The Voice of Reason Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think it is really important to understand that 'lighter' does not mean worse in every case. Sometimes 'smarter' supervision is 'lighter' supervision that focuses on important core issues of financial security rather than how letterheads or business cards are set out (ie the UK FSA approach was in the past biased towards the latter). Principle based, rather than rules based, regulation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 I started this post and I think it has run its course. I dare to hope that when more is known about the nature of the IoM inquiry into the loss of KSFIOM we shall be abe to have an intelligent discussion on the issues. It will speak volumes if the inquiry is held in camera with a decision to keep its findings a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I started this post and I think it has run its course. I dare to hope that when more is known about the nature of the IoM inquiry into the loss of KSFIOM we shall be abe to have an intelligent discussion on the issues. It will speak volumes if the inquiry is held in camera with a decision to keep its findings a secret. Good luck. Hope you get a resolution more rapidly than investors in The Equitable did in the UK and a better outcome than many failed pension scheme members did there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think it is really important to understand that 'lighter' does not mean worse in every case. Sometimes 'smarter' supervision is 'lighter' supervision that focuses on important core issues of financial security rather than how letterheads or business cards are set out (ie the UK FSA approach was in the past biased towards the latter). Principle based, rather than rules based, regulation? Or solvency rather than procedural based regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I started this post and I think it has run its course. Tell that to bellyache. But maybe you are one and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 people who dont have a UK address cannot open a UK bank account I've never had a UK address and yet I opened a UK bank account a few years ago. I get my interest paid gross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 The scheme of arrangement did not require depositors to give up rights to sue either the FSC or the directors of KSFIOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Kaupthing Singer and Friedman was the combination of two well known institutions. The Derbyshire Building Society and Singer and Friedman Bank. KSF was widely promoted as being a safe secure bank with not only the guarantee from the IOMs (DSC) which supposedly protects the first 50k but a 100% guarantee from the parent bank. This is a very attractive deal to people and ironically most of the depositors are very cautious careful people who have saved prudently for their future . You mean Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander. Actually, you are wrong about the 50K guarantee. The 100% of the first 50K was voted on AFTER KSF went bust. The protection at the time was 75% of the first 20K. IOMG decided to honour the 50K for KSF, but it was rejected! No wonder they are sticking two fingers up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share Posted June 24, 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. ........ Nkon -- Sorry to be so late coming back on this one. That £550million.... first the directors know exactly how much it was because they transferred it but their lips are sealed (hmmmm... ) ;, second, the provisional liquidator should know as he has the books, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to have the brain to read them properly ; third, the receiver of KSFUK should know because he too has the KSFUK books but he also seems to have a problem identifying the lolly ; fourthly the UK Treasury & the Ministry of Justice have a figure which they have published (don't ask me where it came from because I don't know....my mole was found out & got the push ) The figure? £532million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 people who dont have a UK address cannot open a UK bank account I've never had a UK address and yet I opened a UK bank account a few years ago. I get my interest paid gross. That was a few years ago - a good few i imagine. Now it is nigh impossible for someone who has no UK address to open a bank account even if they have EXISTING accounts with that bank. It all to do with money laundering and anti terror laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Kaupthing Singer and Friedman was the combination of two well known institutions. The Derbyshire Building Society and Singer and Friedman Bank. KSF was widely promoted as being a safe secure bank with not only the guarantee from the IOMs (DSC) which supposedly protects the first 50k but a 100% guarantee from the parent bank. This is a very attractive deal to people and ironically most of the depositors are very cautious careful people who have saved prudently for their future . You mean Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander. Actually, you are wrong about the 50K guarantee. The 100% of the first 50K was voted on AFTER KSF went bust. The protection at the time was 75% of the first 20K. IOMG decided to honour the 50K for KSF, but it was rejected! No wonder they are sticking two fingers up! Yes you are right they put it up to 50k ( until Oct 09 when it reverts to 75% of 20k) It was not rejected - what was rejected was the SOA NOT the DSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I started this post and I think it has run its course. Tell that to bellyache. But maybe you are one and the same. What a strange lot of people you are constantly accusing people of being one and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I started this post and I think it has run its course. Tell that to bellyache. But maybe you are one and the same. What a strange lot of people you are constantly accusing people of being one and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whatsinaname Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 There is an interesting item in the Tax Research Blog about how to get a UK bank account without having to submit to proper "due dilligence, know your customer..." processes http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/06...e-uk-companies/ Kudos to the IOM for not being susceptible to this kind of abuse, apparently! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris watson Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I started this post and I think it has run its course. Tell that to bellyache. But maybe you are one and the same. What a strange lot of people you are constantly accusing people of being one and the same. I was thinking the same. Perhaps they're government agents, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.