KSF Megathread 2

[jimbms]

You have also made it 100% clear that your financial advice should not be followed bellyache

[bellyup]

It is now two years that the bank went down

 

The depositors - those that are still alive have suffered badly during these two years.

 

The potentional returns are now known there is no risk to the IOM if they 'stand in the shoes' of the depositors.

With a little goodwill, the IOM authorities could quite simply put an end to this ongoing nightmare making all depositors and bondholders 100% whole, now.

 

 

By making this gesture it will enhance its tarnished reputation and do somthing to restore confidence in the IOM as a safe and honourable financial centre,

[censorship]

It is now two years that the bank went down

 

The depositors - those that are still alive have suffered badly during these two years.

 

The potentional returns are now known there is no risk to the IOM if they 'stand in the shoes' of the depositors.

With a little goodwill, the IOM authorities could quite simply put an end to this ongoing nightmare making all depositors and bondholders 100% whole, now.

 

 

By making this gesture it will enhance its tarnished reputation and do somthing to restore confidence in the IOM as a safe and honourable financial centre,

If our government gives you back all the money you lost, will you, in return, hand over all the interest you earned prior to the collapse to our government? Or do want all of the reward with none of the risk?

[Evil Goblin]

Yet another excellent article from the Manx Herald

 

http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/652.html

More an opinion piece than an article, as well as lacking some basic punctuation. That aside, all it does is demonstrate that hindsight is 20:20. It seems to me that Bell and the Treasury believed the SOA was likely to provide the greatest return to the depositors, but looking back now that may not have been the case.

I haven't really put forward a view on this, but surely any investment carries an element of risk which you, as the investor, must accept some share of. After all, you happily recieve interest payments which are the return on how your money is invested by the financial institution you choose.

Why should the government of that jurisdiction be held responsible for protecting you from the results of risk taking? I have yet to see evidence that government was responsible for the collapse of the bank, so why should it be responsible for you getting your money back?

Isn't it like putting a bet on a horse and when that horse loses asking the government of the country where the race was to give you back the money you bet?

Or is that too simplistic?

The problem is that with a licensing regime the Government is perceived to be guaranteeing the obligations of the banks. Whilst merely licensing a bank does not, in fact, involve any such guarantee outside of the DCS, the Government has never done anything to disabuse people that such a guarantee does not, in fact, exist. Indeed, the Government has passively allowed the impression to become a commonplace, whilst the banks have ramped the perceived guarantee for all they're worth. This doesn't just apply to the IoM - the UK and other Governments are in the same position.

[bellyup]

It is now two years that the bank went down

 

The depositors - those that are still alive have suffered badly during these two years.

 

The potentional returns are now known there is no risk to the IOM if they 'stand in the shoes' of the depositors.

With a little goodwill, the IOM authorities could quite simply put an end to this ongoing nightmare making all depositors and bondholders 100% whole, now.

 

 

By making this gesture it will enhance its tarnished reputation and do somthing to restore confidence in the IOM as a safe and honourable financial centre,

If our government gives you back all the money you lost, will you, in return, hand over all the interest you earned prior to the collapse to our government? Or do want all of the reward with none of the risk?

 

 

The Isle of Man has grown rich through its financial services industry, of which KSFIOM was a part and to which those who entrusted their savings have contributed. Is it really too much to ask that when, for whatever reason, something goes badly wrong, as it did in October 2008, this same island should be prepared to use a little of its profits to take care of its customers? Depositors in Kaupthing's UK bank were bailed out by the UK Treasury, who – in view of the exceptional circumstances at the height of the global financial crisis – went way beyond the provisions of their compensation scheme to ensure the rapid return of 100% all depositors' funds. Governments in other European countries did likewise. Those of us who had chosen to bank on the Isle of Man were not so lucky. KSFIOM is the only Kaupthing subsidiary in Europe whose depositors have not been fully reunited with their funds.

[censorship]

The Isle of Man has grown rich through its financial services industry, of which KSFIOM was a part and to which those who entrusted their savings have contributed. Is it really too much to ask that when, for whatever reason, something goes badly wrong, as it did in October 2008, this same island should be prepared to use a little of its profits to take care of its customers?

Well, frankly, yes. If you go into a shop and order a product, paying in advance, and then that business goes bust, taking your money and not delivering the goods, should the owner of the building the business rented be responsible for giving you your money back? After all, they profited from the money spent in that business.

