Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Ahemmm....Do you know what the assets of Landsbanki will be used for once sold???? Obviously not...THEY WILL BE USED TO PAY THE UK AND HOLLAND..... So no..Iceland has not stolen anything from you.. EXCELLENT! Thank you very much. Why didn't you say so earlier. I knew you people were good 'uns! Mind you, a lot of people on this thread will be disappointed that the UK gets anything back, they would rather you had kept it. But I guess you are more honest than that. THANK YOU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 EXCELLENT! Thank you very much. Why didn't you say so earlier. I knew you people were good 'uns! Mind you, a lot of people on this thread will be disappointed that the UK gets anything back, they would rather you had kept it. But I guess you are more honest than that. THANK YOU. I'm sure the whole forum is awaiting their lower taxes and rebate with baited breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 EXCELLENT! Thank you very much. Why didn't you say so earlier. I knew you people were good 'uns! Mind you, a lot of people on this thread will be disappointed that the UK gets anything back, they would rather you had kept it. But I guess you are more honest than that. THANK YOU. I can't follow you here. The assets of the BANK should obviously go to settling with the creditors, but the interest on the "debt" is the problem of the creditors, and the people of Iceland should have nothing to do with it. Not a person has said the Icelanders should just pinch the assets, but they should not be liable for a penny of the write-off (for a write off there surely must be). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 I can't follow you here. The assets of the BANK should obviously go to settling with the creditors, but the interest on the "debt" is the problem of the creditors, and the people of Iceland should have nothing to do with it. Not a person has said the Icelanders should just pinch the assets, but they should not be liable for a penny of the write-off (for a write off there surely must be). The people of Iceland don't have anything to do with it. Only the fools who swallow Icelandic propaganda have fallen for that. The debt is owed by the Icelandic Government who took the assets of the failed bank. Next time some Viking sells you a hard luck story, try not to be so gullible eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 The people of Iceland don't have anything to do with it. Only the fools who swallow Icelandic propaganda have fallen for that. The debt is owed by the Icelandic Government who took the assets of the failed bank. Next time some Viking sells you a hard luck story, try not to be so gullible eh? So your position is that if you are located in a position in time and space, you are automatially liable for debts created by complete strangers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 So your position is that if you are located in a position in time and space, you are automatially liable for debts created by complete strangers? Let me know when you finish building your straw man. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Let me know when you finish building your straw man. Cheers. No, I am dismantling yours. As i am fond of saying, countries don't exist, only people. You are taking a whole host of things as read which simply don't have to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 No, I am dismantling yours. As i am fond of saying, countries don't exist, only people. You are taking a whole host of things as read which simply don't have to happen. Of course countries don't exist! Nurse! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Of course countries don't exist! Nurse! Oh well, time for another unplugging. Got any proof for your assertion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urdur Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 You are confusing two separate issues. One is the UK compensation scheme which you are correct in saying is not Government Guaranteed. It is the Financial Services Compensation Scheme which is funded by an industry levy. The second think is the Iceland guarantee. In order for an EFTA country's bank to be allowed to operate in the EU it needs to have a compensation scheme in place. So perhaps you would like to tell us about Iceland's guarantee that allowed it to operate in the EU. Icelandic banks operated under EU laws, so our depoit guarantee fund was basically identical to the FSCS.. The problem is that Direktive 19/94/EC does not say what measures should be taken if there is a systemic crash.. Iceland does not have any levies left..The laws involving these schemes are completely and utterly flawed.. Personally I think that the European central bank should just print some euros to cover this mess that is a direct result of their lousy lawmaking.. You're probably right about Gordo being a clown. Our Government are far from perfect. But shouldn't you also throw some stones at your own Government too instead of blaming 'outsiders' all the time? January 21st 2009 The Government resigned two days later..So obviously we blame our own..Unfortunately the new one is hardly doing any better.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 You are right, it is a matter of depositor insurance. But who owns the bank is also relevant. Let me give you the example of Northern Rock. When the UK government nationalised it, it did not just nationalise all the bad bits. It also nationalised some nice juicy assets as well. There might have been a shortage of assets to cover all liabilities, but the assets did not just all disappear. Had Icesave gone bankrupt, who knows. depositors might have got 80p in the pound over and above the depositor guarantee. Instead, we're told it is 0p in the pound. If they have wound up the banks and disposed of the assets then yes, the proceeds should be returned to the creditors in order of seniority. But have they done this? Aren't major parts of the balance sheet still frozen? (I genuinely don't know what the latest position is on this). But this debate isn't about liquidation value, it's about monies that should have been returned under depositor compensation scheme that was never going to be able to meet its foreign-currency obligations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 You are right, it is a matter of depositor insurance. But who owns the bank is also relevant. Let me give you the example of Northern Rock. When the UK government nationalised it, it did not just nationalise all the bad bits. It also nationalised some nice juicy assets as well. There might have been a shortage of assets to cover all liabilities, but the assets did not just all disappear. Had Icesave gone bankrupt, who knows. depositors might have got 80p in the pound over and above the depositor guarantee. Instead, we're told it is 0p in the pound. Cynically, I'm afraid one of the most likely reasons that Britain invoked terror legislation to seize assets was to prevent them being sold for the benefit of all creditors. The pitiful bids the businesses would have attracted would have shone a very harsh light on our Emperor's New Clothes economy and loan books like HBOS's, who were as recklessly overextended to UK retail and commercial property sectors as the Icelandic banks. And would hit the exact same rocks. To take the best known example Baugur. At the end of the day these 'assets' were mostly a load of leased shops selling things in a business model that was only plausibly, if even then, viable whilst operating in a bubble economy of excess credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urdur Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 