Eva Joly, the MEP and white collar crime fighter now assisting Iceland’s Special Prosecutor, was interviewed this week in the Dutch NRC Handelsblad. She spoke about her experience investigating fraud at the Elf oil company in France during the 1990s, about the tax evasion of multinational businesses and about her work in Iceland.
Below is the transcript of the interview relating specifically to Iceland. The rest can be read on the NRC website, here.
“The handful of banks that led that island to its doom are all private enterprises. When they collapsed, at the end of 2008, they had ten times more money in their current accounts than the state. The government was left powerless. There are about 330,000 Icelanders and most of them had nothing to do with this. But now the banks’ deficits have become the state’s deficit, affecting everybody. This is theft of public money.”
How is the investigation coming along?
“I cannot say much. The investigation is in progress and might take a couple of years.”
The Icelandic president does not feel that Iceland should repay the Netherlands and the UK back the damages incurred by IceSave’s demise. What is your opinion of the Dutch and British insistence that they do?
“The Netherlands and the UK are being arrogant. They are asking for 2.7 and 1.3 billion euros respectively at 5.5 percent interest. But Iceland’s public debt amounts to 300 percent of GDP. They will never be able to pay back the whole amount.”
Still, Dutch money has vanished.
“Yes, but the Dutch need to understand that it is both unrealistic and unreasonable to demand everything be repaid with so much interest, and to make this a condition for Iceland’s entry into the EU. What IceSave did was wrong, but the Dutch and the British are also partly to blame. All business was conducted through IceSave’s branch offices. The Dutch and British financial regulators said: these branches are not covered by our jurisdiction because they are the Icelandic supervisor’s responsibility. But everybody knew there was no way a handful of people in Reykjavik would be able to supervise properly what was happening in Amsterdam and London. According to a European directive, EU countries should regulate multinationals from outside the EU operating on their territory just as strictly as home-grown enterprises.”
Meaning the Dutch supervisor was negligent?
“To a certain extent, yes. The Dutch were supposed to ensure that the regulators in Reykjavik were doing a proper job, which they weren’t. The Netherlands has tried to cover its tracks citing IceSave’s legal status. Scandalous, really.”
How will this all end?
“If you do not meet Iceland halfway, only fishermen will remain on the island and you still won’t have your money back. The brain drain has begun: 8,000 highly educated people have already left the island and more will follow. It is not in our interest to impoverish Iceland. It has natural resources we might need in the future and it has a strategic location. We should not bully them, but negotiate, in a more grown up and proper fashion than we are currently doing.“
Why doesnt this woman just keep it ziped! was it her money gone!
“The Netherlands and the UK are being arrogant. They are asking for 2.7 and 1.3 billion euros respectively at 5.5 percent interest. But Iceland’s public debt amounts to 300 percent of GDP. They will never be able to pay back the whole amount.”
Please pardon me for being a laymen in finance, but as far as I understand, the bank asset should cover 80 to 90% of the Icesave debt. Iceland is given 7 years before starting repayment, Surely they have enough time to sell the asset at good price. The deal is already very lenient, I don’t see why Iceland refuse to take up this least responsibility. From some news sources I read, Icesave is just a tip of iceberg for the damage Iceland caused to mainland Europe. Taxpayers in Germany are already taking care of a great deal of mess from Iceland.
Dei Gratia Eva Joly, Engill Íslands!
“The Dutch and British financial regulators said: these branches are not covered by our jurisdiction because they are the Icelandic supervisor’s responsibility. But everybody knew there was no way a handful of people in Reykjavik would be able to supervise properly what was happening in Amsterdam and London.”
She might as well have said “everybody knew that Iceland is a tinpot nation that cannot be trusted to live up to international treaty obligations.”, because that is the implication. She needs to get her head around the concept of jurisdiction – the Dutch and British regulators were not just passing the buck, they would have been breaking the law to stick their oar in.
Hans Farmand, Norwegian economist – To The People Of Iceland – Say NO! To Icesave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5DWTKsbNQk
Say YES to Freedom…….If you are able to get a free state, free of oligarchy and corrupt politicians, I’ll be there also, like Farmand.
Eva Joly is dead wrong about tax avoidance being bad.
She is exactly correct however about the nexus of politicans and big business. Because the big businees ( she calls them multinationals ) is the creature of the politicans.
Joint stock company do exist because they are sanctioned by the state. It is the state that gives the shareholder limited liaiblity. It is the state that does decide how they shall operate through the regulations.
It is politicians who make the laws that regulate them, and they appointed burecrats that do enforce those laws.
So by they very nature big business and politicans are very close to each other and big business must so pay the politicians for influence as they are controlled by them.
Politicans do of course like to give out the special rights and privleges to ensure that the managers of the big businesses do appreciate the politiicans more.
That is the problem with multinationals aka big business. Not tax avoidance.
The Netherlands is an amoral people with an amoral government. If I were president of Iceland I wouldn’t pay them a cent until they agreed to stop being the no.1 European exploiter of third world people.
“The Dutch were supposed to ensure that the regulators in Reykjavik were doing a proper job, which they weren’t.”
So the Dutch government was supposed to supervise the regulators in Iceland who weren’t doing their job. What was the Iceland government doing?
“I cannot say much. The investigation is in progress and might take a couple of years.”
In other words she is not doing anything.
House of Commons Treasury Committee
Banking Crisis: The impact of the failure of the Icelandic banks
31 March 2009 Word document:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/BankingCrisisMemos250209.doc
Read paragraphs 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 56, 69.
Also see page 45.
I hope Eva Joly has read this document:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/BankingCrisisMemos250209.doc
Read paragraphs 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 56, 69.
Also see page 45.
Eva Joly, rational and intelligent woman, who can contribute to making the world a better place.
A lot of people can not see the Origin of fault, if no sub-mortgage crisis occurred at the first place, would the Fitch rating still give Icelandic bank an A+ rating? Will Icesave still be Icesave that many people who are in pursuit of high interests rate still enjoy their benefit?
So not to blame too much, a lot of people have suffered in this global crisis. Think of a way, to correct the mistakes, and to compensate loses, but should not in a way that will deprive some people´s benefit, in order to compensate some people´s lose.
Bear in mind that the Icesave bill is also about majority tax payers money in Iceland to pay back the guilt that were not made by them, and they will have to pay a lot due to small population.
So be fair and with some conscience, human!
I think Eva Joly is being too hard on the Dutch regulator.
EU regulations meant they couldnt stop IceSave, and EU European Central Bank did call in much colateral of loans to Landsbanki which was funded paying back mainly from deposit accumularion in the IceSave branches.
But as to the IceSave loans Dutch are I hate to say it — poodles of the UK — they have for whole process following the UK negotiator’s lead.
In way they handled whole time during October Dutch were very gentlemenly unlike the horrible acts of Darling and Brown,
.. but in IceSave ” deal negotiations since then the Dutch have made themselve look as bad as the UK.
Here following lead of Bjarni above ( hope its okay Bjarni ) I will post links to most recent post so you can find them :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/09/skarphedinsson-and-moratinos-icesave-has-no-impact-on-eus-treatment-of-application/ ( 4 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/09/eva-joly-to-dutch-media-netherlands-being-arrogant/ ( 11 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/joint-nordic-statement-on-iceland-loans-next-week/ ( 9 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/government-bill-for-a-national-referendum-on-icesave-legislation/ — policy advise for clueless Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and Steingrímur J.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/lithuania-follows-latvian-lead-by-expressing-support-for-iceland/ ( 21 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/british-fishing-towns-fear-iceland-politics-will-affect-jobs/ ( 12 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/iceland-finance-minister-on-nordic-charm-tour/ ( 2 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/icesave-should-not-sour-nordic-relations-iceland-fm/ ( 16 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/latvian-fm-wades-into-icesave-argument/ ( 29 ) — welcome to propaganda posting alias ‘ west ‘ of other posters here..
