Your opinions/feelings - who/what is MOST to blame for our predicament?

Depositors only please!
Background and objectives: 

Long ago we ran this identical poll. How do opinions stand now?

The UK Government
65% (108 votes)
The Icelandic Government
2% (3 votes)
The IoM Government
18% (30 votes)
KSF IOM
7% (11 votes)
Kaupthing hf
3% (5 votes)
The general economic climate
5% (8 votes)
None of the above
1% (1 vote)
Total votes: 166
  •   
    Login to post comments
      
Adding verses to Manx Alchemy

Adding verses to Manx Alchemy as a form of petition

here's mine

Well I got on my bike and I moved away
I had a family and bills to pay
I sold my house - nine months of hell
never mind, the new life was going well
look to the future, for me and the kids
then in a moment we're on the skids
I did the right thing - cash in the bank
But now its gone - and I've Darling to thank!
Alchemists in the Treasury
Do what they like - care nothing for me

Posted by steveservaes on Fri, 17/07/2009 - 15:29
Say "No" to HM Treasury

Say "No" to HM Treasury brush-off

I hope that all of you who feel UK Govt is the most - or in large part - to blame for our predicament (100+ here so far) have registered their dissatisfaction with the Treasury's trite response to a question by Mark Williams MP about a Public Inquiry in the UK.

If not, PLEASE do so now at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-06-30a.282657.h&c=23970#c23970

It's really easy. Anyone can do it.
And if you can also add a comment ('annotation'), that would be even better (for that you have to register as a user there).

For more details, see my blog at:
http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/blog-entry/say-no-treasury-brush

We now have 152 "NO" votes and just over 60 excellent comments; a good start, but surely we can do better than that.

This is supposed to be an ACTION group! So please everyone, perform this simple ACT now!

Thanks for your help.

Posted by anrigaut on Wed, 22/07/2009 - 20:54
It was the use of they that

It was the use of they that confused me, thanks for the clarification.

Its some consolation I suppose that the exposure is to a the UK rather than Iceland.

I have talked through this scenario with a number of people (including depositors), and if you look in detail at the powers available to the FSC and the regulations, and the timing then the situation IMO isn't as straight forward as you explain.

But thats another story. In reading your comments I assumed they referred to the directors rather than the regulations.

Posted by manx-person on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 21:31
@ manx-person... no, I didn't

@ manx-person... no, I didn't imply that there had been a breach of regulations!
I said: "whilst the IoM banking regulations would not have allowed the directors to transfer more than 25% of KSFIOM assets to any other bank, **they did allow the transfer of over 50% to a bank in the same group."

** 'they' here being the regulations

PS: as an aside I wasn't implying either that they were right to do what they did.
That transfer was crass in the extreme. If the assets could not have been protected within KSFUK then they should have been split up & placed in other banks, as the FSC now counsels depositors to do for sums in excess of £50k !

Posted by Lucky Jim on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 21:20
Were they able to provide

Were they able to provide measures to protect the money in the UK? Asked in all innocence. I remember a long time ago some arguments in posts about ring fencing but not the conclusion.

Posted by jmf on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 11:40
Please list what it is that

Please list what it is that you interpret from LJs posting that he is asserting? I don't see it.
Ice

Posted by IceCrusher on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 11:00
I agree I dislike obfuscation

I agree I dislike obfuscation as well - thats why I am glad we have clarified that KSFIOm weren't in breach of the capital exposure rules. If I hadn't posted then then those who haven't read the regs. may think that LJ's assertion was correct.
Of course they may have been in breach of other rules, but thats another story.

Posted by manx-person on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 10:44
Re: Judicial Review of UK

Re: Judicial Review of UK Govts - steveservaes , can I suggest you repost that as a new topic. Reason is the way that subscriptions works - people who are subscribed to receive notification of all new topic posts would then get notified by email. Otherwise, the only people who will get notified are those who are subscribed to this poll (typically anybody who has commented on the poll.)

