bellyup Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 It was an example, I personaly couldnt get your details, but a half competant fraundster could, but it dosnt even have to be your details it could be the details of anyone of the other depositors. If that were the case no bank would be safe as any half competent fraudster could get into anyones bank account. If you go to your bank and wish to withdrew cash you dont wait months do you? And they're not safe, fraud is one of the fastest growing crimes in the UK. The fact is I can walk into my bank and take my money out with no hassle as the bank is still there, if I am the victim of fraud they will cover the loss via insurance. KSF is bust if they hand out your money to someone else who covers that I assume it would be pretty hard to get cover on a non existent company? There is also the issue that going to the bank is much safer than stating your claim from a distance. It maybe but the majority of people use internet banking these days anyway and get their cash out of a hole in the wall anywhere. You see this as a black and white they have my money they can just hand it back. But in reality there is the grey of making sure you are entitled, decided on who gets what from the initial divided, how much does everyone get, as I understand it this is just the first instalment, are they paying everyone under a set amount in full? are they paying out a set percentage to everyone? They know very well everyone who is entitled because they have all the bank records.( they have had 10 months to verify all these details) Everyone who is a creditor and that includes the IOMG will get 14.5% of their deposit back ( possibly i have just heard ) at the end of this month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBloodyNine Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 So they need to set calculate how much everyone is getting and set up the transfers for everyone, this is not a 5 minute job as you claim. It is at the very least 15 minutes when you factor in checks and balances, potentialy a great deal longer for more complex cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBloodyNine Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 No Im far to stupid to sit in doors all day with a calulator and a sullen look. You know complex cases where there is big numbers, like more than £100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 So they need to set calculate how much everyone is getting and set up the transfers for everyone, this is not a 5 minute job as you claim. It is at the very least 15 minutes when you factor in checks and balances, potentialy a great deal longer for more complex cases. You must be a bank clerk What do you mean by more complex cases? These are savings deposits . Fred Bloggs has 100K @ 14.5% = 14500k. Send 14500k to Fred Bloggs @ a/c no ..................... at ........................sort code....................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 The majority of qualified observers, such as MEP Eva Joly and a number of UK MPs, and the press (Telegraph) see this as a regulatory failure. Which of these are qualified observers? You have named a magistrate, a vague alleged group of politicians, and a newspaper with a long history of opposing the current party of Government, which gave the FSA its current role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 They don't just regulate 'financial institutions' though, do they? Everyone in the UK finance industry performing a controlled function has to be registered with them as well, as does anyone qualified to give advice. Basically anything or anyone that provides financial services falls under their remit since the FSMA 2000. Its hardly a matter of being 'throughly incompetent when it comes to major financial issues.' Its a limited national regulator expected to grapple with a heavily intergrated global business. You are correct in that the FSA has to regulate the whole financial services industry in the UK. From past experience with them however I would say that they were very focused on minutiae and not on the big picture. This appears to have been exemplified by a number of major financial disasters on their watch and their move towards 'principles based regulation'. Principles-based regulation means, where possible, moving away from dictating through detailed, prescriptive rules and supervisory actions how firms should operate their business. No doubt they have suffered from the confused financial regulation system in the UK which seems to reflect 'all care and no responsibility'. Hopefully this is in the process of being cleaned up. They must take their share of the blame for the current mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 i wonder how many pagers this will get 2 b4 its deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 The majority of qualified observers, such as MEP Eva Joly and a number of UK MPs, and the press (Telegraph) see this as a regulatory failure. Which of these are qualified observers? You have named a magistrate, a vague alleged group of politicians, and a newspaper with a long history of opposing the current party of Government, which gave the FSA its current role. All these people are qualified to because they have been observing the situation. Eva Joly is a magistrate well known for her anti corruption stance. She has been studying at the situation in Iceland and its financial meltdown I think that she is in a good position to say that their were regulatory failures. Ditto the UK MPS given the Treasury select committee findings and the evidence of Mr Tony Shearer it is obvious that there were major regulatory failures, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...asy/402/402.pdf So what that the Telegraph has a history of supporting the Conservative Party? It doesn't make their findings any less valid. No one has denied these findings or threatened legal action because they are true. If the FSA cannot regulate properly then what is it good is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I have just seen the latest update on the payout which is obviously better news for the creditors and for the IOMG ( who are creditors also) 20 August 09 The Joint Liquidators will shortly be paying the first distribution to unsecured creditors. Based on cash currently in hand, the first distribution would be 22.1 pence in the pound. However, during the course of the next two weeks, further material receipts of cash are expected which, if received, would increase the distribution further. In order to ensure that the first distribution is as large as possible, it has been agreed with the Committee of Inspection that the distribution will be paid on Friday 4 September 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyNorth Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Bellyup, you are an uneducated depositor as defined by the regulations. I am still awaiting your 'definition of regulations '( whose) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-person Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Bellyup, you are an uneducated depositor as defined by the regulations. I am still awaiting your 'definition of regulations '( whose) ? I think someone may have become confused with the MIF directive client classifications! I think that you would be classed as a retail client - "retail depositor" if you like. But in any case the MIF directive doesn't extend to the IoM, and AFAIK does not cover bank accounts anyway. Or maybe the original poster was thinking about FSCS classification of retail depositors? - Maybe the original poster could explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Maybe the original poster could explain? Nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 No doubt they have suffered from the confused financial regulation system in the UK which seems to reflect 'all care and no responsibility'. Hopefully this is in the process of being cleaned up. They must take their share of the blame for the current mess. If the FSA cannot regulate properly then what is it good is it? To answer these essentially identical arguments at once; this is somewhat akin to saying "If the Ministry of Justice can't stop crimes what good is it?" Perhaps the next time there is some vandalism in Onchan the local neighbourhood policing team should be hauled over the coals and 'take their share of the blame.' Consider the complexity of the global financial system (bearing in mind that it was some time before Bellyup accepted that banking did not equal financial services). It is completely unrealistic to expect the FSA to prevent bad things happening by monitoring the system in direct and perscriptive manner, not least when you consider the amount of related business passing through other jurisdictions to their own. It is bizarre, backwards, fantasy-statist thinking to believe that a Governmental organisation can be expected to prevent people who are not adequately in control or are operating their business on incorrect assumptions about the economy from making mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Maybe the original poster could explain? Nah. Can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.