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/the-emergence-of-icesave-empathy-for-iceland-in-uk-media/ ( 46 ) — another meaty issues facts thread
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/bbc-newsnight-interview-with-the-icelandic-president/ ( 33 ) — Ólafur Ragnar gets Paxoed. Program features poor research by Economics Editor Paul Mason and his team — be ashamed Paui, very ashamed
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/iceland-and-uk-ministers-to-hold-meeting-this-evening/ ( 27 ) — at last one of the many obviously UK government working posters here comes clean and comes out publicly
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/icesave-misunderstanding-in-the-foreign-media/ ( 50 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/iceland-president’s-icesave-decision-drawing-harsh-international-response/ ( 57 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/iceland-fm-declines-india-trip-with-president/ ( 5 ) — Össur Skarphéðinsson acting like a child
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/government-iceland-still-committed-to-debt-repayment/ ( 49 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/fitch-lowers-iceland-credit-rating-to-junk/ ( 11 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/business-as-usual-for-icelandic-government-for-now/ ( 25 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/is-iceland-without-icesave-allies/ ( 56 ) – more meaty facts and discussion
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/declaration-by-the-president-of-iceland/ ( 4 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/icesave-agreement-rejected-by-icelandic-president/ ( 65 ) — a particuly juicy thread
Where I put a star * I indicate threads very much worth reading.
This was to be read in this forum in October 2008. So I ask you what’s moral and what isn’t?
Savers in the UK should not be nervous, Icelandic banks are solid
By Misc. Editors on Oct 5, 2008 in Finance and Business, Iceland, MBL | comments(2)
In and Interview with the BBC on Saturday, Tryggvi Herbertsson, economic adviser to the Icelandic Prime Minister said the government could and would step in if needed. “Savers in the UK who have put their money into Icelandic banks have been told their deposits are safe,” he said.
But despite such reassurances Icesave (Landsbanki) confirmed that customers had been reducing their accounts to be below the limit protected by the financial services compensation scheme. The limit will be GBP 50,000 – up from 35,000 next Tuesday.
Tryggvi Herbertsson said, despite its economic problems, the Icelandic government would honour that commitment if a bank did get into trouble.
Those few icelandic individuals responsible for payback to those who put money into icesave accounts in England and Holland are not the icelandic nation, they are just a few criminals and most of them don’t live in Iceland anymore but in London. Our jails are full now, so you brits just arrest them and imprison them. Maybe you can treat them in such that they will return what they have got away with.
Do you think that a british citizen will pay the debits of the british offshore banking system when its collapse?. Do you real bealeave that the british institutions are backing the offshore financial system in britain?.
But then Icelander has to pay for this “european offshore”, and this is not what some bankers in iceland has learn from british?. Please guys, do not pay a single penny all all this mees, this smells very bad, this looks really one of those “almost perfect plans”
Markus it better to see what quotes the UK people would have been reading. Back then IceNews was not the source that people did read.
Here is BBC article with actual quotes :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/moneybox/7652519.stm
Problem is of course that after both the Landbanki freezing order that did put Landsbanki, Central Bank of Iceland, and government of Iceland on the terrorist sanctiopn list for over two weeks of hell ..
http://lisa.indefence.is/News/News/~/NewsId/13
.. and the taking of Iceland’s largest bank – by taking its main operating subsiidary Kauthpgin Singer and Friedlander, it wasn’t just one bank. It was all three being 85% of the banking system.
Darlings actions just made Iceland troubles and inability to manoevire in days and weeks after self fulfilling.
“She needs to get her head around the concept of jurisdiction”
Perhaps you could educate the investigative judge on such legal matters…
>Our jails are full now, so you brits just arrest them and imprison them.
Issue a warrant and we’ll ship them back to you but it’s your responsibility to prosecute.
Or would you like the UK to grab any Icelander it likes off the streets of London and imprison them without trial?
No, be civilized and just, just arrest those responisible, they are quite few, please don’t masssacre inocent like you did to the scots in 1295.
Iceland is prepared to repay its Icesave debt but this should be done under fair conditions. I fully agree with that.
Perhaps it is a good idea to use this thread to show how dutch public opinion, and especially minister of finance Wouter Bos have been responding to the whole Iceasave affair.
I will divide the whole Icesave affair into the following phases (sorry for simplifications)
1. collapse of the icelandic banking system and Iceasave (oct 2008)
2. Iceland accepts loans from UK and NL: repayment of the UK and dutch depositors (early 2009)
3. Negotiations about the repayment of this loan: Icelandic negotiatiors accept harsh terms (mid 2009)
4. Althing cannot accept this deal and introduces numerous amendments with the purpose of making the deal sustainable for the icelandic economy. President Grimsson signs the deal (with amendments) making it legal. (mid 2009)
5. Apparently pressured by UK and NL the icelandic goberment puts the agreement to repay the debut WITHOUT amendments to Althing. Althing agrees with a small majority (end 2009)
6. President Grimsson refuses to sign this law and the matter will become a national referendum in Iceland.
Now the reactions of dutch minister of finance Wouter Bos on these phases:
phase 1: ” depositors will get their money back, no matter how”
phase 3: ” I am very glad that Iceland will repay the loan”
phase 4: ” I am disappointed that Iceland is complicating the situation”
phase 5: ” I am very glad that Iceland will repay the loan”
phase 6: ” I am disappointed that Iceland is complicating the situation”
As one can see he has been a bit too early on several ocassions.
Moreover, after phase 5 the opposition has started to attack him for lack of leadership. Apart from the whole Icesave affair Bos already has a crediblity problem with the domestic public.
This explains why indeed he is ‘poodling’ with the UK to force Iceland
Check out Alain Lipietz’s opinions in the second-half of today’s interview on Silfur Egils:
http://blog.eyjan.is/larahanna/2010/01/10/edalsilfur/
It looks like Iceland would win if the case went to arbitration! Holy crap…
Fisy
> Problem is of course that after both the Landbanki freezing order that did put Landsbanki, Central Bank of Iceland, and government of Iceland on the terrorist sanctiopn list for over two weeks of hell …. and the taking of Iceland’s largest bank – by taking its main operating subsiidary Kauthpgin Singer and Friedlander, it wasn’t just one bank. It was all three being 85% of the banking system.Darlings actions just made Iceland troubles and inability to manoevire in days and weeks after self fulfilling.
Sorry to burst your bubble Fisy. I know it is central to your thesis, that Iceland’s problems were precipitated by the actions of Brown and Darling.
If they are to be criticised, it should perhaps be for not throttling Iceland’s banking operations earlier.
UK posters were expressing concerns in forums early April 2008.
>I have an ISA with them, but am worried. The Icelandic banking system is in trouble. The charges that Icelandic banks are having to pay to insure against default are increasing, and threats to destroy the Icelanding banking system are common knowledge.
I was considering moving my other ISAs to my Icesave ISA at the start of the financial year, after they received interest. Now I am not so sure. Despite Martin’s rosy claims of compensation, if the Nordic banking system does go down the pan it will be impossible to get the money for months – as they say, there is no pot. That would mean months without any interests.
To give you some idea of the crisis in Iceland – where the banking system has been described as a massive hedge fund – interests rates were recently raised to 15% to try to prop up the currency, which has plummeted 30% against the Euro this year, and fell by 20% on March alone. The cost to Icelandic banks of CDSs (Credit Default Swaps, which are basically insurance against bad loans) is TEN TIMES the average cost to other European lenders. Towards the end of last week, CDS contracts for the main Icelandic bank – Kaupthing – cost 1.5 million in advance plus .5 million a year to insure just 10 million euros of debt for 5 years. On those prices, it seems that the market has decided that the debt won’t be repayed.
