KSF Megathread 2

[manx-person]

You had better hope they don't make putting all of your eggs in one basket a crime then.

 

 

Its not but moving 50% of a banks assets outside of the control of the bank is against all proper banking procedures so it will be interesting to see what the directors of the bank have to say for themselves on Friday ( the 13th) .

 

"Against all proper banking procedures" - Are you alleging that the bank breached their legal requirements?

if not please provide a reference to the "proper banking procedures" which you allege have not been complied with

 

I will modify this it is against UK and EU banking banking 'practise' to deposit over 50% of a banks assets in one place.

Hey what I am your research assistant

 

 

So have you looked at the comparable provisions in the legislation in Guernsey, Jersey, Cayman and others.

 

The Isle of Man isn't "in the EU or UK" so how are their provisions relevant, if indeed there are such provisions within UK law.

 

So if KFSIOM had deposited 50% in Iceland and 50% in the UK entities you would have no complaint?

[bellyup]

You had better hope they don't make putting all of your eggs in one basket a crime then.

 

 

Its not but moving 50% of a banks assets outside of the control of the bank is against all proper banking procedures so it will be interesting to see what the directors of the bank have to say for themselves on Friday ( the 13th) .

 

"Against all proper banking procedures" - Are you alleging that the bank breached their legal requirements?

if not please provide a reference to the "proper banking procedures" which you allege have not been complied with

 

I will modify this it is against UK and EU banking banking 'practise' to deposit over 50% of a banks assets in one place.

Hey what I am your research assistant

 

 

So have you looked at the comparable provisions in the legislation in Guernsey, Jersey, Cayman and others.

 

The Isle of Man isn't "in the EU or UK" so how are their provisions relevant, if indeed there are such provisions within UK law.

 

So if KFSIOM had deposited 50% in Iceland and 50% in the UK entities you would have no complaint?

 

 

 

I have not because my money was with the IOM and that is where my concerns lie.

There are indeed these provisos in banks that show due dilligence and good banking practice.

It was lack of good banking practice that caused Tony Shearer - the former head of Singer and Friedlander to resign his position after the take over of his bank by Kaupthing

Twice he flagged the FSA that there was something not quite kosher in the state of Iceland and was ignored.

However the FSC was either not advised or just left to sink and swim with their own devices.

John Aspen was conscious enough to advise moving the money out of Iceland but to move it into another Icelandic bank ( the same really) was an extraordinary decision.

Why one asked did he allow all the eggs in one basket?

 

Why did he allow the bank directors to sanction moving 50% of the banks assets to one other entity?

 

Bearing in mind the small and incestuous nature of the Islands top banking /financial officers why were they all left standing frozen in the headlights?

Perhaps we shall find out more on friday when the directors are questioned at the Tynwald

[Theodolite]

Ah but - who is doing the questioning and where do their interests really lie?

[manx-person]

You had better hope they don't make putting all of your eggs in one basket a crime then.

 

 

Its not but moving 50% of a banks assets outside of the control of the bank is against all proper banking procedures so it will be interesting to see what the directors of the bank have to say for themselves on Friday ( the 13th) .

 

"Against all proper banking procedures" - Are you alleging that the bank breached their legal requirements?

if not please provide a reference to the "proper banking procedures" which you allege have not been complied with

 

I will modify this it is against UK and EU banking banking 'practise' to deposit over 50% of a banks assets in one place.

Hey what I am your research assistant

 

 

So have you looked at the comparable provisions in the legislation in Guernsey, Jersey, Cayman and others.

 

The Isle of Man isn't "in the EU or UK" so how are their provisions relevant, if indeed there are such provisions within UK law.

 

So if KFSIOM had deposited 50% in Iceland and 50% in the UK entities you would have no complaint?

 

 

 

I have not because my money was with the IOM and that is where my concerns lie. (Its relevant if you are comparing)

There are indeed these provisos in banks that show due dilligence and good banking practice.

It was lack of good banking practice that caused Tony Shearer - the former head of Singer and Friedlander to resign his position after the take over of his bank by Kaupthing (Whats that got to do with the IOM (isn't that where your concerns lie?))

Twice he flagged the FSA that there was something not quite kosher in the state of Iceland and was ignored.

However the FSC was either not advised or just left to sink and swim with their own devices.

