KSF Megathread 2

[Stu Peters]

But what are those responsibilities?

Well, let me put it this way - if Belly bought a car here and it went wrong some time later, he'd expect a full refund and probably damages from the Manx taxpayer. And then moan on here that he'd bought it in good faith and that we should have closed the dealer down beforehand.

[Theodolite]

Stu, in such a short post you have managed to display your 3 main attributes:

 

Cars, obtuseness and your undying blind love of the Manx Government.

 

[bellyup]

Stu, in such a short post you have managed to display your 3 main attributes:

 

Cars, obtuseness and your undying blind love of the Manx Government.

 

 

 

Quite.

 

Does the IOM want a reputation as a car sales man?

 

Smarms all over you when you are a customer but cut and runs if things go wrong?

 

Offers guarantees that are worthless?

 

Well its has certainly done that!

 

A bank is not a car and the IOM is supposedly promoting itself as financial centre.

 

We expect car salesman to be unscrupulous,

 

We don't expect a responsible government to give car salemen licences to open banks to rip off unsuspecting depositors.

 

People who have kept their money with the IOM for years.

 

However that is exactly what the IOM has done.

[bellyup]

Please note full article

 

http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/comment/651.html

 

I have oft suggested on these forums that the IOM could have taken a loan from HMG in order to pay out the depositors and so preserve its reputation.

 

Here is it is said again

 

 

 

''It has been said before, but following the recent Irish bail-out it is now evident that HMG has the money to assist fellow Governments when asked. 'To those that ask it shall be given, to those that ask not, even that little which they need will be denied them.' The IoMG cannot get its tiny mind-set out of a very deep and ingrained rut to simply ask the English. Frankly, I care about as much about the island's reputation as the IoM Government does - very little going by its actions. Conversely, I would expect any Government to do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do.

 

This present IoMG though just doesn't know how to behave properly; acting more like a petulant child, it would rather tell stories than be honest, upright and true. It does not recognise that it truly owes KSFIoM depositors the right to their money back -

it was last seen in their possession and they lost it, QED.

 

Perhaps IoMG might still conclude that to borrow a little money from the UK would not constitute a disaster, but rather bring a new beginning for them, and a better relationship with their big brother. We are not talking seven billion pounds here after all.

 

Governments can and do borrow money over very long periods, decades even - they have immeasurable time to pay it back. Not so with our ageing KSF savers who have only finite lifetimes which are getting shorter with every moment that this procrastination is allowed to continue.''

 

also can be found on manxradio

 

http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=48731

[bellyup]

 

Wow, 'You are not even a manxman' - You really are special. Great contribution there....

 

Maybe I'm not. Maybe I still proudly hold a German passport and have no plans of ever giving that away. So what does that have to do with it? I've been living here for over ten years, pay my taxes,

 

 

I pay my taxes too Liebchen- even in the UK where I do not live.

And no I do not live in a tax haven - you got that wrong I'm afraid .

I kept my savings in the IOM for 30+ years that is 20 years more than you have lived there - still in the old windeln I would imagine.

 

Yet you are there and they are not

 

'We' simply referred to 'The people who reacted to your posts here on ManxForums', all of whom I am sure fully sympathise with the plight of the depositors, but as Gladys said very well a bit further up: Barrack those who have your money, not those who don't.

 

I am not 'barracking' anyone and sympathy is of no use to people who have lost everything and have little hope of recovering it for years if ever in their lifetimes.

You are a young man but one day you too will be old and think them how you would like your lifetimes work and savings to be gone in an instance leaving you to face an insecure and frightening old age

 

The fact remains that the money was last in the IOM and now it is not.

The FSC allowed it to be sent to the UK.

The amount of money outstanding is not huge by government standards and the IOM could easily 'stand in the shoes' of the depositors and save them from years of hardship.

A chance to be the good guys and recover their reputation.

[bellyup]

Yet another excellent article from the Manx Herald

 

http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/652.html

[Terse]

Since you have made the last three posts in succession, has it not occurred to you that you may very well be talking to yourself?

[censorship]

Yet another excellent article from the Manx Herald

 

http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/652.html

More an opinion piece than an article, as well as lacking some basic punctuation. That aside, all it does is demonstrate that hindsight is 20:20. It seems to me that Bell and the Treasury believed the SOA was likely to provide the greatest return to the depositors, but looking back now that may not have been the case.

I haven't really put forward a view on this, but surely any investment carries an element of risk which you, as the investor, must accept some share of. After all, you happily recieve interest payments which are the return on how your money is invested by the financial institution you choose.

Why should the government of that jurisdiction be held responsible for protecting you from the results of risk taking? I have yet to see evidence that government was responsible for the collapse of the bank, so why should it be responsible for you getting your money back?

Isn't it like putting a bet on a horse and when that horse loses asking the government of the country where the race was to give you back the money you bet?

Or is that too simplistic?

[Tugger]

The SOA was a good deal for depositors if the overall payout was going to be low. That number was unknown when the SOA was put together, but by the time it was voted on, the number was (more or less) known, and it was sufficiently high that the SOA wouldn't make much difference anyway.

 

Embarrassing, nonetheless, for those responsible for it

[bellyup]

Yet another excellent article from the Manx Herald

 

http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/652.html

More an opinion piece than an article, as well as lacking some basic punctuation. That aside, all it does is demonstrate that hindsight is 20:20. It seems to me that Bell and the Treasury believed the SOA was likely to provide the greatest return to the depositors, but looking back now that may not have been the case.

I haven't really put forward a view on this, but surely any investment carries an element of risk which you, as the investor, must accept some share of. After all, you happily recieve interest payments which are the return on how your money is invested by the financial institution you choose.

Why should the government of that jurisdiction be held responsible for protecting you from the results of risk taking? I have yet to see evidence that government was responsible for the collapse of the bank, so why should it be responsible for you getting your money back?

Isn't it like putting a bet on a horse and when that horse loses asking the government of the country where the race was to give you back the money you bet?

Or is that too simplistic?

 

 

When you go into your bank to you consider it the same as going into Ladbrookes?

[censorship]

When you go into your bank to you consider it the same as going into Ladbrookes?

When I put my money into an investment scenario I fully appreciate there is a risk attached, therefore I weigh up the level of risk and decide whether I wish to expose my savings to that level. In the same way that before betting on a horse I study various factors such as form, jockey, ground etc. Both are, therefore calculated risks.

I would accept that a higher return investment carries increased risk.

You're not going to address any of my other points then?

[triskelion]

Would you bet on a horse with odds of winning of 100/107?

[censorship]

Would you bet on a horse with odds of winning of 100/107?

Which horse, which jockey, which course, which race, what conditions and when?

[bellyup]

Carry on Trisklion you are doing an excellent job demonstrating why the IOM should not be trusted as a financial or banking centre.

 

You are making that 100% clear.

[censorship]

Carry on Trisklion you are doing an excellent job demonstrating why the IOM should not be trusted as a financial or banking centre.

 

You are making that 100% clear.

And you are doing an excellent job ignoring awkward questions