Why Iceland Will Not Pay Up

[169995]

Having read all of these posts it occurs to me that that the Icelandic bankers have defrauded everyone . I believe that there is such a thing as an international arrest warrant ( ask Roman Polanski) They should be individually arrested and their assets seized. I also see that nobody has mentioned the fact that local councils and The cats Protection League had hundreds of Millions of pounds invested with these banks . Where are the financial experts who advised all these investments and do they have any responsibilty for this . Perhaps the FSA who licenced them can be sued ?

[Authoritarian]

The Icelandic case is a nice micro example of the dilemma of life and value and obligation and personal responsibility.On the one hand you have savers who are happy to accept a too-good-to-be-true return on their "investment".You then have their reluctance to accept any associated risk for their "investment".The savers trumpet "something must be done" to the government that they have been robbed by unscrupulous governments/people/countries.The government responds by placing Iceland on a list of terrorist nations and demands compensation.All of the above is accompanied by popular disgust at how much taxpayers money has been used to rescue the failed casino that was/is the British banking system yet without the realisation that many of the ones protesting are also demanding that they be permitted to enjoy risk-free investment in some offshore savings asylum.The hypocrisy must surely now be evident and the solution must surely now scream out loud to anybody with even half a brain.There can be no investment without risk. Our government is a reflection of our collective unease at taking responsibility for our own lives. It's easier to let it be somebody else's problem but the price that is paid for this is loss of personal sovereignty and dis empowerment on a grand scale.We are quite happy to have people steal on our behalf all the time we benefit, but the moment we are adversely affected by mass-theft, we cry "something must be done" and the likes of Gordon Brown comes to the rescue with draconian and inappropriate proscription of innocents as terrorists and wrong-doers as the real thieves sneak off unnoticed.

Good post. Should be printed out and sent to all those in charge of running this asylum, they can't solve everyones problems. Sometimes you've just got to man up.

[SNACR]

Having read all of these posts it occurs to me that that the Icelandic bankers have defrauded everyone . I believe that there is such a thing as an international arrest warrant ( ask Roman Polanski) They should be individually arrested and their assets seized. I also see that nobody has mentioned the fact that local councils and The cats Protection League had hundreds of Millions of pounds invested with these banks . Where are the financial experts who advised all these investments and do they have any responsibilty for this . Perhaps the FSA who licenced them can be sued ?

Frankly, I find the fact that The Cats Protection League lost millions of pounds stashed in a high-yield offshore account only worrying insofar as there clearly needs to be urgent investigation into the the whole, greatly expanded in recent times, 'charity sector'. A burgeoning executive salary troughing opportunity that enjoys a great deal of concessions beyond those extended to normal employers.

[MarkG]

Didn't we use Terror legislation to seize the icelandics banks' British assets? I seem to recall that we did.

I'm surprised that Brown hasn't invaded evil terrorist Iceland yet to impose a 'regime change'.

[surfcat]

The Icelandic case is a nice micro example of the dilemma of life and value and obligation and personal responsibility.On the one hand you have savers who are happy to accept a too-good-to-be-true return on their "investment".You then have their reluctance to accept any associated risk for their "investment".The savers trumpet "something must be done" to the government that they have been robbed by unscrupulous governments/people/countries.The government responds by placing Iceland on a list of terrorist nations and demands compensation.All of the above is accompanied by popular disgust at how much taxpayers money has been used to rescue the failed casino that was/is the British banking system yet without the realisation that many of the ones protesting are also demanding that they be permitted to enjoy risk-free investment in some offshore savings asylum.The hypocrisy must surely now be evident and the solution must surely now scream out loud to anybody with even half a brain.There can be no investment without risk. Our government is a reflection of our collective unease at taking responsibility for our own lives. It's easier to let it be somebody else's problem but the price that is paid for this is loss of personal sovereignty and dis empowerment on a grand scale.We are quite happy to have people steal on our behalf all the time we benefit, but the moment we are adversely affected by mass-theft, we cry "something must be done" and the likes of Gordon Brown comes to the rescue with draconian and inappropriate proscription of innocents as terrorists and wrong-doers as the real thieves sneak off unnoticed.

Are you some sort of c0ck? It was hardly too good to be true. In comparison with UK-based savings accounts at the time it was maybe 0.5% above (and set against an Icelandic base rate which was around double as far as I remember). Not only does one consider the interest rate however, but the benefit of accounts such as Icesave, and ING Direct when it first launched, was the simplicity. No other products. No loans. No credit cards. No marketing calls from Colin in Bangalore asking whether we want to take out insurance, which is what you get from most "British" banks. Straightforward product, simple web access.

