Eva Joly, adviser to Iceland’s special prosecutor into the banking crisis, said on Icelandic television yesterday that the tide of international public opinion regarding Icesave seems to be swinging in Iceland’s favour.
She said the sensible thing for the Icelandic government to do next would be to engage a third party to help draft an entirely new Icesave agreement which is fair on all involved. She recommended Germany, France and Spain as possible neutral third parties.
Iceland’s finance minister, Steingrimur J. Sigfusson said in a separate interview later on that the idea is not being dismissed out of hand; but that the Netherlands and the UK would have to agree to it first and formal discussions would need to take place to discuss the idea of third-party renegotiation.
France, Germany or Spain, there won’t be much of impartiality…
Steingrimur J. Sigfusson said in a separate interview later on that the idea is not being dismissed out of hand; but that the Netherlands and the UK would have to agree to it first
Wrong Steingrimur, you are going to demand it and stop being Mr nice guy, show that you have balls. Otherwise the UK and Holland will keep on walking over you.
And the mediation should also include the government of the Isle of Man – on the basis that depositors in Kaupthing Isle of Man who were sacrificed to the advantage of the UK government, who acted to forestall a threat from Iceland, should be included in the 100% recompensation package, being the only retail depositors not compensated 100% so far and who would have been safe had the UK FSA not discarded usual reporting procedures to allow Brown’s “sting” or if Iceland had not used discriminatory depositor protection laws.
Germany, France and Spain are neutral now? Have I missed something?
And since when do we care about international public opinion? Public opinion doesn’t matter for the EU, they have proven that over and over.
“Eva Joly, adviser to Iceland’s special prosecutor into the banking crisis, said on Icelandic television yesterday that the tide of international public opinion regarding Icesave seems to be swinging in Iceland’s favour.”
President Grimsson’s decision to put the referendum to a vote of the people was the right one. Not only was it the proper course of action, but it brought the matter to the world’s attention once again. The citizens of Iceland should in no way be expected to pay for the high-risk activities of a handful of bankers. Keep fighting for justice, citizens of Iceland! Vote “No”!
Iceland lost vast amounts of other peoples money because of lunatic investment strategies coupled with totally inadequate government oversight of its banking sector. Little wonder that so many nations are, let’s say “peeved”, at Iceland and not exactly in the most charitible frame of mind towards Icesave.
From the other perspective though, investors are expected to demonstrate at least a little intelligence. They should not have kept all their eggs in one basket, so to speak, and should have been suspicious about the too-good-to-be-true interest and return rates Icelandic banks were offering.
So … offer them half their money back.
An arbitrator in Norway or Switzerland would be best.
They have experts and judges with knowledge of both EFTA and EU laws/regulations.
Mediation experts in most EU states only know it from EU side.
EEA is one market but EU and EFTA (Norway, Iceland) are slightly different. For example EFTA regulated entity has slightly different trust when it starts to work in EU member state; password scheme not completely automatic as it is for EU memberstate based financial institution, etc.
..and of course regulations for EFTA members under the EFTA Court not European Court of Justice. And instead of under EU commission are under EFTA Surveilliance Authority.
EU commission already did try its kangeroo court ” binding arbitration ” in November 2008 against Icelandic government and it was so clearly unfair that Icelandic government did with draw before the process convened+. Read specifics here :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/#comment-87719 EFTA Surveillance Authority did distance them selves from opinion and process
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/#comment-87236 Analysis of what EU appointees opinion did say
+http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/#comment-87419 withdrawal letter from Icelandic financial minister
For new readers, because of poor search facility here at IceNews, here is a link to an index of posts about this whole Landsbanki/ IceSave/ Landsbanki Guernsey, Kaupthing/ Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander/ Kaupthing Singer Friedlander Isle of Man situation :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/icesave-agreement-rejected-by-icelandic-president/#comment-108800 Bjarni did index..
and
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/icesave-agreement-rejected-by-icelandic-president/#comment-109680 And I did follow up with new links
Here are two currently active threads where matters of the extortionate interest rate to be charged by UK and Holland+ ( and some UK governernment propgandist trying they best ) and how the whole credit rating of Iceland was effected by Brown and Darling actions++
+http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/the-emergence-of-icesave-empathy-for-iceland-in-uk-media/comment-page-2/#comment-109447 discussions of 5.5% interest rate and ” double claims ” issue
++http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/icesave-should-not-sour-nordic-relations-iceland-fm/#comment-109421
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/fitch-lowers-iceland-credit-rating-to-junk/comment-page-1/
Fisy, don’t forget that EFTA arbitration, even with Iceland’s selection of one of the arbitrators, didn’t go to its liking so Iceland attempted to with draw from the process (unsuccessfully).
