| Author |
Message |
Neil Dickens
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 03:16 pm: |   |
AN OPEN letter to the chief minister and Policy Council.
Ref: Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors.
We are writing to you today as one year has now passed since we received any form of update from the Guernsey Government regarding the political negotiations between Guernsey and the Icelandic Government commenced during the chief minister’s visit to that country on 6 August 2009.
The only information emanating from that visit was a short statement to the Guernsey Press, which showed that Mr Trott had established contact with a number of important figures in Iceland.
We assume that during the following weeks and months, he has made good use of those contacts by following up and reasserting his original political initiative and strongly negotiating for the equitable treatment of the Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors in line with that afforded to all other personal depositors in UK and the Netherlands.
Since then, the Ministry of Justice Select Committee Report has been published. Its findings reveal that, in fact, although in touch with the chief minister on occasion during the early days of the Landsbanki administration, right from the start the UK Treasury was pursuing its own agenda and prioritising UK IceSave interests, to the detriment and exclusion of those of Guernsey and the Isle of Man.
The UK has gained priority status with the Icelandic Winding-Up Board whereas Landsbanki Guernsey and Landsbanki Guernsey depositors have not benefited from this level of support, which, according to the Winding-Up Board, renders them likely to receive nothing.
This obviously begs a number of questions:
* What is the situation now between Guernsey, the Ministry of Justice, and the UK Treasury?
* Is the UK Treasury still representing Guernsey in Iceland?
* If so, is it pushing for priority status for the Landsbanki depositors under the Landsbanki Guarantee equal to that which it has achieved for UK onshore savers?
* What actions has the Guernsey Government taken, of its own volition, since its last update on 10 August 2009 to follow up any political initiatives pursuant to the chief minister’s visit to Iceland in August 2009 or with the UK Government on behalf of the Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors?
* The GFSC 2009 report debate in the States showed clearly that there is some dissent over the adequacy of the promontory report and there is no doubt that there should be an independent enquiry. Does the Policy Council intend to look again at all the evidence that has been presented?
* Does the chief minister ever intend to honour his public promise to attend a Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors general meeting? He has turned down all invitations since February 2009.
Landsbanki Guernsey depositors feel they are the ‘victims’ amid all this confusion. Guernsey’s financial reputation can only continue to suffer throughout the world while so many questions remain unanswered. The questions detailed above, those raised by Matthew Dorman’s 17-page report, submitted to the Policy Council in October 2009, and many others directed to both the Policy Council and the GFSC, continue to go unanswered. They will not go away until they have been satisfactorily answered in an open, transparent manner and that can only be achieved by a fully independent enquiry.
We look forward to your comments.
NEIL DICKENS,
Chairman, Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors Action Group.
GP Editor’s footnote: A Policy Council spokesman replies:
‘The Policy Council has received a similarly worded letter from the Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors Action Group, to which the council will be responding directly.’ |
John Neale
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2010 - 02:48 pm: | |
I FIND it amazing that our government sails on, seemingly blissfully unaware that the western world is still in a financial crisis.
While Jersey bites the bullet and plans voluntary redundancies for States workers, a recruitment freeze and tax increases, we seem to think that we are insulated from the bitter wind of recession.
Because of the confusion over zero-10 and an overworked Income Tax department, Treasury and Resources seem to think that everything will be all right on the night.
It won’t be.
No account seems to have been taken of the huge decrease in income of those many islanders who rely on bank interest for part of their income. For the first time in my life, I received a substantial tax rebate this year and there must be many like me.
Interest on States deposits will also be affected and the BP debacle has already hit States’ investments.
Now we hear that probably the most vulnerable members of our society, the mentally ill, are to be deprived of UK specialist help for the sake of saving a few pounds. It was felt that they needed this help – until last week.
Where will this type of penny-pinching end?
Already we are seeing a reduction in services generally – our roads, a direct indication of a society’s prosperity, are deteriorating fast.
No, before increasing taxes and reducing services, the States should look carefully at the cost of the civil service. Its costs have long outstripped the rate of inflation – a recipe for disaster in any other non-public, commercial undertaking.
Guernsey Limited is heading for disaster unless it curbs these costs.
We should follow Jersey’s example before it is too late. Its economy parallels ours, so why should we be better off?
