Kaupthing Isle of Man customers will get up to the first GBP 50,000 of their savings returned in a previously untested IoM scheme that could potentially take decades to pay out, Channel 4 News reported recently.
As consensus increases that British actions to freeze the assets of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander in the UK directly caused the collapse of Kaupthing in Iceland; Kaupthing Isle of Man looks increasingly like an unfortunate, and largely unconnected, victim of the global banking crisis.
Kaupthing Isle of Man savers have been campaigning to London for British help in reimbursing their savings, and the Isle of Man government is increasingly backing up their claims in public.
The British government maintains that responsibility for Icelandic banks remains solely with Icelandic authorities; but many Isle of Man savers believe their bank would still be operating without London’s freezing the assets of Icelandic banks.
“As consensus increases that British actions to freeze the assets of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander in the UK directly caused the collapse of Kaupthing in Iceland”
Wow, where will the lies end up?
No mention of the KSFIoM parental guarantee that Iceland is refusing to pay out?
The icelandic government have a moral and legal obligation to honour the parental guarantee given by Kaupthing hf.
Whilst the British Government have no doubt exacerbated this sorry situation, it remains clear that without honour, Iceland is just another pariah state.
Peter, you might want to read the transcript of a phonecall between Alistair Darling and an Icelandic official
Hey Peter?
You do know that the actual transcript of the conversation between Darlig and the Icelandic minister of finance has been leaked? To the UK papers?
And it does not support Darlings version. According to the UK press.
Perhaps you should try the Financial Times rather than the Sun:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d74e1aa-a163-11dd-82fd-000077b07658.html
Jan/Wong:
Perhaps you should read the full transcript instead of the comedy version at the FT, thanks to Iceland’s own, more reliable, source. It supports Darling’s version
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=314205
(It was also available on icenews)
Pretty specific –
No guarantee for non-Icelandic depositors.
No payment of to 20k euro passport scheme.
The Icelandic Finance minster lied about getting another 200million capital to shore up the bank.
Deception about the true (bankrupt) state of the Icelandic banks, given in assurances at prevous meeting.
This is the letter Arni Mathiesen is talking about in the transscript
http://mbl.is/media/44/1044.pdf
“comedy version at the FT”
Financial times comedy? Oh dear, press in the UK have fallen more than anyone could expect.
Peter – the extract supports the contention that Iceland would try to fulfil those obligations. That is as good as it gets in politics. It was not a straight Icelandic denial of the obligation as Darling said on the BBC.
There are no enforceable moral obligations in business. Seizure of Kaupthing London based assets put the whole group into breach of its loan covenants at a time when no one was lending money – something the FSA might have been aware of. The legislation used was not designed with this in mind so the consequences may not have been thought through. No bank (UK ?) could currently cover short term debts with the sale of longterm illiquid assets they invested in, at this precise moment so every one is going to take a proverbial bath.
Well, that contradicts what the FM said in the meeting so I fail to see the relevance.
Is that the actual PDF sent or was it faxed?
Tis is the actual PDF
what do you mean you fail to see the relevance ?
you need to read it again
>>Peter – the extract supports the contention that Iceland would try to fulfil those obligations.
However, the full transcript does not. Which are you going to believe – the verbatim transcript as posted on these Icelandic web sites or the FT.com’s journalistic interpretation of it?
Here’s a clue, a Court won’t be calling a FT reporter.
The only information missing in this transcript is the question about the 200m GBP loan
Blorgolfur Thor, former owner of LB said tonight that the british tresury offered to put all icesave accounts under british protection in 5 days if the Icelandic central bank would guarantee a 200m GBP loan to LB, the central bank refused inspite of beeing offered 5 fold insurance in Icelandic and German bonds,
the central bank is saing this is not true
we will find out soon
On Oct 27, 2008, Andrew Jackson said:
>Peter – the extract supports the contention that
>Iceland would try to fulfil those obligations. That
>is as good as it gets in politics. It was not a
>straight Icelandic denial of the obligation as
>Darling said on the BBC.
Peter,
Do you not think that when the letter sent to the HM Treasury is authenticated will there perhaps be some, well… trouble for Mr Darling?
Could this be the letter referred to several times* by Árni Mathiesen in the now infamous conversation between Darling and he?
*http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2008/10/11/the-british-brought-down-icelands-largest-company-with-their-abuse-of-power/#comment-31120
You remember, dear reader, that conversation Mr Darling put so much emphasis on in his BBC radio and GMTV interview when he stated that:
“The Icelandic government, believe it or not, have told me yesterday they have no intention of honouring their obligations here.”
