Tugger Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 [Nah nah nah, it is and always has been Nice one Gilf-uk http://www.moneysupermarket.com/community/...spx?PageIndex=9 A bit of sympathy would not have gone amiss! I was sympathetic... until they called us a bunch of freeloaders!! I assumed it was just a play on words with "Friedlander" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilf_uk Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share Posted October 9, 2008 If the Isle of Man Bank collapses they'll all be on the first boat. If the Isle of Man Bank collapses then we will all have bigger things to worry about then just our lost savings...... Laughs... can you imagine? The whole of the IOM govt's banking goes through them. And on the subject of the IOM £50k and the Jersey 100%, I think i'd rather have £50k of something rather than 100% of nothing. Jersey would be more bankrupt than Iceland. Jersey GDP - £2,300,000,000 (£2.3 billion) Jersey deposits £196,896,000,000 (£196 billion) go figure (source: jersey fsc - http://www.jerseyfsc.org/banking%5Fbusiness/statistics/) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 If the Isle of Man Bank collapses then we will all have bigger things to worry about then just our lost savings...... Such as where to string up the MHK's and similar droids. Doesnt the FSC have some form of accountability here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 If the Isle of Man Bank collapses then my overdraft collapses with it So party on at mine, spuds & cheap Icelandic cod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Wikipedia are keeping fairly up to date in their item on Kaupthing Bank NATIONALISATION On Wednesday, October 9, the Icelandic Financial Supervisory Authority nationalized Kaupthing after the resignation of the entire board of directors. [6][13] This came about when "Britain transferred control of the business of Kaupthing Edge, its Internet bank, to ING Direct and put Kaupthing's UK operations into administration" placing Kaupthing in technical default according to loan agreements.[14] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Regarding Jersey. Looking after your own is commercial suicide. Say you agree to help locals (who hold £5bn of the £100bn you have on deposit). How much of the £100bn are you going to have to call on at the end of the week if they think your going to pay out to locals first? Very little. Its total commercial suicide. As discussed elsewhere, UK will lose out because most of that £100bn is from UK residents and deposited via UK banks. The money won't be going back to the UK to become taxed - rather it will go to Ireland or US or wherever the punters feel safe. So £100bn out of Jersey means £100bn to be redeemed by UK banks. UK probably has more to lose (like propping up banks suddenly starved of £100bn sized chunk of liquidity). Jersey might not come off too badly as maybe a large chunk of that will go to Irish banks in Jersey. Jersey isn't going to pick up the slack left by the UK and plummet that way. Conclusion: poor communication between UK and Jersey, Guernsey and IoM. What were they doing - or rather not doing - at the British Irish Council summit? Was the whole meeting spent talking about establishing a permanent home and where this might be? With £180bn from 3m UK residents deposited overseas - most in offshore subsidiaries of UK banks, to me it seems like economic idiocy for the UK not to extend the deposit protection to offshore deposits. Can anyone suggest any reason why the UK did not extend DPS to offshore? Did they expect the Crown Dependencies alone would provide all the deposit protection needed to save the skins of the UK banks with offshore subsidiaries? (or at least save those UK banks from having to suddenly cough up £180bn). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Can anyone suggest any reason why the UK did not extend DPS to offshore? Politically impossible. The man - in - the - street would see it as UK tax payers supporting investors with their money in tax havens. Sun and Daily Mail readers would freak out. [i'm not saying that this would represent a true reflection of the reality - just that it is how it would be seen]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Can anyone suggest any reason why the UK did not extend DPS to offshore? Politically impossible. The man - in - the - street would see it as UK tax payers supporting investors with their money in tax havens. Sun and Daily Mail readers would freak out. [i'm not saying that this would represent a true reflection of the reality - just that it is how it would be seen]. Yep - that's about the only reason I can see, but it is a big hurdle. So lack of leadership in UK - able to front up and say why it's necessary, and actually lead the country through the crisis. Instead of decisions based on reason and reality it's about what the politicians think will make them look good with the punters. If £100bn starts flying out of Jersey's UK offshore subsidiaries and into Jersey's Irish offshore subsidiaries, then the UK will have one almighty problem to deal with - even if the other £80bn odd in other offshores stays put. So instead UK's answer is to keep fingers crossed and hope they don't go into meltdown. If that's the calibre, then any shred of confidence I might have had left in the UK has just vanished. If I had any UK deposits, these would be winging their way overseas and into another currency, irrespective of any DPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 We have been watching events very closely at work; but that is about all we can do, who knows what the best thing to do may be? All you can do is keep a level head. Why won't