The expression ‘bite the bullet’ came before the days of anaesthetics, when limbs were amputated on the battlefield.
Unless we bite the bullet, we will suffer the agonies of losing vital parts of or economy and services.
Do it now, before it is too late.
JOHN NEALE,
fergie@ guernsey.net. |
Chief Minister Lyndon Trott
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2010 - 03:20 pm: | |
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this letter.
Readers will know that there have been a handful of letters, which have made the same points over the past months, and the comments I made in response to those are equally applicable here. I would, however, like to add that I have only ever declined to have a private meeting with the Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors Action Group because the issue in question is their request for payment using Guernsey taxpayers’ money, and so should be open to the public, a condition the group do not appear to accept.
As I have previously stated publicly, the report by Promontory Financial Group (UK) Limited, led by the highly-respected Michael Foot CBE, looked into the circumstances leading to the placing of Landsbanki Guernsey Limited (LGL) into administration and found that the GFSC measured up to good practice, that it met international standards and that there was no regulatory failure.
That being the case, the Policy Council does not believe that the expenditure of more taxpayers’ money on another inquiry is justified.
I will once again refer this matter to the Policy Council in order to ensure that their view remains consistent with previous deliberations.
Chief minister Lyndon Trott |
Kate Barrett
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2010 - 03:19 pm: | |
THE Guernsey Financial Services Commission’s response to a recent letter in which a member of the Landsbanki Depositor’s Group asked, once again, for an independent public enquiry into their conduct regarding Landsbanki Guernsey, was arrogant and patronising in the extreme.
This can only be equalled by the shameful lack of interest and action by the States members and the chief minister in particular. They seem to be reluctant, or should I say too frightened, to speak out on what is turning out to be an embarrassing and unpopular subject for them. And why, after almost two years, and despite numerous promises, has Mr Trott still not met with the Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors Action Group?
In this age of accountability and transparency, how can the GFSC think that a report commissioned and funded by themselves about their own conduct and under their own limited remit be acceptable?
Something is not right. What are these two august bodies trying to hide?
If indeed there is nothing to hide, then why not agree to an independent public enquiry with a remit and agenda acceptable to all parties and get everything out in the open?
The Landsbanki depositors will not give up and the longer this impasse continues, the more harm is being done to the reputation of Guernsey in the international finance sectors and in the international media.
I can almost hear the sighs of ‘not that lot again’ but put yourselves in our shoes and think how you would feel if you’d lost your savings, your nest egg or your pension and the bodies whom you thought were protecting your money, and working for you as a Guernsey depositor, just pat you on the head and hope you’ll go away. Would you just go away? No. You’d fight for justice.
So come on GFSC, Guernsey’s financial reputation and your own depends on this. States members, remember you are elected to serve all the people, even the LBGDA group.
Who knows, perhaps this whole situation could have been avoided if both the GFSC and the States had better people skills. Perhaps the employment of a good PR firm would have helped.
KATE BARRETT. |
R. James Grantham
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2010 - 04:32 pm: | |
GUERNSEY should help the Landsbanki Guernsey victims by auctioning off car number plates 0 to minus 100. No pain.
R. JAMES GRANTHAM,
Malta. |
M. J. Ashbey
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2010 - 02:40 pm: | |
WHAT strikes me about the departure of Northern Rock from Guernsey is that, like Landsbanki Guernsey, Northern Rock did not have any of its own staff in Guernsey. The operations of both Northern Rock and Landsbanki Guernsey were run by Butterfield Bank.
Both banks set up 'skeleton' offices with only a handful of outsourced staff, with the sole aim of gathering deposits from savers and immediately upstreaming them, mostly to the UK. This, in my view, demonstrates a lack of commitment to the jurisdiction and to depositors, particularly so in the case of Landsbanki Guernsey.
No wonder no one at Landsbanki Guernsey, the Landsbanki parent or the GFSC bothered to check whether or not the parental guarantee had been signed. We now know that it hadn't, which is why depositors' claims were roundly rejected by the winding up board of Landsbanki in Iceland.
When the Cheshire Building Society announced in early 2006 that it was closing its Guernsey operation, the Guernsey authorities desperately tried to find another financial institution to acquire the Cheshire savings book to avoid a bank closure.
