Gylfi Magnusson, Iceland’s Minister of Economic Affairs, says that Dutch anger is understandable because they want to find culprits, just like the Icelandic government does.
Finance Minister Steingrimur J. Sigfusson told RUV he hopes internal Icesave investgations into Icesave in the Netherlands will not harm bilateral relations on the matter.
The Dutch Central Bank chief’s testimony in parliament has caused raised eyebrows – not least for his harsh words against the Icelandic government. Nout Wellink told parliament that Icelandic authorities had lied to him about the state of Icesave and of Landsbanki prior to the crash. He denied all personal responsibility, pointing to European laws, which he said made it impossible for him and his institution to look too deeply or to prevent Icesave establishing itself.
Magnusson stressed that current proceedings in the Netherlands and in Iceland are all aimed at answering questions, getting to the bottom of the issue and finding culprits.
Was it criminal (or just immoral) for the Icelandic authorities to lie to the Dutch in 2008?
PAY UP ICELANDIC STATE DO NOT LIE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE BEGGING IN HANDS FROM MONEY AROUND THE WORLD OTHERWISE YOUR ICELANDIC PASSPORT IS LIKE A THIRD WORLD PASSPORT VISA IN HAND BEFORE TRAVELLING ICELAND SHOULD NOT BECOME A NATION OF THIVES AND BLAME OTHER PEOPLE FOR ITS MISTAKE
The tenor of the Dutch is much more better now than before, milder and calmer. With this kind of relialization we can have better chances to resolve the Icesave problem. A problem which was created by a few cyber ingenious way of making easy money with the highest interest rate and forgetting the risk involve, by checking and cross checking| bach ground investigation of the source and or location of the bank, Landsbanki. Iceland is only a fishing ground and not an oil rich country, nor a mineral rich country with diamonds, gold, molybdemun or copper with lots of reserves.
Hopefully, the British will also feel the same before the coming May election when they will decide on the trustworthiness of Prime Minister Gordon Brown the greatest economic terrorist of all. He who imposed the anti terrorist law, blocked IMF loans, EU assistance, balance of trade and isolating Iceland from the global community because it is bankrupt.
We must not give up. Politicians come and go. Nations must survive for generations to come and hope that we will learn from this 2008 misfortune.
>He denied all personal responsibility, pointing to European laws, which he said made it impossible for him and his institution to look too deeply or to prevent Icesave establishing itself.
The facts on this EU regulations certainly do look to be with the Dutch.
Although Eva Joly does not agree :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/09/eva-joly-to-dutch-media-netherlands-being-arrogant/
“Was it criminal (or just immoral) for the Icelandic authorities to lie to the Dutch in 2008?”
You are jumping the gun here, you dont know if some one lied or not
take a cold shower and wait, some information will come out soon.
The LB assets will cover more than 90% of the 20k icesave deposit,
that will be paid, nothing more, and this icesave deal is going to the shredder, the most hopless and stupid deal ever written.
“you dont know if some one lied or not”
David Oddsson confirmed what the Dutch Minister said. So, either the Icelandic authorities lied back in 2008 or both Wellink and Oddsson are lying now.
I do understand why Sedlabank could not inform the dutch central bank because than perhaps the whole bankingsystem in Iceland could have stopped, Nout Welling did say the same for the dutch investigating committee that he talked to the minister of finance in the netherlands about Icesave and for the same reason, not collapsing the icelandic banking system, he said nothing.
I wished he should have told the truth in holland and warning the dutch clients not doing any business with the icesave branch because of the status of landsbanki. ( in loss position since 2007?)
At the moment there are some more foreign banks in the netherlands offering their services, but he (nout wellink) said he cannot do that due to regulations.
The LB assets will cover more than 90% of the 20k icesave deposit
Actually, according to Bjarni, not. The assets will cover 100% of the 20,887 euros per a/c guarantee amount, and 88% of total deposits. So, assuming the Ragnar Hall issue is solved in favour of Iceland (and as there’s already a clause allowing for that, that seems likely), the whole thing is about who pays the financing.
BTW Demy, the Dutch were even more vocal about linking Icesave to the IMF loan than the British. Probably a bit ****ed at Iceland for tearing up the MoU.
Why hasn’t this been mentioned?
“Norway Considers Granting Iceland Icesave Loan”
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16567&ew_0_a_id=357451
Problem solved, UK gets its money immediate and Norwegian taxpayers pay for Iceland’s debt.
Here is the email I sent last week to Iceland’s Prime Minister. No reply as yet. Hope I do hear from her.
—– Original Message —–
To: johanna@althingi.is
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:00 AM
Subject: your meeting with the EU on Thursday
Dear Johanna
I am writing to you after reading about your meeting with the EU on Thursday. I have great sympathy with the mood of the Icelandic people who rightly feel very sore in baling out the British and Dutch depositors through no fault of their own.
I am 73 now and am one of the big losers from having made had my life saving on deposit with Landsbanki in Guernsey. Although, I am now in London, I have lived in Scandinavia many years, have visited Iceland and have great admiration for the skill, know how and resilience of the Icelanders.