John Aspen was conscious enough to advise moving the money out of Iceland but to move it into another Icelandic bank ( the same really) was an extraordinary decision. Have you seen what he actually said (isn't this in the update from the DST legal team on the Treasury Select Committee)

Why one asked did he allow all the eggs in one basket?

 

Why did he allow the bank directors to sanction moving 50% of the banks assets to one other entity? (see last comment)

 

Bearing in mind the small and incestuous nature of the Islands top banking /financial officers why were they all left standing frozen in the headlights?

Perhaps we shall find out more on friday when the directors are questioned at the Tynwald

You have missed the point entirely.

You said that for 'good banking practice' that there shouldn't be more than 50% with one entity.

OK, If that is true would you be "happy" if 50% had been deposited with Iceland and 50% with UK?

You see that would have further diversified into risk rather than away from it.

 

Have you read the judicial review yet before you talk about the actions of regulators? Otherwise you are playing the same broken record.

[pongo]

You said that for 'good banking practice' that there shouldn't be more than 50% with one entity.

OK, If that is true would you be "happy" if 50% had been deposited with Iceland and 50% with UK?

You see that would have further diversified into risk rather than away from it.

 

Have you read the judicial review yet before you talk about the actions of regulators? Otherwise you are playing the same broken record.

 

It was known that Icelandic Banks were over dependent on credit and that the credit markets were drying up. It was also known that the size of the debts exceeded the size of the tiny national economy.

 

The money was definitely safer in the UK than it would have been in Iceland. At least a certain amount in the £ may be ultimately returned via the administration process because the UK bank was not allowed to fail as Iceland collapsed.

 

IMO this does still leave questions about whether funds which are upstreamed into the UK could not somehow be ringfenced in the future. I bet that is being looked at - and I bet it's a very difficult circle to square.

[bellyup]

You had better hope they don't make putting all of your eggs in one basket a crime then.

 

 

Its not but moving 50% of a banks assets outside of the control of the bank is against all proper banking procedures so it will be interesting to see what the directors of the bank have to say for themselves on Friday ( the 13th) .

 

"Against all proper banking procedures" - Are you alleging that the bank breached their legal requirements?

if not please provide a reference to the "proper banking procedures" which you allege have not been complied with

 

I will modify this it is against UK and EU banking banking 'practise' to deposit over 50% of a banks assets in one place.

Hey what I am your research assistant

 

 

So have you looked at the comparable provisions in the legislation in Guernsey, Jersey, Cayman and others.

 

The Isle of Man isn't "in the EU or UK" so how are their provisions relevant, if indeed there are such provisions within UK law.

 

So if KFSIOM had deposited 50% in Iceland and 50% in the UK entities you would have no complaint?

 

 

 

I have not because my money was with the IOM and that is where my concerns lie. (Its relevant if you are comparing)

There are indeed these provisos in banks that show due dilligence and good banking practice.

It was lack of good banking practice that caused Tony Shearer - the former head of Singer and Friedlander to resign his position after the take over of his bank by Kaupthing (Whats that got to do with the IOM (isn't that where your concerns lie?))

Twice he flagged the FSA that there was something not quite kosher in the state of Iceland and was ignored.

However the FSC was either not advised or just left to sink and swim with their own devices.

John Aspen was conscious enough to advise moving the money out of Iceland but to move it into another Icelandic bank ( the same really) was an extraordinary decision. Have you seen what he actually said (isn't this in the update from the DST legal team on the Treasury Select Committee)

Why one asked did he allow all the eggs in one basket?

 

Why did he allow the bank directors to sanction moving 50% of the banks assets to one other entity? (see last comment)

 

Bearing in mind the small and incestuous nature of the Islands top banking /financial officers why were they all left standing frozen in the headlights?

Perhaps we shall find out more on friday when the directors are questioned at the Tynwald

You have missed the point entirely.

You said that for 'good banking practice' that there shouldn't be more than 50% with one entity.

OK, If that is true would you be "happy" if 50% had been deposited with Iceland and 50% with UK?

You see that would have further diversified into risk rather than away from it.

 

Have you read the judicial review yet before you talk about the actions of regulators? Otherwise you are playing the same broken record.

 

I have answered this question once maybe you should try Specsavers MP.

