Government The Inquiry Into Collapse Of Kaupthing Iom

[007Pimpernel]

...... 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.

Not true, sir. The TSC took its time to carefully look at all the evidence submitted and would have commented in its report if it considered any evidence given to it to be questionable or in need of qualification.

[Tugger]

Are you still pretending you're not in the DAG?

[pongo]

...... 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.

Not true, sir. The TSC took its time to carefully look at all the evidence submitted and would have commented in its report if it considered any evidence given to it to be questionable or in need of qualification.

 

There is no precedent for anything like that. The only thing of interest is what was in the report and what the findings were.

 

To be absolutely clear: I could have submitted written evidence identifying aliens for the collapse of the bank. Properly submitted my opinion would have gone into the collection of documents from which you quoted. But nobody would expect that to be noted the report. It would not merit analysis.

 

You said that you were quoting from the findings but you were not. You were being deliberately misleading, creating a confusion. Why ?

[Tugger]

He's from the DAG, that's why

[Sebrof]

He's from the DAG, that's why

 

And I'm still waiting for the Pimp to tell us which regulations, which applied to the IOM at the relevant time, were broken. I'm not interested in the name of a piece of EU legislation which has subsequently been amended; I am interested in hearing which actual applicable regulation (or regulations) were broken. And in what way.

 

But somehow I doubt if I'll get a satisfactory reply.

 

S

[oakley]

...... 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.

Not true, sir. The TSC took its time to carefully look at all the evidence submitted and would have commented in its report if it considered any evidence given to it to be questionable or in need of qualification.

 

 

ttp://www.citywire.co.uk/Adviser/-/news/adviser-news/content.aspx?ID=34562

[pongo]

Did you mean either of these IOM related items at that site Oakley ?

 

The truth about cash in offshore bonds

 

The collapse of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander last autumn revealed the shocking fact that cash deposits held through offshore bonds do not enjoy the protection afforded to either unit trusts held through bonds or offshore deposits accessed directly.

It is worth reading the comments which follow that item since things may not be as cut and dried as the writer implies.

 

Face to Face: Isle of Man finance director John Spellman

 

John Spellman was in the frontline dealing with the storm that broke following the collapse of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander. But he has risen to the challenge. - Interview

[007Pimpernel]

He's from the DAG, that's why

 

And I'm still waiting for Pimpernel to tell us which regulations, .....I doubt if I'll get a satisfactory reply.

 

S

 

Rules on large exposures incurred by financial undertakings Article 3 refers

The FSC transferred 60% approx of KSFIoM assets to KSFUK, thus breaking the rule by 35%.

[Sebrof]

He's from the DAG, that's why

 

And I'm still waiting for Pimpernel to tell us which regulations, .....I doubt if I'll get a satisfactory reply.

 

S

 

Rules on large exposures incurred by financial undertakings Article 3 refers

The FSC transferred 60% approx of KSFIoM assets to KSFUK, thus breaking the rule by 35%.

 

And whose rules are these?

 

S

[The Voice of Reason]

He's from the DAG, that's why

 

And I'm still waiting for Pimpernel to tell us which regulations, .....I doubt if I'll get a satisfactory reply.

 

S

 

Rules on large exposures incurred by financial undertakings Article 3 refers

The FSC transferred 60% approx of KSFIoM assets to KSFUK, thus breaking the rule by 35%.

 

Whose rules are these? iI may have missed it but it doesn't appear clear from the link

[Bobbie Bobster]

He's from the DAG, that's why

 

And I'm still waiting for Pimpernel to tell us which regulations, .....I doubt if I'll get a satisfactory reply.

 

S

 

Rules on large exposures incurred by financial undertakings Article 3 refers

The FSC transferred 60% approx of KSFIoM assets to KSFUK, thus breaking the rule by 35%.

 

Whose rules are these? iI may have missed it but it doesn't appear clear from the link

 

Site belongs to the Financial Supervisory Authority - Iceland, the regulations are unlikely to apply to an IoM bank - they only apply to banks that have "received an operating licence in accordance with Article 4 of Act No.161/2002 on Financial Undertakings"

 

I am not an expert on banking regulations, but from my experience with other financial services regulations, rules on concentration of expoure are likely to be subject to "look through" when dealing with a wholly-owned subsidiary or a branch operation, i.e. you have to look at the potential exposure/concentration at the parent level, not at the sub/branch level. The issue of concentration wrt KSFIOM is moot because its sole purpose was to "asset gather" and place all its funds with its parent or a sister company.

[Sebrof]

Whose rules are these? iI may have missed it but it doesn't appear clear from the link

 

They are Iceland's regulations. It seems the Pimp thinks the IOM is a colony of Iceland.

 

S

[007Pimpernel]

Whose rules are these? iI may have missed it but it doesn't appear clear from the link

KSFIOM was a subsiduary of Kaupthing hf (Iceland) so the PDF file is Iceland's statutory adoption of the EU regulations to which I referred earlier. All EU countries have adopted these regulations, & as a Crown dependency & a trader with the EU the IoM is subject to the same regulations.

[Sebrof]

Whose rules are these? iI may have missed it but it doesn't appear clear from the link

KSFIOM was a subsiduary of Kaupthing hf (Iceland) so the PDF file is Iceland's statutory adoption of the EU regulations to which I referred earlier. All EU countries have adopted these regulations, & as a Crown dependency & a trader with the EU the IoM is subject to the same regulations.

 

Really? Where does it say that?

 

S

[Sebrof]

Whose rules are these? iI may have missed it but it doesn't appear clear from the link

KSFIOM was a subsiduary of Kaupthing hf (Iceland) so the PDF file is Iceland's statutory adoption of the EU regulations to which I referred earlier. All EU countries have adopted these regulations, & as a Crown dependency & a trader with the EU the IoM is subject to the same regulations.

 

So a Thai prawn fisherman who sells prawns (trades) with the EU is subject to all EU regulations?

 

Interesting.

 

S