Icelandic Banks - The thread for OFFSHORE savers

AJBIRD30

Hi, Are there any other small business out there like us that are today finding it hard to find out exactly what is happening and whether our money is safe, We have about £150k in account with Singer & Friedlander (IOM) not profit this money is needed to pay people/suppliers. The UK FSA say Isle of Man is not covered by them, The Isle of Man FSA say they do have scheme for small business to claim 75% of there savings upto a limit of £15k (which is nothing) but today say they are holding a meeting and may cancel that completly and not have any cover for small businesses.
It seems unfair that so many small companies out there may now have to close because of this and through no fault of there own resulting in many job losses, also small businesses should have the same right as single investers at least so we can try and get at £50k back. its seems we are going to be forgotton by all and passed from one to the other. If any other small business out there are also asking questions today or if anyone has any answers please let us know.

ossigeno

MacBiggles wrote: »

-- ..especially possible diversion of funds to Iceland.. --

The IoM FSC also needs to look at if any criminal activities have taken place in the run up to the fall of KSF IoM. I am deeply disturbed by the failure to fulfil transactions that were initiated last weekend and I was given repeated assurances by KSF IoM staff that the money was transferred on Tuesday. It has not reached the destination account and I am not hopeful. Their other assurances that there was no risk ar KSF IoM have proved equally hollow. If our funds were blocked so that greater reserves could be shipped back to Iceland then I welcome Gordon Brown's threat to sue Iceland.

dunstonh

Offshore saving/investing has always been riskier than onshore. The level of consumer protection has for a very long time not been on par with the UK mainland.

We need to manage the sympathy angle for the BBC 5 live to ensure that people realise that most of us are British expats who were forced to go to the IoM because the UK branches require a UK address. The last thing we need is for the Sun to turn this into a popular campaign against the UK government helping a bunch of "rich, tax evading, criminals".

With respect, there is no reason for expats to be offshore other than for tax reasons. Plenty of onshore banks will use overseas addresses. Although the numbers have reduced since MIFID was intoduced last November. That said, you are right that there is no need for stereotypical campaigns either. Although typically, it is the wealthier clients that would use offshore facilities.

I do hope the FSCS is not used to pay offshore depositers as its FSA authorised firms that pay towards the FSCS. It is unfair for them to fund the firms that transact under a different regulatory regime. If the Govt wants to fund it, then thats a different matter but it shouldnt use the FSCS.

SwedenRed

!!!!!! wrote: »

Swedenred,

Would it be appropriate to include all Icelandic banks here - this would bring in more people and have a louder voice.

Yes of course.

stanley317

Treasury Minister unwilling to make a statement at this time as to how or if the scheme will include KSF. Needs to be sure of his facts before a definitive statement can be made. Will wait until after KSF court hearing today before making a statement.

Three expressions of interest have been made by other banks to purchase the deposit activities of KSF.

New scheme will not charge depositors initerest while awaiting payment (see me previous question on this matter).

New scheme DOES replace the old scheme i.e. does not extend it, which means that some people protected before by the 15,000 will not be protected by the new scheme.

ossigeno

dunstonh wrote: »

Offshore saving/investing has always been riskier than onshore. The level of consumer protection has for a very long time not been on par with the UK mainland.



With respect, there is no reason for expats to be offshore other than for tax reasons. Plenty of onshore banks will use overseas addresses. Although the numbers have reduced since MIFID was intoduced last November. That said, you are right that there is no need for stereotypical campaigns either. Although typically, it is the wealthier clients that would use offshore facilities.

I do hope the FSCS is not used to pay offshore depositers as its FSA authorised firms that pay towards the FSCS. It is unfair for them to fund the firms that transact under a different regulatory regime. If the Govt wants to fund it, then thats a different matter but it shouldnt use the FSCS.

So FSA authorised firms do not receive any commission from offshore clients? Surely everybodies money is equal. Good advertisement to never engage a self-serving FSA authorised firm.

gomann

As I had noted earlier, I ordered £5000 on Monday at 1300 by BACS, and a further £20,000 on Monday at 1920 by CHAPS ... the CHAPS funds arrived in UK [LTSB] late on Tuesday.

However, it appears that the BACS one [which I could have sworn had left KE when I checked on Wednesday morning] got stopped somewhere in mid-air [and was diverted to Iceland?].

occamsrazor

Dunston, glad to see you are here... I know you post a lot on these forums, are quite knowledgeable, and often have useful comments.

dunstonh wrote: »

With respect, there is no reason for expats to be offshore other than for tax reasons. Plenty of onshore banks will use overseas addresses. Although the numbers have reduced since MIFID was intoduced last November.

Really, care to name some of these onshore banks who will open accounts for non-residents? While they may be willing to use overseas addresses for existing UK clients who then move abroad (some will, some won't), opening new accounts for non-residents is virtually impossible. There may be literally one or two, but it is extremely hard these days.

dunstonh wrote: »

I do hope the FSCS is not used to pay offshore depositers as its FSA authorised firms that pay towards the FSCS. It is unfair for them to fund the firms that transact under a different regulatory regime. If the Govt wants to fund it, then thats a different matter but it shouldnt use the FSCS.

I understand the reasons why you say that, and in some ways it is a fair point. But many expats want to be onshore, but cannot and have been forced offshore by the regulations regarding non-residents. Especially if they need to bank in euros or dollars.

dunstonh

So FSA authorised firms do not receive any commission from offshore clients?

Correct. However, if an FSA authorised firm makes a recommendation to use an offshore product then the risk of use has to be considered and the FSA authorised firm can then face the liability for complaint and redress.

Surely everybodies money is equal.

Not at all. If you buy washing machine from Currys and it doesnt work, you dont take it back to Dixons to get your money back.

Good advertisement to never engage a self-serving FSA authorised firm.

Had an FSA authorised firm been used then you would have more protection. Protection that is paid for by FSA authorised firms. Its not there to protect other regimes.

many expats want to be onshore, but cannot and have been forced offshore by the regulations regarding non-residents.

A&L did some research earlier in the year and foundNine in 10 expats use internet banking and only a third use offshore savings accounts. The research, ironically, was used to promote offshore use.

I will have to fire up the research software later and see what comes out as far as options go. However, I do know that the hardest thing for many ex-pats isnt the eligibility but the compliance with UK money laundering requirements. Electronic money laundering verification is more common nowadays and ex-pats dont stand a chance of passing that so they tend to be eliminated by default. Face to face is easier though and there is no reason why a face to face transaction to set up an account should not exist.

Monkeyface3604

Throughout this thread and on the KP website there is reference to the guarantee that KP made when purchasing the business from Derbyshire. It says that on top of the IOM guarantee of 15,000, "Kaupthing Bank hf, the banks ultimate parent will provide a parental guarantee which replaces the parental guarantee from Derbyshire Building Society from the date of completion, meaning the customers can continue to have peace of mind regarding their deposits"
1. Does anyone know exactly what the Derbyshire guarantee was?
2. Does anyone with apropriate legal knowledge know how enfocable this guarantee would be?