GD4ELI Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 So what makes this off island investment different from where the bulk of the reserves are invested? It's not being invested in accordance with the treasury rules, this is the difference. It's a case of 'Eddie knows best'. Investing on the Island wouldn't produce much at the moment I think, better a secure offshore fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 That money would be far better invested locally in new employment and training opportunities. And the same reply to LL and GD.. You didn't answer the question. They are reasons for not investing in a Media Development fund, not why the money shouldn't be invested off-island. Like I said, the vast bulk of our reserves will be invested off island, why is that ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Like I said, the vast bulk of our reserves will be invested off island, why is that ok? How would you safely / conservatively invest many hundreds of millions on the island? The treasury rules dictate a secure (i.e. ~ sort of AAA rated) portfolio, almost impossible to put this much money into the island. Maybe, just maybe pay off the MEA loans but I'm not sure that's allowed. Somewhere or other these rules are online, I know I've read them. Maybe Ramsey library... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 That money would be far better invested locally in new employment and training opportunities. And the same reply to LL and GD.. You didn't answer the question. They are reasons for not investing in a Media Development fund, not why the money shouldn't be invested off-island. Like I said, the vast bulk of our reserves will be invested off island, why is that ok? That was not the question you asked which was basically what makes this investment different from other other off Island investments. I have pointed out what makes it different. I have not stated Money should not be invested off Island however if you are going to piss money up against a wall it is probably preferable that you do so in the Isle of Man rather than elsewhere as the IoM economy will at least gain some benefit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 G4: I wouldn't, but I wasn't saying we should. That was not the question you asked which was basically what makes this investment different from other other off Island investments. I have pointed out what makes it different. I have not stated Money should not be invested off Island however if you are going to piss money up against a wall it is probably preferable that you do so in the Isle of Man rather than elsewhere as the IoM economy will at least gain some benefit Yes it was the question I asked, you have misunderstood. Albert made the point that the money should be invested on the island to create jobs, not off. I wondered why the same isn't true for the rest of the reserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I think the difference with the film fund is threefold, firstly we had the smoke and mirrors explanations of jobs on the island, bed nights,catering, etc etc all of which were and are largely unquantifiable (the way Gov. like it) secondly, straightforward investments in terms of financial instruments exist merely to make a profit and are easily tracked and their performance judged. thirdly the legacy position of the various guises of the film fund has never been made public except for selected portions, the 8 million which is awol has never been explained by Government. It may be that all is fine and that the public are just not informed enough to appreciate the position as in other matters at the moment, but that merely raises further questions as to why the secrecy ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 G4: I wouldn't, but I wasn't saying we should. That was not the question you asked which was basically what makes this investment different from other other off Island investments. I have pointed out what makes it different. I have not stated Money should not be invested off Island however if you are going to piss money up against a wall it is probably preferable that you do so in the Isle of Man rather than elsewhere as the IoM economy will at least gain some benefit Yes it was the question I asked, you have misunderstood. Albert made the point that the money should be invested on the island to create jobs, not off. I wondered why the same isn't true for the rest of the reserves. I am not going to argue over the sermantics but I would agree that it would be preferable if money is invested on Island. This would be true for all reserves. However it is basically not possible as we have virtually no PLC's whose shares are regularly traded and very few companies offering bonds If we are going to piss money up against the wall then as I said we might as well do in the local economy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I am not going to argue over the sermantics but I would agree that it would be preferable if money is invested on Island. This would be true for all reserves. However it is basically not possible as we have virtually no PLC's whose shares are regularly traded and very few companies offering bonds OK, wind it back a bit.. So, there's a desire to invest reserves in equities, but as we don't have an equities market on the island, it has to be invested off island. There's a desire to invest in media and it's been attempted on island and found that the scale doesn't really cut it. To maintain a presence in the sector