HOWEVER, FROM WHERE I SIT, I DO NOT SEE THAT ICELANDIC GOVERNMENT HAVE EITHER PROSECUTED, LEAVE ALONE PUNISHED ANY OF THE FAT CATS IN ICELAND WHO HAVE BENEFITED IMMENSELY FROM THIS ENORMOUS TRAGEDY. I BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE AT THE TOP IN ICELAND ARE HEAVILY IMPLICATED AND INVOLVED IN FIRST ENRICHING THEMSELVES AND THEN IN COVERING UP TO PROTECT THEIR BACK SIDES.
For a small country like Iceland, who are the people heading up the investigating commissions and how can the Icelandic voters and men in the street be sure that they have no axe to grind or protect their own back sides. Or the commission won’t be just a whitewash? Even if that’s not the case, what real punishments (in fund recovery) can be imposed to satisfy the many aged depositors who placed their life savings with Landsbanki? Some have died during the year and others are in great financial hardship.
In saying ‘’many Icelanders believe they were the victims of failures in EU legislation and that the burden of Iceland’s banking collapse was being unfairly distributed among the three countries involved’’ you would show greater integrity if you put your hands up and confessed that there were rotten apples at the top in Iceland, all colluding together at the expense of the man in the street and GO AFTER THESE IN A VIGOROUS WAY. AFTER ALL, THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL LIVING IN LUXURY.
Would be happy if you as the PM, the President and the people of Iceland do more to punish these Icelandic MADOFFS and others who conspired from the government. Sorry to say but smacks of a Banana Republic rather than a North European country with built in integrity.
Sincerely
I’m I the only one confused here? Why is a souvereign country suddenly responsible for for the debts of a private entreprise that was accepted as such by the recipient countries? If Holland and England had contracted with the country of Iceland itself it would have been different but this is one greedy private entreprise dealing with another and if I know a Brit standing with his mother in one had and a pound in the other – well, if he is called his mother drops first.
I’m I the only one confused here? Why is a souvereign country suddenly responsible for for the debts of a private entreprise that was accepted as such by the recipient countries?
Because of the EU/EEA passporting system.
As my last, more direct, comment on where you could put your general insult didn’t make it through, perhaps it would be within the posting guidelines for me to say that every [insert your nationality here] that I’ve met in the past has been tight. They always seem to have to leave just before it’s their turn to buy a round.
Jim wrote :
>David Oddsson confirmed what the Dutch Minister said. So, either the Icelandic authorities lied back in 2008 or both Wellink and Oddsson are lying now.
We have to be little care ful here because Davið confirmed that he did talk to Nout Wellink of Dutch DnB ( Central Bank ) the lying aspect is Wellink remark.
But of course it is this quote that is whipped up to act as a nice thin layer floating on top of the blame to deflect from the problems with Fortis and ING.
It is understandable that this Dutch politicians want to redirect blame away from they failures there. But it is distasteful that this ” lying ” quote is what does make the head lines.
More information facts and good fact based discussions here on this :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/02/04/secret-info-to-jeopardise-icesave-court-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-113398
@Hans
People deposited with Icelandic banks because the deposits were supposed to be covered to 20,000 Euros under a deposit insurance system. The Icelanic regulator failed to make sure that sufficient funds were available to cover this. I do note that not everybody agrees with this interpretation of the various directives (the wikipedia entry on “icesave dispute” in English has a good summary of the various legal arguments. There is also a question about what happens to the debt of the banks once they were nationalized by Iceland.
Please also keep the insults out of these posts, I found them personally very distasteful.
@Hans
Iceland accepted liability for the banks depositors by the act of protecting Icelandic depositors, this made them equally liable for depositors without the benefit of an Icelandic post code.
This is a non issue – Iceland lost this argument at EEA arbitration and neither government has disputed the courts decision.
“Iceland accepted liability for the banks depositors by the act of protecting Icelandic depositors, this made them equally liable for depositors without the benefit of an Icelandic post code”
The British got compensated up to 50k at the same time as Dutch depositors were getting 100k,
where is the equality in that ?, why does it take 2 Brits to equal 1 Dutch ?, is this the EU equality ?.
“This is a non issue – Iceland lost this argument at EEA arbitration and neither government has disputed the courts decision.”
That descion was made with Iceland absent, a joke.
Axel
“The British got compensated up to 50k at the same time as Dutch depositors were getting 100k,
where is the equality in that ?, why does it take 2 Brits to equal 1 Dutch ?, is this the EU equality ?.
“This is a non issue – Iceland lost this argument at EEA arbitration and neither government has disputed the courts decision.”
UK depositors were protect 100% by the BRITISH government, they didn’t have to do that but they did. Irrelevant in any case -they should of been treated identically to Icelandic depositors by the Icelandic government – but they were not.
“That descion was made with Iceland absent, a joke.”
Walking out when you realise you are going to lose doesn’t affect the result. And the fact is Iceland HAS accepted responsibility.
Peter London write:
” This is a non issue – Iceland lost this argument at EEA arbitration and neither government has disputed the courts decision. ”
Bjarni, he’s back with this false hood for I think.. yes its the 21st time..
You have got to give him points for sheer bare faced ness.