Iceland has a population of just 300,000 people, and it’s banking system has recently grown through hedge-fund like speculation on the internation markets rather than a strong savings base (a la Northern Rock). A chain breaks at its weakest link, and in the international banking system, Iceland is looking very weak indeed.
________________________________________
Last edited by paulpaul1308; 02-04-2008 at 10:23 AM..
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=9810317#post9810317
But Iceland continued to to feign credibility.
Fisy said
>But as to the IceSave loans Dutch are I hate to say it — poodles of the UK — they have for whole process following the UK negotiator’s lead.
No you don’t hate to say it – it’s your mantra.
To Niels:
>>>As one can see he has been a bit too early on several ocassions. Moreover, after phase 5 the opposition has started to attack him for lack of leadership. Apart from the whole Icesave affair Bos already has a crediblity problem with the domestic public.
That was a really funny description. :-)
We are not too impressed with our own leadership either, in fact it stinks. What is needed is a real leadership on all sides to just solve the problem!
TO Jimbo (original Jim):
>>>>Check out Alain Lipietz’s opinions in the second-half of today’s interview on Silfur Egils:
It looks like Iceland would win if the case went to arbitration! Holy crap…
Alain Lipietz brought up a new interesting point regarding the 19/94/EC Directive, that I had not seen before:
“Article 6
1. Member States shall check that branches established by a credit institution which has its head office outwith the Community have cover equivalent to that prescribed in this Directive.
Failing that, Member States may, subject to Article 9 (1) of Directive 77/780/EEC, stipulate that branches established by a credit institution which has its head office outwith the Community must join deposit-guarantee schemes in operation within their territories.”
On the face of it, I would have thought by joining the EEA, Iceland would be counted as being inside, but apparently Alain Lipietz does not think this so. This is now being digested and heavily discussed in the Icelandic blogsphere.
Anyway, I would highly recommend watching the whole Silfur Egils show from today here:
http://www.ruv.is/heim/ahugavert/nanar/store218/item320273/
since most of it was in English.
“Herbertsson, economic adviser to the Icelandic Prime Minister said the government could and would step in if needed”
The words of politicians are not worth much today, same goes for their advisers,
if there was a rating agency rating the creditworthyness of politicians Gordon Brown would be on the junk list, Tryggvi is a MP now so he would be there also.
words from those people are worthless.
Tryggvi Herbertsson was a only a adviser to the former PM, he was working for the bankers and wealth bums making sure laws and regulations would not get in their way, in my opinion he has alot to answer for, i met this guy right before last general elections and told him what i thought of his work among other things, he asked me who i wanted to hang, no one i replied.
probably the right ansver, the French chopped the heads of their entire elite not long ago and now live in one of the least democratic state in the world, the EU,
may be we can sell them to the EU, for slavery.
On Jan 11, 2010, Axel said:
“Herbertsson, economic adviser to the Icelandic Prime Minister said the government could and would step in if needed”
Just case you missed it in my post above Axel here are the actual quotes that would have been read in media by UK savers at time
>Here is BBC article with actual quotes :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/moneybox/7652519.stm
Mark Sismey-Durrant, chief executive of Icesave in the UK told Radio 4′s Money Box programme,
“They shouldn’t be nervous about the state of the bank.
“We have a strong capital base and 63% of our balance sheet is funded by deposits.
“We maintain strong liquidity levels.”
Asked specifically if customers could be sure their money was safe and they could get it out when they wanted he replied, “Yes. They can be.”
..
But Tryggvi Herbertsson, economic adviser to the Icelandic prime minister, said the government could and would step in.
“Definitely we would come to the rescue of a bank – definitely.
“The banking system in Iceland is very large compared to the economy, but still we think we can maintain the problem because the balance sheet of the bank is very good.”
“They have not been involved in sub-prime or buying housing debts from abroad and we are pretty confident that the balance sheet is healthy and the banks can operate healthily in the future.”
Terry did write :
>Sorry to burst your bubble Fisy. I know it is central to your thesis, that Iceland’s problems were precipitated by the actions of Brown and Darling.
For Iceland’s ( I refer here to both Icelanders and our state ) problems October 8 to early November 2008 when it was cut off from international financial system, yes Brown and Darling and minions in HM Treasury were responsible for that.
It is a fact.
For problems since then it is a combination of our new incompetence Red-Green government and rapacious UK and Dutch politiicans currently sitting in government chairs.
You have read many times about what I think about our banks.
Glitnir was in real trouble. Landsbanki less so ( but experiencing a run ), and Kaupthing was in good shape.
What happened on October 8th was not self fulfilling prophecy, it was caused by extreme bad faith by a lying Darling and then the actions of Brown and Darling.
What happened before that to get to October 8 2008 is not simple and we are still unreavelling who did what and when to cause it.
Have no doubt when February commission report here comes out here ( as commissioned by Geir Haarde govenrment in November 2008 ) that heads will roll and our special prosecutor will be very busy.
Some burecrats may also be impeached. Justice will be done and be seen to be done.
Terry said:
“”Fisy said
>But as to the IceSave loans Dutch are I hate to say it — poodles of the UK — they have for whole process following the UK negotiator’s lead.
No you don’t hate to say it – it’s your mantra.”"
Fisy is a (ex-)employee of one of the crooked banks, so he spams this site in a vain attempt to pass blame on to everyone and anybody but himself.
Zahlen macht macht!
There is a big number of europeans who belive that this experiment i.e. the EU “United Europe” of our times will be successful, but but, many of this people highly educated in european laws point out that EU is out of track in fawor of multi-national campanies and free market both beeing supported by many european politicians greedy for power and influence.
The history tells us that only very seldom this “united” thing has been successful i.e. perhaps United States of America and perhaps China.
What is left of the “British empire” United Kingdom? well the rest of it has united with United Europe.
What is left of the Soviet Union? well that union after 70year trial dismantled into former countries. How many countries of Europe have during the last decades broken up to former smaller countries after beeing held by force together in an invented country.
Why do we have the EU? “Number makes power” the higher the number then accordingly more power.
Whom is EU 500.000.000 individuals going to outnumber? USA 300.000.000? China 1.300.000.000 individuals India 1.100.000.000 individuals?
In our european history books we erased important chapter about how big and powerful China was during it’s hedays and now China and other asian countries have become maybe what Europa was afreight of, Powerful, not only because they outnumber Europa but also they have managed to produce everthing what Europa can but cheaper. China “a Communist state” technically owns USA through $10 trillion dept.
The history is repeating it self, but the picture is now beeing painted with somewhat different colours.
The most important thing for human kind is that just and fairness will be a guiding light into the future, it will not be enaugh to lid that light just inside the fence of EU but also shine it on the whole globe.
Something I query from a legal point of view in respect of The Netherlands with it’s claim.
Previously the guarantee limit had been set at Euro 38,000 per person. This figure was compiled as the first Euro 20,000 being 100% guaranteed by the State and the next Euro 20,000 being guaranteed for 90% resulting in an additional Euro 18,000.
During the recession period the orginal Euro 38,000 was increased by Financial Minister Bos to Euro 100,000 per person.
This is what I query…
When the ICESAVE product was launched on the Dutch market was it not a situation where the original Euro 38,000 applied? I query this from a legal perspective as it could have a huge impact on the level of money being claimed.
Herman Auer
The Netherlands
>Fisy is a (ex-)employee of one of the crooked banks, so he spams this site in a vain attempt to pass blame on to everyone and anybody but himself.
I dont think any one cares were I came from. You keep on guessing Peter this is not first time you try to troll for a response.
They just care if I can make arguments with facts to back up.
Some thing 80% or more your posts don’t have.
