Jump to content

Bridgewater


Ramseyboi
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Public listed companies have very highly prescribed rules on governance and conduct. The Nolan Principles were prescribed in relation to Standards in Public Life for public sector members. In this instance it’s a regulated private business. It failed to meet regulatory requirements. It cost them over two hundred grand plus those affected are unlikely to work again in financial services. Unlike failed public sector employees who often get to stay in post no matter how thoroughly corrupt or incompetent they might be. 

Or more than likely promoted out of harm's way!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Public listed companies have very highly prescribed rules on governance and conduct. The Nolan Principles were prescribed in relation to Standards in Public Life for public sector members. In this instance it’s a regulated private business. It failed to meet regulatory requirements. It cost them over two hundred grand plus those affected are unlikely to work again in financial services. Unlike failed public sector employees who often get to stay in post no matter how thoroughly corrupt or incompetent they might be. 

And your evidence for your last sentence? 
 

I think you’ve made that up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Prove me wrong. Just provide some evidence as requested.

I know three PS employees who are still in post after it being known that they have been implicated in fraudulent activities. I’m hardly going to name them here. But sweeping it under the carpet happens more frequently than it does in the private sector where people usually have to leave the IOM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

I know three PS employees who are still in post after it being known that they have been implicated in fraudulent activities. I’m hardly going to name them here. But sweeping it under the carpet happens more frequently than it does in the private sector where people usually have to leave the IOM. 

That’s not really evidence is it.? It’s just you making more stuff up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Phantom said:

They've already parachuted in a new Director probably to sort it all out. 

I don't think they have actually done anything dodgy. They just had poor AML, CDD controls etc.

 

None of us know but if you read the attached https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41878961 which includes copies of documents from the Paradise Papers where another CSP appears to have concerns re their due diligence documentation and their is an e-mail which states a Mr Usamanov owns Bridgewaters which they denied it is hardly surprising that they were probably looked at very closely, especially when a close associate of Mr Usamanov was appointed as a director of Bridgewaters.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Max Power said:

£225k? A drop in the ocean. Appoint some retired local 'worthies' as directors, take a 'back seat' and business as usual!

I doubt it as in addition to the fine they had to cover the costs of another firm managing aspects of them for a while and producing a report which I expect would not have come cheap.

Individuals have been taken on, probably at top wack, to run the business and they will probably have replaced parties who had an interest in the company. Because of what has gone on, I expect procedures will be so strict that you probably would need an authority signed off in triplicate before you are allowed to blow your nose, so costs will rocket. If a couple of the "lead" directors have left you wonder how it will affect their business going forward as a lot is based on contacts, relationships  and reputation so overall I would expect the finances and profits to be pretty hard hit and it would not surprise me to see that the "good" business is sold and moved on. 

If good staff members have left with strong client relationships you might expect some of those clients to follow the staff to their new employers so I expect for those with an ownership interest in Bridgewaters I expect it will be far from business as usual.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

None of us know but if you read the attached https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41878961 which includes copies of documents from the Paradise Papers where another CSP appears to have concerns re their due diligence documentation.   

From that link “Chief Minister for the Isle of Man Howard Quayle told Panorama he could not comment on individual cases but if there was evidence Mr Usmanov was approving his own deals "we will have it thoroughly investigated and if there has been any wrongdoing whatsoever, we will take the relevant action. Whether that's a prosecution or withdrawal of right to operate on the Isle of Man".

So Howie was good to his word. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

From that link “Chief Minister for the Isle of Man Howard Quayle told Panorama he could not comment on individual cases but if there was evidence Mr Usmanov was approving his own deals "we will have it thoroughly investigated and if there has been any wrongdoing whatsoever, we will take the relevant action. Whether that's a prosecution or withdrawal of right to operate on the Isle of Man".

So Howie was good to his word. 

10 hours ago, Lost Login said:

None of us know but if you read the attached https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41878961 which includes copies of documents from the Paradise Papers where another CSP appears to have concerns re their due diligence documentation and their is an e-mail which states a Mr Usamanov owns Bridgewaters which they denied it is hardly surprising that they were probably looked at very closely, especially when a close associate of Mr Usamanov was appointed as a director of Bridgewaters.   

Yeah this was it.  I'd heard that one of their clients/shareholders was basically calling all the shots and the directors were pretty much blindly agreeing to whatever deals/transactions were being dictated. 

To be honest the IOM Directors would be in a tricky situation.  If your majority shareholder demands you do some transaction but you have to abide by all the AML rules/conflicts of interest etc, take ages to approve it because you have to do all the checks, he is just going to see it as you faffing about and delaying things, as he would view it as his own money.  

They'd probably have to play catch up on a lot of these deals too, as they'd probably already been agreed.  The IOM Directors only choice would be to quit realistically. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

The IOM Directors only choice would be to quit realistically. 

Agree but as most of us know the directors in those roles are usually paid 150% of the market rate so they seldom quit as it’s a nice cushy ride .. until it isn’t as you’ll never work in the finance sector again. 

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...