The British got compensated up to 50k at the same time as Dutch depositors were getting 100k, where is the equality in that ?, why does it take 2 Brits to equal 1 Dutch ?, is this the EU equality ?.
A very confused argument. For a start, British Icesavers were fully compensated. However, assuming you’re referring the the amount of compensation provided by the various deposit guarantee funds, the directive did not say that they have to be equal. Just that the miniumum 20,000 euros must be the same across the EU.
None of that relates to non-discrimination within the EU/EEA, so you’ll need to find another argument.
The main problem with the Dutch financial authorities testimony so far, is how much it has been lacking in specifics, at least in English speaking reports. Maybe they were more specifics in the original testimony that has not been reported. It would be nice if someone from Netherlands could point to transcripts of the actual testimony, so we can determine:
1. Who exactly in Iceland gave this information that was later considered to be lies.
2. What exactly did they say and what information did they give that they think was a lie.
3. What proof is there on record that the person giving the information, actually knew that it was wrong at the time (a necessary for it to be classified as a lie)
I am NOT necessarily saying that Dutch officials were not lied to. I just have not seen enough specifics yet to determine if it was indeed a lie.
It is quite possible that what was said by Icelandic officials they believed at the time to be true, and they were later proven to have been wrong. It is also possible that they were basing their reports on what the Icelandic banks reported, which we all now know were wrong. And finally it is important to remember that FME did not measure liquidity when they were testing the banks, but instead focused on capital ratios, and their profitability, which were on the face of it quite sound.
And, regarding any comments or statements by the central bank chairman, David Oddson, about how he “warned” everyone that the Icelandic banks were going to crash, it should be taken with certain grain of salt. Apparently these warnings were not done publicly, and it is very unclear who he actually gave them to.
His actions as the chairman during this period, do not reflect that any danger was imminent. It should also be noted, he just like everyone else involved, including the Dutch counterparts, has his own reputation to salvage, considering that the bankruptcy of the Central bank itself was bigger than any of the private banks.
Fisy
” ” This is a non issue – Iceland lost this argument at EEA arbitration and neither government has disputed the courts decision. ”
Bjarni, he’s back with this false hood for I think.. yes its the 21st time..”
If you read Axel’s comment
“That descion was made with Iceland absent, a joke.”
You will see that he too is fully aware of the arbitration decision that I’m taking about. You can deny it all you want, but I’ll say it again; Iceland took the case case to EEA arbitration and lost. Going into “legally binding and final arbitration” means you cannot dispute the result of that ruling.
Walking out, after discovering you are going to lose, doesn’t affect the result.
@Bjarmi,
I made some short translation from the timeline which was included in the dutch parliamentary report on the Icesave affair here :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/02/04/secret-info-to-jeopardise-icesave-court-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-113429
Names are not mentioned in this report (and i think that is a correct thing to do- after all a minor icelandic official might be forced by his superior to tell a lie and would receive blame afterwards which would be unfair).
But as you can see, on several occasions the dutch side was told that everything in iceland was fine while this was not the case.
You are right to say that an untruthful statement can only be classified as a lie when the person who told this knew the real situation and said the contrary on purpose.
And i think this is what Wellink meant by his statement:
” ‘I had long hoped he [Iceland's regulator] had not seen it,’ Wellink told the inquiry on Thursday. ‘But then I thought ‘we are being lied to’.’
IMO Wellink is saying: We knew that the icelandic side was making wrong statements and at first we believed they did so because of ignorance but now we have the opinion that they in fact deliberately lied to us.
Niels wrote :
>Names are not mentioned in this report (and i think that is a correct thing to do- after all a minor icelandic official might be forced by his superior to tell a lie and would receive blame afterwards which would be unfair).
It would be reasonable if the world head lines had not been “Iceland lied “.
Now the information should be released. Hope fully it will be covered in Black Report from Iceland special commitee coming out soon ( we can hope ).
To Niels,
>>>>I made some short translation from the timeline which was included in the dutch parliamentary report on the Icesave affair here
This is a really useful timeline you provided, that I had not noticed earlier. Here below I go through each of them, one-by-one, and try to provide context from the Icelandic perspective.
>>>>23-05-2008: Iceland claims it can easily compensate the first 20k of an account
I think there is no question, that this was actually stated both publicly and in private by Icelandic officials. At that time, the believe was in Iceland that the assets of the Icelandic banks, would always easily cover the 20K insurance, and in fact it does. Total assets recoverable from Landsbanki are now estimated to be 1164B ISK (6.4B Euros), while the 20K deposit insurance obligation is about 4B Euros. The trouble is of course, that it will take about 10 years to collect those 6.4B Euros (about 1B has now already been collected).
>>>>30-05-2008: Icesave puts false information on its website which is removed after complaints from DNB
There is no dispute that many of the statements made by Landsbanki in the run-up to the crash, including material placed on their web site, were factually wrong.
>>>>14-08-2008: being seriously worried about the situation of Landsbanki a delegation of DNB visits Iceland: they are told that basically everything is fine and that Icesave should even grow further.
