bellyup Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 If you had your money in Bradford and Bingley IOM you are being supported by the UK taxpayers money even if you live in the IOM. Even though B&B's deposit business is owned by Santander? Well done. It is now,most banks these days are owned by Santander didnt you know? However it was still in the IOM and it still supported its depositors including those depositors from the IOM. As has every other reputable country in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 As has every other reputable country in Europe. What I am puzzled about is your attitude that it is right for you to be re-imbursed for your losses as opposed to the understandable argument that it is simply happening in others countries so why not the Isle of Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 If you had your money in Bradford and Bingley IOM you are being supported by the UK taxpayers money even if you live in the IOM. Even though B&B's deposit business is owned by Santander? Well done. It is now,most banks these days are owned by Santander didnt you know? However it was still in the IOM and it still supported its depositors including those depositors from the IOM. As has every other reputable country in Europe. Bradford and Bingley IOM was never supported by UK taxpayers it went straight from BB UK to Abbey who's parent company is Santander. I think you will find that 3 banks in the UK are owned by Santander which is not "most" banks. Please could you explain the logic of the rest of your post as it doesn;t make sense to me Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Bradford and Bingley IOM was never supported by UK taxpayers it went straight from BB UK to Abbey who's parent company is Santander. Na, it was nationalised, and Sandander only bought the savings book. Bellyups not really comparing like for like though, bailing out a bank that's in bother and paying out creditors from a liquidated bank are quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Bradford and Bingley IOM was never supported by UK taxpayers it went straight from BB UK to Abbey who's parent company is Santander. Na, it was nationalised, and Sandander only bought the savings book. Bellyups not really comparing like for like though, bailing out a bank that's in bother and paying out creditors from a liquidated bank are quite different. KSKIOM was not in bother it was solvent and was given a triple A rating by the IOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 given a triple A rating by the IOM. Another lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Bellyup talks a fair bit of nonsense. Shit situation for the guy, but FFS if he's going to whinge this much he should know what he's talking about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 KSKIOM was not in bother it was solvent. Right, so another reason why it's a shit comparison. Did Lehman brothers get bailed out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 KSKIOM was not in bother it was solvent. Right, so another reason why it's a shit comparison. Did Lehman brothers get bailed out? The depositors have never asked to be 'bailed out' They have asked for their own money back most of which is frozen in the UK. The IOMG has some responsibility to fight for their rights as the bank was in the iom was given a triple A rating ( this is not a lie)and the funds were sent to the UK under the auspices of the FSC and Mr Aspen. The IOMG is promoting is the IOM as a SAFE and SECURE banking centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Bellyup talks a fair bit of nonsense. Shit situation for the guy, but FFS if he's going to whinge this much he should know what he's talking about! It is indeed a disastrous position to be in not just for myself but for 10000+ other people mostly elderly or retired . People who trusted their hard earned life savings to the Derbyshire building society in the IOM and were then sold down river. Many have like myself banked for years with the IOM . and the IOM has profited from this business. It is not therefore whinging to want some sort of support from the IOMG . Whereas on the contrary we have been insulted as uneducated investors ( not depositors) who should have known better than to bank in the IOM! ( mr John Aspen said this and also that non core banks should be' allowed to fail' this from the man who is paid 250k pa as Regulator. and whose department gave the bank its licence and whose number two Mr Cashen is a Director of KSFIOM The actions of Iceland HMG government precipitated the failure of the bank but there were regulatory failures and to shrug the shoulders and BLAME the INNOCENT depositors are not the actions of a morally responsible government who are promoting their country as a safe place to keep your money when this is as is now seen far from the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 The depositors have never asked to be 'bailed out' So why keep banging on about what other governments have done? It's a different situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Bradford and Bingley IOM was never supported by UK taxpayers it went straight from BB UK to Abbey who's parent company is Santander. Na, it was nationalised, and Sandander only bought the savings book. Bellyups not really comparing like for like though, bailing out a bank that's in bother and paying out creditors from a liquidated bank are quite different. No Bradford and Bingley IOM was never nationalised - it's a simple fact I am not arguing his other points with the statement you quoted do not muddy those waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Many have like myself banked for years with the IOM . and the IOM has