007Pimpernel Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Up to now the government has said it will hold an inquiry into the collapse of KSFIoM but that it would be conducted in secret and the findings will not be made public. Now I wonder why that should be? If the government thinks that neither the FSC nor the directors did anything wrong then what is there to hide? I have been sniffing around the corridors of power and there's rather a bad smell coming from under closed doors. Does anyone else have a whiff of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yeah, sorry about that, I had beans for lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Yeah, sorry about that, I had beans for lunch. No Sarah, it wasn't you..... I did not go anywhere near the ladies' loo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Mr Karran had his say over it, audio clip here http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=36595 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nkon Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Fishing for information? I always walk around with a peg on my nose so I do not pick up any of those nasty smells that I might be tempted to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Mr Karran had his say over it, audio clip here http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=36595 Thanks for that Lee. I listened to the audio clip. I thought it mind boggling that Allen Bell says they have compassion for depositors who have lost so much of their life savings but the government is the only one in Europe not to protect 100% the savings in a bank that failed. It failed because the FSC & directors botched big time. They failed to exercise 'duty of care' when they transferred £550million to Kaupthing UK AGAINST banking regulations & without it being ring-fenced to protect the dosh. Why on earth did they put that lolly into another Kaupthing bank when the Kaupthing circus was known to be dodgy in the face of a looming banking crisis? Why didn't they distribute it around a number of other safer banks in the IoM? Now that Kaupthing UK is in administration the secured creditors have taken half the lolly! Gobsmaching, I'd say. Now it is going to take Mr.Bell a month to find ways of making the inquiry look democratically respectable without it letting the cat out of the bag! OOOH! me thinks there's going to be feathers flying soon! Some folk at the centre of this scandal are going to need 3 legs to get out quick! Some have already.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Its only money, who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Mr Karran had his say over it, audio clip here http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=36595 Thanks for that Lee. I listened to the audio clip. I thought it mind boggling that Allen Bell says they have compassion for depositors who have lost so much of their life savings but the government is the only one in Europe not to protect 100% the savings in a bank that failed. It failed because the FSC & directors botched big time. They failed to exercise 'duty of care' when they transferred £550million to Kaupthing UK AGAINST banking regulations & without it being ring-fenced to protect the dosh. Why on earth did they put that lolly into another Kaupthing bank when the Kaupthing circus was known to be dodgy in the face of a looming banking crisis? Why didn't they distribute it around a number of other safer banks in the IoM? Now that Kaupthing UK is in administration the secured creditors have taken half the lolly! Gobsmaching, I'd say. Now it is going to take Mr.Bell a month to find ways of making the inquiry look democratically respectable without it letting the cat out of the bag! OOOH! me thinks there's going to be feathers flying soon! Some folk at the centre of this scandal are going to need 3 legs to get out quick! Some have already.... Which banking regulations, precisely? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nkon Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 How do you know it was £550m? You must have inside information. According to the information here even the experts are not that clear. I find the whole subject very confusing. Even the experts seem to be struggling with all this. How the MHK's who voted for the SOA could possible do this with a clear understanding what they were voting for is beyond me. As we have seen this week in the Keys questions Mr Cannan was given a hard time by the treasury minister for changing his mind, who can blame him when even the experts seem to be unclear over what was the best solution for the depositors. Oh well I am sure it will all blow over eventually, and when the report comes out, no one will be too blame, lessons will be learned etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakley Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 How do you know it was £550m?You must have inside information. According to the information here even the experts are not that clear. I find the whole subject very confusing. Even the experts seem to be struggling with all this. How the MHK's who voted for the SOA could possible do this with a clear understanding what they were voting for is beyond me. As we have seen this week in the Keys questions Mr Cannan was given a hard time by the treasury minister for changing his mind, who can blame him when even the experts seem to be unclear over what was the best solution for the depositors. Oh well I am sure it will all blow over eventually, and when the report comes out, no one will be too blame, lessons will be learned etc. etc. Blow over- dont you mean swept under the carpet in the time honoured way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 And we needed a new thread on KSF because? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I find the whole subject very confusing. Even the experts seem to be struggling with all this. How the MHK's who voted for the SOA could possible do this with a clear understanding what they were voting for is beyond me. Because most of them would have been told to. Toe the Government line sort of thing. To watch how some of these people vote matters through when clearly they have little clue of what it is about is quite astounding. Best to vote with the Council of Ministers. For a £grand a week, I would stick my hand up anywhere. Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 If they don't vote with the Comin they have to resign, it's all been put on here before. Peter Karran is the only member of Tynbwald who is not a member of government. Basically they vote as they are told on pain of unemployment. Alan Bell looked very uncomfortable on Tuesday and snapped more than once at questions. The more they keep it secret, the more the rumour mill can grind away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Why bother? How many reports have found out anything useful? If and when they do, the 'baddies' are almost or fully dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Which banking regulations, precisely? S This is just part of the damning findings of the UK Treasury Select Committee : QUOTE: "FAILURE OF THE IOM FSC TO REGULATE AND PROTECT Regulatory failure is evident in the FSC’s negligent decision not to spread risk but in many other areas there are questions as to the appropriateness of the operation of the FSC and its management. Recent controversy has surrounded the role of the FSA in accepting the Kaupthing takeover of Singer & Friedlander Limited in the UK. In his evidence to the TSC, Tony Shearer (former CEO of Singer & Friedlander) clearly recommended against the takeover, stating that he did not feel the management were competent. In keeping with the IOM’s tendency to follow the UK, the IOM’s FSC felt comfortable in accepting the takeover on the IOM. Neither the FSA nor the FSC heeded Shearer’s concerns. Making matters worse the FSC allowed the KSF IOM takeover of Derbyshire IOM even though various reports concerning the non-viability of the Icelandic banking sector were already appearing and these intensified into 2008. Was the FSC not alerted to these concerns during its supervision of KSFIOM? Did sufficient due diligence take place when corporate changes through restructuring and acquisitions took place by KSFIOM? Did the FSC have it finger on the pulse of the financial markets? If creditors are expected to have known the risks associated with Kaupthing, as the FSC have suggested, shouldn’t the FSC have been the first to act to protect creditors’ interests not make them worse, which is what it did do? The sequence of events that suggest regulatory failure can be summarised as follows: 1. The FSC permitted a bank within its jurisdiction (KSFIOM) to place over 50% of its assets with a single entity. Not only did it allow the assets to be placed with a single entity but the entity (KSFUK) was part of the same group over which the FSC had concerns. Depositors believe that, at the time of the asset transfer, the FSC must have been aware that should KSFUK fail (as subsequently happened) then KSFIOM would be destroyed along with its sister bank. The transfer was made after consultation by the FSC with the FSA – the recollection of the FSC of that consultation seems to differ from that of the FSA. Irrespective of the FSC’s understanding of the conversations it held with the FSA, it is unimaginable that any reasonable risk management process would sanction such a transfer at that time - so why did the FSC allow – indeed encourage - it to happen? 2. Mr Aspden referred to this at the TSC as ‘upstreaming’; however we contend that this was not in fact ‘upstreaming’ since, due to the change in corporate structure between KSFUK and KSFIOM, there was no direct relationship between the two and therefore no automatic ‘up’ or ‘down’ streaming’ was possible. 3. In addition to allowing the transfer of assets as detailed above, the FSC failed to require KSFIOM to put in place any protection, such as ring-fencing, of the transferred assets. Why? 4. To compound the errors in points 1, 2 and 3 above, the FSC failed to put in place any procedures to ensure that this incredible risk and exposure was monitored on an ongoing basis. Why? 5. The FSC told the Treasury Select Committee that assets were placed with KSFUK following in depth discussions with the FSA during which details were provided to the Isle of Man regulator surrounding the controls being put around KSFUK. There appears to be no evidence that the FSC carried out any due diligence on the information provided by the FSA. Was this all taken at face value? Could the fact that the FSC’s head of supervision, Michael Weldon, was once seconded to the FSA have any bearing on this? Although John Aspden has promised to provide evidence of these conversations to the TSC, attempts by our lawyers to access this information has been stonewalled. 6. Why did the FSC rely so heavily on the Memorandum of Understanding it had entered into with the FSA? As the situation deteriorated, why was there no attempt to rectify the situation? KSFIOM refused to move money on deposit from life companies after 1 October 2008, eight days before the bank’s demise, yet there is no evidence that there was any attempt to retrieve the position with KSFUK at this time. 7. The FSC Commissioner John Cashen is also a director of KSFIOM. This would seem to be a huge conflict of interest and it is one which very much concerns creditors as the very body charged to protect and regulate their bank. There are so many unanswered questions and without an independent enquiry, little likely that the truth will ever be discovered. Not a way in which you would expect or want a Crown Dependency to behave." UNQUOTE Can of worms, eh? All stuff the government would rather you didn't know about! But now you do ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.