The statements to DNB made by FME were probably, that they had done numerous stress tests on the Icelandic banks and they had all passed those tests with flying colors. This is the same what the FME regularly reported here in Iceland. Those tests were mainly on capital ratios, long-term funding, and impairments, NOT what would happen if credit lines for the banks would be completely cut off, or if their assets were frozen.
Icelandic banks furthermore, had very limited exposure to sub-prime debt, which was the most talked about issue at the time. Only later, after the crash, we unfortunately found out, that the Icelandic banks had invented their own type of sub-prime debt, which were basically unsecured loans to their management and owners. But in the run-up to the crash in October, this information was not publicly known.
At that time, very few officials and regulators in Iceland, probably realized how vulnerable Iceland really was, especially when it came to the real problem, LIQUIDITY (which the FME tests did not cover).
It was only after the fall of Lehman Brothers, when all credit lines had dried up completely, that some of the Icelandic officials maybe finally began to understand, what was really happening.
During this period, the Icelandic public continued to be completely ignorant of the situation, and only realized something bad had happened when the PM, Geir Haarde showed up on television with black background on October 6th, 2008 and gave his now famous doom-and-gloom national address that ended with “God bless Iceland”.
>>>>DNB also visits the icelandic fund for financial guarantees asking a number of questions which remain unanswered.
As for the DNB discussions with TIF (which I had not heard about before), it is likely that the answers were completely unsatisfactory, since everyone knew (or should have known), it didn’t have the money available to pay for Icesave.
>>>>15-08-2008: email from icelandic authorities expresses amazement at dutch worries since ‘ everything is fine with the icelandic economy’. The whole tone of this email is rather arrogant.
Until the actual October 2008 crash, everything indeed still looked “fine” with the Icelandic economy, at least on the surface. Most economic statistics (except maybe the stock market and the CDS) where still holding up relatively well, compared to many other countries. There were warnings from some leading economists outside Iceland, but those were not being listened to and basically ignored (classic bubble behavior).
Most of the attention in Iceland (including the politicians), was instead on the Olympics, where the national handball team was on to winning the first ever silver medal ever for Iceland, and trying to get the seat at the UN security council. Potential trouble for private banks in other countries was simply not considered being very important topic at the time.
>>>>27-08-2008: Landsvanki delegation visits DNB giving presentation, again claiming that everything is fine. Landsbanki delegation makes a rather unclear offer for the formation of some pool of liquidity. DNB answers that this does not solve the fundamental problem of the entire financial sysem in Iceland.
Furthermore DNB expresses its frustration because Icesave continues to attract more depositors in spite of the fact that they have been told to stop with this.
It is clear that the Landsbanki management was definitely drinking their own “Kool-aid”, and believed everyone else was wrong, including the dutch regulators. The question is, whether DNB could, according to EU regulations, actually “order” the Landsbanki to stop taking deposits, or just “ask” them to do so.
>>>>23-09-2008: letter from Landsbanki to DNB. Landbanki uses legal arguments in order to defend itself against dutch demands to stop its expansion. Landsbanki uses EU laws to block this demand from DNB and continues to claim that there is no reason to worry about the icelandic economy.
This is something we have covered several times before here on Icenews, is that the expansion of Landsbanki and the other Icelandic banks into other EU countries, was probably perfectly legal according to the EU regulations at the time.
The question remains, did the regulators in UK/NL/Iceland have the necessary legal framework to actually regulate and otherwise supervise those banks? What should be the exact role and responsibilities of the guest country vs. the host country regulators, when a bank expands most of their operations to another country?
There are of course different opinions on this in each country (everybody is basically passing the buck), but at least EU is now hopefully working on clarifying this point with new regulations.
As far as I can see from this time-line, is that most of the complaints by DNB are more on behavior and statements of Landsbanki management, rather than the Icelandic regulators.
What I am looking for are the actual quoted statements made by Icelandic officials, that can be shown to be outright lies, not just their own mistaken believes or basic incompetence, which is now pretty much proven.
What I understand from Dutch officials in their testimony, is that they are contending that the Icelandic officials actually outright LIED to them.
Peter London did post his false hood nonsense for 22nd time :
> ” but I’ll say it again; Iceland took the case case to EEA arbitration and lost. >Going into “legally binding and final arbitration” means you cannot dispute the result of that ruling.
>Walking out, after discovering you are going to lose, doesn’t affect the result. ”
EU commission 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
Good post there from Bjarni, right up there with Niels posts, that is what does make IceNews great.
Bjarni wrote :
>The question remains, did the regulators in UK/NL/Iceland have the necessary legal framework to actually regulate and otherwise supervise those banks? What should be the exact role and responsibilities of the guest country vs. the host country regulators, when a bank expands most of their operations to another country?
>There are of course different opinions on this in each country (everybody is basically passing the buck), but at least EU is now hopefully working on clarifying this point with new regulations.
>As far as I can see from this time-line, is that most of the complaints by DNB are more on behavior and statements of Landsbanki management, rather than the Icelandic regulators.
>What I am looking for are the actual quoted statements made by Icelandic officials, that can be shown to be outright lies, not just their own mistaken believes or basic incompetence, which is now pretty much proven.
>What I understand from Dutch officials in their testimony, is that they are contending that the Icelandic officials actually outright LIED to them.