They were so eager to attract another bank to the jurisdiction to maintain the deposit base, traditionally the bedrock of Guernsey's international finance centre, that they authorised the acquisition of the Cheshire savings book by a hitherto largely-unknown Icelandic bank when, thanks to an Icelandic parliamentary inquiry, we know that Landsbanki was already doomed at the time of the acquisition.
True, the promontory report 'whitewash' supposedly exonerated the GFSC, but what would one expect from a report that was commissioned and paid for by the GFSC under its own limited terms of references and conducted behind closed doors?
When Landsbanki Guernsey failed, the Guernsey government, GFSC and GuernseyFinance all fell over themselves to try, very belatedly, to assure anyone who would listen that deposits were not all that important to Guernsey after all.
Of course, these very defensive statements formed part of a co-ordinated but futile reputational damage-limitation exercise designed to divert attention from the clear regulatory failure on the part of the GFSC in relying on third-party endorsement (from the FSA) to convince themselves that Heritable Bank in the UK, to where most LG savings were upstreamed in various guises, was ring-fenced from Icelandic risk - instead of carrying out its own due diligence.
How the GFSC could have been convinced that Heritable was ring-fenced from Icelandic risk when it shared the same Icelandic parent as Landsbanki Guernsey is still a mystery. However, we do know that a fairly junior member of the GFSC's staff at the time - rather than the director-general, director of banking supervision or at the very least the deputy or assistant director of banking supervision - was tasked with contacting the FSA on this pivotal matter. This, in my view, betrayed the scant significance that the FSC attached to such important correspondence.
Worse, the GFSC permitted Landsbanki Guernsey to place the majority of its assets in one basket, the Landsbanki-owned Heritable Bank in the UK, contrary to best international banking practice as stipulated in Basel Core Principles and as required by the IMF, which is this year conducting an assessment of Guernsey as a financial services jurisdiction.
Did the GFSC demonstrate any contrition after Landsbanki Guernsey failed? Not likely. Ever since Landsbanki Guernsey collapsed, they have, incredibly, been trying to lay the blame fairly and squarely on savers themselves for not heeding the warning contained in an esoteric consultation paper that they issued (presumably aimed at the banking sector) in August 2008, which stated that 'letters of comfort are not legally binding' - crucial information that was never transmitted directly to savers by either Landsbanki Guernsey or by the GFSC.
The GFSC told me on 16 February 2010, 'The GFSC has never required parental guarantees and pointed out the limitations of such undertakings in its August 2008 consultation paper entitled, "Consultation on Parental Upstreaming and the Introduction of Depositor Protection and Ombudsman Schemes"...
'The GFSC does require subsidiary banks to have letters of comfort in place but it has always recognised that these are not legally binding and made that point plainly in the same consultation paper.' Yes, in the very technical consultation paper that savers, who are generally unsophisticated investors, are highly unlikely to have been aware of, let alone having read.
All of which leads us to the all-important question that still remains unanswered: why has there been no fully-independent public parliamentary inquiry in Guernsey along the lines of those conducted in the Isle of Man, the UK and even in near-bankrupt Iceland?
M. J. ASHBEY,
Gibraltar.
GP Editor's footnote: A director of the GFSC has said that the commission's responses to the Landsbanki Guernsey Ltd events are already in the public domain and as such, it has no further comment. |
Tom Wright
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 10, 2010 - 12:19 pm: | |
IT DID not take a sage to predict that the euro club would split a seam if not haemorrhage. For generation after generation, a nation's economic status in the world has been largely represented by the global value of its currency. If you have no currency, that is fine, so long as you are fiscally solvent or potentially so, and can adopt a currency that is recognisable and good for business.
For example, the Channel Islands have, so far, been batting along with the UK. Well that's how it is with us, but one wonders how we might fare with our own currency, as some espouse. A currency that would be a direct certificate for the value of our island economy dependent as it is on its tenuous 'overseas' character.
Anyone with a modicum of perception would have seen that, in drawing together a hotch potch of nations to abandon their currencies in favour of the euro, it was essential to ensure that the economies of prospective members were reasonably compatible. Otherwise, when times are hard, weaker economies will find it a fierce struggle to keep up its 'euroworth.' Consequently the euro will be debased, tempered only by the will of fellow members to bail them out. But by real aid, not just words.