[bellyup]

bellyup, on 25 November 2010 - 05:35 PM, said:

 

The Isle of Man has grown rich through its financial services industry, of which KSFIOM was a part and to which those who entrusted their savings have contributed. Is it really too much to ask that when, for whatever reason, something goes badly wrong, as it did in October 2008, this same island should be prepared to use a little of its profits to take care of its customers?

 

Well, frankly, yes. If you go into a shop and order a product, paying in advance, and then that business goes bust, taking your money and not delivering the goods, should the owner of the building the business rented be responsible for giving you your money back? After all, they profited from the money spent in that business.

 

 

 

 

The IOMs economy depends on being a financial centre.

No one will do bussiness in the IOMs 'shop' if they think it will rent out to shady characters and then do a runner counting its profits without regard to the trusting customers

 

Confidence is a major component of the financial industry.

[censorship]

The IOMs economy depends on being a financial centre. No one will do bussiness in the IOMs 'shop' if they think it will rent out to shady characters and then do a runner counting its profits without regard to the trusting customers

Confidence is a major component of the financial industry.

You believe KSF to have been 'shady characters'?

[bellyup]

The IOMs economy depends on being a financial centre. No one will do business in the IOMs 'shop' if they think it will rent out to shady characters and then do a runner counting its profits without regard to the trusting customers

Confidence is a major component of the financial industry.

You believe KSF to have been 'shady characters'?

 

It the light of what I now know I believe that due diligence on the part of the FSC was not carried out.

 

At the Treasury Select Committee meeting ( the one where Mr Tony Brown was asked five times if he wanted help from the UK and eventually managed to stutter " its a Manx affair" or words to that effect )-they can be found in the transcript.

 

It came to light that Mr Tony Shearer - the manager of Singer Friedlander ( who were also taken over by Kaupthing in the same way as the Derbyshire Building Society ) had grave misgivings over the competency of the Kaupthing people and flagged his misgivings up to the FSA- twice in fact. His concerns were disregarded and he resigned his position /or did not take a position that was offered him with KSF.

 

Of course ordinary depositors were not privy to these matters.

 

Most depositors like myself had their money for some years with the Derbyshire Building Society IOM for some years -not the most exciting or risky place one would think.

 

After the take over - I like many, were concerned and I made numerous phone calls to Mr Aiden Doherty the MD voicing my unease.

Mr Doherty was very reassuring.

KSF also sent out copious literature quoting their 100% parental guarantee as a way to inspire confidence and comfort in Depositors.

 

As someone else has stated here lay people assume that if the FSC grants a licence to a bank it must be kosher and a guarantee that it is a trustworthy establishment.

 

The fact that Mr Aspen stated the PG as worthless AFTER the bank went down was not helpful.

 

As head of the FSC why didn't he express these sentiments before granting KSF a banking licence?

 

As it turns out the bank was in fact sound it went down because it could not meet its obligations because of the money in KSFUK and the actions of Alastair Darling.

 

It was at this point that the IOM government could have made much much stronger representation to the UK to ring fence the KSFIOM money and return it to the IOM.

They are a government after all !

 

 

The depositors were left to flounder ,had to deal with the SOA ( which they now have to pay costs on fighting ) and even the DCS took a year to implement.

A year is a long time in the life of an elderly person.

 

However there is still time for the IOM government to show good will and act responsibly and humanely.

[When Skies Are Grey]

......show good will and act responsibly and humanely.

 

Humanely??

[censorship]

The IOMs economy depends on being a financial centre. No one will do business in the IOMs 'shop' if they think it will rent out to shady characters and then do a runner counting its profits without regard to the trusting customers

Confidence is a major component of the financial industry.

You believe KSF to have been 'shady characters'?

 

It the light of what I now know I believe that due diligence on the part of the FSC was not carried out.

 

At the Treasury Select Committee meeting ( the one where Mr Tony Brown was asked five times if he wanted help from the UK and eventually managed to stutter " its a Manx affair" or words to that effect )-they can be found in the transcript.

 

It came to light that Mr Tony Shearer - the manager of Singer Friedlander ( who were also taken over by Kaupthing in the same way as the Derbyshire Building Society ) had grave misgivings over the competency of the Kaupthing people and flagged his misgivings up to the FSA- twice in fact. His concerns were disregarded and he resigned his position /or did not take a position that was offered him with KSF.

 

Of course ordinary depositors were not privy to these matters.

 

Most depositors like myself had their money for some years with the Derbyshire Building Society IOM for some years -not the most exciting or risky place one would think.

