DAG calls on the IOM Government to negotiate a loan with HMG to enable 100% restoration of depositors' money

Background and objectives: 

[Background and objectives should be described here.]

I agree
96% (510 votes)
I Do NOT agree
1% (7 votes)
I abstain
2% (12 votes)
Total votes: 529
  •   
    Login to post comments
      
Sorry I wasen't able to vote

Sorry I wasen't able to vote on that,may I cast my vote now,since it is still open?I would like to join the overwhelming majority who said,'I agree".
Thanks and sorry again.

Posted by Jean-Charles Marlier on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 14:05
"Brown" and "bright" should

"Brown" and "bright" should never appear in the same sentence.

Gordy is dimmer than a Toc H lamp..............always was, always will be.

SBS

Posted by SBS on Sat, 31/01/2009 - 10:09
Dawes -- Applies to both your

Dawes --

Applies to both your posts -- IoM IS NOT IN EU nor is Iceland

IoM is not in the EU nor does it prescibe to the passport scheme -- any payment from IoM DCS would not be until after Sept 2009 and even then the level of payment would depend on no other IoM banks going down.

The IoM DCS scheme has no funding..

I doupt Iceland adopts all EU laws.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 18:06
"Icelandic companies allowed

"Icelandic companies allowed to trade as a bank in EU member states but Icelandic Government had to adopt some of the EU's policies."

Iceland and other ETA members have to apply ALL EU laws into their statue books automatically. That is the reason they are allowed free trade with the EU.

Norwegians call it 'Fax laws' - the EU sends them a fax with the laws dictated by the EU.

Problem is, IoM is not in the EU. so EU law doesn't apply, its the law of the jungle and Iceland is well aware of that.

Posted by dawes on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 19:31
>>where do you get the 30

>>where do you get the 30 days from?

Its the terms of all EU depositor protection schemes in the EU and those in the passport scheme for ETA members.

My point is, it isn't a depositor protection scheme if there are no funds to pay out and DCs can decide when to pay, purely on its own convince.

There isn't any reason for the delay in payments, even if they are not able to fully pay out immediately.

"as he is satisfied that the depositor has an eligible protected deposit and that the Participant is unable or is likely to be unable to meet that liability "

Hasn't this been proven by now? Didn't some IoM minister return from UK and say the return of the 550M was unlikely?
Do they intend to wait until the assets come to maturity in many years time? The point of depositors protection is to pay out immediately and take the winding up risk and delay on to itself.

Thats how every other bail out operates.

Posted by dawes on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 17:16
Parental guarantee commercial

Parental guarantee commercial / political

Thought about this point and the reasons for it, I'm fairly sure it was a reply by Ian Pearson to a question (or was contained in the TCS papers) -- but still can't find the original quote.

"IoMG should take the matter up with Kaupthing resolution committee as a commercial aspect - not HMG applying conditions to the IMF loan on behalf of IoMG."

The thoughts, the statement is correct it is a commercial issue for the liquidator or IoMG (if SoA if adopted), Why is this different to HMG's position --

1) In UK the FSA (Treasury / Government) has put itself in place of retail depositors as a major creditor, the IoM has not.

2) EU savings directive and minimum compensation scheme applies in UK -- NOT in IoM, Icelandic companies allowed to trade as a bank in EU member states but Icelandic Government had to adopt some of the EU's policies.

Had the FSC (IoMG) acted in a similar manner to UK and guaranteed the deposits THEN it may have forced UK treasury to accept the IoMG's position on a political level via the MoJ as -- Kaupthing would owe the IoMG treasury / government.

However this does bring to light another failure of the IoM system / regulations, the EU savings directive is on a government level - the FSC / IoMG accepted a purely commercial guarantee with the parent Kauphing hf and did not back this up with an underlying guarantee from Iceland's government similar to that of the EU.

Posted by skintagainnow on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 13:10
dawes, where do you get the

dawes, where do you get the 30 days from?
According to the guidance to the DCS regs:

How long is it likely to take to recover the compensation?

