Jump to content

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander... About To Go Pop?


gilf_uk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Agree Stu, good post.

 

Gladys I wonder if the UKs actions will have an effect on the UK as an offshore? Many foreign banks are in London, and I wonder if they'll want to keep deposits in the country after this aggressive action?

 

http://www.manxradio.com/readNEwsItem.aspx?id=26946

Manx radio new today, a UK pension provider seeking reassurances. This looks like a bit of a set up, you can see Treasury pi**ing their pants and agreeing that all deposits shoudl be IOM Government guarenteed, this is going to cost the taxpayer more than anyone yet imagines.

 

Iffy this. The old 15k would have covered them, but the new 50k one doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brown isn't up to it, Bell might be unavailable but they have PR people at their disposal and in Callister, Turner, and the ex-Steam Packet fellow Tynwald members who are experienced in front of a microphone.

That's a damn good idea. Blow off the cobwebs off Callister and send him on a media tour of the UK.

 

I'm all for keeping quiet, but we need our own side of the media offensive if the story is being talked about - especially if only one half perception of one side of the discussion is being covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, KSF was a profitable company, IOMG had asked for and got a guarantee from its parent in Iceland that protected investors, and the FSC had no reason to sound any alarms about its liquidity.

 

The shit hit the fan when the Icelandic parent tottered, was nationalised by the government there, who then proceeded to raid the money boxes of all its subsidiaries - including KSF. Gordon Brown's lot realised what was happening and froze the money in the UK.

As I understand it, KSF UK assets were not frozen, and I thought threat to freeze led to Kaupthing tottering and then being nationalised by Icelandic government. (Which is why Iceland now looking to sue HMG). However there may well have been misunderstanding and it may be that various financial institutions acted as if KSF UK had been frozen.

 

The only unknown in the mix is the UK's decision to use terrorism legislation for financial purposes; clever at first, but stacking up huge problems for GB in the very near future - assets frozen and, now, what is to be done, can you unilaterally, without judicial review 'unfreeze' them?

Yes, UK PM can unfreeze by executive decision without judicial procedure. Also worth noting that these provisions are not just anti-terror - the Act has various measures for national security. A threat to economic security can thus be dealt with. You can freeze assets, but these can only be withheld from the person(s) identified in the freezing order. So if KSF UK assets have been frozen and KSF UK had assets belonging to KSF IoM and both now under Administration, then KSF UK Administrator could not withhold these, and would have to be returned to Administrator of KSF IoM (if KSF UK had the money).

 

We need to be making the point that it was the UK Govt's that froze the Manx funds and helping the depositors to take the case to the UK Govt.

I basically agree with that. However it sounds like UK might not have frozen KSF assets, but rather that UK action in freezing and threat to do so brought Kaupthing down, sending KSF into Administration, and thus tying up KSF IoM assets held by KSF UK. It would seem the UK action in freezing Icelandic assets led to problem. Perhaps IoMG should join with Iceland in suing HMG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see you ripping the piss out of the background of any of the others.

So some of the other board members are Manx ex-CM's? Well I never...

 

If not anticipating the uk government executing recently gained anti-terrorism laws to render their business inoperable is 'totally unsound business planning' then I think pretty much every organisation in the country is guilty.

Agreed. Using that legislation came out of the blue and shows how dangerous it can be to have "too many terror laws" for want of a better way of putting it. However they were letting locals withdraw funds whilst the rest could go hang were they not?

 

You know what, sometimes shit just happens PK that's out of our control. You like to dance with glee and jump around like a girl with sweets when misfortune descends on this island because you're the worst kind of carrion feasting tosser. But sometimes it's just unavoidable wash from bigger shit, and there's absolutely piss-all we can do about that.

Nobody knows better than the military that shit happens. As for "dance with glee and jump around" (nice descriptive choice of words btw) you seem to have missed one of my earlier posts. Here it is again, just for you:

You really think I'd like to see my friends suffer? What a silly little tosser you are. I'd lose out financially as well.

I sort-of agree Mr Stu. At the end of the day the UK represents IOM interests in place like Iceland. With the sort of clout they have hopefully folks will get their money back. Wait and see mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree Stu, good post.

 

Gladys I wonder if the UKs actions will have an effect on the UK as an offshore? Many foreign banks are in London, and I wonder if they'll want to keep deposits in the country after this aggressive action?

