DEPOSITORS are safe with Barclays, according to the director of its Guernsey branch. Mark Leaman (pictured) said the bank had learned from its past mistakes and had changed its risk strategy accordingly to safeguard savers’ money.
‘In 1991 we made our only loss and we have not announced one this time because we are applying very sophisticated risk models based on how the economy shapes up.
‘Barclays is very much open for business and is keen to hear from homeowners and businesses looking for loans. In these difficult times, we can be viewed as a safe haven for depositors and are currently gaining business from our competitors.
‘We have been around for 300 years and have a double-A credit rating. We are not taking up funding from the UK Government and are coming out of the situation in a strong position.’
Mr Leaman said he had been contacted by clients large and small who were concerned about the safety of their money and had assured them their deposits were secure.
‘If you put money in a bank, you are effectively investing in that bank.
‘What has happened with Landsbanki is very difficult for their customers, but we are not them.
‘What we are telling our customers is that if they bank with us, their money is as safe as it possibly could be.’
Mr Leaman is a member of the working group for a depositors’ protection scheme in Guernsey, which is aiming to come up with a package for discussion at next month’s States meeting.
‘Barclays has always supported the idea of a depositor-protection scheme in Guernsey,’ he said.
‘There is an inconsistency of approach around the world to this issue – the UK has a limited scheme and the Isle of Man has a small one. What we must do is to concentrate on creating something that provides tangible protection for retail depositors.’
Barclays would welcome extra regulation for the global banking industry if need be, he added.
‘The market is changing quickly and it remains to be seen how everything will pan out, but we are in favour of anything that brings added protection for depositors.
‘I think banks are already well regulated, but it is on the agenda at the moment and it’s a question of how much further we need to go.’
Mr Leaman said Guernsey’s banking sector continued to bring a host of benefits to the island.
‘We continue to pay tax under the zero-10 regime and have collectively raised more than £1m. for the community in the last year.’
Article posted on 23rd October, 2008 - 2.30pm
45 Article Comments
Mr Leaman is obviously trying to reassure his customers and to stop the hemorrhaging of funds out of the island.
All I can say is that Barclays Guernsey is not Barclays UK, and if you watch what is happening on the World markets, increased unemployment, and companies reported in trouble, nothing is certain.
Hence why a short time ago I transfered my savings from Barclays to the UK where it is now 100 % safe.
I just cant afford to trust anyone at this time, especially after the Landbanski debacle.
Report abuse
A very bold statement, Mr Leaman. Sounds suspiciously like a PR / sales stunt to me. Are Barclays desperately touting for local business as millions of pounds are hemorrhaging daily out of Guernsey?
I will never trust any bank ever, again. I suspect that Landsbanki customers might echo these sentiments.
Banking in Guernsey is like free-fall parachuting without a reserve shute.
Report abuse
While many (Labour colleagues) liken Gordon Brown to Churchill and Rosevelt you’d be more accurate with Emelda Marcos on a credit card spending orgy. This bankrupt trolls idea of debt and risky loans is to go on a spending spree and spread the pain from those organisations that tried a little too hard (risked a bit too much) to spreading that pain across the entire country.
Instead of a limited number of loans, debts, pensions and mortgages being ‘hit’ Gordon bankrupt Brown has laden every taxpayer with a £5,000 debt and mortgaged the country beyond its means. And the result is not “stabalising the markets” it’s increasing the pain (bad debt) and the markets heading South as fast as ever.
Brown has achieved, like his tenure, absolutely nothing. A typical Socialist who thinks Big Govt solves all when cpatalism sorts out the issues massively more efficiently.
As for the banks Browns ‘public investments’ makes Govt first in the cue for dividends and has already resulted in any value being wiped off the shares as the market is just not interested anymore. So RBS and HBOS shares will be stagnant while Barclays and HSBC, who sought private finance, will be a considerably better investment.
Like all private v public organisations the private version outperforms the dead hand of politicians every time. Brown is not a saviour or “a safe pair of hands”. He’s just a loser prolonging the pain.
Report abuse
Good to see Mark Leaman trot out the M=New Labour banner call “we have learned from past mistakes and had changed its risk strategy accordingly…”
Problem is the power of greed soon allows the return of previous bad habits.