EXCELLENT! Thank you very much. Why didn't you say so earlier. I knew you people were good 'uns! Mind you, a lot of people on this thread will be disappointed that the UK gets anything back, they would rather you had kept it. But I guess you are more honest than that. THANK YOU. It's you money... Not many good things can be said about our previous Government, but they did one thing correct.by passing laws that ensured that depositors were granted priority over investors when dealing out the assets. By doing this they made sure that the ones that "deserved" loosing from this crash were the banksters but not the every day people.. You know we are doing the best we can and trying to be fair, but it's a bit rough when dealing with the complete unfairness and bullying that the British government has been showing for the past year or so.. Here's a link to the Iceslave clock..it shows how the interests are ticking minute by minute.. You can even click where it says 90% and you will see just how much we, the ordinary people of Iceland have to pay even if the assets cover 90% of the total debt...due to the intrests.. http://iceslave.is/skuldaklukkan.php? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 No, I am dismantling yours. As i am fond of saying, countries don't exist, only people. You are taking a whole host of things as read which simply don't have to happen. This whole self-irony thing is new? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 This whole self-irony thing is new? New to you, perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 The second think is the Iceland guarantee. In order for an EFTA country's bank to be allowed to operate in the EU it needs to have a compensation scheme in place. So perhaps you would like to tell us about Iceland's guarantee that allowed it to operate in the EU. As far as I can make out, directive 19/94/EC defines the compensation requirements. From what Urdur is saying, the requirements are not all that might have been wished/believed by those who saved with these banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidSWP Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Its the muppets who took our taxes (councils )and invested it in risky foreign banks that we should be holding to account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urdur Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 As far as I can make out, directive 19/94/EC defines the compensation requirements. From what Urdur is saying, the requirements are not all that might have been wished/believed by those who saved with these banks. Correct..Which is why the EU freaked out in the fall of 2008 when the Icesave matter came about. During that time it was greatly feared that European banks were on the brink of collapse. Had Iceland gone and voiced outloud this fact it could possibly cause a run on banks operating under the passport scheme.. This again could have caused the total collapse of the banking industry in..well..at least Europe if not world wide.. These fears were voiced to our MPs at that time and the broad consensus among EU nations seem to have been to sacrifice little Iceland for the greater cause of the many.. Why else have we consistently been denied to put the case before a independent court?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 The people of Iceland don't have anything to do with it. Only the fools who swallow Icelandic propaganda have fallen for that. The debt is owed by the Icelandic Government who took the assets of the failed bank. Next time some Viking sells you a hard luck story, try not to be so gullible eh? And who will settle the liabilities of the "Icelandic government" Next time you forget that there's no such this as a country independent of the people try and imagine who would be conducting the foreign affairs if there was nobody there, ok? There are assets of a bank, which is just a company. That's the beginning and the end of the creditors entitlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) I used to think you were one of the smart ones but you clearly haven't read up on the Icesave affair. Basically, the Icelandic Government nationalised their banks. The Icesave deposits and assets did not just disappear, you know. They were taken by the Icelandic Government. Were you aware that ALL Icelandic savers were compensated 100%. But when it comes to meeting the deposit guarantees of British and Dutch deposits, all of a sudden, they can't afford it. Seriously, I never imagined you would fall for Icelandic Government propaganda so readily. Quite right too. This is exactly what we should have done with all our banks but we didn't have the balls. The shareholders, bond holders, foreign investors and deposits over £30k should have taken the hit so we could have limited the exposure of the British taxpayer. They invested and they lost fair and square. Putting the interests of foreign citizens above those of your own is treasonous IMO. Edited January 9, 2010 by chefdave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 As far as I can make out, directive 19/94/EC defines the compensation requirements. From what Urdur is saying, the requirements are not all that might have been wished/believed by those who saved with these banks. No, 19/94/95 only covers EU countries. Iceland is not in the EU. You too have confused the UK scheme and the Icelandic schemes such is the scale of mis-information on this subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 And who will settle the liabilities of the "Icelandic government" Next time you forget that there's no such this as a country independent of the people try and imagine who would be conducting the foreign affairs if there was nobody there, ok? There are assets of a bank, which is just a company. That's the beginning and the end of the creditors entitlement. No country independent of the people? This isn't a meeting of the 4th commutariat of the people's communist party you know. Jesus Christ. All this crap because you were gullible enough to swallow a Viking hard luck story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urdur Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 No, 19/94/95 only covers EU countries. Iceland is not in the EU. You too have confused the UK scheme and the Icelandic schemes such is the scale of mis-information on this subject. WRONG!!!!! Iceland is an EEA member along with Norway.....we follow the same rules as the EU in this matter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Correct..Which is why the EU freaked out in the fall of 2008 when the Icesave matter came about. During that time it was greatly feared that European banks were on the brink of collapse. Had Iceland gone and voiced outloud this fact it could possibly cause a run on banks operating under the passport scheme.. This again could have caused the total collapse of the banking industry in..well..at least Europe if not world wide.. These fears were voiced to our MPs at that time and the broad consensus among EU nations seem to have been to sacrifice little Iceland for the greater cause of the many.. Why else have we consistently been denied to put the case before a independent court?? I don't think he is correct. I don't think he even has a clue. Do you agree though that as the Icelandic State nationalised the assets of the banks, it has also therefore nationalised the liabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 WRONG!!!!! Iceland is an EEA member along with Norway.....we follow the same rules as the EU in this matter... Are you thick. Of course Iceland is an EEA member. I said Iceland is not in the EU. Learn to read! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.