I don’t expect a third party to give Iceland a better deal than has already been offered. The interest rate is good, but looking lower that
Iceland’s junk status would justify. The seven year grace period is generous and could be negotiated away.
The UK and NL option always remains to demand immediate repayment of the debt, Iceland can then be free to determine its own lending criteria with a nedw borrow of sell off whatever assets its has.
I find the idea that because a regulated bank offered say 6.75 percent as against say 5.7 in a very conservative bank and somewhere between the 2 in lots of other regulated banks, with sensible reasons for the difference (supposed efficiency) someone who was merely a bank depositor is to be branded a “risk-chaser” who deserves to lose their money. The expectation of consumers is that national governments set up regulators who keep banks within limits whereby they may risk losing money to their shareholders but not losing the deposits given to them by their customers. Where national regulators fail to exercise effective oversight then national governments should pay compensation. The compensation each government should carry should be based on their degree of responsibility and culpability. In Kaupthing’s case, it seems the London/Isle of Man organisation collapsed because of the mis-regulation by FSA London. The UK government had to take it down because of that and to ignore civilised and standard reporting practices with IOM regulator thereby causing significant losses to IOM depositors by keeping the IOM money in London, rather than reporting properly in advance to allow it to be returned to IOM. Brown should accept that he has done a double injustice to the IOM depositors and compensate them. Now.
>Fisy, don’t forget that EFTA arbitration, even with Iceland’s selection of one of the arbitrators, didn’t go to its liking so Iceland attempted to with draw from the process (unsuccessfully).
It still amazes me how Peter London does try it yet again ( to deny it was not binding arbitration for 17th time ) even though a link to the specific facts are again posted above ie. :
>http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/#comment-87236 Analysis of what EU appointees opinion dated November 7, 2008 did say :
“This opinion is limited to addressing this specific question [i.e. "the obligations of Iceland under the Deposit Guarantee Directive 94/19/EC"]. It is given in the personal capacity of the nominees and does not commit their respective appointing authorities.”
>The UK and NL option always remains to demand immediate repayment of the debt,
In that case they are going to have to sue us.
In court.
Here in Iceland. Then quickly decision of settlement would go upto EFTA Court for decision and ruling.
Which is just fine. To court!
Because then all the facts of this case can come out and all will find out that a judge will not look so kindly on facts of case+. Other wise do you not think that UK and Holland would already have taken case to court ?
+http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/the-emergence-of-icesave-empathy-for-iceland-in-uk-media/comment-page-1/#comment-109505
But it still does amaze me that Uk and Dutch government are so greedy about ” Ragnar Hall ” issue that they turned us down ewhen we did * agree * to pay they extortionous 5.5% interest through our August law.
There was no justification for the Landsbanki Freezing order.
It has not even been *hinted * at by the UK Treausury, Darling or Sants why the decision was made.
Even in testimony to UK House of Commons ( UK parliament ) the question was not answered. And Darling was censured by member of his own parlimentary party.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/government-bill-for-a-national-referendum-on-icesave-legislation/#comment-109748
Eva Joly should focus on her job which is intended to ensure that asset recovery is maximized. If that happens then the actual amount that Icelanders have to repay under the Icesave deal will be much smaller. There is too much focus by Icelanders on the terms of the deal and not enough focus on recovering assets from the pyramid scheme bankers and businessmen.
Please remember that in any arbitration, the other party can also submit matters for arbitration. This means that Iceland cannot cherry-pick the bits it thinks it can win a case on, because it may lose the bigger argument on other matters raised by the UK and Dutch Governments. The stakes are very high for Iceland if it chooses to go to arbitration etc. If Iceland loses arguments and in doing so is indicating that it was prepared to default on international financial commitments, it will find it very difficult to obtain future international financing or inward investment because of the perceived default risk. 5.5% is a fair and reasonable deal. It is less than the Icesave and EDGE interest rates, it is 4.5% less than the Icelandic Central Bank lending rate which the UK and Dutch governments may argue should be the norm for loans involving Iceland,and it is better than Iceland could get if it was to issue bonds on the international market.