Posted by ng on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 10:19
Judicial Review of UK Govts

Judicial Review of UK Govts action took place on Friday and may be continuing today. Anyone know (i) what is going on (ii) why there has been total silence in all media about an important legal case on HMG's extraordinary powers. This is important guys - is it being hushed up again somehow?

Posted by steveservaes on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 09:51
I believe that LJ was making

I believe that LJ was making the same point that I've just made and there was no implication that there had been a breach of regulations - quite the opposite in fact. It was a disgraceful decision made playing poker with thousands of other people's money and deserves all the demeaning comments it gets, not an attempt at justification because there was no breach of regulations. The breach was made in interpretation and application; they made a catastrophic error of judgment, let us be clear about that.

Posted by IceCrusher on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 09:28
They might not have been

They might not have been technically in breach...
But the final result was a disaster. Are we agreed on this point?
They all had a choice!
Now what sort of clowns produce disasters? And why?
KISS
I stress KISS. I dislike, intensely, obfuscation. It is the refuge of rogues.

Posted by follow_the_tao on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 09:12
Icecrusher - The point I was

Icecrusher - The point I was making was that Lucky Jim implied that there had been a breach of "the regulations" in having an exposure of over 25%, and I was clarifying that there was not.
Whether it was a good idea to have a concentration of risk is another matter; but I was just putting Lucky Jim to proof on his assertion that the regulations had been breached.

Posted by manx-person on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 08:48
So instead of taking the

So instead of taking the prudent course of action and dividing the assets between other banks within the exposure limit of 25%, the FSC/Bank Directors took the easy option of dumping all they could into the Kaupthing UK sister bank in a jurisdiction over which they had no control at a time when Icelandic banking institutions were under intense scrutiny by other European regulators - including the FSA. Not big and not clever by half...

Posted by IceCrusher on Mon, 13/07/2009 - 08:16
@manx-person.... I understand

@manx-person.... I understand that the lawyers are looking at the nature & extent of breaches of the Regulations & other legal aspects of the case.. One assumes that the IoM government inquiry will do the same but with the FSC being involved as 'investigator', the possibiliy that it will be held in private and the findings not being made public seems to suggest that the inquiry will be anything but open & transparent.

Posted by Lucky Jim on Sun, 12/07/2009 - 22:53
@Lucky Jim - yes I thought

@Lucky Jim - yes I thought thats what you were referring to
Kaupthing UK was in the same group as Kaupthing HF and Kaupthing IoM (they shared the same ultimate parent)
Kaupthing UK was a Zone A bank (UK bank regulated by the FSA)
So the exposure was an exempt exposure and the 25% exposure limit didnt apply

So they were not in breach of the Rulebook - don't you agree?

Posted by manx-person on Sun, 12/07/2009 - 22:18
@ manx-person...Hi! The

@ manx-person...Hi!

The specific regulations are The IoM Financial Services Rule Book 2008, http://www.fsc.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc/rulebooks/FinancialServicesRuleBook_J...

Here is an extract of the relevant paragraphs therein:

8.36 Large exposure management

(1) A licenceholder must —
(a) not incur an exposure which (including accrued interest) exceeds 25%
of its large exposures capital base (“LECB”), unless the exposure is an
exempt exposure;

8.38 Exempt exposures

The following exposures are exempt exposures —
(a).....(d)
(e) exposures to other GROUP companies which are credit institutions in
Zone A countries;

In other words under the Rule Book 2008 funds in excess of 25% of LECB, could be either upstreamed to a parent company or transferred to a company within the same group (ie: a sister company)

No doubt this is what the directors & FSC will quote to justify the size of KSFIOM assets transferred to KSFUK.

Posted by Lucky Jim on Sun, 12/07/2009 - 21:06
Uk Treasury and F.S.A for

Uk Treasury and F.S.A for blocking our deposits in the UK and Iom Treasury for trying to satisfy thier own interests rather than the interest of depositors.

