Sebrof Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Depositors bankrupted by the FSC & directors are having to beg from friends to be able to hire a lawyer to defend themselves against this outrageous action! Theres a lot of Manx people who have lost money in Kaupthing so I hope they don't lay down & let 'them' kick them in the face. Nobody has been bankrupted by "the FSC & directors". If they have been bankrupted at all, and I doubt many have, then that is their fault. Nobody forced them to put all their money into one bank. They have lost money because a bank in Iceland was unable to meet its liabilities. The more you lie about this issue, the less support you will have. And what regulations were broken? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 So, again with the benefit of hindsight, I think Darling should have co-ordinated a nationalision KSFUK and KSFIOM. Nationalise KSFIOM? How can the UK Government "nationalise" anything that is not legally domiciled in the UK? It has no constitutional right to vest any business legally incorporated in the Isle of Man into UK Government ownership. Even with Bradford & Bingley Int'l its still a Manx registered and domiciled company it just so happens that its UK parent (who backs its accounts) is owned by the UK Government. You really are talking through your arse tonight aren't you? PS: He did answer your question a few posts back. Maybe you were too busy basking in your reflective smuggness in your screen to notice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 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 ! Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 Depositors bankrupted by the FSC & directors are having to beg from friends to be able to hire a lawyer to defend themselves against this outrageous action! Theres a lot of Manx people who have lost money in Kaupthing so I hope they don't lay down & let 'them' kick them in the face. Nobody has been bankrupted by "the FSC & directors". If they have been bankrupted at all, and I doubt many have, then that is their fault. Nobody forced them to put all their money into one bank. They have lost money because a bank in Iceland was unable to meet its liabilities. The more you lie about this issue, the less support you will have. And what regulations were broken? S Just take a bit of time to read the TRUE stories on the DAG public website I am not a member of this forum to gain any personal support. I have already posted the relevant banking regulations on this forum. Either this forum is a valued place for democratic discussion amongst thinking, responsible & caring people or it is just another waste of space on the web for trolls to flame the contributions of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 ....... And as the IOM is also a crown dependency, it is also not in the EU. So your statement makes no sense. S The IoM is not in the EU but as a Crown Dependency it is bound by the banking regulations as it trades within the EU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Either this forum is a valued place for democratic discussion amongst thinking, responsible & caring people or it is just another waste of space on the web for trolls to flame the contributions of others. It's neither of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Either this forum is a valued place for democratic discussion amongst thinking, responsible & caring people or it is just another waste of space on the web for trolls to flame the contributions of others That is a fair point. And in that spirit - would you agree that what you posted as " part of the damning findings of the UK Treasury Select Committee " was actually from the written submissions to the committee. The written submissions to the committee is very different from the findings. To say that it was from the findings seems deliberately misleading. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
007Pimpernel Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 Either this forum is a valued place for democratic discussion amongst thinking, responsible & caring people or it is just another waste of space on the web for trolls to flame the contributions of others That is a fair point. And in that spirit - would you agree that what you posted as " part of the damning findings of the UK Treasury Select Committee " was actually from the written submissions to the committee. The written submissions to the committee is very different from the findings. To say that it was from the findings seems deliberately misleading. Am I wrong? I did not say REPORT of the TSC. The REPORT of the TSC did not dismiss this evidence since no-one sought to contradict it or otherwise claim that it was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Either this forum is a valued place for democratic discussion amongst thinking, responsible & caring people or it is just another waste of space on the web for trolls to flame the contributions of others That is a fair point. And in that spirit - would you agree that what you posted as " part of the damning findings of the UK Treasury Select Committee " was actually from the written submissions to the committee. The written submissions to the committee is very different from the findings. To say that it was from the findings seems deliberately misleading. Am I wrong? I did not say REPORT of the TSC. The REPORT of the TSC did not dismiss this evidence since no-one sought to contradict it or otherwise claim that it was wrong. You're still being deliberately misleading and obtuse. What you posted was not from the 'findings'. There would have been no context to dismiss or contradict random submissions. That is not how the process works. All that matters is the what the committee reports. The rest is voxpops and noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Depositors bankrupted by the FSC & directors are having to beg from friends to be able to hire a lawyer to defend themselves against this outrageous action! Theres a lot of Manx people who have lost money in Kaupthing so I hope they don't lay down & let 'them' kick them in the face. Nobody has been bankrupted by "the FSC & directors". If they have been bankrupted at all, and I doubt many have, then that is their fault. Nobody forced them to put all their money into one bank. They have lost money because a bank in Iceland was unable to meet its liabilities. The more you lie about this issue, the less support you will have. And what regulations were broken? S They lost money for several reasons but none of them their fault. One they believed that a triple A rated bank in the IOM was safe. Two they belived the directors of the bank who assured them the bank was safe. Three there was regulatory failure under Mr Aspden. The actions of the British government. The poor and inadequate reponse of the IOMG. People have not been bankrupted they have been dispossessed deprived of their life savings. It has caused them suffereing ,ill health and misery . Insulting people and calling them liars only serves to prove the weakness of your argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nkon Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I am afraid having just taken the time and read through the relevant parts of the PUBLISHED report to satisfy my curiosity I have to agree with Pongo. If as you say the report did not reflect upon or contain all submissions then shouldn't you be taking this up with the committee who published the report. The fact is, the whole saga has been mismanaged right from the start when the money was transferred and this is reflected in the report. The recommendations reflect all the facts in the report and hopefully if these are followed the systems will be corrected and hopefully this type of event will be prevented in the future. What more can be done? Could you please let us know what you believe should happen going forward, maybe you could support this with examples of where some precedent has been set before? (Note: only examples before the current financial crisis are valid) From what I can find out at present, I have to agree the SOA was and is a fiasco. I believe treasury were wrong in suggesting it and even more so by not paying costs to the depositors (only my opinion based on what little I have read so far). This certainly has been an educational tour for me if nothing else. BTW I believe that everyone should have the right to an opinion without, the fear of the type of intolerance from some exhibited at times on this forum. You have the right to say what you believe, but the readers to have the right to draw their own conclusions. If your arguments are not convincing enough or people choose to ignore them then perhaps you need to try a different strategy or move somewhere else. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 So, again with the benefit of hindsight, I think Darling should have co-ordinated a nationalision KSFUK and KSFIOM. Nationalise KSFIOM? How can the UK Government "nationalise" anything that is not legally domiciled in the UK? Put the brain in gear. I said co-ordinate. In other words, operate in tandem with the Manx gov. so that both acted in unison. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Out of interest how many of us spread our savings with different Banks ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 PS: He did answer your question a few posts back. Maybe you were too busy basking in your reflective smuggness in your screen to notice? Where did he answer it? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I have already posted the relevant banking regulations on this forum. Where? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.