 

THE POINT IS

 

Only a fool would diversify into the country they were worried about .

Mr Aspen had ISSUES of CONCERN with ICELAND

 

Diversification is good but they need not have put it into KSFUK they could have deposited all or some of it into other high street banks.

I have not read the judicial review simply because i have not had access to it as yet but i have discussed it with lawyers who have read it.

It was as I HAVE SAID to you a non runner according to the FSA they have not acted technically illegally.

 

But

(to paraphrase Ms Rice Davies ) they would say that wouldnt they?

 

Nor does this excuse laxity from the FSC who should have had the money ringfenced in some way and should have been more concerned as to where the money was going. ( remember 10 million of that was belonged to the IOM itself)

 

They may have not done anything legally wrong ( its not as yet a crime to be stupid) but these are men who are supposedly at the top of their profession and are paid accordingly .

 

They should have their finger on the pulse of what was happening.

 

The moral aspect of playing ducks and drakes with peoples life savings is another issue.

 

EG Mr Aspden said at the Tynwold SC the Derbyshire Building Society was a 'basket case' - YET he let the sale go through to Kaupthing with full knowledge that many of the DBS depositors were elderly people and that in one fell swoop they would be placed in an extremely risky position.

 

 

These actions/inactions in my opinion are tantamount to criminal negligence.

 

It will be interesting to see what the directors have to say .

[pongo]

They may have not done anything legally wrong ( its not as yet a crime to be stupid) but these are men who are supposedly at the top of their profession and are paid accordingly .

They should have their finger on the pulse of what is happening.

 

If you want to blame someone - then blame the ratings agencies for high risk assets being over valued which ultimately precipitated the collapse. You cannot blame the IOM for that.

 

All of the world's governments and regulators failed to understand that. This is why the banking system fundamentally failed. The run on the credit system began with a run on an area of banking which existed outside of the scope of any regulation.

[manx-person]

You had better hope they don't make putting all of your eggs in one basket a crime then.

 

 

Its not but moving 50% of a banks assets outside of the control of the bank is against all proper banking procedures so it will be interesting to see what the directors of the bank have to say for themselves on Friday ( the 13th) .

 

"Against all proper banking procedures" - Are you alleging that the bank breached their legal requirements?

if not please provide a reference to the "proper banking procedures" which you allege have not been complied with

 

I will modify this it is against UK and EU banking banking 'practise' to deposit over 50% of a banks assets in one place.

Hey what I am your research assistant

 

 

So have you looked at the comparable provisions in the legislation in Guernsey, Jersey, Cayman and others.

 

The Isle of Man isn't "in the EU or UK" so how are their provisions relevant, if indeed there are such provisions within UK law.

 

So if KFSIOM had deposited 50% in Iceland and 50% in the UK entities you would have no complaint?

 

 

 

I have not because my money was with the IOM and that is where my concerns lie. (Its relevant if you are comparing)

There are indeed these provisos in banks that show due dilligence and good banking practice.

It was lack of good banking practice that caused Tony Shearer - the former head of Singer and Friedlander to resign his position after the take over of his bank by Kaupthing (Whats that got to do with the IOM (isn't that where your concerns lie?))

Twice he flagged the FSA that there was something not quite kosher in the state of Iceland and was ignored.

However the FSC was either not advised or just left to sink and swim with their own devices.

John Aspen was conscious enough to advise moving the money out of Iceland but to move it into another Icelandic bank ( the same really) was an extraordinary decision. Have you seen what he actually said (isn't this in the update from the DST legal team on the Treasury Select Committee)

Why one asked did he allow all the eggs in one basket?

 

Why did he allow the bank directors to sanction moving 50% of the banks assets to one other entity? (see last comment)

 

Bearing in mind the small and incestuous nature of the Islands top banking /financial officers why were they all left standing frozen in the headlights?

Perhaps we shall find out more on friday when the directors are questioned at the Tynwald

You have missed the point entirely.

You said that for 'good banking practice' that there shouldn't be more than 50% with one entity.

OK, If that is true would you be "happy" if 50% had been deposited with Iceland and 50% with UK?

You see that would have further diversified into risk rather than away from it.

 

Have you read the judicial review yet before you talk about the actions of regulators? Otherwise you are playing the same broken record.