With Greece leading the way, what of the others? Portugal, Eire, Spain, Italy? Lack of growth, nation by nation, is seriously widespread and one imagines these ailing countries to be just around the corner with their penitent hands out. Do the lead euro nations have the will or, more so, the ability to accommodate them all? Of course they do not. They did not expect to because they had not done their homework when they opened the club. How silly was that?
So, as we see, and because it seems fashionable, ailing nations will be mercilessly plunged into debt. Debt that they cannot digest and their citizens will take to the streets. It is that feature that should concern every well-meaning individual around the world. Sadly, the 'tragic' demise of the euro will take preference.
TOM WRIGHT |
Dave Grundy
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 04:40 pm: | |
IT IS an ironic coincidence that on the same day (Monday 15 February) that the Guernsey Press published an excellent letter from Gary Blanchford pointing out the democratic difference between the actions taken by the Isle of Man Government and those of the Guernsey Government, that on the following page there should be an article by Nick Mann commenting on the potential interference of the UK Government in the affairs of Guernsey.
Although nearly 600 of the Landsbanki depositors are Guernsey residents, and therefore accustomed to the mechanics of the Guernsey political machinery, many more are UK residents or expatriates and continue to be totally bewildered by the stance taken by our local government in the Landsbanki issue.
Most of these have the right to be represented by a member of the UK parliament, and many have taken the opportunity to seek counsel from their local member, resulting in questions being asked in the House, and much cross party discussion over their grievances. Inevitably concerns have been raised as to why Guernsey seems unable to properly manage this relatively minor failure.
Additionally, despite the worldwide promotion of Guernsey as 'a centre of financial excellence', many millions of pounds have been wasted pursuing the 'zero-10' strategy without apparently checking to see whether this strategy would be permitted - seems not. The appalling lack of industrial management expertise in dealing with the airport firefighters, resulting in airport closure and the payment of a 'please come to work' ransom and an expensive tribunal enquiry thereafter.
And now, when the whole world's attention is on climate control and the reduction of atmospheric emissions, when many UK Councils are cancelling incinerator plans and seeking innovative and user-friendly alternatives, Guernsey is rushing to commit to a monstrous, horrendously expensive plant to burn its rubbish.
Certainly Guernsey is giving a very good impression of not being able to properly manage its own affairs - we should hardly be surprised therefore if the UK feels the need to 'interfere.'
DAVE GRUNDY. |
Gary Blanchford
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 02:07 pm: | |
THE Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors Action Group for some time now has been asking the States of Guernsey to instigate a public inquiry into the lead up to the putting into administration of Landsbanki Guernsey on 7 October 2008. They have refused both the inquiry and failed to answer any questions posed to them.
The Isle of Man, who are in almost exactly the same position as Guernsey with regard to Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, have decided that it was in the public interest to instigate such an inquiry and commissioned a select committee in late January and that inquiry is already producing interesting results. Its mandate was:
That Tynwald appoints a committee of three members with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, as amended, to investigate and report on:
(1) The cause of the collapse of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (IOM) Ltd;
(2) The role of the Financial Supervision Commission in ensuring the proper management of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (IOM) Ltd to protect depositors' funds;
(3) The credibility of the depositors' compensation scheme; and
(4) Any other relevant matter
and report back by the March 2010 sitting of this Honourable Court.
Now, for Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, you can read a parallel into Landsbanki Guernsey, and with that in mind we wrote to all deputies over the weekend of 6/7 February, as below.
To date only three have had the decency to respond. And they wonder why the public has little faith in its government.
6 February 2010,
Dear Deputy
I would ask you to consider the reply I have just had from an enquiry I made with the Isle of Man Tynwald regarding their Select Committee, especially the current inquiry by them into Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, their Financial Services Commission and the credibility of their depositor compensation scheme. The evidence given by Alan Bell, their Treasury Minister, in the last week has highlighted the very close parallels to be drawn with Guernsey's situation over Landsbanki Guernsey and the relationships that existed with the UK Treasury and UK Financial Services Authority.
This is just another piece of evidence to add to the rest produced by the Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors Action Group to the chief minister and Policy Council, which asks the question as to why Guernsey has not yet instigated a public inquiry along the same lines. The Tynwald appears open and transparent against Guernsey's opaque and secretive stance.