Perhaps Mr Leaman should reflect a little of some of the banking mess ups of recent years.
These put his slick PR comments into a realistic perspective and show them to be mere words.
Report abuse
Mr Leaman
How about absolute guarantees then? It is too easy to talk but far better to show something concrete.
Report abuse
Last night 23 Oct 2008on Channel 4 news they made the following report, again we must make a call for a proper guarantee as people will not deposit their money in the Islands.
More than 12,000 people have collectively lost nearly £1 billion in the offshore arms of Icelandic banks.
But while the Government was quick to step in to guarantee the savings of UK investors who held money in this country with Icelandic institutions, no one has offered any help to those with cash offshore.
Their problem is being compounded by a misconception that offshore accounts are the preserve of wealthy tax exiles. But in reality many of those who have lost money with Landsbanki Guernsey and Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man are ordinary people who simply happen to live abroad.
Among the victims of the collapse are people who have retired overseas, charity workers who were using interest from the money to provide them with an income, people who had sold their homes and deposited the money offshore and normal families who just happen to live outside of the UK.
A survey of members of the Kaupthing Isle of Man Depositors Action Group shows that just 3% of its members had more than £1 million deposited with the bank, while 29% had between £50,000 and £99,999 saved and 19% had between £100,000 and £249,999.
The money often represented people’s entire life savings, their retirement fund or the proceeds of the sale of their home or a business.
In one case it was money that a young widow with three school age children had invested from an insurance payout she received when her husband died.
It is almost impossible for people who do not have a UK address to open a UK bank account, leaving little choice for those who want to continue holding money in sterling but to open an offshore account.
Other people who have lost money are UK residents who have invested their money in centres such as Guernsey or the Isle of Man in order to take advantage of the higher interest rates offered there, but who still pay tax in the UK on the returns they earn.
A total of 2,033 people collectively had £117 million saved with Landsbanki Guernsey and around 10,000 people had £840 million invested with Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man. Because the money was invested outside of the UK, savers are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
Report abuse
Apart from local people depositing savings in the home jurisdiction, the examples mentioned have one thing in common; they are using tax havens as a source of income.
The widow with her insurance payout could have kept it in the UK, the charity worker the same, the overseas retirees could have opened a local account. If you retire overseas then you should live by their rules and adopt their currency. It’s about having your cake and eating it, isn’t it? It’s about finding little loopholes in order to maximise return, isn’t it? Greed?
The 7% on offer wasn’t that over the odds to make it a must-have, so it is clear that tax implications were the main driver.
That’s not to say that their deposits shouldn’t be protected, however, we are talking life savings, it’s just the tone of the report makes it sound like this ‘business as usual’ arrangement of banking in offshore tax havens is something that we should all be doing and that these were ‘clever’ savers taking advantage of the fractured global tax regimes.
The reality is you should pay tax on your cash in the place that you live, otherwise the place that you live loses out. It’s really that simple.
I hope the Icelandic Gov. (and its banks) sees the damage that it’s done and somehow finds the money to compensate these people, but we must learn from these mistakes and overhaul the system.
Report abuse
Fast Robert most of the people that lost their money do pay taxes or work in areas abroad which makes it harder to have a bank account in the UK.I get sick and tired of people like you that make disparaging remarks about savers that are just trying to do what is the best course for earning money on their savings. To call these people greedy is very insulting you and some others seem to have a delight in so many peoples misfortune. You never stop criticising well managed areas that are acknowledged throughout the World and are credits to the people operate the various systems.
You do not seem to have a clue with regards to due diligence that is carried out which even goes into where people went to School their job history and how they earned their money no other area in the World exercises such stringent checks.
You are supposed to work in the industry of finance but you seem to be ignorant of the systems that are operated
Report abuse
I didn’t say that I don’t think Guernsey is well managed in comparison to some. I didn’t mention that these savers were laundering or what-have-you. I said that offshore jurisdictions are used to maximise earnings.