 

I have answered this question once maybe you should try Specsavers MP.

 

THE POINT IS

 

Only a fool would diversify into the country they were worried about you .

Mr Aspen had ISSUES of CONCERN with ICELAND

 

Diversification is good but they need not have put it into KSFUK they could have deposited all or some of it into other high street banks.

I have not read the judicial review simply because i have not had access to it as yet but i have discussed it with lawyers who have read it.

It was as I HAVE SAID to you a non runner according to the FSA they have not acted technically illegally.

 

But

(to paraphrase Ms Rice Davies ) they would say that wouldnt they?

 

Nor does this excuse laxity from the FSC who should have had the money ringfenced in some way and should have been more concerned as to where the money was going. ( remember 10 million of that was belonged to the IOM itself)

 

They may have not done anything legally wrong ( its not as yet a crime to be stupid) but these are men who are supposedly at the top of their profession and are paid accordingly .

 

They should have their finger on the pulse of what was happening.

 

The moral aspect of playing ducks and drakes with peoples life savings is another issue.

 

EG Mr Aspden said at the Tynwold SC the Derbyshire Building Society was a 'basket case' - YET he let the sale go through to Kaupthing with full knowledge that many of the DBS depositors were elderly people and that in one fell swoop they would be placed in an extremely risky position.

 

 

These actions/inactions in my opinion are tantamount to criminal negligence.

 

It will be interesting to see what the directors have to say .

There is no need for name calling, suggesting I need glasses - how rude and unbecoming of a lady.

If I was to be so impolite as to suggest you spent too much time in the sun no doubt that would be deemed to be rude and offensive - I make no such suggestion.

 

I would suggest, once again, that you read the Judicial review proceedings in the UK.

 

You will see, inter alia, that the UK entity had given a set of assurances to the FSA in respect of the matched ladder positions in respect <30 day maturities, but apparently these assurances were not implemented.

 

If they had been implemented, then the sight maturities would have been able to be repaid.

 

if you read these findings I am happy to continue this discussion, however you appear not to want to read anything that might change your pre-formed views on this subject.

 

In respect of "Criminal Negligence" - I am not sure what you mean here. If you are saying they are negligent, then this is a civil wrong not a crime. Criminal negligence is usually referred to in manslaughter cases, so I am not sure what cause of action you are referring to here.

[bellyup]

They may have not done anything legally wrong ( its not as yet a crime to be stupid) but these are men who are supposedly at the top of their profession and are paid accordingly .

They should have their finger on the pulse of what is happening.

 

If you want to blame someone - then blame the ratings agencies for high risk assets being over valued which ultimately precipitated the collapse. You cannot blame the IOM for that.

 

All of the world's governments and regulators failed to understand that. This is why the banking system fundamentally failed. The run on the credit system began with a run on an area of banking which existed outside of the scope of any regulation.

 

 

Its not as simple as that.

All these people - and that includes the UK not just the IOM knew the situation was heating up. ( see my remarks Re Mr Shearer) it didnt happen over night.

What steps were put in place to protect people?

Were there any warning to would be depositors?

Did IFA and other financial institutions say dont touch Iceland with a barge pole ?

New deposits were accepted until the day the bank closed.

So people did know and they lied and allowed innocent people to entrust their savings to them

 

Now from what is coming out I can see how the whole sorry mess was just one huge cauldron of deceit and mismanagement.

But for the IOM to wash its hands of the whole business wont work.

[manx-person]

They may have not done anything legally wrong ( its not as yet a crime to be stupid) but these are men who are supposedly at the top of their profession and are paid accordingly .

They should have their finger on the pulse of what is happening.

 

If you want to blame someone - then blame the ratings agencies for high risk assets being over valued which ultimately precipitated the collapse. You cannot blame the IOM for that.

 

All of the world's governments and regulators failed to understand that. This is why the banking system fundamentally failed. The run on the credit system began with a run on an area of banking which existed outside of the scope of any regulation.

 

 

Its not as simple as that.

All these people - and that includes the UK not just the IOM knew the situation was heating up. ( see my remarks Re Mr Shearer) it didnt happen over night.

What steps were put in place to protect people?

Were there any warning to would be depositors?

Did IFA and other financial institutions say dont touch Iceland with a barge pole ?

New deposits were accepted until the day the bank closed.