You will all be aware of the chief minister's and Policy Council reply to our letter and the 17 pages of proof we laid before them, which in itself was enough to demand an open public inquiry, similar to a Select Committee inquiry.
The Promontory report was not a public report. It was instigated by the GFSC, under their terms of reference and paid for by them. No independent cross-examinations to establish the truth, all controlled with the final outcome to suit the GFSC, not acceptable.
You will also be aware of the confidential letters that passed between the GFSC and the FSA early in January 2009 (after the Promontory report) and had to be submitted to the UK Treasury Select Committee.
These clearly showed the total reliance of the GFSC on information coming from the FSA and how that information was ambiguous to say the least and how the GFSC acted on it without apparently carrying out their own due diligence.
The evidence was all out there for an allegedly professional body to see.
Guernsey, like the Isle of Man, was 'collateral damage' to the UK Ministry of Justice, UK Treasury and the FSA, who should have been acting in our best interests alongside their own, but didn't. Guernsey's chief minister, it would appear, failed to pick up on this during his confidential meetings and telephone calls with UK Treasury, as did the GFSC in their confidential dealings with the FSA and in not doing so totally failed not only the people of Guernsey, but also the Landsbanki Guernsey Depositors.
The quicker Guernsey sets up its own public select committee-type inquiry, the quicker it will appear honest and transparent.
There is a lot to be learned from this whole sorry affair and not least of all, you owe it to the 1,600 Landsbanki Guernsey depositors, 600 of whom were local taxpayers.
GARY BLANCHFORD,
deputy chairman,
LGDAG, Guernsey branch.
For and on behalf of the LGDAG |
Henry Lancaster
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - 02:21 pm: | |
PROCLAMATIONS by 'business' organisations, attempting to bend politics and public opinion for their own advantage, have reached nauseating proportions. What stands out from all the hype is that none of the supporters of so-called financial services present balanced arguments which include a downside. Perhaps frankness cannot be expected from those who make a living from financial tricks, or from those in associated roles. Much more should be expected from States members and from civic officials.
The Press report of the Bailiff delivering a speech to the CISX International Business Summit seemed to have an excessively partisan flavour to it. Of course it is usual for finance business get-togethers to be very chummy and everyone is expected to sing from the same hymn sheet.
If reporting was accurate it is disappointing that the Bailiff only spoke of items pulled from the sunny side of the financial services balance sheet. Nothing apparently was said about the costs and how costs are shared. Of course that would have meant swimming against the tide a little.
Surely it must seem strange to the Bailiff that there has never been a public audit of the costs and disadvantages of harbouring and cultivating a so-called finance industry? Not even the turning upside down of the island's tax structure promoted an audit. Now that Guernsey's fiscal situation is in a downward spiral, in direct consequence, did the Bailiff not feel a little uneasy contributing to the tub thumping without adding some balance?
The sham of the zero-10 'public consultation' started as a review and ended as a poll. No islander was aware they had the opportunity to contribute to a poll. An accountancy firm, with vested interests, was used to interpret the 'poll'. Ordinary States members, and the public, were given no sight of the written submissions.
That all happened under the nose of the president of the States of Guernsey and, nominally, was presented to the States assembly by his hand. It would have been interesting if the Bailiff had used his speaking opportunity to give his views on all of that.
Every top public figure has avoided mentioning the cuckoo effects of the beloved industry. Real industries with real products are being squeezed out of the island, and islanders too. Clamour for staff and unholy distortion of the education system has resulted in a miserable failure to provide the people needed as teachers, nurses, police and others.
Housing licences for so-called finance has caused absurd house price inflation, exacerbating all staffing problems. States costs compensating for these problems are enormous. Costs to individual house purchasers have reached the insane. No audit for any of this, or for any of the other negatives.
By speaking at forums such as this CISX jamboree, the Bailiff puts himself into the rough and tumble of public discussion and criticism. After taking that risk, it seems an opportunity was missed to speak for a wider and better purpose, perhaps with less mind for the 'haves' and more for the 'have nots.'
HENRY LANCASTER.
GP Editor's footnote: While the Bailiff does not generally respond to comment, it is possible to make the following observations from what is already in the public domain:
The Bailiff was not speaking on political matters but largely on constitutional matters and Guernsey's legal mutual assistance track record.