 

After the take over - I like many, were concerned and I made numerous phone calls to Mr Aiden Doherty the MD voicing my unease.

Mr Doherty was very reassuring.

KSF also sent out copious literature quoting their 100% parental guarantee as a way to inspire confidence and comfort in Depositors.

 

As someone else has stated here lay people assume that if the FSC grants a licence to a bank it must be kosher and a guarantee that it is a trustworthy establishment.

 

The fact that Mr Aspen stated the PG as worthless AFTER the bank went down was not helpful.

 

As head of the FSC why didn't he express these sentiments before granting KSF a banking licence?

 

As it turns out the bank was in fact sound it went down because it could not meet its obligations because of the money in KSFUK and the actions of Alastair Darling.

 

It was at this point that the IOM government could have made much much stronger representation to the UK to ring fence the KSFIOM money and return it to the IOM.

They are a government after all !

 

 

The depositors were left to flounder and even the DCS took a year to implement.

A year is a long time in the life of an elderly person.

 

However there is still time for the IOM government to show good will and act responsibly and humanely.

You said the Isle of Man was renting its 'shops' to shady characters. Now you are saying something different.

[bellyup]

The IOMs economy depends on being a financial centre. No one will do business in the IOMs 'shop' if they think it will rent out to shady characters and then do a runner counting its profits without regard to the trusting customers

Confidence is a major component of the financial industry.

You believe KSF to have been 'shady characters'?

 

It the light of what I now know I believe that due diligence on the part of the FSC was not carried out.

 

At the Treasury Select Committee meeting ( the one where Mr Tony Brown was asked five times if he wanted help from the UK and eventually managed to stutter " its a Manx affair" or words to that effect )-they can be found in the transcript.

 

It came to light that Mr Tony Shearer - the manager of Singer Friedlander ( who were also taken over by Kaupthing in the same way as the Derbyshire Building Society ) had grave misgivings over the competency of the Kaupthing people and flagged his misgivings up to the FSA- twice in fact. His concerns were disregarded and he resigned his position /or did not take a position that was offered him with KSF.

 

Of course ordinary depositors were not privy to these matters.

 

Most depositors like myself had their money for some years with the Derbyshire Building Society IOM for some years -not the most exciting or risky place one would think.

 

After the take over - I like many, were concerned and I made numerous phone calls to Mr Aiden Doherty the MD voicing my unease.

Mr Doherty was very reassuring.

KSF also sent out copious literature quoting their 100% parental guarantee as a way to inspire confidence and comfort in Depositors.

 

As someone else has stated here lay people assume that if the FSC grants a licence to a bank it must be kosher and a guarantee that it is a trustworthy establishment.

 

The fact that Mr Aspen stated the PG as worthless AFTER the bank went down was not helpful.

 

As head of the FSC why didn't he express these sentiments before granting KSF a banking licence?

 

As it turns out the bank was in fact sound it went down because it could not meet its obligations because of the money in KSFUK and the actions of Alastair Darling.

 

It was at this point that the IOM government could have made much much stronger representation to the UK to ring fence the KSFIOM money and return it to the IOM.

They are a government after all !

 

 

The depositors were left to flounder and even the DCS took a year to implement.

A year is a long time in the life of an elderly person.

 

However there is still time for the IOM government to show good will and act responsibly and humanely.

You said the Isle of Man was renting its 'shops' to shady characters. Now you are saying something different.

 

I didnt actually say that, I said 'if' people 'think' they are

Now I am expounding things for your ease of assimilation.

[censorship]

I didnt actually say that, I said if people 'think' they are

So, who thinks KSF were 'shady characters'?

[bellyup]

I didnt actually say that, I said if people 'think' they are

So, who thinks KSF were 'shady characters'?

 

 

I dont know do you?

[censorship]

I didnt actually say that, I said if people 'think' they are

So, who thinks KSF were 'shady characters'?

 

 

I dont know do you?

TBH I don't give a shit - I didn't hide all my money offshore in a high yield account, live off the proceeds, not notice that the financial institution was in trouble and then whine endlessly about not getting a free cash handout because the risk didn't pay off.

There was a point at which people felt sorry for those who had lost their savings and worried about the impact on those people, as well as the Island's reputation. Now the majority of people really wish you'd all just shut the fuck up.

People like you have destroyed any goodwill there was towards other investors, and purely because of you I would rather every single one of you was left destitute than any of my hard-earned taxes going anywhere near you, ever.