So people did know and they lied and allowed innocent people to entrust their savings to them

 

Now from what is coming out I can see how the whole sorry mess was just one huge cauldron of deceit and mismanagement.

But for the IOM to wash its hands of the whole business wont work.

 

 

 

 

All these people new the situation was heating up ? In that case why did [some of] the UK banks need to go cap in hand to HMG for 10s of Billions to allow them to continue in business.

 

New deposits were accepted until the day the bank closed - Are you aware about the BoE trust account requirements imposed by the FSA on KSFUK (this is in the Judicial review as well)

 

if you are so sure people lied; please name them here.

[bellyup]

You had better hope they don't make putting all of your eggs in one basket a crime then.

 

 

Its not but moving 50% of a banks assets outside of the control of the bank is against all proper banking procedures so it will be interesting to see what the directors of the bank have to say for themselves on Friday ( the 13th) .

 

"Against all proper banking procedures" - Are you alleging that the bank breached their legal requirements?

if not please provide a reference to the "proper banking procedures" which you allege have not been complied with

 

I will modify this it is against UK and EU banking banking 'practise' to deposit over 50% of a banks assets in one place.

Hey what I am your research assistant

 

 

So have you looked at the comparable provisions in the legislation in Guernsey, Jersey, Cayman and others.

 

The Isle of Man isn't "in the EU or UK" so how are their provisions relevant, if indeed there are such provisions within UK law.

 

So if KFSIOM had deposited 50% in Iceland and 50% in the UK entities you would have no complaint?

 

 

 

I have not because my money was with the IOM and that is where my concerns lie. (Its relevant if you are comparing)

There are indeed these provisos in banks that show due dilligence and good banking practice.

It was lack of good banking practice that caused Tony Shearer - the former head of Singer and Friedlander to resign his position after the take over of his bank by Kaupthing (Whats that got to do with the IOM (isn't that where your concerns lie?))

Twice he flagged the FSA that there was something not quite kosher in the state of Iceland and was ignored.

However the FSC was either not advised or just left to sink and swim with their own devices.

John Aspen was conscious enough to advise moving the money out of Iceland but to move it into another Icelandic bank ( the same really) was an extraordinary decision. Have you seen what he actually said (isn't this in the update from the DST legal team on the Treasury Select Committee)

Why one asked did he allow all the eggs in one basket?

 

Why did he allow the bank directors to sanction moving 50% of the banks assets to one other entity? (see last comment)

 

Bearing in mind the small and incestuous nature of the Islands top banking /financial officers why were they all left standing frozen in the headlights?

Perhaps we shall find out more on friday when the directors are questioned at the Tynwald

You have missed the point entirely.

You said that for 'good banking practice' that there shouldn't be more than 50% with one entity.

OK, If that is true would you be "happy" if 50% had been deposited with Iceland and 50% with UK?

You see that would have further diversified into risk rather than away from it.

 

Have you read the judicial review yet before you talk about the actions of regulators? Otherwise you are playing the same broken record.

 

I have answered this question once maybe you should try Specsavers MP.

 

THE POINT IS

 

Only a fool would diversify into the country they were worried about you .

Mr Aspen had ISSUES of CONCERN with ICELAND

 

Diversification is good but they need not have put it into KSFUK they could have deposited all or some of it into other high street banks.

I have not read the judicial review simply because i have not had access to it as yet but i have discussed it with lawyers who have read it.

It was as I HAVE SAID to you a non runner according to the FSA they have not acted technically illegally.

 

But

(to paraphrase Ms Rice Davies ) they would say that wouldnt they?

 

Nor does this excuse laxity from the FSC who should have had the money ringfenced in some way and should have been more concerned as to where the money was going. ( remember 10 million of that was belonged to the IOM itself)

 

They may have not done anything legally wrong ( its not as yet a crime to be stupid) but these are men who are supposedly at the top of their profession and are paid accordingly .

 

They should have their finger on the pulse of what was happening.

 

The moral aspect of playing ducks and drakes with peoples life savings is another issue.

 

EG Mr Aspden said at the Tynwold SC the Derbyshire Building Society was a 'basket case' - YET he let the sale go through to Kaupthing with full knowledge that many of the DBS depositors were elderly people and that in one fell swoop they would be placed in an extremely risky position.