When presiding in the States of Deliberation, the Bailiff applies the rules of procedure and moderates debate. It is not for him to express a political view on the merits of Guernsey's tax policy.
In the past the Bailiff has not hesitated from speaking on constitutional matters or matters such as law and order which are of legitimate interest to the senior members of the judiciary, nor does he shirk from promoting Guernsey.
It is unlikely the Bailiff would have seen the CISX conference as a 'jamboree' (to quote the writer) but rather a showcase for promoting the benefits of doing business in Guernsey with the prospect that Guernsey would attract top-quality business with consequential benefits to the community at large.
Additionally, the purpose of the conference was not for the CISX to intervene in politics although the writer seems to have expected that it should have been a platform for the expression of political views. |
Mark J. Ashbey
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 02:19 pm: | |
GUERNSEY authorities should 'stand in the shoes' of LG depositors and also launch a public inquiry.
On reading the correspondence between the chief executive of the FSA and the director general of the GFSC that is posted on the HM Treasury Select Committee website, I came across the following important information, which I thought was worth highlighting in order to remind the Guernsey authorities of their unshirkable responsibility towards savers that placed their trust in a Guernsey-regulated bank. On 29 January 2009, the FSA's CEO wrote:
'Insolvency and the protection of creditors.
Once it becomes apparent that a subsidiary supervised by a host supervisor no longer has any reasonable prospect of obtaining adequate funding and has therefore lost its continuing ability to pay its creditors, I do not see that there is any alternative to putting the subsidiary into administration. In the absence of such action, the inevitable consequence would be that some creditors would receive 100% of what they are owed, while other creditors would (in the resulting, delayed insolvency) have a reduced recovery caused by a smaller pool of assets in the estate.
'I would stress that at the point of Heritable going into administration, and subsequently, all creditors (be they LGL depositors or Heritable depositors) have been treated equally. The only reason that Heritable depositors have been treated differently from other creditors is because the Treasury and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme placed amounts equivalent to their deposits into ING Direct, then stood in their shoes as creditors of Heritable on an equal basis with all other unsecured creditors. These were policy decisions which it would be open to the relevant authorities in other jurisdictions to take.'
The last two sentences serve as an important reminder to the Guernsey authorities: the FSA is strongly suggesting that the Guernsey authorities should 'stand in the shoes' of LG depositors, just as HMT/FSCS stood in the shoes of Heritable depositors - and indeed as the Isle of Man Government stood in the shoes of the majority of KSF savers.
The Guernsey authorities have so far inexplicably refused to do so - despite the fact that LG's depositor liabilities were only one-tenth that of KSF in the Isle of Man, which disbursed £193m. of public funds to help stricken savers.
The Guernsey authorities need to yet again be reminded that it is their solemn duty and responsibility to emulate the UK and Isle of Man, not only by standing in the shoes of depositors but also by launching a fully independent public inquiry into the LG debacle.
Much as the GFSC would like to blame the FSA for the disaster, LG was a Guernsey-regulated bank and a lengthy and detailed report submitted to States deputies, produced by the LGDAG, presents clear evidence of alleged negligence - at the least - on the part of the GFSC.
Permitting LG to place so many eggs in the Heritable Bank basket contrary to established international banking best practice, and relying on a third party (the FSA), rather than carrying out its own meticulous due diligence was a recipe for potential disaster.
But there is still time for the Guernsey authorities to save face - and the reputation of the Guernsey finance centre - by standing in the shoes of LG savers in regard to any shortfall, as soon as the quantum of that shortfall is established, to ensure that depositors recover 100% of the savings they deposited in good faith in a Guernsey-regulated bank - and by launching a fully-independent public inquiry. Depositors, and indeed the general public at large, have a right to learn precisely what happened.
The UK and the Isle of Man have tasked parliamentarians in select committees with conducting independent inquiries. These have included very public, widely reported hearings, where key players have given testimony for all to hear so that the general public can form their own judgment. The world must be wondering: what are the Guernsey authorities waiting for? The longer the delay, the greater the speculation regarding what precisely is being shielded from public scrutiny.