This is the main point and issue I have with Mr Wellink testimony and how it has been reported in the press.
Landsbanki did not and does not represent Icelandic government or people.
So what Landsbanki staff did say is one thing.
But if an actual official ( such as Björgvin G. Sigurðsson Minister of Trade ) or one of the FME directors like the Director General Jónas Fr. Jónsson did say things that is very much another.
And many does want to know.
To Niels:
One extra point I forgot to mention in the first 23-05-08 comment.
The 1164B ISK (6.4B Euros) is of course the asset estimation from the Landsbanki winding-up board AFTER the crash. At that time, the most recent financial statement (Q1, 2008) put the assets of Landsbanki at 3836B ISK (31.7B Euros at exchange rate 121 ISK/EUR). The Icesave deposits were then still considerable lower than what they ended up being at the crash in October 2008 (7.3B Euros, 4.0B Euros below 20K).
From this, it is relatively easy to understand why the Icelandic officials somewhat naively thought covering the 20K deposit insurance obligation, which was maybe 3B Euros at the time, could be “easily” compensated from the then estimated Landsbanki assets of over 31B Euros.
It was only AFTER the complete crash of the banking system in Iceland, that most of the assets of Landsbanki where written off, leaving only approximately 6.4B Euros to cover the Icesave deposits.
“>Going into “legally binding and final arbitration” means you cannot dispute the result of that ruling.
>Walking out, after discovering you are going to lose, doesn’t affect the result. ””
Fisy, none of those links works, but from memory I’ll remind you again. Iceland joined the EEA and agreed to the arbitration process. They instigated the process, choose the arbitrators and then tried to withdraw when they realised they didn’t stand a chance. What that means is, by giving up the right to further legal action, ICELAND have GIVEN UP THEIR RIGHT TO FURTHER LEGAL ACTION. Its unrevokable and final.
It doesn’t matter that Iceland claim they didn’t understand it; they joined, signed the contract and went through the process. Thats why Iceland cannot dispute the Icesave liability and that’s why they haven’t tried to.
Bjarni says:
“but at least EU is now hopefully working on clarifying this point with new regulations.”
But they are not are they? By definition the regulator of the icelandic banks were the Icelandic regulator. When they operated the passport scheme that was changed in any way.. so how could that be clarified except to allow countries to ban incompetent countries from operation within their borders?
The only tool the UK possessed was the anti-organised crime law (that Icelanders mistook for an anti-Terror law) which it applied to Iceland. The true colours of the Mafia infested political system only become apparent to the rest of the world after the crash (although the UK authorities have long held the view that the Icelandic government and banks were one and the same).
@Fisy,
Actually Björgvin G. Sigurðsson was the icelandic official who has been specifically invited to appear before the dutch parliamentary investigation but he declined to do so.
I think this is sad as it would have given him the opportunity to speak out on behalf of Iceland.
By failing to do this he has left the claim of Wellink unanswered.
I can see that you feel bad about the fact that it is reported that ICELAND lied but I think you can be pretty sure that people overhere can distinguish between the icelandic people as a whole and the representatives of the icelandic financial world.
I also do hope that you can see that the behaviour of this icelandic finacial world was such that there is a very understandable sense of frustration in NL about it.
@Bjarni,
Thx for your replies. In fact I think Iceland does have a point regarding the issue of the ‘pool of liquidity’ that has been mentioned. DNB did not go into this and it is not so clear to me why they did not. This is also not really answered in the full report (the second pdf in the link I mentioned).
DNB apparently was of the opinion that this icelandic offer was not realistic and would not solve the fundamental disbalance in the icelandic economy.
Indeed the Landsbanki delegation which visited DNB pointed very much to the succesful stress tests of the icelandic banks.
And the full report contains long discussions inside DNB which took place in early 2008 about the question wether to grant a banking license to Icesave or not.
Indeed, EU regulations were such that this was not possible. Landsbanki kept pushing (pointing at this legislation) and finally DNB had no other choice.
I am however surprised by the statement of Björgvin G. Sigurðsson that France refused to admit Icesave.
This is completely new to me.
I did not know that landsbanki also tried to launch Icesave in France. And the fact that France (prudently) refused this.
Do you have more info on this?
@Peter.
Going into “legally binding and final arbitration” means you cannot dispute the result of that ruling.
Walking out, after discovering you are going to lose, doesn’t affect the result.
If that was the case, I’d agree with you. However, the reality is that when Iceland agreed to participate they likely didn’t realise that it was going to be a binding decision, i.e. they thought it’d be a bit of a chat to help establish the situation and try to resolve it. Either that or, as you say, they saw which way the ruling was going to go. Either way, they then pulled out.
No one has shown anything to suggest that they could not do that. No indignant letters from Lagarde. No public or private mention by the UK or the NL. Given how outspoken the NL have been on blocking the IMF loand and EU application, there’s no way they’d have bitten their tongue if a binding judgement had been given.
In no way does that invalidate the opinion given but, as you must see, it was just an opinion and not a ruling or binding decision. If Iceland hadn’t withdrawn and if EFTA had participated, it’d be a different story.