Posted by banna on Sun, 12/07/2009 - 13:10
Too many conspiring events to

Too many conspiring events to believe that the IOMT and FSC were acting as nothing more than puppets to the British government – just my view.

Posted by horace on Sat, 11/07/2009 - 22:42
Jim, Which specific

Jim,
Which specific regulation and what section of that regulation do you refer to?

Posted by manx-person on Sat, 11/07/2009 - 20:38
The directors & FSC made a

The directors & FSC made a major cockup because whilst the IoM banking regulations would not have allowed the directors to transfer more than 25% of KSFIOM assets to any other bank, they did allow the transfer of over 50% to a bank in the same group. Knowing that a financial crisis was about to burst, transferring funds from KSF hf (Iceland) to KSFUK was a high risk gamble that did not come off. At least had it been protected they might have got away with it.

That was a gamble with other people's money that should not have happened because it was way beyond any notion of having been done with due care which was the duty of FSC to oversee.
It would have been better to have recalled the assets to KSFIOM, but why they didn't do that is another question beyond this poll. The directors are keeping their mouths shut so let's hope it comes out in the IoM government inquiry.

Posted by Lucky Jim on Sat, 11/07/2009 - 20:32
It is so difficult to come up

It is so difficult to come up with a single answer to this one. I voted for the UK Government, simply because it was their handling of the situation that triggered the problems in the first place. However, the fact remains that if the FSC had not make the catastrophic blunder of moving our money into another risky subsidiary without any water-tight guarantees then chances are none of us would even be on this website.

So really my view is 51% UK Government and 49% IOM. Still, the poll is designed to identify those MOST to blame and so the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Posted by investor01 on Sat, 11/07/2009 - 11:46
ABSOLUTELY .

ABSOLUTELY .

Posted by spanish on Sat, 11/07/2009 - 09:37
Another old poll resurrected,

Another old poll resurrected, but it does not include the bank's directors & the FSC

It gives me the opportunity of revising my comment on the previous January poll in the light of what we now have learned since then.

In the chain of events & parties involved (international financial crisis - Iceland - Darling - role of FSA/FSCS/Treasury - KSFIoM directors - IoMFSC ) the question as to who is the MOST to blame for the predicament of depositors has to be the directors of the bank & the IoM FSC

Why? Simply because the weakest link in the chain of events was serious regulatory failure on their part that over 50% of the bank's assets were lost in administration of KSFUK, and it was KSFUK going into administration that caused the solvent KSFIOM to lose its banking licence, withdrawn by the very agency that brought about its downfall ! That is where the buck stops!

A leading firm of IoM solicitors had absolutley no doubt as to who was to blame for the loss to depositors & it has called publicly for the FSC to be sacked.

I am not voting in this poll

Posted by Lucky Jim on Sat, 11/07/2009 - 08:44
hi Jamjar, Well, not all of

hi Jamjar,

Well, not all of us placed our money with KSFIOM: there are many of us on this site who trusted their savings to the Derbyshire BS. Personally I have somethign to say about a regulatory authority that allowed the sale of the Derbyhire IOM to Kaupthihg without a) insistign that depositors were given the chance to move their money at the time of the sale (bondholders weren't), b) insisting that the Derbyshire told depositors that Kaupthing was Icelandic and c) allowed a parental guarantee from a UK bank to be replaced by a far riskier guarantee from an Icelandic bank without insisting that depositors were informed of the implications of this change and the added risk involved..........

Posted by brokefirefly on Fri, 10/07/2009 - 22:46
All depositors placed and

All depositors placed and entrusted their monies with KSF-IOM,no one else,they are ultimatly,and currently responsible for the loss of our deposits,and should be a lot more involved,and transparent in retreiving it,why arent they on the creditors committee.

Posted by jamjar on Fri, 10/07/2009 - 21:07