Icesave compensation payouts... how to keep the pressure up

Optimist

Well I find it difficult to believe that out government would tell fibs :rolleyes: however a report of the conversation between Alistair Darling and Árni Mathiesen his Icelandic counterpart in the FT yesterday would indicate that Iceland didn't quite refuse to compensate UK savers

"A transcript of a conversation between the UK chancellor, Alistair Darling, and his Icelandic counterpart appears to question the British government’s claim that Iceland had refused to compensate UK savers.
The transcript, obtained by the Financial Times, is of a telephone conversation at the height of the crisis on October 7 between Mr Darling and Árni Mathiesen, Icelandic finance minister.
In it they discuss whether or not the Icelandic government is in a position to compensate up to 300,000 British depositors in Icesave, the online arm of Landsbanki, the Icelandic bank.
At no point does the Icelandic finance minister state unequivocally that Iceland would not honour its obligations.
Instead, Mr Mathiesen says that Iceland plans to use its compensation scheme to try to meet obligations to British depositors"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42c0e23c-a153-11dd-82fd-000077b07658.html

meunier

I have just posted this on another forum - but wanted to ask on this one as well - as it was officially started by Martin:

Forgive me if this is simplistic, but I do have a question: While realising how vitally important it is for Britain to maintain its arm in terms of an ultimate legal battle with Iceland to force them over the long-term to honour their original committment, might it not be possible (indeed desirable) for HM Treasury and the FSCS to join together and pay out the DIFFERENCE (e.g., those amounts OVER the passport scheme commitment due by Iceland) to UK savers? Surely any court (as I fear this is where this is heading) will see such an action not only as the UK's willingness to honour commitments (much as it appears other countries like Finland have evidenced), but also this would, perhaps, reduce a fraction of the pain and suffering currently being experienced by the same UK savers as evidenced on this board and other similar ones.

Forgive me if this is too simplistic a suggestion.

Optimist

Stalemate in talks between Iceland and Britain over the fate of the money from UK savers that is frozen in an Icelandic bank was being blamed last night for delaying a bailout of the stricken North Atlantic economy.
The International Monetary Fund is believed to be insisting that Reykjavik’s dispute with London over British savings held in Icesave, the UK offshoot of Iceland’s nationalised Landsbanki, is resolved before it will make a decision on the scale of emergency support for the tiny island nation.
The IMF’s governing executive board was meeting last night to debate a potential rescue package for Iceland, which could total $6 billion (£3.7 billion) and is likely to be backed by several Scandinavian central banks and the Bank of Japan. It would make Iceland the first Western country to receive an IMF loan since Britain went to the fund in 1976.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5004002.ece

shindigger

Optimist wrote: »

Stalemate in talks between Iceland and Britain over the fate of the money from UK savers that is frozen in an Icelandic bank was being blamed last night for delaying a bailout of the stricken North Atlantic economy.
The International Monetary Fund is believed to be insisting that Reykjavik’s dispute with London over British savings held in Icesave, the UK offshoot of Iceland’s nationalised Landsbanki, is resolved before it will make a decision on the scale of emergency support for the tiny island nation.
The IMF’s governing executive board was meeting last night to debate a potential rescue package for Iceland, which could total $6 billion (£3.7 billion) and is likely to be backed by several Scandinavian central banks and the Bank of Japan. It would make Iceland the first Western country to receive an IMF loan since Britain went to the fund in 1976.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5004002.ece

Hopefully that means the IMF have Haarde over a barrel.
He has to play ball with the UK to get his bail out from the IMF.
Is this too simplistic?
Im struggling to scrape together something positive from this.

st

all very well in discussing the iceland talks etc but in my opinion A Darling stated on october 8th that ALL savers with icesave would be refunded with our savings including us with up to the £16k

so it is with Darling that the answer lies --I am sure that when he stated this it was for political gain however fact remains he said it and wheter the money comes from iceland or the treasury to us us icesavers we just want our money.

Darling should instruct the FSCS now to get on with it -he is clearly using us icesavers as pawns to save his own face and therefore believe me we still need a united action as I simply do not trust Darling-FSCS.
this will drag on for months-i hope wrong but we need to keep the pressue on.

AB31

meunier wrote: »

I have just posted this on another forum - but wanted to ask on this one as well - as it was officially started by Martin:

Forgive me if this is simplistic, but I do have a question: While realising how vitally important it is for Britain to maintain its arm in terms of an ultimate legal battle with Iceland to force them over the long-term to honour their original committment, might it not be possible (indeed desirable) for HM Treasury and the FSCS to join together and pay out the DIFFERENCE (e.g., those amounts OVER the passport scheme commitment due by Iceland) to UK savers? Surely any court (as I fear this is where this is heading) will see such an action not only as the UK's willingness to honour commitments (much as it appears other countries like Finland have evidenced), but also this would, perhaps, reduce a fraction of the pain and suffering currently being experienced by the same UK savers as evidenced on this board and other similar ones.

Forgive me if this is too simplistic a suggestion.

So someone with £30,000 invested gets £15,000, while somebody with £15,000 gets nowt. This idea has been floated before, and I recall answering before in these terms. It doesn't seem equitable, does it, that the more you have in their the bigger the immediate payout you'll get. It would suit me because I have a large sum invested, but I'm not recommending it since I can't see it remotely being a flyer.

KingL

Presumably meunier meant starting with paying out the FSCS bit and following up with the disputed icelandic bit later on.

briskly_2

I wonder why the FSCS don't just get on with posting the claim forms out - two and a half weeks have been lost already and the paperwork will take ages. If it turns out in a few weeks there is an electronic solution, they can just bin the forms. This "accelerated" payout looks like it could take years to sort out! Why not have a plan B?

Birdie100

Briskly,

In short, there is no plan B. No-one has any idea how or when we're to get our money back. Forms can't be printed if there's no money available to honour the claims.

apt

The attempt to blame the British government is ludicrous. The Icelandic banking system and economy was already in an unsustainable state. And the final crisis was prompted by the Icelandic government's botched nationalisation of Glitnir. The guarantee of Icelanders' saving by the Icelandic govt was thoroughly dishonest and could only have been carried out, if at all, by stealing foreign deposits. Also the notion that Kaupthing would have survived while the other two banks went down if only the British govt had not stepped in is absolutely fanciful. Icelanders' anger should be directed at their own govt, which even now seems to think it can take a loan from the IMF without taking the IMF's medicine.