I criticise the attitude that because we secure billions of deposits then all has to be well. We have exploited tax disparity, rightly so as an entrepreneurial direction, but that doesn’t alter the fact that attracting money offshore isn’t morally dubious.
A global map of capital movement would show up the concentrations in tax havens around the world. These concentrations drastically distort global wealth as a whole. The rich get richer and the poor lose out.
Guernsey could quite easily maintain its attraction at the same time as conforming with some sort of global tax harmonisation, we have the expertise, the products and the capacity to adapt.
Were most of these ‘normal’ savers advised that the benefits of tax mitigation outweigh the lack of protection? If not, does that make IFAs complicit in their losses?
Report abuse
Fast Robert – you actually said: “If you retire overseas then you should live by their rules and adopt their currency. It’s about having your cake and eating it, isn’t it? It’s about finding little loopholes in order to maximise return, isn’t it? Greed?” Why do you say that ? Unless they are acting in contravention of the tax laws in their new country of residence (and there is no suggestion that they are) then your comment is not about what’s lawful or unlawful…its purely about your disdain for people who undertake legitimate tax planning. That’s not greedy, its common sense.
If you have the chance to buy a product from one shop for £100 or to spend £5 in petrol to buy something from another shop elsewhere for £90, saving yourself £5 in the process, then would you call that “greed” or would you call it common sense ? Unless the depositor is doing anything illegal by banking offshore and not declaring the income when it should be declared, which is a criminal offence, then why shouldn’t depositors legitimately take advantages of the tax deferral benefits from investing offshore in a gross roll-up environment and paying the resulting tax later, totally in accordance with the rules of the country where they are residing ?
The EU Savings Tax Directive and various exchange of information provisions are in place to ensure that many of the depositors of Landsbanki who have identified themselves in public automatically get details of interest earned on their accounts reported directly to the tax authorities in their country of residence. They aren’t being “greedy” but are seeking the best after-tax return on their investment and if the laws allow them to receive the interest gross from Guernsey and pay their tax later, resulting in a benefit, then where’s your problem ?
Nobody is under any obligation in this world to pay the maximum price for anything. Its called free market competition and applies to anything, whether its tax savings or savings in one’s weekly supermarket bill. Its only unlawful if laws are being broken and I defy anyone to call that “greedy”.
Report abuse
David
You take Fast Robert to task over the word greed and seem to regard greed and illegality as conjoined twins.
Seems to me you can be seen as greedy whilst not breaking the law. Like ot or not many see tax avoiders as being greedy but as you and I have said so often, that is perfectly legal.
I can see where both you and our friend are coming from and se merit in both argument.
What a wonderful situation – both of you are winners.
Report abuse
I put it as a question. If you have a few quid to save then you will put it where it gets best results. By exploiting tax laws we can attract people looking for the best results. Of course it is legitimate.
My problem is that if you live in a country, you earn in a country, and you use that country’s infrastructure, then you should pay tax on every penny of your wealth to that country. It’s a point of view, not an attack on legitimacy. Capital should follow you around as a true reflection of the wealth of the country of your domicile.
Even the US are seeing that the concentration of capital in offshore tax havens is anaethema to the capitalist ideal.
It is too strong a word to describe the now poor depositors of Landsbanki Guernsey as greedy, especially the older savers from the building society days, so maybe it is just a case of trying to squeeze as much profit out of your buck as possible, resulting in imprudence. This is a slightly different issue and my previous posts are somewhat off-topic. Again.
Report abuse
Well, that’s the kiss of death then, making such a statement! Jump guys, Jump – before it’s too late!!!!!!
Report abuse
On 30 September Landsbanki Guernsey wrote to depositors with a VERY similar message.
By 8 October they were in administration.
Report abuse
Compose
That is interetsing and something for an independent investigvation into the conduct of the GFSC should examine.
How much did the GFSC know of LG’s affairs when this statement was issued.
Report abuse
Good posting David, Fast Robert makes my blood boil there is not the slightest compassion in any of his posts and to add insult to injury he accuses these people of being greedy. The ignorance on due diligence is amazing and the lack of knowledge on how the savings directive works beggars belief. Fast Robert many times you have been asked to put some facts to your non stop allegations and generalisations. The Islands work to the highest standards and stand head and shoulders above other areas World wide.
