The Icelandic government would most like the Norwegians, Germans or French to act as intermediaries in any renegotiation of the Icesave deal with the Netherlands and the UK.
This is what Einar Karl Haraldsson, information officer at the Icelandic Prime Minister’s office said yesterday in an interview with the Norwegian Dagbladet newspaper.
Stod 2 News reported that the government would ideally like the role of mediator to go to a Norwegian.
Icelandic Progressive Party MP, Siv Fridleifsdottir said in an interview with Dagbladet that the name of Jonas Gahr Store, Norwegian Foreign Minister, has come up regularly in conversation in Reykjavik. She would not, however, be drawn on who she thinks will eventually get the job if Icesave negotiations recommence.
Jonas Gahr Store told Dagbladet that he does not want to give a public opinion on the subject yet. He said that the Norwegian and Icelandic governments are in regular close contact, but would not say specifically if Icesave negotiations are among topics of conversation.
dear all!
please,
when did a Norwegian envoy make a successful job! pls tell when and where… thus someone who is prepared to sacrifice his/hers “life” for Iceland – and you have someone who will do a good job for us.
Karlsson. A mediator cannot, by definition, be an envoy. Any mediator prepared to sacrifice their life for Iceland must also be willing to sacrifice their life for the UK, the NL & possibly the EU.
Norwegian or Swiss as mediator / arbitrator does make the most sense.
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.
More here :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/11/is-a-mediator-needed-to-settle-icesave/comment-page-1/#comment-109955
NORWAY IS IN NO POSITION TO ADVICE ICELAND ABOUT ICESAVE PROBLEM NORWAY IS SHAMELESS IN THE NAME OF PEACE OF AWARDING NOBEL PEACE PRICE TO OBAMA AND HE SEND 30,000.00 TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN IN THE NAME OF PEACE NORWAY ALSO SELLS ARMS TO COUNTRIES OF CONFLICT AND NORWAY HELP POLLUTE THE WORLD IN OIL EXPLORATION.WHAT A JOKE
According to what i have heard some foreign nation has offered to mediate and its not Norway, it would be pointless and stupid to ask or accept a nation like Norway, Sweden, Finland or Denmark to mediate because they have been behind UK/NL from the start,
it would have to be someone that is not involved in this and preferably not a European nation,
what i would want to do at this stage is to wait until after the referendum when the deal has been rejected and then refuse to pay,
not even the 20k and demand to take this matter to court.
The results of this would possibly benefit other nations as well who are in a similar position, like Ireland and the baltic states,
we could end up helping them out of the hole they are in, i wonder what kind of deals they have been making related to their debts,
the EU is starting to fall apart because of bankruptcys of states like Greece, Spain, the baltic states and UK, what if there is no
depositor guarantee on any accounts in Europe :)
What people need to realize is when you take your money to the bank you are lending the bank money, its not keeping it for you,
its also highly questionable if your money has any guarantee and the size of a bankruptcy or bank run will determine if you get anything back at all, lots of money can be printed and issued as debt(for you to pay)to rescue banks but there is a limit to that like everything else,
this means every cent deposited into a bank can be lost, and the very questionable guarantee is far from being 100% relyable.
Axel writes:
“What people need to realize is when you take your money to the bank you are lending the bank money, its not keeping it for you,”
Wrong.
http://eng.efnahagsraduneyti.is/laws-and-regulations//nr/2974
See Article 3, and I quote it for you Axel:
“Article 3 Activities subject to operating licences
The following activities shall be subject to operating licences pursuant to this Act:
1. Receipt of repayable funds from the public:
a. Deposits”
So the bank is acting in a safekeeping mode since the money is a receipt which is repayable. You are not lending, you are DEPOSITING. It’s what the word means! It is in fact one of the key definitions of a bank : a deposit-taking institution.