The length of time between making a claim and the payment of compensation by the
Scheme Manager depends on the particular circumstances. Under the Regulations, the
Scheme Manager will consider payment of compensation to a depositor as soon as he is
satisfied that the depositor has an eligible protected deposit and that the
Participant is unable or is likely to be unable to meet that liability [Regulation 8].
However, once the Scheme Manager has decided to make a compensation payment, it
will not necessarily be possible for that compensation to be paid in full or in part
immediately. The method of funding the DCS imposes certain constraints on the actual
payment of compensation and in particular the Scheme Manager must have regard in
any one financial year to:-
• the amount of contributions from Participants;
• any Treasury funding;
• other claims which may be made on the Fund [Regulations 8 and 11(3)].

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc//guidancedcs.pdf

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 10:40
In reply to "How do you

In reply to "How do you explain .." I commented below that Icesave was licensed to operate in the UK and of course regulated by the UK FSA, whereas KSF(IOM) was not.

It is true, however, that Icesave was not a UK institution.

Of course in the case of Icesave, the so-called British savers who were compensated were presumably nationals of all kinds (not just British) whose deposits with Icesave were governed by the UK regulator (essentially all those who had deposited through the co.uk website and who had addresses in the UK).

Finally, if "How do you explain .." was directed at me, I cannot explain the reasoning of this UK government. I suspect that no-one could do so adequately, even the UK government itself.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 10:31
".how do you explain HM Gov

".how do you explain HM Gov reimbursing over 300,000 British depositors in IceSave a wholly-owned Icelandic internet bank with no physical presence in the UK whatsoever,"

How is it not possible for you to know the answer to this?

Iceland were supposed to have a depositors protection scheme as a condition of the Passport scheme to bank within the EU. When it came to payout they refused to do so, so the EU ordered that they take a loan from the UK, Holland and Germany to cover the payment's those governments paid to the UK depositors.

So, Iceland has compensated the Icesave depositors with help from the EU governments affected.

There is another thing. HMG does NOT pay for depositor protection, it merely LOANS the money to the funds. They money is then charged over the follow years and decades to UK, banks, building societies, insurance companies and all other organisations connected with the financial services industry in the UK.

This is why HMG will never bail out an overseas bank. Why should UK banks, building societies and insurance companies spend the next decades charging their customers for the loses made by IoM/Icelandic banks that refused to pay into the protection scheme in the past and certainly will never do so in future

Question: why the **** hasn't the IoM paid out from the depositors protection scheme? This supposed to be paid WITHIN 30 days.

The details of the banks finances are utterly immaterial to depositors, it should be dealt with by the IoM government, exactly the same as every other regulating country.

Posted by dawes on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 10:19
I hope that I am wrong.

I hope that I am wrong.

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 01:04
I take your point, Emabroad,

I take your point, Emabroad, although Icesave was licensed to operate in the UK and of course regulated by the UK FSA, whereas KSF(IOM) was not.

I agree, however, that Icesave was not a UK institution.

I suppose, given your valid criticism, that I should have written something like (i) UK entities and (ii) those foreign entities trading in the UK and regulated by the FSA to the extent of their trade within the UK.

Of course in the case of Icesave, the so-called British savers who were compensated were presumably nationals of all kinds (not just British) whose deposits with Icesave were governed by the UK regulator (essentially all those who had deposited through the co.uk website and who had addresses in the UK).

Posted by Anonymous on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 00:58
Elgee, your argument doesn't

Elgee, your argument doesn't hold water either.

If, as you say, 'the reason that they are being helped is not because their customers are British nationals' and 'That is not the case with non-UK institutions, even if their customers are mainly British nationals.' . . . . .how do you explain HM Gov reimbursing over 300,000 British depositors in IceSave a wholly-owned Icelandic internet bank with no physical presence in the UK whatsoever, other than a licence to operate there? Not only that, all these savers were 100% reimbursed - not repaid the UK-DCS maximum amount of £50K

Posted by Emabroad on Wed, 28/01/2009 - 00:19
uptight61 - these are not "my

uptight61 - these are not "my words" -- this was a statement made by the treasury and is in either the Hansard replies or forms part of the TCS material -- I've tried looking for it again but due to search facilities available -- having great difficulty in finding.. the statement was attached to something regarding the IMF loan and conditions applied to it -- please do your own research too -- I will keep trying to find again but you can be assured that the statement is correct.