The worry for Guernsey is people like you with your non stop accusations and innuendo that never reflect the truth of banking in modern times. On most of your points I never see you as a winner just somebody that seems to have a hatred for anybody successful why you chose Guernsey to live is quite puzzling.
The real worry at present is how safe is everybody’s savings that is the most urgent topic on most peoples minds I know this is a solution that needs to be found soon as many Worldwide television ,radio and newspapers have highlighted the lack of protection that so many offshore areas do not offer.
Report abuse
Dominic
Have justb read once again Fast Bob’s last post.
Seems each paragraph is factually acceptable and he does qualify the word greedy with trying to squueze what you canout oof the system.
The previous posting also seems to set out acceptable positions. Simply disagreeing with a view doesn’t make it wrong.
Report abuse
Dominic
No need for your blood to boil. I have compassion for the savers, they should not have been in a position to lose deposited money. It should not happen.
My knowledge of due diligence is probably more up to date than yours. If you work in the industry you are constantly updated with new developments, it is laudable that Guernsey is as stringent as it is. That does not alter the fact that no one can know the true beneficiaries behind some of the structures. Why do you think otherwise?
I like Guernsey. I don’t want it to go the same way as Monaco. That is all.
FYI my father stands to lose money in all this, but that doesn’t alter my points of view: Guernsey is run for business and not for the local people.
Report abuse
Landsbanki Guernsey fails ..
Depositors loose 70+% of their deposits..
Many of the depositors are ex-pat British citizens who had little choice but to deposit their savings offshore…
and chose Guernsey because they beleived that their money would be safe there. ..
People like YOU and me who have worked for years in the UK..
Paid taxes.. raised children.. served in the armed forces…
BRITISH people..
People who thought that an Island which is part of the UK and which had (until recently) been very active protraying itself and its regulation of the banks which operated on its soil as solid and secure…
And now the Governement of Guernsey..and it sems the UK.. appear to be doing all that they can to distance themselves from any responsibility which might lead to their having to offer compensation to these same people..
** Simply disgusting!! **
Who are these jokers?
They, (THE GUERNSEY GOVERNMENT acting under the protection..and overall state supervision of the UK GOVERNMENT) were responsible for the regulation and supervision of banking activities of Landsbanki Guernsey…!!
Yet! Now that it is clear that such regulation and supervision, (”SUPERVISION” HA HA HA one has to laugh…) of Landsbanki Guernsey failed to prevent this awful event.. THEY, (read the government of Guernsey) fail to take any responsibility for ensuring the repayment of monies lost as a result of the banks failure.
Infact, it is clear that they are introducing a scheme AFTER the failure of a bank whilest also making it known to anyone who is willing to listen that this same scheme shall not be available to the very people (read Landsbanki Guernsey depositors) who are in dire need of it.
Franky, in this readers oppinion the Guernsey Government is displaying the same type of irresponsible and dubious behaviour that one might attribute to some offshore tax avoidance haven in the South Pacific..
Why invest your funds in a duristiction that does little if anything in the case that the institution they are responsible for overseeing and supervising fails..??
Good question huh!?
Well .. easy answer.
DO NOT DEPOSIT YOUR FUNDS IN SUCH A DURISTICTION..and.. I woudl go so far as to add.. I would strongly suggest that you withdraw all funds you have currently in such a duristiction without delay AND move them to anbother where at least the depoit protection scheme is far more than just a lot of HUMBUG!!
Get your money out while you can!!
Report abuse
Is Guernsey safe for your cash? This site says not: http://landsbankiguernseysavers.co.uk/BanksInGuernsey.html
This site is one page one of Google and Yahoo in a week. Do you think people losing money will be ignored?
Report abuse
Steve the UK Expat I am afraid that you need a constitutional refresher course. Guernsey is not part of the UK and is not governed by the UK ! With that in mind it may rather change the content of your posting, albeit perhaps not the sentiment.