Quotes from that opinion (emphasis added):
[This opinion] is given in the personal capacity of the nominees and does not commit their respective appointing authorities.
and
The European Free Trade Association did not participate in the preparation of this opinion
(They were one of the 5 who were to give their opinion, so even if it was to be binding, it’s hard to see how it could be without their input)
The meeting is also called “informal” in the French preamble, although my French isn’t strong so that may be out of context.
http://www.island.is/media/frettir/31.pdf
It was only AFTER the complete crash of the banking system in Iceland, that most of the assets of Landsbanki where written off, leaving only approximately 6.4B Euros to cover the Icesave deposits.
But that’s the whole, key point to this Bjarni. Iceland is a sovereign nation. In that respect, it really doesn’t matter if it’s small, if its government is incompetent/compromised, etc.
The fact that Iceland was exposed to huge risk is Iceland’s problem, and rightly so. The UK & NL couldn’t force them to reign in their banks in the good years. They couldn’t force them into the euro in the good years, so why should they take on that exchange risk after it has crystallised. Neither could they force them to approach the IMF when it might have made a difference.
To Bromley86:
>>>>But that’s the whole, key point to this Bjarni. Iceland is a sovereign nation. In that respect, it really doesn’t matter if it’s small, if its government is incompetent/compromised, etc. The fact that Iceland was exposed to huge risk is Iceland’s problem, and rightly so.
We are actually talking about two points here.
1. Does Iceland bear the sole responsibility for exposing itself to the huge risk, by allowing its banking system to grow so much and subsequently crash.
YES, it does. The cost of that mistake will be borne by Iceland for decades to come, as it rightfully should. We all know this.
2. Does Iceland bear the sole responsibility for allowing the private bank Landsbanki to open Icesave in UK/Netherlands and allowing them to collect large amount of deposits there.
NO, it does not. The responsibility must be borne fairly by all parties involved, since everyone made mistakes here. Forcing Iceland to be the only country that pays the full financing of the Icesave deposit insurance is now almost certainly not going to work (it still depends on whether it is voted down in the referendum).
The point I was making in my earlier comment, was that the Dutch officials did not give enough specific information in their testimony about exactly what the Icelandic officials actually did say, to justify publicly classifying them as liars.
Regarding the statement by Icelandic officials, that Iceland could easily compensate the first 20k of an account, I was demonstrating it was actually a perfectly valid statement, based on the facts that were publicly available in May 2008. The rest of the Dutch testimony, was mostly referring to statements by the Landsbanki management, which of course did NOT represent the Icelandic government.
If the Dutch officials had wanted to accuse instead the Landsbanki management of lying, they probably would have been in their right to do so. But, based on what we have seen so far, the most they could really accuse the Icelandic government officials of, is being mistaken, uninformed, or incompetent.
To Niels:
>>>>I am however surprised by the statement of Björgvin G. Sigurðsson that France refused to admit Icesave. This is completely new to me. I did not know that landsbanki also tried to launch Icesave in France. And the fact that France (prudently) refused this. Do you have more info on this?
This was a surprise to me also. As far as I know, he has never mentioned this before, and I do not think it has been mentioned at all in the Icelandic news media. In fact, the only reference I can find on this, is from Netherlands:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/icelandic_exminister_criticise.php
To Niels:
>>>>Actually Björgvin G. Sigurðsson was the icelandic official who has been specifically invited to appear before the dutch parliamentary investigation but he declined to do so. I think this is sad as it would have given him the opportunity to speak out on behalf of Iceland. By failing to do this he has left the claim of Wellink unanswered.
I do not know why Björgvin declined to appear. As far as I know he has not explained that publicly. I actually do wish he had decided to do it. Were there any specific statements attributed to him by Wellink?
Most of the power in the previous government was actually held by the Independence party (Geir Haarde PM, Arni Matthiessen FM, and the Central bank chair David Oddson), with the Social Democrats often left out of the loop. For example, when the decision was made to “take over” the Glitnir bank, Björgvin wasn’t even told until at the last moment, even though the banks were officially supposed to be under his watch. This does not preclude though, that Björgvin might have made erroneous statements to the Dutch during the run-up to the crash.
@Bjarni,
” Were there any specific statements attributed to him by Wellink?”
Not that i know. I could not find Sigurdsson’s name in the report. But from the fact that he was specifically invited I think that he must have played a very substantial role in the communication about Icesave.
Let’s just wait and see what comes up in the reports. It seems obvious someone lied to the Dutch. But it is futile in my opinion to speculate on who it was until the facts are on the table. Once that happens (which could be soon as far as I understand), we can see what impact it might have on the whole case.
“The European Free Trade Association did not participate in the preparation of this opinion
(They were one of the 5 who were to give their opinion, so even if it was to be binding, it’s hard to see how it could be without their input)
The meeting is also called “informal” in the French preamble, although my French isn’t strong so that may be out of context.
http://www.island.is/media/frettir/31.pdf”
Thats very interesting, however, its as its says, just an opinion and nothing to do with the arbitration. There is no mention of the arbitration process and the commitment to a legally binding and final decision. If you remember, its was the fact that the Icelandic minister agreed to the ‘Legally binding and final arbitration” and then attempted to withdraw after the start of the arbitration becuase he claimed not to understand the concept of ‘Legally binding and final’.