profited from this business. It is not therefore whinging to want some sort of support from the IOMG It may not be whinging but it is quite unreasonable. Why should another citizen on the Isle of Man be responsible for your loss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 They have asked for their own money back most of which is frozen in the UK. Then why make demands of the "Isle of Man Government," which does not have any of your money? The money in the UK is being held as part of ongoing court proceedings there; over which no one on the Island can exert any influence. The IOMG has some responsibility to fight for their rights as the bank was in the iom was given a triple A rating ( this is not a lie)and the funds were sent to the UK under the auspices of the FSC and Mr Aspen. Wrong. Where is the basis for this so-called "responsibility?" The Isle of Man Government does have a responsibility to fight on behalf of resident depositors as their elected representatives, but this is really a very small proportion. The fact that KSFIoM had a triple-A rating is irrelevant. You said the Island gave it this rating, which is completely untrue. The Isle of Man Government cannot reasonably be held responsible for the ratings of a non-resident third party. The FSC do not have the powers to direct a banks activities - you seem confused as to what the role of a regulator is. The IOMG is promoting is the IOM as a SAFE and SECURE banking centre. Nothing has happened to undermine this. Being a safe and secure financial centre does not mean "You will be protected against the precipitous and non-consultive actions of foreign Governments." It means that the Island is not handing out banking licenses to the likes of "Honest Jim's Legitimate Banking Shop." All the banks of the Island are reputable and established, as you have said yourself about the Derbyshire Building Society and others have said about Singer & Friedlander. Although questions have rightly been asked as to the fitness of Kaupthing to manage a banking business, there is no evidence to suggest that KSFIoM was mismanaged, and you yourself agree that it was a solvent business up until the collapse of KSFUK. It is indeed a disastrous position to be in not just for myself but for 10000+ other people mostly elderly or retired . People who trusted their hard earned life savings to the Derbyshire building society in the IOM and were then sold down river. They have hardly been "sold down river." Such a phrase implies some kind of fraud or scam; of which there is no evidence. Many have like myself banked for years with the IOM . and the IOM has profited from this business. This is an non-argument. You have inevitably profited more from investing here than the Island has, otherwise you would not do it. The benefit the Island will have gleaned from what was eventually KSFIoM is not massively substantive - Most of the jobs are administrative in nature. Yes, vast sums may pass through the Island, but this is all they do. Very little of it is invested here and so frankly I think you are over-egging the benefits of KSF's operation here. We certainly don't owe you for it. It is not therefore whinging to want some sort of support from the IOMG. You aren't just looking for "some sort of support" though - You repeatedly stated that the Isle of Man Government should ensure depositors receive 100% back; despite no obligation, precedent or responsibility for doing. Whereas on the contrary we have been insulted as uneducated investors ( not depositors) who should have known better than to bank in the IOM! ( mr John Aspen said this and also that non core banks should be' allowed to fail' this from the man who is paid 250k pa as Regulator. Have you any actual evidence that John Aspen said people should have known better than to bank in the Isle of Man? This is a genuinely serious accusation on your part. I personally think it extremely unlikely he has ever said this, especially not on record. Him actually saying that non-core banks should be allowed to fail is not unreasonable. There are very few 'non-core' banks left today (or this time last year for that matter), and maintaining a competitive financial services industry is a key part of the FSC's remit. If every bank had a solid-gold blank cheque from the Government in the event of collapse, then there would be a right mess and you wouldn't actually have a real market. and whose department gave the bank its licence and whose number two Mr Cashen is a Director of KSFIOM. These are non-points. Is there any reason why the bank should not have been granted a license? I really don't seen what Mr Cashen could have done in his role as a Director of a solvent bank to reduce the leveraged position of the parent or influence the relationship between the British and Icelandic Governments. The actions of Iceland HMG government precipitated the failure of the bank but there were regulatory failures and to shrug the shoulders and BLAME the INNOCENT depositors are not the actions of a morally responsible government who are promoting their country as a safe place to keep your money when this is as is now seen far from the truth. No one has blamed the depositors for the collapse of KSFIoM; don't be ridiculous. What you are calling 'regulatory failures' only seem like mistakes with the benefit of hindsight, as no one can claim to have forsaw what happened with KSFIoM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 No Bradford and Bingley IOM was never nationalised - it's a simple fact I am not arguing his other points with the statement you quoted do not muddy those waters Ahh, fair do's, I didn't consider the IOM was treated differently. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.