You may not have seen a very interesting article in todays Mail on Sunday which contains an explosive transcript of a conversation between Chancellor Darling and the Icelandic Trade Minister. It is clear that Darling was told some weeks or even months ago about the dire state of the Icelandic banks and was told that the Icelandic government insurance fund would bail them out. Darling was then told on October 7th that the fund was nowhere near big enough to cover the deficiencies but its clear that he raised his concerns with them some time earlier and that Darling did not believe the original assurances but failed to act on his concerns. If that is true then I would rather suspect that the GFSC would have found that information invaluable, as would the Bank of England.
LinDem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable has called on the Chancellor to make a statement in the House of Commons tomorrow and that “this shifts the balance of responsibility”.
Report abuse
Fast Robert you state: “..No-one can know the true beneficiaries behind their structures…”. That is an outrageous and disgraceful comment. I have no idea which organisation’s compliance department you work for but if that’s how it operates then you need to get yourself a good advocate because that is not at all representative of the local finance industry and if you think that it is then you are very much mistaken. Speak for yourself or your own organisation but please don’t assume that anybody else works to those standards which, by the way, would see the culprits behind bars if they have failed to properly identify their principals. For heaven’s sake what kind of a tinpot organisation do you work for ? If you know any facts which enable you to make such a statement then get yourself a lawyer, and I suggest very quickly, but if not then to make such a comment is naïve and irresponsible just to suit your tainted view of the industry.
Report abuse
I don’t speak for any organisation. I’m just repeating what I am told by AML experts who earn a living training bank staff up. The training is a lot more candid nowadays. It’s now not a question of stopping ALL dirty money, just a matter of stopping AS MUCH AS YOU CAN. There’s no point wagging your finger at this most basic of concepts.
It’s not a Guernsey issue, anyway, we have it more under control than others. The issue is, all the time we are a magnet for deposits and corporate registration because of disharmonious tax laws, then the more likely we will attract some less desirable funds. It is then up to us finance employees to make decisions on acceptability. This is neither black nor white, only an attempt at lightening the shades of grey. I don’t really know why you get so het up about it. It’s life.
Report abuse
Hi everyone
Dominic – you really are quite emotive, you should seek some form of therapy mate.
We are all just providing opinions and everyone is entitled to do so without expecting personal insults just because no one agrees with your point of view.
Anyway – about Barclays in Guernsey.
If I was an investor with them, and I heard this statement, I would be taking every cent out of there as quickly as possible.
The statement is clearly emotive as it provides historical assurance and guarantees based on past trading, however (and credit to Leaman for admitting it), Barclays have never always remained in the black.
If everyone thinks back just 12-18 months Barclays were one of the number one banks who were reducing their liquidity by loaning to everyone and anyone.
I think the statmentmade by Sarnia Expat hits the nail on the head.
Get out while you can – I’ll give them a week at most.
Report abuse
David
Your1.30 am posting of today makes some sound points.
You must forgive some of the Landsbanki depositors the confusion they have about Guernsey and the UK. I suggest they are trying to prove a link that will help their case. Understandable in the circumstances.
The Darling tape is a potential bombshell, not only for the fact he let slip of his knowledge of the precarious state of the Icelandic banks, but also the fact that his statement that Iceland had told him they would not honour their obligations is not supported by the transcript. I’m sure that if the Icelandic tape was wrong we would have heard about it by now.
Did Darling sex up the Icelandic discussion to justify freezing the Icelandic assets? Did he cause the run on Icelandic banks? Seems so.
Report abuse
Fast Robert
The reason why I get so het up about it is that I don’t believe that it happens to anything like the extent that you infer. Very easy indeed for AML training officers to make such comments as its their job to promote the danger of it and to get the message through, but I don’t believe for one moment that it is remotely widespread these days. The Caversham case in Jersey was as strong a message as it was possible for the Courts to send to the industry. Ignore it at one’s peril.
Report abuse
David
Let’s just hope that the £315m fraud implicating a Guernsey holding company (see how easy it is?) comes to nothing while it wastes £90m of UK taxpayers’ money.
Report abuse
Fast Robert
It is noticeably only a civil fraud case being heard in the High Court and the article makes no reference to a criminal case. If criminality was being alleged then wouldn’t the case be a criminal case in a criminal court ? Perhaps no crime has been committed and its merely a commercial dispute between the parties (not exactly rare in the old Soviet states).