For record my disugst and poting about Kaupthing comes from facts that :
i ) it was a solid bank and Iceland last hope to have a banking system at time Darling and Brown took its main subsidiary.
ii ) The horrible treatment depositors of Kaupthing Singer Frieldander Isle of Man who had the GDP 550 millions of money stolen by Brown as part of that taking of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander .
And now back to issue of this thread which is facts about IceSave and the harsh comments of Eva Joly about Netherlands government being poodle of UK.
( This only second time I say poodle. First time is in the thread above. Sorry to people from netherlands but it is true. )
On Jan 11, 2010, Terry said:
“>..Iceland has a population of just 300,000 people, and it’s banking system has recently grown through hedge-fund like speculation on the internation markets rather than a strong savings base (a la Northern Rock). A chain breaks at its weakest link, and in the international banking system, Iceland is looking very weak indeed.
________________________________________
Last edited by paulpaul1308; 02-04-2008 at 10:23 AM..
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=9810317#post9810317
>But Iceland continued to to feign credibility. ”
So if this posted in April 2008 and there are many other like it, why did UK people choose of own free will to deposit in IceSave and Kautphing Edge ?
And same goes for bond holder.
Why Mike UK Nordic analyst ( as representative of professional investor ) did those that bought bonds * buy * then during 2008 ?
Did Icelandic government have mind control machine in lava fields of Keflavík sending out waves across sea ?
Why ?
Thanks Fisy. At least we now know where that line about good balance sheet and no sub-prime came from :) .
If Kaupthing was in good shape, why was it failing to meet the requirements of the UK FSA *before* October 6th?
@Herman
The 20k euros is the common, 100% recovery guarantee. After that, IIRC, states can do pretty-much what they want, including 90% recovery guarantees. IANAL, but I can’t see a problem with the Dutch changing that guarantee level after the introduction of Icesave. In the UK, it was increased from 100% of £35k to 100% of £50k just as Landsbanki crashed (and to 100% of 100% shortly afterwards).
“) it was a solid bank and Iceland last hope to have a banking system at time Darling and Brown took its main subsidiary.”
It was a bank with taking deposits yet with NO depositor protection scheme and unable to come up with any liquidity when requested multiple times by its regulator. It has billions of euro’s missing and 20% of the loans are bad.
What a great bank you worked for.
“ii ) The horrible treatment depositors of Kaupthing Singer Frieldander Isle of Man who had the GDP 550 millions of money stolen by Brown as part of that taking of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander”
Ridiculous. The money was transferred to London by the banks owners as a commercial decision and of course there wasn’t any cash there when the bank was seized. You think KSF had 500million sitting in the bank when its was owned by Icelanders who were unable to come up with the 200million to save the entire bank???
Fisy said
On Jan 11, 2010, Terry said:
“>..Iceland has a population of just 300,000 people, and it’s banking system has recently grown through hedge-fund like speculation on the internation markets rather than a strong savings base (a la Northern Rock). A chain breaks at its weakest link, and in the international banking system, Iceland is looking very weak indeed.
________________________________________
Last edited by paulpaul1308; 02-04-2008 at 10:23 AM..
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=9810317#post9810317
>But Iceland continued to to feign credibility. So if this posted in April 2008 and there are many other like it, why did UK people choose of own free will to deposit in IceSave and Kautphing Edge?
Oh Fisy – again, you see what you wish to see. Try another part of my post –
“To give you some idea of the crisis in Iceland – where the banking system has been described as a massive hedge fund – interests rates were recently raised to 15% to try to prop up the currency, which has plummeted 30% against the Euro this year, and fell by 20% on March alone. The cost to Icelandic banks of CDSs (Credit Default Swaps, which are basically insurance against bad loans) is TEN TIMES the average cost to other European lenders. Towards the end of last week, CDS contracts for the main Icelandic bank – Kaupthing – cost 1.5 million in advance plus .5 million a year to insure just 10 million euros of debt for 5 years. On those prices, it seems that the market has decided that the debt won’t be repayed”.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=9810317#post9810317
Fisy said –
>”So if this posted in April 2008 and there are many other like it, why did UK people choose of own free will to deposit in IceSave and Kautphing Edge” ?
Well Fisy, we believed what was said by IcseSave and Iceland regulators..
>In the unlikely event of problems; how would the passport protection work?
This is something we’ve raised with Icesave; below is its response, which was backed up by a document from the Icelandic Financial Services Association; confirming the legal strength of the info.
“Icelandic banks pay into a fund which is set aside to be paid out for compensation should it be needed – the UK scheme doesn’t have this and could therefore technically take longer than the Icelandic scheme!” (Note from Martin: The UK scheme is set up to call money in if needed, rather than work on a pot of money system).”
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/04/01/icesave-how-safe-are-your-savings-facts-and-myths/
So Fisy, that looks bad for Icelandic credibility – what say you – am I an idiot or was I scammed?
Apparently the statutes of limitation for government ministers is three years in Iceland.
So its seems Eva Joly is going to spend her three years praising Iceland and defending it from critics why receiving her consultancy fees from those she is brought in to investigate.
Its looking like the investigation is a sham.
http://icelandtalks.net/?p=836
>So if this posted in April 2008 and there are many other like it, why did UK people choose of own free will to deposit in IceSave and Kautphing Edge
I can answer the KE one easily.
1. It was a UK bank under the UK scheme. If you had less than £35k in it, it was rock solid.
2. Therefore, many people whouldn’t have given much thought to Iceland collapsing.
3. And those that did heard the good vibe statements from the banks/government.
Of course, as soon as real, obvious questions arose about the stability of Iceland (i.e. Glitner’s collapse), all bets were off. Even if your £35k was 100% guaranteed by the UK, why take the risk when Icelandic banks started to fall?
To Herman Auer:
>>>>When the ICESAVE product was launched on the Dutch market was it not a situation where the original Euro 38,000 applied? I query this from a legal perspective as it could have a huge impact on the level of money being claimed.
It is not very clear from your question, which side you are expecting to answer and in what context, but here is the answer if you meant Iceland:
As far as Iceland is concerned, it is bound only by Icelandic laws, which clearly state that the maximum guarantee by the Icelandic deposit insurance fund (TIF) is 20878 Euros (1.7M ISK). Whatever the legal situation is in Netherlands, it has no bearing on the matter and how it is resolved in Iceland.
Peter London posts from the borrow laptop of Derek Draper :
>So its seems Eva Joly is going to spend her three years praising Iceland and defending it from critics why receiving her consultancy fees from those she is brought in to investigate.
Peter London, you are not helping you cause of misdirection attempt by attacking Eva Joly ( or linking to unrelated investigation which is not to do with Eva Joly or work of Icelandic special prosecutor Ólafur Þór Hauksson at all. )
While I do not asgree with her choice of politics ( Left-Green ) and her comments about tax avoidance and attacking tax haven are misguided as I post in small part above,..
Eva Joly is an anti corruption and anti big fist old boy network investigator that did co write the major text book on fraud investigator.
And she does not scare easily.
I know as far as UK team is concern all this is not meant to be in the script and you are scrableing to catch up but what happening is what you get when you do not take reasonable deal offered to you.
People watchjing got upset by the bullying and are now ****ed off.
Yes UK and Holland governments you have really ****ed Eva Joly and her friends off in last months.
I do suggest that you do look up what the Elf Affair was about. She lived and worked for 6 years under police protection..
..because she did go into the heart of the French political establishment and did despite real death threats shake its tree and get some nasty corrupt political insider to fall down and into jail.
You are making a big big mistake if you do try an smear her. Consult with your handlers.
Just for those who do not follow uK politic of 2009 and wonder why I do talk of Derek Draper, then do google :
derek draper damian mcbride
And then you will understand ( the scandal was called Smeargate ).