the UK guarantee deposits in offshore jurisdictions? Well, firstly they are exactly what they say, offshore and not the UK, if deposits were guaranteed by the UK, you could kiss whatever vestige of independence we have goodbye, perceptually and, probably, in reality. Secondly, how would they quantify the amounts involved, without breaching that Chinese wall that lies somewhere in the east Irish Sea? I do feel very sorry for those that have lost money in the Kaupthing collapse, but why would a UK individual put their money in an offshore account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Why won't the UK guarantee deposits in offshore jurisdictions? Well, firstly they are exactly what they say, offshore and not the UK, if deposits were guaranteed by the UK, you could kiss whatever vestige of independence we have goodbye, perceptually and, probably, in reality. Secondly, how would they quantify the amounts involved, without breaching that Chinese wall that lies somewhere in the east Irish Sea? Gladys I only have man in street understanding of all this and not the depth of knowledge of others here such as yourself, so sorry to sound really dumb about this. I can sort-of understand the vestige of independence rationale. But haven't Ireland protected deposits in offshore subsidiaries of Irish banks? I guess though that they might start tightening up regulation to put conditions on offshore subsidiaries of protected banks (?). Chinese walls - haven't these already been pretty much dissolved with the new Tax Information Exchange Agreement? I think the ballpark amounts are pretty clear - £50bn in IoM, £100bn in Jersey. Again maybe regulation of the parent would require disclosure and conditions on offshore subsidiaries (?). Ireland seems to be able to deal with these Chinese walls (?) So, for better or worse, Ireland seem to have taken the leap to extend DPS to offshores. Given serious threat to UK of loss of £100bn-£180bn, I don't really see either of these reasons would make it inherently unfeasible or unworkable. Rather this just seems some 'details' that would have to be worked out (as they say). The whole this is about confidence rather than any actual meaningful protection anyway - isn't it? If it's about the UK saving it's backside, would either of these reasons even make them pause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Skeddan, please don't credit me with more knowledge than anyone else on here. I know companies, that is my professional niche, much like a vet knows dogs and cats but couldn't recommend the best way to make money out of them, other than keeping them relatively healthy and well looked after! From a news headline on the Irish banks position, I was led to believe that the promise of a guarantee for offshore accounts in Irish banks was, possibly, Irish Mist. If you think about it, it would be bizarre for a government to underwrite activity, albeit through a wholly owned subsidiary of one of its nationals, in a foreign jurisdiction. But, it was certainly the stated position last week and certainly the doubt was raised this week although I haven't looked into it as yet. Again, who knows as the whole scene is changing hourly, but I wouldn't, personally speaking that is, put much store in the Irish 'guarantee'. As for Chinese walls, well, I don't think they have been dissolved, there is too much riding on the fact that they are there for that to happen. Much more likely is that bundles of information have been lobbed over the wall to keep the outsiders happy and to keep the IOM 'in compliance', but the wall remains. That is our stock in trade, as we are a independant jurisdiction. Ballpark figures are fine, but they don't help in identifying the 'country of origin' of the deposits. So, without IOM institutions baring everything to the very authorities we have said we don't have to unless there is some shady dealings afoot, the UK cannot evaluate the extent of its guarantee for the offshore. I really do not have the answers, but I do think it is an hourly changing environment and we are just a very small cog in a huge machine that is in dire need of a full service and overhaul. The trick will be to ensure that we receive the oil just like every other cog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I'm abit flomoxed on this. Why do people invest or deposit money in the non-main stream banks? Is it because they would have got more return for their money? please don't credit me with more knowledge than anyone else on here I always take the time to read your posts. So don't discredit yourself, at least you're open discusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I'm hearing some horror stories on MR this morning. Jebus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 If the Isle of Man Bank collapses then my overdraft collapses with it Sadly your debt is valuable and will be sold on. Seen this in the Times about how Guernsey savers have no compensation? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/sav...icle4914674.ece As said above, the IOM really needs to beef up it's PR in this crisis and big up the fact that we're dealing with this better than other offshores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 As said above, the IOM really needs to beef up it's PR in this crisis and big up the fact that we're dealing with this better than other offshores. I disagree. Better to first sit out the storm, and then push that PR only once things have settled down. Attention here is the last thing we need in these difficult panicky circumstances. The reality of the compensation scheme is sticking a plaster on a severed leg for some people. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.