Statement

  • IoMG should take the matter up with Kaupthing resolution comittee as a commercial aspect - not HMG appling conditions to the IMF loan on behalf of IoMG.
Posted by skintagainnow on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 19:32
Skintagainow, by ignoring the

Skintagainow, by ignoring the commercial aspect of the guarantee the Government has made it a political issue - witness the continued existence of this forum and minister's reluctance to answer any questions. How can you say that it is not political, the Isle of Man wanting the commercial agreement to be enforced?

Posted by uptight61 on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 18:52
They are, but again they are

They are, but again they are sovereign nations and assisting depositors in their own country - IoM does have it's own government but is part of the UK - HMG is applying -- the foreign nation status to IoM due to that government even though departments of HMG is responsible for governance of the Island.

HMG's stance is the IoM government should, if it feels applicable bail out the depositors, it is also HMG's stance that the parental guarantee is a commercial issue not political - hence no assistance in applying terms to IMF loan to Iceland.

Posted by skintagainnow on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 18:29
If we had been a subsidiary

If we had been a subsidiary of KSF UK we would have been spared this in a heartbeat, I've no doubt. But aren't these other countries - Finland, Luxembourg, Belgium - helping out their Kaupthing sister depositors? It all boils down to the sticky relationship between a Labour Government and the Isle of Man and the fact that the Isle is supposedly hard up/can't borrow. I would like to think that the UK Government will look into it's heart and help the Isle of Man with some proviso that future reforms are made on fraggle rock - don't ask me what!

Posted by uptight61 on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 18:16
Excellent point Uptight61.

Excellent point Uptight61. For all Browns comments about 'saving the world' he has not yet grasped the basic fact that the world's banking systen is inter-related and global. Closing down KSFIOM is closing off another line of credit in an international system that is suffering from a credit crunch.
His protectionist 'little Englander' attitude is also reflected in his attitude to UK citizens who work abroad and may pay income tax abroad. He forgets that there are many foreigners working in UK who are paying tax and contributing to the economy.
For all his global talk he really believes that all UK citizens should live and work in the UK.
He seems unaware that the education industry is the second largest invisible earner for the UK and that if people such as myself were not working in International schools then all those high fee-paying foreign students that keep our universities going would be going elsewhere and our universities would be bankrupt.
For all his gravitas Brown isn't quite as bright as he thinks he is - just a little bit brighter than Cameron (not difficult) who has not grasped the issue at all and shows no interest in our situation.

Posted by sambururob on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:48
"Didn't Brown say no British

"Didn't Brown say no British citizen has lost a penny as a result of the financial crisis?"

Yes. He lied. It is not the first time.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:48
The N. Rock and BB were

The N. Rock and BB were subsidiaries of the UK parent -- KSF IoM was not -- it's a subsidiary of Khf -- ie a sister company to KSF UK -- much the same as Norway / Finland / Lux / Belgium / Germany etc,.

Had IoM still been a subsidiary of KSF UK (as in F&S // F&S IoM) - then we may have been covered the same as NR & BB other than that, hence HMG wash their hands of it...

Posted by skintagainnow on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:37
Surely destabilising the Isle

Surely destabilising the Isle of Man is not in the British Government's interests at present - deposit taking institutions that are based on the mainland need as much liquidity as they can muster in the present environment and as far as I can tell, the Isle of Man is a big fat piggy bank for them. Thus, in the present climate, keeping Isle of Man depositors happy is in the British Govt's interests.

Posted by uptight61 on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:28
Didn't Brown say no British

Didn't Brown say no British citizen has lost a penny as a result of the financial crisis?

Posted by uptight61 on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:20
Have you missed the point?

Have you missed the point? Those that you and others list as being in receipt of help from British government are UK institutions. They reason that they are being helped is not because their customers are British nationals. If they were allowed to fail or their customers were allowed to lose their deposits it would have a direct impact on the UK economy. That is not the case with non-UK institutions, even if their customers are mainly British nationals.

I am not defending the British government. However, I think you are asking of them something that is hopelessly unrealistic. Please continue to ask, but I do not think you should expect to succeed.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:13
I would like to think that

I would like to think that you're wrong on this one Gypsy Roman

Posted by uptight61 on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:11
Yes, however if you look at

Yes, however if you look at my posting record in this forum since the very start in October, I think you will find that my predictions have been consistently correct.