Mr Darling’s grasp of public relations and reasoning is fascinating to behold as he clearly thinks that by expanding on his big lie in a bit more detail** on a prime time UK broadcast news programme after the facts are out in the open that it will in some way become, well… not a lie?
**http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/darling+iceland+couldnt+cope/2638072 – from that 24th October transcript:
Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer:
”I was in no doubt from a conversation I had with the finance minister, the whole conversation, not just one part of it, that the Icelandic government was not going to be able to help British depositors.”
…
“So I am afraid I was left in no doubt when I spoke to them at the beginning of this month that the British depositors were not going to be included and I want them to be included.”
The conversation where a certain letter was mentioned several times as being important in laying out the Icelandic government’s position? A letter that says, what…? Would some other kind poster please post that for me?
Is it now at all unclear that Darling has *not* been occupying the seat of mendacious misunderstanding – at worst, as some generous souls have mentioned – but instead in actuality the seat of absolute perjury.
Let us hope for his sake that he did not actually testify on this matter anywhere near a parliament chamber or committee room, but instead has committed his perjury only in full view of the court of public opinion.
Peter, you do have my sympathy.
Darling and Brown decided to act in extreme bad faith, Brown for purely opportunistic political reasons after Darling brought the big lie into being.
I can understand that when the lie comes from the mouth of a government minister and the Prime Minister then people are going to believe it (at least for a while), and then experience cognitive dissonance* as they discover the truth.
Darling is a liar but Brown is in many ways far worse, a cheap opportunist without a conscience.
*On cognitive dissonance (for those who have not read my other posts and are viewing this one in isolation): “when someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning.”
Peter -the court will certainly use those transcripts.
In the transcrip, the Icelander said several times that they were doing what they had put on paper in the letter.
The letter said they were honoring their guarantees.
Let me tell you, it is very rare in politics and business that you get something this straight out solid evidence.
They put the promise to honour the guarantees down on paper, in an official letter.
End of.
William.
I see that, despite another long post, you still haven’t addressed the part of the transcript that you missed last time where Mathiesen doesn’t guarantee the guarantee. Experiencing that dissonance yourself? :)
“In the transcrip, the Icelander said several times that they were doing what they had put on paper in the letter.
The letter said they were honoring their guarantees.”
Two problems.
It completely contradicts what the FM said on the phone and doesn’t contain what the FM was referring to
But the main one is …
The letter is an unsigned forgery.
Its fake.
Brown stole the Bradford and Bingley share-holders money, nationalisation without compensation, Castro-style. Then he sank Kaupthing’s Isle of Man outfit by grabbing all the money they had in their UK vaults.As has been said, if it’s Brown, flush it!
The simple truth is that the Icelandic banks were doomed, and this was well known to both governments.
The Icelandic government was clearly in no position to guarantee its overseas obligations without being propped up by extraordinary loans. The UK is going to have to lend Iceland the money to pay back UK savers.
Iceland is attempting to use the UK government to deflect attention from its own incompetence in failing to regulate the excessive activities of its financial sector.
While certain unscrupulous overseas investors are flinging mud at Brown and Darling in the hope that the UK will bail them out to keep them quiet.
Ross – did you have money in Icesave &/or KE? If you did, did you think about withdrawing it at any point before the 8th?
I had money in both. I pulled out of Icesave in time to avoid being frozen, but transferred money to KE. When it became apparent to me that the Icelandic economy was screwed, I pulled it out of KE (just not quite quick enough :) ).
I think you’d find that there was going to be a huge run on KE in the UK by those without fixed term deposits (and even many of them as you could break them with only a minor loss). Unlike Icesave it was covered by the FSCS but people were reading about Icesavers not getting their compensation until next year. That’s why I personally tried to pull out and why there was going to be a UK run.
As to B&B, I believe your shares were going to be worth nothing anyway if they went under. You invest, you accept risk.
Peter — it is stated quite clearly by Mathiesen in the transacipt that the Icelandic government will stand by its pledge of support to the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund. He also stresses that the new emergency legislation passed actually strengthens the position of depositors in relation to said fund. If you bother to read what the fund protects (http://www.tryggingarsjodur.is/AboutUs/), you will find that it *does* cover foreign branches of Iceland banks. So when Darling says the next morning that Iceland will *not* cover non-domestic depositors, he is stating the opposite of what Mathiesen told him.
Leif – You’re right, he does say that. However, he also says that he can’t guarantee the guarantee. That means that it is not a guarantee, surely?
Darling: So the entitlements the people have, which I think is about sixteen thousand pounds, they will be paid that?
Mathiesen: Well, I hope that will be the case. I cannot visibly state that or guarantee that now, but we are certainly working to solve this issue.