KSF Megathread 2

[bellyup]

Coffee?

 

Thanks but I'm just off for one myself

[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.

 

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

The moderators here are very sensitive

 

 

Of course a defence to libel is that the comments are true.

[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.

 

 

 

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?

 

Yet more speculation and innuendo with no factual basis. I make well founded points, you ignore them and then proceed with nonsense.

 

Unless you have read the FSA/FSC exchanges and the KSFUK review, I am afraid your comments represents fanciful beliefs and emotional reactions.

 

A transcript of the proceedings will be available online; that's your best source I would suggest.

[bellyup]

Yet more speculation and innuendo with no factual basis. I make well founded points, you ignore them and then proceed with nonsense.

 

Unless you have read the FSA/FSC exchanges and the KSFUK review, I am afraid your comments represents fanciful beliefs and emotional reactions.

 

A transcript of the proceedings will be available online; that's your best source I would suggest.

 

 

 

 

Re Judicial review

I have not found anything online and you have not offered it to me or anyone here a link to peruse it.

So dragging it out at every post really serves very little purpose .

 

FACTS

One heck of a lot of money from KSFIOM went to the KSFUK that includes the 10 million from the IOM.

It was here now it aint and you have offered nothing factual about this at all.

 

As you are so full of facts please enlighten us all as to where it has gone?

Your are darn right I feel emotional about it.

Me and several thousand others .

[bellyup]

Thing I still haven't grasped...is WHERE is the half a billion quid transferred from KSFIOM to KB (UK) and snatched by the FSA before it could go to Iceland to pay Kerry Catatonic?

 

That £500m hasn't just vanished surely? Someone must have it. Why wasn't it returned to the liquidator of KSFIOM to pay the depositors?

 

 

Will Manx radio be reporting on the Tynwald SC meeting tomorrow ?

[Gladys]

Don't bring morality into this debate, it is pointless and actually deals in subjective abstracts rather than facts.

[P.K.]

Don't bring morality into this debate, it is pointless and actually deals in subjective abstracts rather than facts.

Ah yes, morality, the code by which we should live our lives. You know, not lying, cheating, stealing etc etc. Of course Gladys, here we're talking about bankers! Yes, on their current performance you're quite right that morality plays NO part whatsoever...

 

Stop avoiding the issue

You say people lied

NAME THEM

Even a plank like me thinks it is extremely unusual that the eye-wateringly expensive SOA should include a clause that those signing up to the SOA will no longer have any legal recourse i.e. they will sign away their rights to legally bring to account those who brought about this banking debacle. Now if KSF is truly independent of the Manx authorities why would those same authorities do their utmost to ensure that there could be no legal comeback on anyone involved? After all, are they not claiming that KSF was not their fault at all?

 

Bearing that in mind anyone would keep their powder dry, especially if some keyboard warrior DEMANDED names be named (ho hum...). Dream on little man, dream on...

[Gladys]

Lying, stealing and cheating can all be classed as criminal activities, morality doesn't really come into it. There is room for arguing that someone hasn't acted in goodfaith, or for a proper purpose, but that is as far as morality should go when you are talking about essentially legal issues. My moral code may be different to your moral code, it is very subjective, but the law can only determine on whether or not the conduct measured up to legal criteria.

 

Manx Person has time and again asked Bellyup whether he has read the review, because that will set out the legal issues, but Bellyup ignores that and then starts banging on about a moral duty. The various parties can argue logically about the legal duties, but when you introduce the abstract moral issues, if the legal issues are satisfactorily addressed, how do you then prove a moral failing or even moral success? The moralities of the matter could form the basis of regulatory revisions for the future, of course.

 

That is not to say that I support immoral, or even ammoral, conduct, (certainly don't support bankers, but you have to look wider at that before you have a direct pop) but if you are complying, in goodfaith, with all legal obligations acting in the best interests of those you serve in light of the information you have to hand at the time, that is the extent of your obligations in my book. What Bellyup seems to be saying is 'I am going to ignore your legal obligations (as they really are, not as relayed by me) and how you responded, and then place an added moral dimension, of which I am judge and jury, upon you, and you are guilty.'

[P.K.]

