oldmanxfella Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Can of worms, eh? All stuff the government would rather you didn't know about! But now you do ! It does get quite sad when the FSA start posting on foreign internet forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 If whats just been posted is fact, then the IOM Government and or its officers have put the Islands taxpayers at risk. I can see it that we are going to have to pay out 100% to the depositors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 And we needed a new thread on KSF because? ...because the people of the Manx have a right to know the TRUTH about the KSFIoM debacle. Right now people from all over the world are taking their savings out of the IoM as the TRUTH is starting to spread around the globe. The government is doing its damndest to present a picture of "all is well". Did you know the AAA credit rating is a con? Standard & Poor's last evaluation was in August 2008 & Moody's was in 2000! If you don't believe me, contact them & ask them! These credit rating agencies are in the pay & pocket of the IoM Treasury. That's why they confirmed the AAA rating in February based on what the Treasury told them and NOT on any up-to-date evaluation of the IoM following the international banking crisis. Disturbing? I woud say bl**dy FRIGHTENING! The whole reputation of the IoM as a properly regulated , honest, & trustworthy place to put your hard earned life savings is going to the dogs. It's seriously bad news for the people of the Manx whose livelyhood will be badly affected by the inevitable downturn in economic strength of the island as a result of the ongoing Kaupthing debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 If whats just been posted is fact, then the IOM Government and or its officers have put the Islands taxpayers at risk. I can see it that we are going to have to pay out 100% to the depositors. Don't worry on that score Lee...the government will recoup the taxpayers money from the recovered assets of the Kaupthing bank! It is even trying to recoup from the depositors the £1,000,000 it has spent on its failed Scheme of Arangement, cooked up solely to protect the Isle of Man's reputation! The government doesn't want the bad news of an IoM bank going broke to get out as that would be hugely damaging to the reputation of the IoM! Its in black & white. Yes, I can quote the reference! It's archived as an official record! It's not the risk of taxpayers money being forked out that you need to worry about; it's the risk of the future economic stability of the IoM that is at stake that should seriously concern you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 There will not be enough left to recoup the final bill to the taxpayers, The islands taxpayers have been hit with a lot of bad dept over the past few years and cant afford to pay out on this mess all in one go. In my opinion a bit of give and take is needed by all involved in the short term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Did you know the AAA credit rating is a con? It will be more of one if we give all our money to you depositors. You were guaranteed 15K back if it went tits up. Then, when it went tits up, they upped it to 50K. I will vote against any politician who votes in favour of that limit being raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Can of worms, eh? All stuff the government would rather you didn't know about! But now you do ! Now you've told us, can you stop fagging up the boards with this shite please? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Did you know the AAA credit rating is a con? It will be more of one if we give all our money to you depositors. You were guaranteed 15K back if it went tits up. Then, when it went tits up, they upped it to 50K. I will vote against any politician who votes in favour of that limit being raised. I would like to agree with you Tugger, but if the IOM Government or its officers is at fault in allowing the transfer of the Banks assets they are a defendant and if found guilty should have to pay out. Yes its going to hurt us all through no fault of our own, but that's the law and for an independent court to decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 There will not be enough left to recoup the final bill to the taxpayers, The islands taxpayers have been hit with a lot of bad dept over the past few years and cant afford to pay out on this mess all in one go. In my opinion a bit of give and take is needed by all involved in the short term The DCS involves the Treasury temporarily putting in £150million from its adequate reserves. It will get that back from the assets of the bank plus the costs, and I would not be surprised some interest too! Other money for the DCS will come from a levy (a charge) on the island's banks. I repeat, the taxpayers will not lose out from the DCS-- they will lose out from the fallout of the Kaupthing mess which was entirely of the making of the FSC & the directors of the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 There will not be enough left to recoup the final bill to the taxpayers, The islands taxpayers have been hit with a lot of bad dept over the past few years and cant afford to pay out on this mess all in one go. In my opinion a bit of give and take is needed by all involved in the short term The DCS involves the Treasury temporarily putting in £150million from its adequate reserves. It will get that back from the assets of the bank plus the costs, and I would not be surprised some interest too! Other money for the DCS will come from a levy (a charge) on the island's banks. I repeat, the taxpayers will not lose out from the DCS-- they will lose out from the fallout of the Kaupthing mess which was entirely of the making of the FSC & the directors of the bank. The Government has not got what you describe as adequate funds at this time, what money it has in reserves has been allocated to other things and an ever decreasing pension pot. As I said a bit of give and take, accept what they can give now and wait for the Bank levies to build up over time and then get the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 Can of worms, eh? All stuff the government would rather you didn't know about! But now you do ! Now you've told us, can you stop fagging up the boards with this shite please? Thanks. I am not an IoM depositor. (I was once but I got out when I saw the writing on the wall!) The shit is not mine but the governments. You are not obliged to read this thread. If it doesn't interest you then simply move on to something that does. Have a nice evening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I'm genuinely pleased for you. Move along, nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted June 17, 2009 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 ! I ask again, which banking regulations were broken? And what is the source of what you posted above? It doesn't look like the minutes of the UK TSC. I suspect it is taken from the DAG, and we know how reliable they are. If you want sympathy from the people of the IOM, you are going to have to start dealing with facts, not innuendo and balderdash. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 the government is the only one in Europe not to protect 100% the savings in a bank that failed. Lie. Guernsey has refused even to backdate their compensation scheme and went straight for liquidation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Has bellyup installed version 3.0 of his OS and upped his game, or is 007Pimpel (sic) a brand new "contributor"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.