You also seem to confuse "investments" with "deposits". Investments have never been protected to any great extent by the FSCS or otherwise, but savings deposits, in Icesave and elsewhere, were and are. If they weren't, savers wouldn't make deposits. Furthermore, the bank would not receive a license to operate in the UK or elsewhere in the EU. So there we have it. Savers are sold a deposit product, and are offered protection under UK and EU law on their deposits. Nothing offshore about it, otherwise the savings income would not have been taxable.

If you really are suggesting that protection is not offered on deposit accounts, then bring it on! Collapse of the banking system! Good luck finding anyone willing to put their money into the fractional reserve, and you'll have a long wait for that HPC after savings are piled into brick 'n mortar.

[huw]

You're an odd one. Why is it up to me to provide documentation?

Because you're the one with a claim that you require settling. Imagine that I claimed you owed me a tenner, should the burden of proof be on me to produce an IOU signed by you, or on you to prove that there is no such IOU? This is no different. The oddness is expecting someone to prove a negative.

I haven't made any claims on the matter I'm just saying that Urdur's claim that there isn't an agreement is not supported by his documentation.

So you're not claiming there was an obligation for the Icelandic state to bail out the scheme? Then I presume you no longer support the UK/NL efforts to recover this money, and we can move on...

You agree that the assets should be used to repay the debt and yet you say no agreement no claim. Very bizarre.

Only if I actually said that. What I said was "supposed debt", meaning the debt being claimed from the Icelandic state. I am not persuaded that this debt exists. It might or it might not, but you haven't established it despite having many opportunities and requests to do so. The debts of failed banks are a different matter and these clearly should be met, as far as possible, from the disposal of the banks' assets.

Iceland has taken these assets and used them to compensate their own savers. The assets did not just disappear. Assets have been frozen in the UK but other assets such as loan assets (which can't be frozen) and assets held abroad have not been frozen.

The debt being claimed by UK/NL isn't about the assets, which according to Urdur have not been used as you claim and are in the hands of some kind of receiver who will distribute them to creditors, just as ought to happen. Again, if you must keep returning to this side-issue, please present some evidence that it's as you say. Illegal seizure of a major bank's assets would be big enough news to have made a mainstream newspaper or two, so you should have no difficulty in providing a link.

I agree that Iceland have not reneged on the debts yet. But people like you would prefer they did.

I would prefer that those claiming there's a debt, show the legal evidence that it exists.

[Pindar]

Are you some sort of c0ck? It was hardly too good to be true. In comparison with UK-based savings accounts at the time it was maybe 0.5% above (and set against an Icelandic base rate which was around double as far as I remember). Not only does one consider the interest rate however, but the benefit of accounts such as Icesave, and ING Direct when it first launched, was the simplicity. No other products. No loans. No credit cards. No marketing calls from Colin in Bangalore asking whether we want to take out insurance, which is what you get from most "British" banks. Straightforward product, simple web access.

No need for insults. Can't you just make your point without resorting to name calling?

You also seem to confuse "investments" with "deposits". Investments have never been protected to any great extent by the FSCS or otherwise, but savings deposits, in Icesave and elsewhere, were and are. If they weren't, savers wouldn't make deposits. Furthermore, the bank would not receive a license to operate in the UK or elsewhere in the EU. So there we have it. Savers are sold a deposit product, and are offered protection under UK and EU law on their deposits. Nothing offshore about it, otherwise the savings income would not have been taxable.

So if a deposit sits idly and doesn't fund any new economic activity it's a deposit and you may as well keep it under the mattress. I think it is you who confuses deposit and investment. All money deposited in a bank is a form of investment whether the glossy brochures tell you otherwise or not and all investment must incur some risk.

The higher the risk, the greater the potential rewards. Quite simple really. Oh, and I got my money out of Kaupthing Edge online investment account 2 weeks before they went into administration. It's called being proactive and not just clicking on a mouse and forgetting about thousands of pounds of hard earned money as some see fit to do.

It also epitomises a society in which we are too far removed from risk/reward for there to be any real change or economic development. People are too fixed on what they can get and not on what they can contribute/earn. We get the nanny state and easy looting that we are now witnessing with increasing frequency. Abdicate responsiblity and make it somebody else's problem seems to be the prevalent attitude.

If you really are suggesting that protection is not offered on deposit accounts, then bring it on! Collapse of the banking system! Good luck finding anyone willing to put their money into the fractional reserve, and you'll have a long wait for that HPC after savings are piled into brick 'n mortar.

I'm suggesting that people start to take responsibility for looking after their earnings themselves, instead of believing in big government and marketing spin. It's not difficult, they've done it in Iceland - I think it's time more people took the same approach. A store of wealth is the reason most people save and there are plenty of other vehicles for storing wealth that whilst taking a little thought and effort, will be far safer and reliable than a government and banking system that is out of control.

[Cygnus Alpha]

Because you're the one with a claim that you require settling. Imagine that I claimed you owed me a tenner, should the burden of proof be on me to produce an IOU signed by you, or on you to prove that there is no such IOU? This is no different. The oddness is expecting someone to prove a negative.