 

 

These actions/inactions in my opinion are tantamount to criminal negligence.

 

It will be interesting to see what the directors have to say .

There is no need for name calling, suggesting I need glasses - how rude and unbecoming of a lady.

If I was to be so impolite as to suggest you spent too much time in the sun no doubt that would be deemed to be rude and offensive - I make no such suggestion.

 

I would suggest, once again, that you read the Judicial review proceedings in the UK.

 

You will see, inter alia, that the UK entity had given a set of assurances to the FSA in respect of the matched ladder positions in respect <30 day maturities, but apparently these assurances were not implemented.

 

If they had been implemented, then the sight maturities would have been able to be repaid.

 

if you read these findings I am happy to continue this discussion, however you appear not to want to read anything that might change your pre-formed views on this subject.

 

In respect of "Criminal Negligence" - I am not sure what you mean here. If you are saying they are negligent, then this is a civil wrong not a crime. Criminal negligence is usually referred to in manslaughter cases, so I am not sure what cause of action you are referring to here.

 

 

 

This was genuine concern on my part as you seem unable to see my answers - and indeed I see that once again you have missed it .

All that i can see in your intention is to shift /deflect any culpability from your adopted land and bring in as many inconsequential obfuscations as possible.

Its well know that people who work in the financial industries dont produce anything they gain their money off the hard earned labour of others.

As long as all comes in good - something goes wrong - nowt to do with us.

 

Nope the money just sailed over to the UK unprotected in a time of crisis ALL BY ITSELF.

 

Please dont trouble to give us the technical description of criminal negligence I am talking of morality here. There are things that have been done o that are morally wrong .Weasel words are just another way a squirming out of responsibility. and dont make it right.

 

I trust you will be there at tomorrows meeting and will be able to give us your unbiased account of the proceedings?

[bellyup]

They may have not done anything legally wrong ( its not as yet a crime to be stupid) but these are men who are supposedly at the top of their profession and are paid accordingly .

They should have their finger on the pulse of what is happening.

 

If you want to blame someone - then blame the ratings agencies for high risk assets being over valued which ultimately precipitated the collapse. You cannot blame the IOM for that.

 

All of the world's governments and regulators failed to understand that. This is why the banking system fundamentally failed. The run on the credit system began with a run on an area of banking which existed outside of the scope of any regulation.

 

 

Its not as simple as that.

All these people - and that includes the UK not just the IOM knew the situation was heating up. ( see my remarks Re Mr Shearer) it didnt happen over night.

What steps were put in place to protect people?

Were there any warning to would be depositors?

Did IFA and other financial institutions say dont touch Iceland with a barge pole ?

New deposits were accepted until the day the bank closed.

So people did know and they lied and allowed innocent people to entrust their savings to them

 

Now from what is coming out I can see how the whole sorry mess was just one huge cauldron of deceit and mismanagement.

But for the IOM to wash its hands of the whole business wont work.

 

 

 

 

All these people new the situation was heating up ? In that case why did [some of] the UK banks need to go cap in hand to HMG for 10s of Billions to allow them to continue in business.

 

New deposits were accepted until the day the bank closed - Are you aware about the BoE trust account requirements imposed by the FSA on KSFUK (this is in the Judicial review as well)

 

if you are so sure people lied; please name them here.

 

 

 

Well I am happy to do that but then I will be wiped off or accused of libel.

The moderators here are very sensitive

[bluemonday]

Come on gobshite.

If you're saying people lied then name then.

Put up or shut up.

[bellyup]

All these people new the situation was heating up ? In that case why did [some of] the UK banks need to go cap in hand to HMG for 10s of Billions to allow them to continue in business.

 

New deposits were accepted until the day the bank closed - Are you aware about the BoE trust account requirements imposed by the FSA on KSFUK (this is in the Judicial review as well)

 

if you are so sure people lied; please name them here.

 

 

Yes i was aware about the BoE trust that was put up 6 days before the Bank closed - its a pity it wasnt 6 months.

This doesnt mean that all this money will go necessarily to the IOM depositors naturally I hope that it does.

 

I am going to reserve further comment until tomorrows meeting I want to hear what the directors have to say for themselves.

[bluemonday]

Stop avoiding the issue

You say people lied

NAME THEM