Also, it is not the reason that I am not in the core - as I said the core ceased to exist save in name only and there is a quite different reason for that.

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:07
What about Northern Rock and

What about Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley too? They help out all other UK citizen based institutions apart from ours. Included in these two packages were presumably also their offshore arms. It makes my blood boil!

Posted by uptight61 on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:06
They helped Kaupthing UK

They helped Kaupthing UK depositors; they've also spent billions on bailing out the other UK clearing banks eg. RBS and Lloyds. The majority of KSFIOM depositors are British citizens so why the hell not us? What is a few million pounds in the context of a budet deficit in the 100 billion+. No wonder you're not in the core, Elgee, with that negative attitude!!

Posted by uptight61 on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 17:01
The UK government, along with

The UK government, along with the UK economy and the UK currency, is presently in melt-down. Gordon Brown is hopelessly incompetent and apparently (if today's press is to be believed) has completely lost touch with reality. The Labour government is doomed (I was once a Labour party member, so I have no axe to grind) and Brown and his predecessor destined to be viewed by history as the architects of Britain's irreversible collapse.

Do you really think there is any prospect in these circumstances of its helping us or the IOM government?

Posted by Anonymous on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:49
Other governments (including

Other governments (including UK) have guaranteed 100% - I think the IOM should do the same. The loan would be repaid (partially at least) from any proceeds from KSFUK - HMG are still the root cause of our problem and should be showing more support for dependant territories instead of hanging them out to dry. The transfer order, the secrecy of the papers and the undisclosed discussions between the FSA and FSC are all working against the IOM and the UK must accept responsibilty for this. I find Ian Pearson's responses to questions infuriating and deceitful.
The IOM should make us whole and then we must assist the IOM in every way in their struggle with the intransigence of HMG.

Posted by Codpeace on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 16:28
I agree it would be an

I agree it would be an option, but realistically this would be seen as bailing out the IoM banking system.

Thats in effect taking it over - can you see the IoM government agreeing to give up its off-shore status?

A better option is to go along the similar route that HMG took - get Iceland to take a loan provided by HMG.

Posted by dawes on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 11:00
DAG calls on the IOM

DAG calls on the IOM Government to negotiate a loan with HMG to enable 100% restoration of depositors' money

I don't agree with the above for the following reason. It is not our place to tell the IoM government how to resolve this problem but merely to insist that they do. In calling on the IoM government to follow a specific course it is just too easy for them to say oh we would love to help you but I'm afraid we can't because of x,y and z end of argument. The IoM government are well aware of the options available to them and one of them is to dispose of us as inexpensively as possible we must make it plain to them that this is not in their best interests.

IMPORTANT please vote here as well;
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/poll/has-dag-changed-its-objective-100-...

Posted by nivit on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 10:13
Sorry double post

Sorry double post

Posted by nivit on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 12:20
If in time it is shown that

If in time it is shown that HMG were in any way responsible for the collapse of KSF IOM then one would assume that it would then be suggested that they were also responsible to some degree for any knock on effects in Iceland. Surely given these circumstances it would be in the interests of HMG to offer the loan in question as soon as possible to avoid KSF IOM depositors persuing the issue. If responsibilty were to be proven, would this not then render HMG liable for huge losses in Iceland also.

Posted by justr on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 01:22
Clearly this is the route to

Clearly this is the route to pursue. This terrible problem is indissolubly connected to HMG's actions and any solution has to involve them.
Clearly, too, it is going to be a route fraught with obstacles.But the DAG negotiators have achieved much to date on ALL of our behalves . I have faith that , with our support , they will overcome whatever further obstacles are put in their way.

Posted by KA on Tue, 27/01/2009 - 00:20
I'd like to thank the

I'd like to thank the depositor who wrote the letters, went to talk to his MP, took advice from a few other depositors and got this issue raised in parliamnet. Well done. It took time but you got there.

This is the type of action that is required if we want to get 100% return, pressurising HMG to act properly, difficult I know, but we need to work on this area., They trampled over the rigths and protocols that affected our bank. This is where the issue is and where the pressure should be aimed.

Thanks again to those involved. Like I've said before there are many unsung heroes in this.

Posted by expat on Mon, 26/01/2009 - 21:22
IMPORTANT please vote here as
Posted by nivit on Mon, 26/01/2009 - 19:30