>And then you will understand ( the scandal was called Smeargate ).
The irony of someone using a smear to smear someone else :) . Have you seen anything to indicate Peter is pro-Labour as opposed to anti-Iceland (at least as far as banking is concerned)? I don’t think I have.
And I know I said elsewhere that I wouldn’t get involved, but I’ve had similar accusations levelled at me by Icelanders. It’s not necessary – stick to the facts. Such as the fact that there is no “UK team” here. The only one with a professional involvment in the outcome is Mike NA, and he declared his interest immediately.
>The irony of someone using a smear to smear someone else :) . Have you seen anything to indicate Peter is pro-Labour as opposed to anti-Iceland
I am drawing attention to the style of Peter London posts since he came here first end of 2008 and started posting.
He does just post false hoods 80% of the time. Just like Derek Draper and other propogandist did. I do not know of other propgranfists in Uk other than this Derek Draper.
>stick to the facts
I stick to facts as you well know. You should be asking that of Peter London.
For me it do get very boring when each time a new thread do come he does post clear and obvious false hoods that need rebutting again. So my patience with him is low.
In that other threads I and Bjarni have rebutted his false hood about the EU binding arbitration issue 17 times now ! He knows the fact of it but he waits and then comes back again later with same stuff.
Of course he is a propogandist.
What eloqiuent real person who is not crazy would post like that 17 times over a period of months knowing full well that the rebuttal would come makling him look like a complete fool each time ?
( And Peter London is eloquent enough and I do not think he is clinicaly insane from his posts. Just with this agenda of misdirecting conversations. So the conclusion can only be he is a propogandist. )
And here is Bjarni ( more patient than me ! ) politely asking Peter London to give his evidence to that same false hood he has published before — this is 18th time!
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/11/is-a-mediator-needed-to-settle-icesave/#comment-110003
I will believe there is no ” team UK ” here when you start pulling Peter London up on the facts, just as you do with other poster here.
Fisy said:
More of your irony, after your many previous complaints about ad hominem attacks against yourself you again attack me personally, accusing me of some sort of professional involvement. The irony is that you are professionally involved with the Icelandic banks and its the real reason for your ranting..
>I will believe there is no ” team UK ” here when you start pulling Peter London up on the facts, just as you do with other poster here.
Already have Fisy, so I take it you’ll be changing your beliefs?
Why not clear the air about yourself whilst we’re here. I know that I’m a private individual and I’m sure that Bjarni and, yes, Peter are too. As Peter says, it’s harder to accept that you have had no personal involvement. And note I’m not saying you are some “propogandist” just because you hold certain strong views; that’s lazy logic and you should know it.
For example, your oft-mentioned point about the solidity of Kaupthing could easily be swapped in place of Peter’s oft-mentioned point about the arbitration. Both are incorrect, given the facts currently publicly available.
Brumley did write :
>Already have Fisy, so I take it you’ll be changing your beliefs?
Show me the posts where you do that first I am only aware of once when you refer to ” not fair “. When you do that consistently with Peter I’ll bite.
Because no one benefits who actually must pay for this mess ( Icelandic, British or Dutch tax payer ) –
– except for the politicians who do perceive they can get better poll rating and cover up their own misdeed and incompetence ( before there go out of office in next year and here I mean both New Labour in 2010 election and Dutch Labour Party in election 2011 as well as Red-Green government here ) –
from letting untruths to continue to be pushed here. Of this Peter – London is worst offender so far.
>I know that I’m a private individual and I’m sure that Bjarni and, yes, Peter are too.
I dont know any thing about any posters except by reading what they post which gives flavour of person behind the screen.
Have you actually met Peter London in person ?
So in that ones with highest reputation rating here in term of bringing forward new information in they post over time that is correct is Bjarni and Mike (UK Nordic analyst).
In term of posting together patchwork of different existing fact and analysing them them you and I we do have built up a good reputation, and also there we do have Niels posting Netherlands facts.
Then we have regular poster like Jim and Terry, and Axel, Easy all who do post less often. They posts is generally less factually based but are always interesting.
Then we do have Peter – London and Gus ( who now he is not posting in ALL CAPS I actually have started reading posts again ).
Gus is far less eloquent that Peter London and when you do read his posts it is clear that he is posting most of the time as a troll and as some form of exhibitionism.
But his style is similiar to Peter – London in that he simply posts his opinions as if they is facts.
The difference of Gus from Peter – London is that he does not post the same false things over and over again for months as Peter London does. Peter London does this.
And normal people when they are repeatedly shown to be a fool by what they did post, well they do not do what Peter London does. Instead they either go away never to return or they do be more careful next time because of the public humiliation they received.
So as not to be dicouraging or rude I would also add the following poster who do post less frequently but who are worth reading always :
Øystein; Norway , Alexander E., Aggi, Jorge SPAIN and Gray Germany.
( And for new reader to be clear Gus does post also under SIR EURO, NORDIC PIGS from time to time and other handle but his style is very easy to spot. )
I hope that of course there will more regular poster like this here as it does just improve our understanding of what is going on in world.
Since Ólafur Ragnar did not sign the December law there have been notable more new * quality * posters here again like used to be back in old glory days of November 2008.
And Mike Smith, Balkanson, densou, Polar Mania, orchafine, Knowless, Carl Mosconi, steveservaes, Pedro – Luxembourg, Portugal, I remember I enjoy to see you posts too..
but just post more these day and I would remember you at the front of my mind not the back.. no disrespects intended.
On Jan 13, 2010, Peter – London said:
Fisy said:
>More of your irony, after your many previous complaints about ad hominem attacks against yourself you again attack me personally, accusing me of some sort of professional involvement.
>The irony is that you are professionally involved with the Icelandic banks and its the real reason for your ranting..
Here we do see classic example of professional propagandist style.
I have say this reading and watching here on boards and in other place has opened my eyes to a whole new aspect politics today. That is, importance to politicans of place like IceNews in influence public opinions.
My eyes is forever open after I did find references of earlier poster to ” dinsinformationalist ” and did read up on that.
As I said :
>[ Peter - London ] does just post false hoods 80% of the time. Just like Derek Draper and other propogandist did. I do not know of other propgranfists in Uk other than this Derek Draper.
So I do mention the name of the only well known online propogandist that I heard of to make a point.
As I did say to Terry before in fact my post that are accussed as ” ad-homiem ” are really best classified as observational posts. Because always such posts do include observations I have based what others did post.
I do never just call someone some thing. I always back up with facts.
To Bromley86:
>>>>I know that I’m a private individual and I’m sure that Bjarni and, yes, Peter are too.
Just to confirm, I am indeed a private individual with no connection to the banks or the government. I just like to read up on things, and try to dig out the real facts, which often are missing from the debate. :-)
Fishy:
“I do never just call someone some thing. I always back up with facts.”
No you don’t you repeatedly make wild statements that have been shown to be false. Nobody bothers to take you on it because its a waste of time discussing it with you.
“That is, importance to politicans of place like IceNews in influence public opinions.”
Sorry to disappoint you, but the posting of random people on web sites like this are irrelevant. Even if they did reading through this, its not going to make much difference to the options and action of politicians. They always have some completely different agenda that overrides public opinions.
And you are being ironic again, calling me a propagandist while extolling the virtues of this web site to influence public opinion.
Brumley did write :
>For example, your oft-mentioned point about the solidity of Kaupthing could easily be swapped in place of Peter’s oft-mentioned point about the arbitration. Both are incorrect, given the facts currently publicly available.
No, there is difference between my post and Peter – London posts. I think that other readers who follow here would not disagree with me. If so please say it and why.
At to Kauthping issue you use as example my posts are comparingable to what Mike UK Nordic Analyst did post about Kauthping 2006–7—8 not those posit of Peter London.