So you're not claiming there was an obligation for the Icelandic state to bail out the scheme? Then I presume you no longer support the UK/NL efforts to recover this money, and we can move on...

Only if I actually said that. What I said was "supposed debt", meaning the debt being claimed from the Icelandic state. I am not persuaded that this debt exists. It might or it might not, but you haven't established it despite having many opportunities and requests to do so. The debts of failed banks are a different matter and these clearly should be met, as far as possible, from the disposal of the banks' assets.

The debt being claimed by UK/NL isn't about the assets, which according to Urdur have not been used as you claim and are in the hands of some kind of receiver who will distribute them to creditors, just as ought to happen. Again, if you must keep returning to this side-issue, please present some evidence that it's as you say. Illegal seizure of a major bank's assets would be big enough news to have made a mainstream newspaper or two, so you should have no difficulty in providing a link.

I would prefer that those claiming there's a debt, show the legal evidence that it exists.

I have made so such claim. You are the one who claimed that Urdur's PDF was relevant to Iceland yet Iceland isn't even on it. You can read all about the Belgium. Polish and Latvian scheme but not Iceland. Urdur has told us separately that the Icelandic scheme does not have a Government guarantee but has provided no document to prove it. Then you spin it around and say I have to produce a document when I have made no claim as to whether the Icelandic scheme is Government back or not. In fact I don't know which is why I asked Urdur in the first place. Yet you keep on telling me to produce a document to back up a claim I haven't even made. How screwed up are you?

Your attitude to debt shows you are a very untrustworthy individual. Reading some of the tripe you put on here, I doubt anyone would lend you 5p.

[huw]

I have made so such claim. You are the one who claimed that Urdur's PDF was relevant to Iceland yet Iceland isn't even on it. You can read all about the Belgium. Polish and Latvian scheme but not Iceland. Urdur has told us separately that the Icelandic scheme does not have a Government guarantee but has provided no document to prove it. Then you spin it around and say I have to produce a document when I have made no claim as to whether the Icelandic scheme is Government back or not. In fact I don't know which is why I asked Urdur in the first place. Yet you keep on telling me to produce a document to back up a claim I haven't even made. How screwed up are you?

Your attitude to debt shows you are a very untrustworthy individual. Reading some of the tripe you put on here, I doubt anyone would lend you 5p.

Shall I take it that you're not going to post any evidence that Iceland owes any money?

[Injin]

Shall I take it that you're not going to post any evidence that Iceland owes any money?

he won't post any that proves it exists, either!

[Cygnus Alpha]

Shall I take it that you're not going to post any evidence that Iceland owes any money?

The Icelandic Government say they owe the money. That's good enough for me. Here's 5p. Now piss off.

[Injin]

The Icelandic Government say they owe the money. That's good enough for me. Here's 5p. Now piss off.

Who did what where now?

[SNACR]

The Icelandic Government say they owe the money. That's good enough for me. Here's 5p. Now piss off.

Your whole attitude seems to be like that of an unscrupulous DCA. You can't make the person who actually borrowed the money pay up so you just trawl through the electoral roll for someone with a similar name and then try to bully and intimidate the money out of them.

[huw]

The Icelandic Government say they owe the money. That's good enough for me. Here's 5p. Now piss off.

I bet you're not going to post a source for that claim, either, are you?

[Three Pint Princess 2]

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=67445

Beware Icelandic Banks

For all you folk like me tempted to look at Kaupthing's 6.5%AER ....think again. It goes back to Merryn's wise words - the banks offering crazy savings rates are DESPERATE to cover their credit liabilities......

After reading Moody's report (from the link above) I really think this is a case of:

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Must remember to file your postings along with annoucements from Moody's, under trash!

[Ruffneck]

whats the big deal

does anyone here seriously think the UK will pay back all it's debtors?

[Urdur]

I have made so such claim. You are the one who claimed that Urdur's PDF was relevant to Iceland yet Iceland isn't even on it. You can read all about the Belgium. Polish and Latvian scheme but not Iceland. Urdur has told us separately that the Icelandic scheme does not have a Government guarantee but has provided no document to prove it.

I don't need to waste time digging up a paper that shows that Icelandic scheme doesn't have a State guarantee..

It's enough to point out that our Parliament past the Icesave bill a few days ago in order to create one...

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

whats the big deal

does anyone here seriously think the UK will pay back all it's debtors?

Precisely.

As someone pointed out much earlier in the thread, why should the Icelandic people bail out a bunch of corrupt bankers anyway? It wasn't their doing that created this mess.

The banking crisis in Iceland was engineered. They have destroyed one of the most prosperous per capita nations and tried to leave the Icelandic people with the bill for the mess.

