neutral position, but just how much is required?

In our case though, of course the bank actually knew on the 6th what was going to happen.


knew of the 6th Oct?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 22:52

I emailed them on the 6th October, worried about them going bust. Le Page sent me this reply, also on the 6th.

Thank you for your enquiry.
To help ease your fears it has today been announced from the Isle of Man treasury that they plan to increase the level of protection to savers to £50,000. This would come into effect should anything happen to us.
It has also today been announced that the Iceland government have put their full backing and support behind Kaupthing, as the now only private bank. Also, although an Icelandic bank, the majority of its operations, roughly 70%, is from outside Iceland and it is currently business as usual for us. Kaupthing has created a strong and prudently managed bank over the past several years and will continue to build on those foundations.
I understand that you are concerned however the bank is in a strong position to see out these difficult times.

Kind Regards
Richard Le Page
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hardman
Sent: 06 October 2008 10:10
To: Branch User
Subject: FW: inquiry financial status of Kaupthing Isle of Man


Please post e-mail as Topic

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 22/12/2008 - 11:44

steenjp,

Could you please post this e-mail as a separate Topic?

I believe quite a few members may not have seen this.

In addition, if we can draw attention to this e-mail and get it published
in the media, I believe it would do much for our case!

Cheers


However they continued

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 16:02

To lie through their teeth about it


IoM banks going nowhere

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 11:46

Move where? Are there more islands in the Irish Sea?
No, we are stuck to each other, and the IoM needs to stick it to them.


Clear mesage

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 11:48

In view of the treatment of KSF IOM depositors I am surprised anyone leaves their money in a bank in the IOM anymore.

They are sending out a clear message.

BANK WITH US AT YOUR OWN RISK because we arent going to help you if it all goes belly up.


surprising

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 02:21

Are they truly surprising, given the conduct that we have observed of the UK and IoM governments since the bank collapsed?


banks pulling out of IoM

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 02:22

They may not pull out, but evidenly the IoM government doesn't want to take the risk that the banks might do what they are threatening.


If they pull out

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 14:51

The IOM government could take away their banking licences (I assume.)

Any way we dont want compensation we want our own savings back.


withdrawal - please think this through

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 12:03

Would you explain to me how withdrawal of the IoM banking licence of a bank that has already ceased to trade in the IoM (which is what is being threatened by a number of the IoM banks) could possibly make any sense? They don't need a banking licence not to trade there.


I'm surprised you haven't got

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 12:39

I'm surprised you haven't got this angle covered.

Are you teling me that a bank can just cease operations overnight? What happened to KSF IoM when they were forced to ceased trading like that?

There would be some very sad depositors if that happened.


went twice

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 12:13

sorry went twice


Still Trading

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 12:10

But they ARE trading there at the moment .
What banks have made a move to leave the IOM as yet?


Totally Argree

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 14:07

The IOM Government must DO something.

No other country has let its depositors down if it wants to have a future of any kind in the banking world it

cannot let honest and trusting depositors and customers of the IOM be left high and dry.

It hasn't got much else going for it and who would EVER invest in the IOM EVER again if this is allowed to happen.
.

Peter

Do you have a link to the IOM Mps we can give it another go?


Not so Bellyup !

  • Emabroad
  • 10/10/08 30/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 16:43

"No other country has let its depositors down if it wants to have a future of any kind in the banking world"

Take a closer look at Guernsey - Landsbanki depositors got 30p in £1 (amazingly announced after only one week, which makes those more commercially aware amongst us think!!) and no support, no depositor guarantee (one passed subsequent to the Bank going into administration is not retrospective) and nothing whatsoever apart from political posturing and lots of 'hard work going on behind the scenes' - natch!

These islands simply don't care about their own residents, let alone their fellow British ordinary savers who trusted them to legislate and regulate these banks - before the worst happened.


Well put Ice

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 14:17

I agree totally with you Ice, bellyup I do think the IoM are trying to do "just" about all they can with their limited powers - fiscal and law making.
They know the possible outcome and HMG are as intent on keeping them under the thumb as ever - I'd love to know what was actually said at the FSC > FSA meeting and the one with Guernsey regulator - coincidence that huge sums arrive in UK from both just after their respective meetings - plausible deniability ,,, that's seems to be the case for all UK ministerial and their civil servants..


FSC and FSA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 14:29

It appears that the FSA told the IoM FSC that money deposited in the UK sister bank would be safe. The records of those conversations exist. The FSC will not disclose them.


FSA/FSC

  • Pat
  • 10/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 16:49

If it does exist why would the FSC not use this very big lever to get the funds returned and thus get the IOM out of the hole that they are in?


FSC/FSA

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 12:59

Pat
only just back on. Believe that the reason that the FSC/IOM Treasury will not disclose the minutes and use them as a leaver is that one of the Directors of KSF, who is also vice chairman of the FSC was at that meeting and participated in the decision. If this is disclosed then the director in question could be culpable. Understand he is playing "sick" at present, poor man.
Think we will find that the extended time element for return of the money is a smoke screen to cover up the conflict and deceipt.


So where did

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 17:44

This information come from?


Belly up

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 21/12/2008 - 20:04

Reliable source, close to many of the protagonists. Several of our players will vouch.