Why ?
Because Peter London post assertion that he then can’t backup and the detailed refuting evidence that others do post is never challenged by him with any follow posts or facts.
As to Kaupthing example — solidity of Kautphing has not been rebutted in any detail at all.
When asked to explain on his own assertions about it being dead 2006, etc, etc. the most respected poster of Mike UK Nordic analyst just did give the over view of why he believed — not hard facts and figures.
So out respect to Mike and to the facts I did decide to read in detail as he suggested on annual reports and so on ( like I did for Icelandair accounts ) for Kaupthing and Exista before I post. Sadly I simply have not had time to finish that yet.
But ti will be here when time comes ( and other fact highly embarrassing to UK government ) :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/10/21/kaupthing-loses-claim-against-british-government/
Just to give you my own over view as MIke UK would do I expect ,
.. The UK high court review only report on the of the making of payments that the FSA did ask to be done ( which were very large ). It said nothing at all if the amounts asked for were reasonable or actually needed, or how much was actually needed to cover money going out.
Not that people here care about why I post ( except for you Brumley ), here is my answer although you and Niels should answer with who you did vote for in your own country elections last :
( As to how I vote in last election as you Brumley and Niels did ask well if you didn’t already figure that out from my posts when I talk about the Icelandic politicians then I think you have just * not * been paying attention. )
What I will remind is I have never yet voted for Independence Party ( Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn ) nor the Social Democrats ( Samfylkingin ) and just to help you here even are links :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/01/28/foreign-interest-in-morgunbladid-and-reykjavik-concert-hall/#comment-62179 Jan 29, 2009
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/12/28/third-and-final-icesave-debate-begins/#comment-107431 Dec 29, 2009
No I have never worked for banks or government or any thing like that.
So Brumley I look forwards to you treating Peter London same as you do for others about his pattern of untrue ( but eloquent postings ) and point out facts .
Niels wrote :
>” Iceland is prepared to repay its Icesave debt but this should be done under fair conditions. I fully agree with that.
Perhaps it is a good idea to use this thread to show how dutch public opinion, and especially minister of finance Wouter Bos have been responding to the whole Iceasave affair.
..
As one can see he has been a bit too early on several ocassions.
Moreover, after phase 5 the opposition has started to attack him for lack of leadership. Apart from the whole Icesave affair Bos already has a crediblity problem with the domestic public.
This explains why indeed he is ‘poodling’ with the UK to force Iceland ”
Thank you for that informations Niels, we do not get too much posting from Dutch people here which is a shame as the only way this IceSave political issue of paying back with interest and ” Ragnar Hall ” greed issue will get fixed is by this kinds of dialog and fact sharing where real public opinion becomes clear.
There will be no referedums or polls taken about this issue in UK and Netherlands I expect. So what people do post on place like this will have to do.
As to Peter – London postings I do recommend any interested you google :
dinsinformationalist
And then compare what you read to Peter London style.
And I find Niels alredy that you are posting in other thread about this :
>I can only tell you that in .. NL.. the public opinion is showing a lot of understanding for Iceland.
>
>A discussion about this matter in newspaper NRC gave rise to 173 reactions, most of which (about 150!) show great understanding for the icelandic position.
>
http://weblogs.nrc.nl/discussie/2010/01/06/moet-nederland-de-ijslandse-schuld-van-13-miljard-euro-kwijtschelden/
With regards to the Dutch, I wouldn’t count too much on an opinion poll on a website to mean much. And its not like you have a good cross-section of the Dutch people going to an NRC-website.
Secondly, Icesave is not nearly the biggest issue on the minds of Dutch voters. Even though its 1.3 billion, its pretty inconsequential in terms of the political issues that dominate Dutch politics at the moment. And so far in parliament, which is where decisions get taken in the Netherlands, there is a solid majority firmly behind the government in demanding the return of the money. So even if you get a lot of sympathy from Dutch citizens, the issue is not likely to sway many voters to a party that is more friendly to Iceland.
As for Kaupthing, the balance sheet of the bank at that point when it was taken, was irrelevant. It could have been an AAA institution and it would have gone down. No bank survives a real bankrun, and a bankrun was completely inevitable at that point for an Icelandic bank with assets in the UK.
Or how do you expect a rattled public to react. “Yeah, almost all of the icelandic banks just went bust. Yeah, the Icelandic government can’t actually pay back the depositors in those banks. Yeah, Iceland is sitting on a huge credit bubble. But don’t worry, Kaupthing is fine.” Do you honestly believe anyone would believe that? No. People would have run to the bank and gotten their money out and it would have been the end for the bank.
But of course, it is much more reassuring to believe that the evil, mean UK government that has presided over one of the most important financial centers of the world for decades and decades, now suddenly decide its fun to stick it to their little neighbour on the northwest, just for the heck of it. Right? Is that really what you believe?
>As to Kaupthing example — solidity of Kautphing has not been rebutted in any detail at all.
Well, on the one side we have you insisting it was solid. On the other we have a judge (and the UK FSA)saying that it wasn’t.
Even though the evidence in the High Court ruling was not complete, it was certainly compelling.
You’ve just been saying that the EU shouldn’t allow branches and that the host state should perform all the regulation (something that, without having the knowledge to make a judgement on, I’d nevertheless agree with). Well, that’s the case here. If a bank cannot meet the FSA’s requirements then its licence is withdrawn. It will be a very hard case indeed to make that you know better than the FSA what their requirements should be.
I appreciate that you’re pleading an exemption because you’re currently researching a thorough response. Fair enough. But, until you’ve done it, the current reality is that your unsupported opinion is at odds with a supported opinion of a High Court judge. Therefore, if you’re being honest & truthful, you really can’t make the claims that you do about Kaupthing’s stability. Yet :) .
Peter London wrote :
> you [ Fisy ] repeatedly make wild statements that have been shown to be
>false. Nobody bothers to take you on it because its a waste of time
>discussing it with you.
I would not dream of speaking on Bjarni behalf but I think this does sum it up better than all my long postings of anaylsis ( that only determined new read will read I posted above ) which Bjarni did post 30 Dec :
“I think its just simply impossible to have a reasonable, fact-based debate or discussion with Peter – London. As you mention, even after he has been proven to be false, he just keeps repeating the same nonsense again and again, hoping we will not notice.
This “Final and legally binding arbitration” thing of his, is probably be the best example. He has been repeating this nonsense for months, although the facts are publicly available. ”
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/12/28/third-and-final-icesave-debate-begins/#comment-107543
>What I will remind is I have never yet voted for Independence Party ( Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn ) nor the Social Democrats ( Samfylkingin ) and just to help you here even are links
Ohh, an Icelandic mystery! :)
Other points:
(a) It’s possible you have never voted (seems unlikely as you’re likely significantly over voting age and given the high turnout in Iceland)
(b) It’s impossible that you voted LG!
(c) You absolved Oddsson of all responsibility for the privatisation whilst putting the Progressive guy in the frame, so it’s unlikely that you’re a PP voter.
(d) That just leaves the political dinosaurs :) . With banking ties, fishing focus, their anti-EU stance and tough immigration stance (a good Right policy), I’d say they’re a good fit. The odd thing though is that they’ve not been around that long, which makes me older than you. Wierd :) . Unless you transferred your allegiance from the Progressives?
Oh, and Conservative for me.
“This “Final and legally binding arbitration” thing of his, is probably be the best example. He has been repeating this nonsense for months, although the facts are publicly available. ””
The reason why I ignored your comment on this matter is that you refer to a legal opinion about the Icesave dispute posted on an Icelandic website.
It is NOT the arbitration decision of the EFTA court, which is entirely different. I told you this before but you decided to ignore it, as such I feel free to ignore you on the subject.