 

http://www.manxradio.com/readNEwsItem.aspx?id=26946

Manx radio new today, a UK pension provider seeking reassurances. This looks like a bit of a set up, you can see Treasury pi**ing their pants and agreeing that all deposits shoudl be IOM Government guarenteed, this is going to cost the taxpayer more than anyone yet imagines.

 

Iffy this. The old 15k would have covered them, but the new 50k one doesn't.

 

I would be suing the pension provider. It is inexcusable to have pension funds in high risk accounts. And before anybody asks, high interest = high risk.

 

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gladys I wonder if the UKs actions will have an effect on the UK as an offshore? Many foreign banks are in London, and I wonder if they'll want to keep deposits in the country after this aggressive action?

 

That thought crossed my mind as well. If the UK wants to all all, well, American, then other countries may think twice about keeping any funds in the UK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon Brown's lot realised what was happening and froze the money in the UK .... If the UK returns the funds, everyone is happy and KSF can continue to trade, profitably. That's the hope of Allan Bell and anyone who believes we've been wronged by two governments in this - one of them supposedly our constitutional parent in international affairs..

 

I understood, and I might be wrong, that the rights of savers (at the UK bank) take priority ahead of the rights of shareholders and creditors. I'm not saying that is right or wrong - just how it is, I think.

 

If I am right, the creditors would get paid off if there was any money left after the savers (at the UK bank) had been re paid. AFAIK the IOM KSF Bank is essentially a creditor. I think that is how the procedure works. UK is responsible for UK savers. IOM is responsible for IOM savers.

 

The 3 - way relationship which involved banking the deposits with another subsidiary (rather than the guaranteeing parent) seems to be a weakness which was overlooked.

 

The UK govt seems to have had no option other than to shut down the British subsidiary.

Edited by pongo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon Brown's lot realised what was happening and froze the money in the UK .... If the UK returns the funds, everyone is happy and KSF can continue to trade, profitably. That's the hope of Allan Bell and anyone who believes we've been wronged by two governments in this - one of them supposedly our constitutional parent in international affairs..

 

I understood, and I might be wrong, that the rights of savers (at the UK bank) take priority ahead of the rights of shareholders and creditors. I'm not saying that is right or wrong - just how it is, I think.

 

If I am right, the creditors would get paid off if there was any money left after the savers (at the UK bank) had been re paid. AFAIK the IOM KSF Bank is essentially a creditor. I think that is how the procedure works. UK is responsible for UK savers. IOM is responsible for IOM savers.

 

The 3 - way relationship which involved banking the deposits with another subsidiary (rather than the guaranteeing parent) seems to be a weakness which was overlooked.

 

The UK govt seems to have had no option other than to shut down the British subsidiary.

 

Unless the law has changed without me noticing, depositors rank as unsecured creditors, and do not have priority. Shareholders come behind unsecured creditors. Employees' pay and pension entitlements come before unsecured creditors.

 

S

Edited by Sebrof
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A look at the current media front:

 

Channel 4/ITN over here tomorrow apparently (Sefton, evening)

 

Guardian article

 

FT - IoM hears plea over Sipp funds

 

The Herald - Expatriates fear savings may be lost

 

Savers stranded on islands following banking collapse

 

Telegraph - Financial crisis

 

Daily Wail - Caravan park owner left with nothing

 

Depositors YouTube channel:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/ksfIoMdepositorsAG

 

So, where's the big media counter attack, ey? Come on, all you government PR "consultants" - ass off couch, action stations - now is your time to shine...

 

]101010nj3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.manxradio.com/readNEwsItem.aspx?id=26946

More flak

It is also warning that if the £100 million thought to be invested in similar pension schemes in the Island isn’t protected, companies may take their money elsewhere.

and

The company’s managing director Richard Taylor has written to Treasury asking for urgent clarification.

 

He warns if he doesn’t get confirmation from the government, his company will advise its customers and advisers of the fact so they can remove their deposits.

 

And he says the government’s position on the pension schemes could influence whether people put their money into the Isle of Man in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depositors in the stricken Isle of Man subsidiary of Iceland's Kaupthing Bank petition three governments in a bid to rescue their savings.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7679441.stm

 

I was unaware until very recently that the ludicrous anti-laundering legislation prevents UK citizens who are working abroad from opening an account in the UK.

 

That is one very good reason for the existence of off-shore centres like the IOM, and the point needs to be made strongly.

 

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...