“However, the reality is that when Iceland agreed to participate they likely didn’t realise that it was going to be a binding decision, i.e. they thought it’d be a bit of a chat to help establish the situation and try to resolve it. Either that or, as you say, they saw which way the ruling was going to go. Either way, they then pulled out.”
The whole point was that he was specifically asked if he understood the nature of what he was agreeing to and he agreed. You know, that the whole point of arbitration – you can quickly resolve issues without a long protracted legal case.
Joining up to EFTA would require Iceland to commit to arbitration in the event of a dispute – THERE would NEVER be any other option in any case. Iceland could not take the EFTA to court – it will be part of the entry requirements. The Icelandic minister simply confirmed what he must of already know – that wasn’t any other option but arbitration – he selected one of the arbitrators as part of the process so it was obviously more than a ‘chat’.
“2. Does Iceland bear the sole responsibility for allowing the private bank Landsbanki to open Icesave in UK/Netherlands and allowing them to collect large amount of deposits there.
NO, it does not. The responsibility must be borne fairly by all parties involved, since everyone made mistakes here. ”
Iceland regulated the Icelandic banks, are you telling me that you want to introspectively remove that right from Iceland? Remember the Icelandic government actively promoted Icesave, its regulator did nothing to stop Icesave and apparently lied about the state of its banks in order to allow them to continue to collect funds. Iceland’s could have stopped Icesave but in fact it did it best to allow it to collect more than had been agreed.
Your argument is basically – we found a way to steal from you so you are responsible for it happening.
To Peter – London/Krakow:
>>>>Iceland regulated the Icelandic banks, are you telling me that you want to introspectively remove that right from Iceland?
What I am telling you, is that the Icelandic regulators (FME) were NOT the only ones that were supposed to regulate and monitor the operations of the Icelandic banks outside Iceland.
Furthermore there were sever limits on what ANY regulator could do, since Landsbanki and the other banks were operating legally according to the EU regulations at the time, which is what the Dutch regulators were complaining about.
This is why this news about the French not allowing the Landsbanki to open Icesave in their country, as Niels just pointed out, is so interesting development. The question there is not answered yet, what legal justification did the French use to refuse Landsbanki Icesave, and could that have been replicated in other countries.
To Peter – London/Krakow:
>>>>Your argument is basically – we found a way to steal from you so you are responsible for it happening.
Landsbanki found a perfectly legal way to open a Icesave branch in UK/Netherlands and take retail deposits. Then subsequently they ran into liquidity problems and were put into bankruptcy.
It now looks like the Landsbanki statements and reports were not always correct, and possibly at times contained outright lies. It remains to be seen if Icelandic government officials were in some way complicit, or if they just mistakenly relied on what the Landsbanki management was reporting to them.
Ultimately the responsibility for the Landsbanki mistakes and actions lies with their management, not the Icelandic people.
To Peter – London/Krakow:
>>>>Iceland regulated the Icelandic banks, are you telling me that you want to introspectively remove that right from Iceland?
What I am telling you, is that the Icelandic regulators (FME) were NOT the only ones that were supposed to regulate and monitor the operations of the Icelandic banks outside Iceland.
Furthermore there were sever limits on what ANY regulator could do, since Landsbanki and the other banks were operating legally according to the EU regulations at the time, which is what the Dutch regulators were complaining about.
This is why the news about the French NOT allowing the Landsbanki to open Icesave in their country, as Niels just pointed out, is so interesting. The question there has though not been answered yet, what legal justification did the French use to refuse Landsbanki Icesave, and could that have been replicated in other countries?
>I am however surprised by the statement of Björgvin G. Sigurðsson that France refused to admit Icesave.
This is completely new to me.
>I did not know that landsbanki also tried to launch Icesave in France. And the fact that France (prudently) refused this.
>Do you have more info on this?
Does now my interest in the words of left green crazy French MEP Alain Lipietz , on this general matter that the EU member states did have more power to block branches than most of us regular posters here assume, now become clear ?
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/10/icesave-explored-from-different-angles-on-icelandic-tv/
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/12/lipietz-rejects-rejection-of-his-icesave-rejection/
All the rest have closed ranks. But Eva Joly got him to talk publicly about it.
Does now my interest in the words of left green crazy French MEP Alain Lipietz , on this general matter that the EU member states did have more power to block branches than most of us regular posters here assume, now become clear ?
That makes no sense, unless you’re claiming to have known about the French refusal before this recent open letter.
Has anyone substantiated his claims yet?
All the rest have closed ranks. But Eva Joly got him to talk publicly about it.
Don’t forget to include the Icelanders in Landsbanki, the FME, the Central Bank & the Government who knew about this in your conspiracy.
Latest news. There is NO french connection regarding Icesave.
Banque de France has given out an official statement denying that an attempt was made to launch icesave in France:
‘Icesave has never submitted an application for licensing in France as a credit institution or investment firm and that, furthermore, no notification has been received with a view to carrying out these activities in France,’ the statement said.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/icesave_row_escalates_france_d.php
it is getting weird: it looks as if mr. Sigurdsson is not only a liar but a very bad liar too.
or is it one big EU conspiracy?