The EFTA arbitration decided that Iceland was liable for the depositors guarantee, and that was deemed to be the legally BINDING and FINAL dsescision of the EFTA court.
The proof that this is truely the case is that it has been accepted by the Icelandic government of ALL colours as they have NOT tried to change it in any court of law.
@Leo,
Yes it is true that readers of NRC (or any single newspaper) are not a real cross section of the dutch population.
However, the point is that Iceland WANTS to repay. Rejection of the present law, which president Grimsson refused to sign, means that the law from last summer comes into force which means repayment of the icesave loan too,but with amendments, added by Althing.
These amendments have the purpose to avoid national bankruptcy.
One must be realistic: forcing Iceland into bankruptcy (what would be the likely result of repayment without amendments) does not help anybody.
Unfortunately for the icelanders their goberment is doing a very bad PR job. Many people outside of Iceland still seem to believe that Iceland tries to run away from its obligations, which is not true.
The icelandic goberment has done very little to make the icelandic situation clear abroad, concentrating mostly on the domestic public opinion.
All that Johanna, the prime minister has done, was writing an open letter to a newspaper in the UK and one in NL, a letter that attracted little atttention and impressed nobody. This is not enough.
@Fisy and Bromley: I can safely say that I never voted for Wouter Bos (whom I consider a liar, even by the very low standards of politicians) or his party and I dislike the christian democrats even more.
Fisy said:
“On Jan 11, 2010, Terry said:
“>..Iceland has a population of just 300,000 people, and it’s banking system has recently grown through hedge-fund like speculation on the internation markets rather than a strong savings base (a la Northern Rock). A chain breaks at its weakest link, and in the international banking system, Iceland is looking very weak indeed.
________________________________________
Last edited by paulpaul1308; 02-04-2008 at 10:23 AM..
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=9810317#post9810317
>But Iceland continued to to feign credibility. ”
So if this posted in April 2008 and there are many other like it, why did UK people choose of own free will to deposit in IceSave and Kautphing Edge ?
And same goes for bond holder.
Why Mike UK Nordic analyst ( as representative of professional investor ) did those that bought bonds * buy * then during 2008 ?
Did Icelandic government have mind control machine in lava fields of Keflavík sending out waves across sea ?
Why ?
Well Fisy, because we, the regular depositor got the marketing line, and not the information that was circulating within the realms of the people knowledgeable enough to understand the complexity of the Icelandic situation.
Fisy – if you were a UK depositor, acting in good faith – the line spun was (sorry to repeat) – was an example of the information available to UK depositors through independent sources.
To quote from one popular source.
>”Icesave is a member of the financial services compensation scheme (FSCS).
All money in UK savings accounts, cash ISAs and current accounts are protected up to the first £35,000 put in there, in the unlikely event it went bust. Icesave is no different in that respect.
Icesave has opted for the ‘passport exemption’.
However, Icesave is one of a few EEA (European Econmic Area) banks, which has the passport exemption (there’s a full list in the Safe Savings guide). This means that in the unlikely event it went bust, the first E20,000 needs to be reclaimed from the Icelandic compensation system not the UK system. The remainder of the £35,000 would still come from the UK scheme.
Add this exemption together with the fact the Icelandic financial system is exposed to the crunch and this has caused a small minority of people to wobble.
It’s interesting to note that this doesn’t seem to be happening, to the same extent with Kaupthing, the current highest interest savings account.
While it too is a bank of Icelandic origin, when UK savers put their money in, they’re in fact doing it with its UK banking arm, which has the standard FSCS protection as it hasn’t chosen the exemption.
In the unlikely event of problems; how would the passport protection work?
This is something we’ve raised with Icesave; below is its response, which was backed up by a document from the Icelandic Financial Services Association; confirming the legal strength of the info.
“Icelandic banks pay into a fund which is set aside to be paid out for compensation should it be needed – the UK scheme doesn’t have this and could therefore technically take longer than the Icelandic scheme!” (Note from Martin: The UK scheme is set up to call money in if needed, rather than work on a pot of money system).
All talk of compensation schemes is purely hypothetical because they have never been used, but given the above, there is no reason to assume that the Icelandic scheme would be any more complicated or take longer.
In the extremely unlikely event that the Icelandic government wasn’t in a position to meet all claims, all the Nordic countries have an arrangement where they will step in and help any one of the participating countries that are in trouble so there is an additional layer of reassurance and cover.
If you could make it clear that Icesave customers are fully protected up to £35k the same as customers of any UK bank and that they will be paid as quickly I’d be very grateful!”
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/04/01/icesave-how-safe-are-your-savings-facts-and-myths/
Again, sorry to repeat this – but I will do so, as long as posters refer to those who deposited in IceSave as greedy ‘investors’.
As to your question… Why? Again Fisy simply to achieve a good return on my deposit – put in a UK branch of a bank that purported to be credible – with the support of the Icelandic regulator, and Iceland wasn’t unique in offering this level of interest – also others doing so although being foreign banks did so under the UK compensation scheme. However, I trusted Iceland, even though it used passport exemption.
Yes – I would have been deterred from depositing had I had the ‘inside track info,’ – but that begs the question as to why we didn’t.
Niels informed us, that the NL regulators, amid concerns relative to Iclelandic Banking activities – attempted to reach a ‘private’ agreement restricting the operations of deposit taking. The agreement was disregarded by IceSave as they continued to ‘hoover up’ foreign deposits. Should you challenge this Fisy, then as Niels has commented much upon this -perhaps he could supply references? Sorry – Fisy, whilst I agree with you relating to Icenews search facilities – you seem to have resolved this by building your own database??
If IceSave disregarded NL concerns – discussed privately – how would Icelandic government, banks and regulators have reacted if NL/UK authorities had publicly stated their concerns at an earlier stage.
Well, I –would guess that this would have precipitated a collapse of Icelandic Banks at an earlier stage, with Iceland yelping – ‘UK Beelzebub’ more so than now.
@ Niels
but how has it been established that the current deal would bankrupt Iceland? I know the Icelanders yell doom and gloom, but to be honest, they don’t seem to be the worlds biggest experts on financial matters to me, or they wouldn’t be in this mess, now would they?
What does the IMF say about Icelands capacity to repay? Did anyone ever check into that? They want to loan money to Iceland, and they are waiting for a UK/NL deal with Iceland if I read the news on this site correctly. So obviously they think they are gonna get repaid, even if there is a UK/NL deal. Now I don’t know how they think, but would they really loan money to Iceland if they didn’t think they would get it back? I can’t imagine they would just throw away money like that.
@Leo,
There has been a lot of discussion on this forum about the question whether Iceland could repay under the conditions of the agreement from last summer.
Here an example:
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/#comment-87014
and this thread might clear matters too:
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/09/02/icelandic-president-signs-icesave-deal/
Here is a link to the ‘icesave agreements’ of last summer and some discussion.
http://www.economicdisasterarea.com/index.php/features/the-icesave-agreements-pdf/
Basically the agreements are quite harsh for Iceland and provide numerous clauses which will enable the creditors (UK/NL) to take steps against Iceland and force Iceland to pay whatever the situation might be.
To put it simple: the amendments of Althing want to take the icelandic situation into account.For instance, the amount of repayment will depend on the situation of the icelandic economy.
Now off course Iceland will have to repay, but this should be done in a fair manner.
About IMF and other lenders, well, Iceland does have a lot of potential, especially when it comes to sustainable energy (which will be very big in the future).
Moreover the fishing grounds around Iceland still seem to be in a good situation while in other parts of the oceans all fish is rapidly being collected by industrialized fishing ships from countries like Japan and Spain.
Icelanders have the fear that foreign creditors will seize these assets if Iceland cannot meet the obligations which are imposed on it.
