La Colombe

KSF Depositors Get Back...

70 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

not quite sure what you mean?

I read it as meaning that as soon as Notwell is allowed back he will inevitably be shouting the odds at everyone on here about how everybody is completely wrong and that everything with KSFIOM was fine and dandy and that anyone who says any different is just talking rubbish. I would say that is almost guaranteed as well as it would the opposite of what most people have said so it would get people squabbling, fighting, and shouting at each other for no real purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2017 at 8:26 AM, Non-Believer said:

Two. One an ex Chief Minister. IIRC they were both serving on the KSF board and the FSC concurrently.

'Twas an eyebrow raiser for those in the know and or the industry in general. Nothing came of it though. The IoM.....where you can?

Not correct. One was serving as a Commissioner for the FSC, the other on the IPA - details matter ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2017 at 9:57 AM, the stinking enigma said:

If nothing was illegal, everyone got their money back with inearest and it didn't cost the likes of me a penny then I don'the really understand what all the fuss was about.

Not having access to ones savings for a number of months/years would certainly have been inconvenient. If I was affected then I would have caused a fuss I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, manx-person said:

Not correct. One was serving as a Commissioner for the FSC, the other on the IPA - details matter ;-)

'Twas to the best of my recollection. But your information made it all ok, then? I don't personally believe that anybody acting in a regulatory body should be anywhere near the board of a concern that they are ostensibly regulating? For simple reasons of confliction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

'Twas to the best of my recollection. But your information made it all ok, then? I don't personally believe that anybody acting in a regulatory body should be anywhere near the board of a concern that they are ostensibly regulating? For simple reasons of confliction?

I'm not saying that it made it OK, I'm just saying how it was.

You also do need to consider in a small jurisidiction how you ensure that those on a supervisory or regulatory authority can keep current business domain knowledge if they are precluded from holding positions in that sector. 

There are well established systems of governance for dealing with and declaring conflicts of interest, and it is my view that if these are correctly applied then this permits there to be experienced members of a board or committee with current sector experience to be appointed, which I think would improve that board or committee's effectiveness and should help make better decisions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, manx-person said:

You also do need to consider in a small jurisidiction how you ensure that those on a supervisory or regulatory authority can keep current business domain knowledge if they are precluded from holding positions in that sector. 

The police must have the same problem.  To keep their detection skills fresh, surely they must be allowed to engage in some part-time burglary, drug-dealing and child molesting. 

(As if non-executive directors were ever employed for their knowledge rather than for their ignorance and influence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The police must have the same problem.  To keep their detection skills fresh, surely they must be allowed to engage in some part-time burglary, drug-dealing and child molesting. 

(As if non-executive directors were ever employed for their knowledge rather than for their ignorance and influence).

Your superficially relevant comparison fails to recommend how one can ensure that people with relevant qualifications and industry experience are part of the effective supervision.

Comparing policing to authorisation and supervision shows a lack of knowledge of the regulators' role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Gelling (for it was he) was an ex-tractor salesman from IoM Farmers. Personally, I struggle to correlate that role with the experience and qualification necessary for the regulation of bodies involved in the local Finance Sector?

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, manx-person said:

Your superficially relevant comparison fails to recommend how one can ensure that people with relevant qualifications and industry experience are part of the effective supervision.

Comparing policing to authorisation and supervision shows a lack of knowledge of the regulators' role.

No I think Roger Mexicos sarcastic reply is right. The previous boards of those two organizations comprised of two classes of people. There were people who are on there because they brought business experience to the board and then political members who provided the expertise on government by virtue of their positions. The two people you are talking about were in the latter category and therefore it's unlikely that they would be on an external Board for their expertise on banking (or business skill to be honest). In fact neither had any banking experience at all. It might be assumed they were only there for their ability to add a degree of confidence from a government perspective. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

No I think Roger Mexicos sarcastic reply is right. The previous boards of those two organizations comprised of two classes of people. There were people who are on there because they brought business experience to the board and then political members who provided the expertise on government by virtue of their positions. The two people you are talking about were in the latter category and therefore it's likely they would be on an external Board for their expertise on banking. In fact neither had any banking experience at all. It might be assumed they were only there for their ability to add a degree of confidence from a government perspective. 

I don't disagree that some of the board members didn't appear to have relevant experience, but I do consider that any system or selection procedure which precluded those with current active sector experience from holding a position would result in less effective governance at the regulator.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎29‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 4:08 PM, MediaStar said:

I read it as meaning that as soon as Notwell is allowed back he will inevitably be shouting the odds at everyone on here about how everybody is completely wrong and that everything with KSFIOM was fine and dandy and that anyone who says any different is just talking rubbish. I would say that is almost guaranteed as well as it would the opposite of what most people have said so it would get people squabbling, fighting, and shouting at each other for no real purpose. 

Well we all know how much you dislike anyone going against your opinion.  Bullying and trolling etc apparently:rolleyes:

The island took unnecessary flak over something out of their control.   And of course some goings on with the cash in London once it was paid away by clients here.  None of which was within the IOM's control.

If you remember not everyone, according to this article, was equally stuffed either:

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/9477-treasury-helped-whelan-rescue-frozen-cash

I'm glad they have their money back and it's right that liquidators had time to do their job and manage the assets to the current position.

Someone mentioned here about those banking with KSF being oblivious to the risk.   They were paying around 2% more than most in the market at the time.   There's a reason for that and people seemed to conveniently forget in their haste to be greedy.;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notwell said:

Well we all know how much you dislike anyone going against your opinion.  Bullying and trolling etc apparently:rolleyes:

No thoughtful reflection then? Someone gets their account back after a 7 day ban and is back angrily trolling people withIn the hour. 

Edited by hboy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. 35 minutes.   That's actually 25 minutes quicker than I thought it would take. 

Feel free to post on topic just once after I've posted (on topic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MediaStar predicted your exact response to everyone else several days in advance though didn't he? I'm not sure anyone can blame people chasing higher interest rates and make out that it was somehow their fault. There are lots of reasons why a bank might want to attract deposits by offering higher rates. It doesn't mean that any bank doing that is naturally insolvent or that they somehow "had it coming" for rate chasing because they didn't. They just made a bad choice about which regulated bank to put their money in. As JW says above the main failing was the totally non existent DCS scheme that should have been a first line of defense for those who smaller deposits who would have got their money years and years ago had it been funded. 

Edited by hboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, hboy said:

No thoughtful reflection then?

What did you expect? The forum temperature is sadly already rising. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.