Meanwhile, the FSA and Brown's government did nothing to stop British people depositing money with Icelandic banks, despite the bloody obvious fact that the generous returns being offered to British investors would end in tears.

All roads lead to Gordon Brown (as always)

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Frankly, I find the fact that The Cats Protection League lost millions of pounds stashed in a high-yield offshore account only worrying insofar as there clearly needs to be urgent investigation into the the whole, greatly expanded in recent times, 'charity sector'. A burgeoning executive salary troughing opportunity that enjoys a great deal of concessions beyond those extended to normal employers.

Indeed.

Furthermore, many of these bigger charities, not-for-profit ltd. co. 'community groups' and trade associations have formed cartels / oligopolies & undermined whole industries, particulalrly in the used goods & waste / recycling sectors.

Such funding vultures exploit the needy and are very good at 'appearing ' to do the job, as they have been getting away with it for years. Many of these charities directors have executive positions on private co. boards in the same industry.

A recent case in point :Link

THE Provincial Booksellers Fairs Association (PBFA) and Oxfam have come to an agreement in their dispute over how the charity is affecting the secondhand book market.

Oxfam bookshops & Amazon / Ebay sellers have forced thousands of small bookshops to close as they cannot compete. Several years later an agreement to give the few remaining book dealers some entry into Oxfams rarer book valuations seems a pretty poor result. The industry is decimated, British towns & cities are much poorer places without several used bookshops to browse in, particularly for the tourists & the environment.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Saving For a Space Ship

[Rare Bear]

They chose Icelandic accounts for the higher interest, but the interest was higher for a reason: extra risk. Can nobody take responsibility for their own financial decisions? The government even recommended Icelandic banks to LAs.

Exactly. Even if the financial world were not in turmoil we would hear of some other deposit taker of some sort going bust in the fairly near future. They would of cousre have been offering a slightly higher interest rate than their more stable competitors.

[huw]

Oxfam bookshops & Amazon / Ebay sellers have forced thousands of small bookshops to close as they cannot compete. Several years later an agreement to give the few remaining book dealers some entry into Oxfams rarer book valuations seems a pretty poor result. The industry is decimated, British towns & cities are much poorer places without several used bookshops to browse in, particularly for the tourists & the environment.

TBH this mainly sounds like an unfortunate consequence of change, to me. You can hardly compel people to dispose of old books via the local bookshop instead of on ebay or by donating to charity or swapping on BookMooch. And when people feel rich, they're more likely to buy new books -- particularly considering how much more competitive new books are now, with Amazon and since the ending of the Nett Book Price Agreement (that amounted to price-fixing by the publishing industry).

I suppose there's an argument to be made about Oxfam's tax-status giving it an unfair competitive advantage over commercial rivals.

[Cygnus Alpha]

I don't need to waste time digging up a paper that shows that Icelandic scheme doesn't have a State guarantee..

It's enough to point out that our Parliament past the Icesave bill a few days ago in order to create one...

Absolutely! Although I wasn't the one who is going round demanding people waste time digging up paper. It's our friend who has just been given 5p to piss off.

[Urdur]

Here's yet another reason as to why the Icelanders are raving mad..

Treasury: Landsbanki wind-up will cover cost of 100% Icesave compensation

The Treasury has said it expects to recover £500 million from the wind-up of Landsbanki to cover the 100% compensation guarantee given to Icesave customers, in a week when the dispute about Iceland’s debt heated up.

The UK government is demanding Iceland pay back a £2.3 billion loan used to bail out almost 290,000 Icesave customers. The Treasury is also pushing for a further £1.1 billion to cover the difference between UK and Icelandic compensation limits, the former being £50,000 and the later €20,000.

Controversially, the UK government also wants Iceland to pay £500 million to cover the cost of extending the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) to 100% for Icesave deposits – a decision taken by the Treasury in October 2008.

The Treasury expects to recoup the £500 million it paid out in excess of the £50,000 compensation limit from the sale of Landsbanki, Icesave’s parent company’s UK assets. ‘The £500 million for the top up of the FSCS we will take from the wind up of Landsbanki,’ said a Treasury spokesman.

So here's the deal...the UK decided all on it's own to guarantee these deposits to up to £50.000..

In the Icesave bill they have demanded that the amount from all assets that will be sold from Landsbanki will be distributed 50/50..

Let's say that the Icelandic guarantee scheme was obligated according to directive 19/94/EC to pay out €20.000 even though there are no levies left to finance payments for it's loans...

How on earth can anyone argue that, that same guarantee scheme should not be a priory player, due to the minimum deposit cover, when dealing out the assets???

I honestly don't think this is even legal what the UK and Dutch are demanding in this matter.

Why on earth should the Icelandic taxpayer be made to pay not only for the UK Government's top up of the minimum cover to £50.000..but also £500 million for the cost of this decision?????

This is an outrage..!!!!