Apart from this the overall crisis management of the icelandic goberment has been very weak and the ‘persecution’ of the finacial wizzards who are responsible for this mess is far from convincing.
@ Niels
I am not convinced by any of these. The Icelandic central bank is not a very professional institution it seems. If I were to trust anyone on this, it would be the IMF. Haven’t they said anything on the loans and the repayment capacity of Iceland?
Good post Terry
The long and short of it is that I – like other ordinary joes who keep an eye on martin lewis and similar sites – had seen lots of warnings about the likes of Alliance and Leicester and their 12% interest rates (at one point) but the warnings about Iceland seem to have been few and hard to notice. If they were “industry” warnings the various regulators should have been warning the public not expecting them to have seen some obscure small article months before in some obscure place. I look at the business and financial news regularly and hand’t noticed Iceland as a problem until the summer of 2008. Stop calling us investors – like that John Aspden in the IOM.
To Terry:
>>>>As to your question… Why? Again Fisy simply to achieve a good return on my deposit – put in a UK branch of a bank that purported to be credible – with the support of the Icelandic regulator, and Iceland wasn’t unique in offering this level of interest – also others doing so although being foreign banks did so under the UK compensation scheme. However, I trusted Iceland, even though it used passport exemption.
The problem with this argument, is that although Landsbanki was an Icelandic bank, it did not automatically mean that the country ‘Iceland’ was running or guaranteeing it. It was not Iceland that was offering this interest, it was IceSave, which was a branch of the private bank Landsbanki. In same manner, it was IceSave that used the passport exemption, not the country Iceland.
Another way of looking at it, is that if for example HSBC got into real trouble, it should not be automatic that UK as a country was responsible for their actions. And if some other countries would try to demand that UK taxpayers would pay for all the deposits of HSBC (1.1 trillion dollars), you would probably not be too happy with it either.
“The problem with this argument, is that although Landsbanki was an Icelandic bank, it did not automatically mean that the country ‘Iceland’ was running or guaranteeing it.”
Not true. Icelandic banks were – and still are – guaranteed by the icelandic government. It could also be argued that Iceland was running the banks – as the regulator they could tell them to do ANYTHING they desired. The Icelandic banks are now being run by the icelandic government in every sense.
Anyway, Iceland has guaranteed domestic depositors of the same bank, so its a non issue, the liability has been accepted. Also, Icelandic ministers have give written and verbal promises to pay the money.
“Another way of looking at it, is that if for example HSBC got into real trouble, it should not be automatic that UK as a country was responsible for their actions. And if some other countries would try to demand that UK taxpayers would pay for all the deposits of HSBC (1.1 trillion dollars), you would probably not be too happy with it either.”
Of course the UK regulator would be responsible for guaranteeing all UK depositors, just as it was for UK depositors in Icelandic banks with branches here.
You are flogging a dead horse, Iceland is in, every sense, responsible for the icesave debt and it has acknowledged it.
@Leo,
Did you already read all this info?
You should keep in mind that the IMF does not care very much about the ability of a country to repay.
After all, ‘the ability to repay’ is a very stretchable expression.
For instance, in the times of Ceaucescu Romania easily repaid all its debts….at the expense of its own population which simply did not have anything to eat.
The IMF simply forces countries to repay by ‘recommending’ austerity measures on all imaginable fields like social spending, education, health care etc.
If you squeeze hard enough there will always still come out something.
They have been doing this in Argentina in the past and they are doing it now with Latvia.
@Bjarni,
But isn’t the problem the fact that Iceland nationalized its banks (including Landsbanki) in august 2008?
After this the icelandic state (as the owner of new and old Landsbanki) accepted the loans from the UK and NL which also makes them responsible for the repayment.
Brumley, I expect you to hold to your word and for you to correct Peter – London inaccurate posts above :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/09/eva-joly-to-dutch-media-netherlands-being-arrogant/comment-page-2/#comment-110433
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/09/eva-joly-to-dutch-media-netherlands-being-arrogant/comment-page-2/#comment-110553
>>>>Not true. Icelandic banks were – and still are – guaranteed by the icelandic government.
This may be your opinion, but it factually wrong. The Icelandic government guarantee was never in place, based on the 98/1999 laws regarding TIF that were in effect at the time.
The government guarantee was only accepted (with the amendments), when the 96/2009 laws were passed last August. Those laws will continue to be in effect, unless the new December 30 laws are accepted in the national referendum.
Leo did write :
>I am not convinced by any of these. The Icelandic central bank is not a very >professional institution it seems.
Kaarlo Jännäri report is worth reading. Of our instiutution it was FME ( our version of Financial Services Authority ) not our Central Bank that was one that did not under stand systemic risks.
http://eng.forsaetisraduneyti.is/news-and-articles/nr/3581
He was former Director General of the Financial Supervision Authority in Finland and did write this report on our regulations and institution.
” In November 2008, as part of its Stand-By Arrangement with the International Monetary Fund, the Icelandic Government undertook to invite an experienced bank supervisor to assess the regulatory framework and supervisory practices in Iceland and to propose needed changes. ”
So his report is worth reading.
As to reports from Icelandic Central Bank recently under the Norwegian Left Green Director well they did provide some very original research on how the IceSave loan would be okay for the economy. Original as in unproven.
So in that I agree with you. That report saying it was offordable was very dubious.
However better analysis was done by our own poster here Bjarni :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/06/21/protests-in-iceland/#comment-82896
and also on ” Ragnar Hall ” issue that rapacious UK and Dutch governments do want badly and does add many hundred millions of EURs on :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/10/iceland’s-icesave-debt-how-much-is-too-much/#comment-110021
>If I were to trust anyone on this, it would be the IMF. Haven’t they said
>anything on the loans and the repayment capacity of Iceland?
The IMF is acting as the debt collector of UK and Holland. They don’t care about the sovereign default of Iceland and payability.
To Niels:
>>>>But isn’t the problem the fact that Iceland nationalized its banks (including Landsbanki) in august 2008? After this the icelandic state (as the owner of new and old Landsbanki) accepted the loans from the UK and NL which also makes them responsible for the repayment.
The Icelandic government is NOT the owner of old Landsbanki, only the new one. Instead the old Landsbanki is now bankrupt and is going through its winding-up process to collect assets for payment to its priority claimants (FSCS/DNB). The Icelandic goverment will not receive any funds from the old Landsbanki.
Iceland has not yet officially accepted the ‘loans’ from UK/NL. Iceland instead passed the laws 96/2009 last August, that authorized it to take on the guarantee for the loans, but this was with the amendments which have not been accepted yet by the UK/NL governments. Until they do the guarantee is not in effect.
If the new December 2009 laws are not accepted in the national referendum, the ball will go back to UK/NL court. They can then decide if they still want to accept the August 2009 Icesave guarantee with the amendsments, or terminate the June 2009 Icesave agreements and start over.
@ Fisy
I’m sorry, but what you say about the IMF has to be incorrect. They want to loan a lot of money to Iceland.
Or are you seriously suggesting that they would first promote a loan-agreement between Iceland and the UK/NL which would bankrupt Iceland, and then put their own money into Iceland as well, effectively guaranteeing that they won’t be repaid themselves either? I simply cannot believe that.
If the IMF wants Iceland to take that loan with UK/NL and then still wants to loan its own money to Iceland, they must believe that Iceland can repay its loans. Or otherwise they would be incredibly stupid.
To Leo:
>>>>Or otherwise they would be incredibly stupid.
No argument there! :-)
>Brumley, I expect you to hold to your word and for you to correct Peter – London inaccurate posts above
I don’t think that I gave my word. I merely pointed out that I’d said that I thought he was wrong (and said it again whilst doing it).
But, if you want, I promise to fight the evil that is Peter and the binding arbitration statement. Just as soon as you tell me why you call me “Brumley” :D .