Jump to content

KSF Megathread 2


nipper

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 693
  • Created
  • Last Reply

would that be the same 100% guarantee that the MD of the bank has confirmed.

 

 

The same Mr Aiden Doherty yes

I agree he did confirm the 100% guarantee but then so did Mr John Cashin Director (and no 2 at the FSC )and Mr Gelling Director. All of these were well aware of the 100% Parental guarantee that was used to induce to keep their savings with KSFIOM after the takeover of the Derbyshire Building Society.

Mr John Aspen was also aware of the 100% promise he later said he had no faith in it ( but only after the bank had gone down) However re the Loan Book the liquidators and committee of inspection have confirmed that it is in good order..

 

could well be the loan bank of one such loan for 20mill that might well go tits up in the next couple months

 

Would you like to translate this into English?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mmmm well done Mr Bell, he has gone up in my estimation, see even he acknowledges you are but collateral damage and can be ignored.

 

That's as maybe. But in terms of attracting depositors the way in which the 'upstreaming' is technically structured could be looked at. From a competitive consumer attracting perspective. There has to be a better way of spreading and insuring the risk.

 

And the business of FSC people also being on the boards of banks definitely needs to end. Authorities elsewhere and consumers have to be confident that the FSC is only ever wearing one hat. That was a PR own goal and PR is very important. Ditto some of the idiotic comments in which the customers were effectively blamed for the failure of the systems in place.

 

The point should be to re establish consumer confidence although I accept this may take a generation or more. Re establishing confidence has to be especially important given that the City is lobbying hard for the UK govt to alter the rules in order to attract money directly.

 

Insulting and denigrating your customers is bad for business IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mmmm well done Mr Bell, he has gone up in my estimation, see even he acknowledges you are but collateral damage and can be ignored.

 

That's as maybe. But in terms of attracting depositors the way in which the 'upstreaming' is technically structured could be looked at. From a competitive consumer attracting perspective. There has to be a better way of spreading and insuring the risk.

 

And the business of FSC people also being on the boards of banks definitely needs to end. Authorities elsewhere and consumers have to be confident that the FSC is only ever wearing one hat. That was a PR own goal and PR is very important. Ditto some of the idiotic comments in which the customers were effectively blamed for the failure of the systems in place.

 

The point should be to re establish consumer confidence although I accept this may take a generation or more. Re establishing confidence has to be especially important given that the City is lobbying hard for the UK govt to alter the rules in order to attract money directly.

 

Insulting and denigrating your customers is bad for business IMO.

 

 

Thank you for this very reasonable post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Isle of Man is trying to draw a line under this. Let's move on, make a fresh start, put it down to experience.

 

This is easy to say if one has nothing to lose.

However if ,as one Manx depositor had ,put the money for his house sale into the bank for safekeeping and now it is gone how can you move on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...