People who lend money receive a bond which states the terms and conditions under which the bond is made. (Here are some bonds on offer by a retail outlet in the UK:
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/investments/fixed-term-bonds/default.htm)
People who want to invest put their money into INVESTMENT funds. Again the clue is in the word.
(Here are some INVESTMENT opportunities for you with Schroders
http://www.schroders.com/ukinvestor/fund-range/investment-trusts)
Or is this getting too tricky?
You’ve obviously been in Iceland too long Axel.
As Mike Nordic UK Analyst does say, demand deposits in banks is taken as a specific thing.
But Axel is correct that you are lending bank money so it will lend it out again.
In case of Icelandic banks as is case of majority of banks they did make money from the spread ( the difference ) between short term interest rates ( they pay to depositors ) and long term interest rates ( that they do get from those they do loan on the money to ).
What can be created by government enforced deposit insurances is the disturbances of depositor behaviors ( the so called ” moral hazard “) that does from from the blind faith in the deposit insurance even when all the other factors should point to caution and to treat the deposit as an investment with the risks that come from that.
A valid question related to this is, when does an interest bearing instrument ( whatever it is ) stop being viewed as simple demand deposit and because of its interest premium become an investment ?
I would say that is above around 5% per year because that is rate of growth averaged over time that you can get just by buying passively in the stock market.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/bbc-newsnight-interview-with-the-icelandic-president/comment-page-1/#comment-109284
Mike (UK Nordic analyst) writes:
>What people need to realize is when you take your money to the bank you are lending the bank money, its not keeping it for you,”
“Wrong.”
I was taken aback by Axels claim, so I had a look on Wiki at ‘Deposit Accounts’, and came across the below quote within the section headed ‘Legal Framework’.
>”The bank’s financial statement reflects the economic substance of the transaction — which is the bank has actually borrowed $100 from its depositor and has contractually obliged itself to repay the customer according to the terms of the demand deposit account agreement. To offset this deposit liability, the bank now owns the actual, physical funds deposited, and shows those funds as an asset of the bank.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit_account
Now I know Wiki if not a definitive source, but wording does seem to support Axel’s assertion??
PS I understand the principles of Fractional Reserve Banking (I think), but it was particularly the last sentence re ownership of funds that I don’t follow.
Axel’s version is not that far off, the Bank dictate the terms of the deposit account and can do what ever they want with that money.
A bank deposit savings account is subject to the conditions imposed upon it by the bank, which both parties are bound.
The Bank promises to repay the deposit on demand only according to the restrictive conditions which govern the account. When the Bank collapses then you move on to focus very closely on the terms of the deposit protection insurance.
There is an element of investor risk on those deposits not covered by the deposit insurance when the bank collapses.
And as we have seen, if the UK and Dutch had not stepped in early (or some would say very late) the insurance funds were not enough to cover the deposit guarantee.
Terry – Note that categorisation of items within financial statements does not necessarily reflect the full legal status of those items. You are talking about accounting standards, that’s all.
Why would UK/NL agree to a mediator? The way things seem to be, if the result of the mediation is not to the Icelanders liking, they will just push their president to put it to a referendum again and the whole circus starts all over again.
It is getting obvious that the only result that Icelanders are willing to accept is one that favours them. So I see no reason for the UK or NL to start a new mediation which might lead to new compromises on their part, when it is clear that the Icelandic government cannot be trusted to be able to keep its word, because the Icelandic population is too obstinate to accept a deal.
Leo says:
“Why would UK/NL agree to a mediator? ”
Well, the they are not. There isn’t any sign that there will be any further discussion on Icesave. This talk of a mediator is another example of the Icelandic ‘politicians’ feeding crap to their electorate in order to avoid telling the truth.
As you say, further discussion with Iceland is pointless, the government doesn’t represent the people. The only person worth speaking to is the Icelandic President, as powerless as he is, he is the most powerful person in Iceland.
UK/NL should simply let Iceland stew for the 7 year grace period and then go after the debt plus interest as per the agreement(which has been agreed by the Althingi as I understand it).