Errr.... was that post directed at me perchance?

 

If so I disagree. Our laws are simply a moral code enforced by legislation. End of. And the "review" is NOT a court of law. End of.

 

KSF may well have delivered a mortal blow to all the bs pumped out by marketing about how it is perfectly safe to stash your ill-gotten gains in the IOM. Time will tell...

[Gladys]

Yes, it was in reply to you. Yes, our laws are a moral code enforced by legislation which is why you shouldn't then seek recourse to a higher moral code to argue your point. End of.

 

And talking about morals, your view is that anyone who puts their money here has stashed their ill-gotten gains? Well that throws Bellyup's moral argument into a tailspin. End of, number two.

[P.K.]

Yes, it was in reply to you. Yes, our laws are a moral code enforced by legislation which is why you shouldn't then seek recourse to a higher moral code to argue your point. End of.

I don't understand what point you are making here, or even if you are indeed making one!

 

And talking about morals, your view is that anyone who puts their money here has stashed their ill-gotten gains? Well that throws Bellyup's moral argument into a tailspin. End of, number two.

Well Mr Baines certainly did! But I've got dosh there as well. Merely a figure of speech however I would have to wonder if they've caught just the one how many more are lurking around? As someone has previously posted there may be very good reasons why some of those with money tied up in the KSF farrago have not come forward...

 

Back to the thread. There seem to be a lot clinging to the assumption that the "enquiry" conclusions will be legally enforceable. They won't be. Bearing in mind how incestuous the IOM establishment appears, inevitable given that it's a small place, any "enquiry" will always look a bit of a whitewash. So I suspect that DAG will have the last word in the matter re legalities. Time will tell.

[manx-person]

Errr.... was that post directed at me perchance?

 

If so I disagree. Our laws are simply a moral code enforced by legislation. End of. And the "review" is NOT a court of law. End of.

 

KSF may well have delivered a mortal blow to all the bs pumped out by marketing about how it is perfectly safe to stash your ill-gotten gains in the IOM. Time will tell...

In my opinion......

Our laws come from Statute and the common law.

Where there is a statute, any morality issue is irrelevant.

Where there is judge made law, then morality may be a factor.

 

I agree the review is not a court of law, or should I say the Tynwald Select Committee is not a court of law.

[manx-person]

Thing I still haven't grasped...is WHERE is the half a billion quid transferred from KSFIOM to KB (UK) and snatched by the FSA before it could go to Iceland to pay Kerry Catatonic?

 

That £500m hasn't just vanished surely? Someone must have it. Why wasn't it returned to the liquidator of KSFIOM to pay the depositors?

 

 

Will Manx radio be reporting on the Tynwald SC meeting tomorrow ?

They were there in the committee room.

As was one of the DAG team.

I could only stay for about 2.5 hours then had to leave.

 

Quite a good account by the directors I thought

[bellyup]

Thing I still haven't grasped...is WHERE is the half a billion quid transferred from KSFIOM to KB (UK) and snatched by the FSA before it could go to Iceland to pay Kerry Catatonic?

 

That £500m hasn't just vanished surely? Someone must have it. Why wasn't it returned to the liquidator of KSFIOM to pay the depositors?

 

 

Will Manx radio be reporting on the Tynwald SC meeting tomorrow ?

They were there in the committee room.

As was one of the DAG team.

I could only stay for about 2.5 hours then had to leave.

 

Quite a good account by the directors I thought

 

 

 

 

After reading this account by the Manx Herald I am astounded at the lies and deceit that have gone on in this bussiness and the fact that everyone evades responsibility.

 

I was also gobsmacked to learn that the directors of the bank including the MD Aiden Doherty dont appear to have any banking qualifications.

 

http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/600.html

 

Astonishingly Mr Gelling is still paid a directors salary from the bank even though on his own admission he does nothing.

 

Mr Davies luckily managed to get his money out on the 6th .

Unlike many other depositors - including myself who were told their tranfers had been actioned but in fact were not.

[Gladys]

Why are any directors being paid? Their office ended when the liquidator was appointed. I could only imagine that the executive directors may be providing a service to the liquidator by assisting him, so is it really true that Donald Gelling is still being paid?