“And since when do we care about international public opinion? Public opinion doesn’t matter for the EU, they have proven that over and over.”
Nice indeed!! Not on EU only but most nations rule by the mob.
We are witnessing the best entertainment in Icelandic history up to now.
Oh, be serious: does anyone serious expect that Iceland will do anything which they prefer not to do, whether it is passed by their legislators, adjudged by a court, awarded by an arbitral tribunal, or proposed by a mediator ? Stop wasting our time and grow up.
One thing I would like to mention here in paralell to what steveservaes says above, that I hope there are people on this boards that do member the days before 94/19/EC did distort the banking markets.
The old days before then when people did not blindly think that regulator will do they jobs.
And when instead of this rush to find best instant accesses account with best rate instead to get good rate you would have to tie up you money in something NOT instant access.
This deposit guarantee schemes they are just a false sense of security and just do distort the banks and consumer behaviors.
Moral hazard is created at best or in worst cases as we have already seen we gets this pumped up free money risk chasing situation where the IceSave branch can attract so much money * only * because it has the deposit guarantee schemes.
( And just so there no misunderstanding I believe you can not accuse Kaupthing Isle of Man or Landsbanki Gurneseys depositors as being ” risk chaser ” — they had they money in these places for different reasons; usually becasue result of stupid UK money laundering goldplated regualtions make it difficult for British ex-pat to open bank accounts at home. )
Fish:
“In that case they are going to have to sue us.
In court.
Here in Iceland. Then quickly decision of settlement would go upto EFTA Court for decision and ruling.
Which is just fine. To court!”
No, they don’t. They can seize assets in any jurisdiction using the local courts, in the EU, US etc. There will be no chance of Iceland stopping seizure as EU (EFTA Court) has already decided, and Iceland has agreed, on Icelandic liability. The debt is a due and payment has to be made – failure to pay makes immediate repayment an option and from that seizure for default.
If Iceland had any legal option then they would have pursued it – neither political party, when in power, did so.
So stop dreaming about a day in court – it won’t happen.
“This deposit guarantee schemes they are just a false sense of security and just do distort the banks and consumer behaviors.”
Nothing of the sort, a guarantee is un-breakable and has to be paid. If its a not then the word cannot be applied, its would be fraudulent.
You had the temerity in the past to suggest that the Icelandic banks were well run, yet you seem happy to state that they were committing fraud on their depositors and this was a perfectly acceptable situation??
If Icelanders vote to reject the bill, then it’ll probably go to arbitration. Should be an interesting case, but I wonder if the result will be any different to last arbitration attempt…
To Peter – London:
>>>>There will be no chance of Iceland stopping seizure as EU (EFTA Court) has already decided, and Iceland has agreed, on Icelandic liability.
Exactly what EU (EFTA Court) decision are you referring too?
Please provide actual references and quotes, so we can determine, if this is just your opinion or a real fact.
Yes totally agree that Depositors who enjoyed 5.8% should loose all their money for the following
1) Believing in European regulation
2) Believing in reports supporting those banks as AAA rated higher than Barclays and Lloyds amongst a few names of reputable banks.
3) Trusting Iceland as a Nordic country with dreams to succeed and a sense of fair play.
4) Trusting a bunch of amateurs playing a half whetted version of “Yes Minister” with an ex arsonist for a politician.
5) Believing that there could be an honest bank and an honest system.
Well, what have we left to Saddam to claim? Is this justice? To date none of those responsible have been punished or imprisoned for their crimes not in Iceland, Isle of Man or even the UK. So who is responsible? Ah you guessed it the poor depositor, the pensioner, those who fought so hard for what Europe stands for now!
I can’t make any sense of this other than it appears that those who had money in Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan seem to faired better since their banks have proven to be more reliable and their depositors still have acces to their money despite the fact that Pakistan was nearly bankrupt yet it still faired better than an advanced European country that failed miserably on that front.
What a sorry state of affair this really is.