French deny French refusal, but it’s not that simple:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/icesave_row_escalates_france_d.php
This Dutch article seems to shed some light on the dichotomy:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/article1348265.ece/Hoe_Frankrijk_Icesave_buiten_de_deur_hield
>>>Does now my interest in the words of left green crazy French MEP Alain Lipietz , on this general matter that the EU member states did have more power to block branches than most of us regular posters here assume, now become clear ?<<>>http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/article1348265.ece/Hoe_Frankrijk_Icesave_buiten_de_deur_hield<<<
Even if the french could block icesave like that, the Dutch regulators couldn't since the have probbably publiced "policy rules" for forgein banks applying for topping up, to ensure equal and fair acces for every one.
Ignoring such "policy rules" could result in a legal claim, for a verry large amount in addition to a demand for those rules beeing applied. Probbably a risk the DNB couldnt take.
@Bromley,
Wow, do you read dutch? This article is even more interesting:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/article1348276.ece/DNB_zwijgt_over_Franse_weigering_van_Icesave
So apparently France denied to admit icesave by refusing ‘ topping up’ .
‘ Topping up’ means the following: different countries have different DGS-s. In Iceland it was 20.000, in NL more than 30.000, in France 70.000.
Now if an Icelandic bank would appear in the dutch market it would face a competitive disdavantage since it would only have a deposit guarantee of 20k.
Therefore an agreement must be made for the covering of the difference between 20 k and 30 k.
(As with the UK and NL, both governments fulfilled their part of the deposit guarantee but iceland uttelry failed)
This was a breach of european rules btw since according to these rules a ‘ topping up agreement’ with a bank from an EFTA country cannot be refused .
But still i do not understand this:
-in the case of NL Landsbanki was constantly pushing and claiming and pointing to EU law in order to gain admittance. Why did n’t they do this in the case of France ?
It is a very unclear situation I must say.
Also because the french claim that they never received a request from Landsbanki.
“French deny French refusal, but it’s not that simple:”
The French managed to drag out talks so long that they stopped icesave from opening.
This is, again, an example of the strange thinking coming from Iceland.
“If you don’t try every legal and possible illegal trick to stop us getting access to your markets – where we will rob your citizens as we know our banks are on the point of collapse (oh and its impossible for our depositors protection scheme to cover what we are taking) – then its YOUR fault for allowing it to happen”.
@Bromley, Wow, do you read dutch?
Better than I read Icelandic, in that Google translates it better :) .
Definitely the French response is odd – why deny it point blank if something happened, even if it was subtly different.
@Peter. Do you have anything to confirm that? Even how you know would be great, as no one else seems to have known about this French angle until this week (and indeed apparently one other country blocked Icesave).
“@Peter. Do you have anything to confirm that? Even how you know would be great, as no one else seems to have known about this French angle until this week (and indeed apparently one other country blocked Icesave).”
I merely read the article you linked to.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/icesave_row_escalates_france_d.php
“However, the Financieele Dagblad said on Friday afternoon it had been told by banking sources that the French authorities dragged out the talks with Icesave for so long that the bank collapsed in the meantime.”
The French haggled until the bank collapsed, a pity the UK and NL could not do.
Brumley did write :
>That makes no sense, unless you’re claiming to have known about the French refusal before this recent open letter.
I am not pretending any forsight about this two countrties ( France and another refusing branches for IceSave ) in details but instead that once this information was already out Niels did ask me why I was so interested in this left green crazy Alain Lipietz.
Well my comment herre to Niels was just referencing that other posts :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/02/04/secret-info-to-jeopardise-icesave-court-hopes/#comment-114041
Like I said there :
” Alain Lipietz disagrees, although my assumption is still that EU regulations / directives said that the Landsbanki branches could not be stopped. ”
As to details of what Alain Lipietz did bring up there is a good fact extracting here from Bjarni :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/09/eva-joly-to-dutch-media-netherlands-being-arrogant/#comment-109887
Niels in here it talks about this report Edgar du Perron and Adriënne de Moor :
http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/article1347844.ece/Wellink_had_Icesave_kunnen_stoppen
“Landsbanki, Icesave’s mother bank had said, in annual reports and quarterly figures to that it had ambition to open Icesave in other European countries. Landsbanki was to go into in France and also into Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland and Italy. At least one of these countries has also Icesave refused entry, so said Du Perron. He will not say which country.
Du Perron denies that he is put under pressure by DNB to delete the reference to France. “We did not even necessary to mention France.” ..
..
“The draft report was submitted to DNB as only three locations where information is removed before the report was sent to the ministry. (..) The data relating to supervisors from other countries. ”
Can you clear up the meaning here for us.
Thanks Niels, it really helps the bringing to light of new facts when we all do work together here on this.
Other good threads of posting open this subject :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/02/04/secret-info-to-jeopardise-icesave-court-hopes/
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/02/11/former-iceland-minister-rejects-dutch-icesave-criticism/
I merely read the article you linked to.
Doh!