MARK J. ASHBEY,
Gibraltar. |
Barry Wild
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 18, 2009 - 02:43 pm: | |
AS A founder member of the Landsbanki Guernsey (Expatriates) Action Group, I wish to say that our members are continually being appalled with the obvious lack of concern to our plight. It is well known that the Guernsey government is the only jurisdiction in the Western world to have turned its back on its depositors.
I am attaching a cartoon by one of our members which illustrates our feelings of how things seems to work in the government of Guernsey. You will not need a caption to know who is the central figure and who are the sheep toeing the line and in chorus with their 'baa-baa-baas.'
BARRY WILD,
PO Box 446,
St Francis Bay,
East Cape,
South Africa. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 12:15 pm: | |
I MUST write to support Mr Ashbey's excellent letter regarding Guernsey States' refusal to compensate Landsbanki Guernsey depositors and the disgraceful remarks attributed to the chief minister.
The Guernsey Financial Services Commission, appointed by Guernsey States, investigates any financial institution wanting to commence business in Guernsey and where such approval has been given, the public believes the company is safe to entrust with their capital. Surely this is one of the reasons for GFSC's existence. Many people entrusted Landsbanki with their savings and now they find themselves betrayed. The Isle of Man Government has done the right thing and investors now know which jurisdiction to trust.
It is interesting to read the news item you published on 30 July 2008, stating that Moneyfacts had commended Landsbanki in the best offshore category. It was stated that Moneyfacts Awards 'are wholly independent and are for product excellence and outstanding services. Landsbanki Guernsey beat off competition from Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man.'
Remarkable.
Name and address withheld. |
Ryan Kelly
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 07, 2009 - 02:55 pm: | |
IN LIGHT of the recent credit crunch, it is my firmly held belief that the governments of the world should revoke the licences of commercial banks and in effect, raze them to the ground. This theory is underpinned by the fact that the commercial banks have destroyed the lives and livelihoods of so many people in addition to the economies of so many countries.
Each country should simply have a national bank run purely for national interest, given that the provision of money should merely be a means of exchange for goods and services, which add real value to any economy. In effect, simply having a national bank would mean acting in the public interest and not for profit, resulting in a more efficient market economy in addition to a more fair and just society.
RYAN KELLY,
Northern Ireland. |
R. S. Mauger
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 04:01 pm: | |
IT WAS such a shame to see Deputy Barry Brehaut step down as deputy Health minister, in protest at the States debate on not supporting finance for the domestic abuse strategy within the next budget.
Instead, vast amounts of taxpayers' money would be directed to supporting a new office in Brussels.
We see the Guernsey Financial Services Commission director-general reporting his support why we should finance such a project. He deems it gives those with prejudice views against our island a clearer insight to how we really are.
The chief minister has spent the last two years flying around the world and meeting VIPs to put the record straight. We are now on the 'white list', which we were assuming is quite satisfactory to the EU and, of course, the UK. Further on, the Guernsey Press has a section by Peter Niven, GuernseyFinance chief executive, referring to our position in the world's top 75, now 15th, comparing us with Tokyo, Shanghai, Sydney and new entry Chinese Shenyen, who come fifth, and noted that we have a representative office in China also. How many more offices do we need around the world?
I am not at all against finance in the island, which is our main source of survival, but not at the costs of the heavily burdened taxpayers' resources.
This needs to be funded by the finance industry themselves, leaving the taxpayer to help with more internal matters.
As we remember, a certain department, i.e. 'GuernseyFinance', was started by taxpayers' money with one or two in their office, then increased dramatically and last year was asking for nearly a million to keep it going, forcing the States to re-look at their funding.
So, here we go again, the same situation. What is this going to cost as the years roll by?
Unfortunately, this has to be funded by the industry and not the taxpayer.
As Deputy Brehaut says, how many children and families are suffering in this island from abuse? The general public has no idea how serious this is and it is a disgrace not to deal with this sad island situation.
Having a conversation with a UK person, who is over here helping our health services in a particular department, at their comments that the island has a rich and poor divide but, unlike the UK, sad to see no real services and I, as a Guernseyman, felt ashamed to hear that.
As reported by the Press, performance by some of our States decisions 0/10 is a true reflection.
It is no good politicians turning their heads not to accept that suggestion.
It is a fact, and they must get up and do something about it, or let someone else take up the mantle of really caring for our island.
R. S. MAUGER |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