it's been invested off island. Isn't that the same thing? Seen this? http://www.thelocationguide.com/blog/2013/02/ng-film-isle-of-man-filming-locations-double-for-nepal-in-pinewood-studios-film-project/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Slim - this is a job managing the fund so why should government advertise for a job that pays no tax, NI, or other levies to the IOM Treasury? With other Reserve funds the money might well be invested off Island (like the media fund) but as part of the tender process the manager of the investment fund must be FSC reguated, and the company must be trading from the Isle of Man. You look a the last tender list on the Treasury website, they are all Manx 'managers' although the assets naturally have to be invested outside the Island to spread the risks etc. At least that way the 'manager' pays Manx tax and NI on its employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Slim - this is a job managing the fund so why should government advertise for a job that pays no tax, NI, or other levies to the IOM Treasury? With other Reserve funds the money might well be invested off Island (like the media fund) but as part of the tender process the manager of the investment fund must be FSC reguated, and the company must be trading from the Isle of Man. You look a the last tender list on the Treasury website, they are all Manx 'managers' although the assets naturally have to be invested outside the Island to spread the risks etc. At least that way the 'manager' pays Manx tax and NI on its employees. Like I said, this was tried with Cinimanx but didn't work out. We have a number of established managers on the island to look after financial products, but there isn't a manx company for media development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Slim - the fund invests into films and portfolio's of films. What would be wrong in them setting up a token office here and having it 'run' from here? Nothing really, other than that would probably kill whatever tax and grant angle they are now leveraging off with the MDF! I'm sorry but I just don't buy your argument (although you have now changed your argument to fit as you usually do). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Slim - the fund invests into films and portfolio's of films. What would be wrong in them setting up a token office here and having it 'run' from here? Nothing really, other than that would probably kill whatever tax and grant angle they are now leveraging off with the MDF! I'm sorry but I just don't buy your argument (although you have now changed your argument to fit as you usually do). How have I changed my argument? I know veering away from 'the government is shit because they're shit' confuses people... What would be the point of a token office if all you're worried about is the creation of jobs? A token office won't do that. The point is that you need an experienced manager to manage funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 13, 2013 Author Share Posted May 13, 2013 Slim - the fund invests into films and portfolio's of films. What would be wrong in them setting up a token office here and having it 'run' from here? Nothing really, other than that would probably kill whatever tax and grant angle they are now leveraging off with the MDF! I'm sorry but I just don't buy your argument (although you have now changed your argument to fit as you usually do). How have I changed my argument? I know veering away from 'the government is shit because they're shit' confuses people... What would be the point of a token office if all you're worried about is the creation of jobs? A token office won't do that. The point is that you need an experienced manager to manage funds. I wasn't talking about which company invested in films, but the fact that it shouldn't be being gambled on the film industry in the first place. Instead e.g. £25M to kick of the construction industry, starting a 1000 house build programme, with another, say, £10M for training/retraining, £15million being put into infrastructure to be able to house at least one or two major employers (>500 staff) e-gaming most likely at moment. That's real jobs, and proper investment. And the money would be returned to the coffers over time in terms of Tax, NIC, and not spent on benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Slim - I don't subscribe to the government is shit argument in all cases. I'm questioning what you said. The fund was managed from here for over 10 year, and apparently they still employ those people who managed it here as advisers so why the new manager can't have an office here confuses me. Why should the Manx tax payer pay to employ someone who pays UK tax and UK NI is my argument when they are managing Manx assets on behalf of the Manx taxpayer. That's exactly the same logic Treasury use for mandates on all the other reserve funds: they won't give a tender if there is no Manx subsidiary and no Manx investment license. As I said I suspect that because of whatever tax structure they have set up the MDF fund as to get UK grants and UK tax breaks they can't do that here. It does look odd when we say in the press that our film industry is so great but yet can't get anyone with the right expertise to manage it from here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 When you own ~10% of Pinewood the place to be is Pinewood. Isn't Steve Christian now an executive director of Pinewood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.