Who said anything about it being £90m of taxpayers money being at stake ? In civil cases the litigants pay the legal costs, not the taxpayer, unless there is legal aid at stake which I somehow doubt in this case given the identities of the two parties.
Sorry that this doesn’t satisfy your agenda though.
Report abuse
No agenda. Point taken re civil case. If it is fraud, why did they choose Guernsey to place their holding company?
Report abuse
No idea, but what if isn’t fraud ? Commercial partners in a deal often form a company in a tax-neutral jurisdiction.
Report abuse
Steve the UK expat.
Not only have you got the link beteween the UK and Guernsey wrong, you appear to to have also missed the point on the GFSC’s remit, which is to regulate the activities of Landsbanki Guernsey.
Last time I checked, Landsbanki Guernsey did not fail because of their Guernsey based activities but because of what happened in Iceland. I am pretty sure that the remit of the GFSC does not cover regulating Icelandic banks or banks in any other country for that matter.
Fast Robert.
David is right, Guernsey has disclosure regulations and laws regarding benfiacial owners whereas if my memory serves me right Jersey doesn’t. So go post your conspiricy thoeries on their websites.
Finally on the topic of this article you have to be crazy to think Barclays is about to fail. They aren’t even calling on government money like Lloyds or RBS and the government has openly stated that they are one of the core 8 banks that they would support no matter what. Mr Leaman’s article appears to therefore be a good marketing move.
Report abuse
Fast Robert asks “why did they choose Guernsey to place their holding company?”
Tax avoidance and or tax planning?
Report abuse
It just proves that megabucks passes from poorer countries to tax havens, legitimate or not.
Report abuse
Stephen -
Who knows ? One would assume tax planning, which of course includes tax avoidance and possibly mere tax deferral. Perhaps one of the parties was non-resident and insisted on a tax-neutral jurisdiction rather than unnecessarily being taxed in the other party’s jurisdiction when not actually resident there. It could have been for commercial confidentiality reasons so that nobody could trace beneficial ownership without any tax avoidance motive at all. There are many valid reasons why such a company may be set up offshore, as well as some illegal ones, of course. Impossible to know what anyone’s actual motive is without first-hand knowledge.
Report abuse
Guernseyman – you are very sure of yourself I would say; you do make some valid points, however in respect of GFSC’s remit I would suggest that part of their remit is to consider the strengths and weaknesses of trading entities by conducting the appropriate risk assessment.
This would naturally include external factors including international OECD activity, tax, Government Policy and international treaty agreements.
If GFSC took a macro view to assessing the risk instead of the micro one it appears to have taken I would suggest maybe that their recommendations may have been somewhat different.
Utlimately a number of factors come into play and they are not to blame entirely, but I think your vision is quite narrow as to their prime function.
Report abuse
Fast Robert – I think you might find that money laundering is rife in Guernsey, as it is elsewhere, it’s just that no one in the channel islands knows how to combat it effectively – however this may change with the new civil forfeiture laws; depends on the quality of staff I suppose.
As for AML’s at banks they don’t stop money laundering per say (although they can recommend business is turned away) – they report their findings to the relevant authorities if they meet certain criteria.
I’m yet to meet an AML who has identified money laundering – it is usually the authorities who discover it.
Report abuse
Guernsey is finished as an offshore banking centre unless the authorities take decisive action with regard to the Landsbanki scandal. On the very day that Landsbanki went into administration, their website was still stating that Landsbanki Guernsey was a safe home for depositors money which was backed by a guarantee from the parent bank. Was the Guernsey regulator so far detached from reality that he didn’t know what was going on, in which case, why did he permit the Bank to post such misleading and factually incorrect information on its website ? Don’t kid yourself that there is any serious regulation in Guernsey and without a swift resolution of this crisis, nobody will bank there in future.
Report abuse
Fast Robert – I echo your comments directed at Stephen John about the States of Guerney’s economy.
I have posted several times on other streams here about the way the financial management of Deputy Trott (as he was) and Dave Clarke during the early to mid 2000’s destroyed the sizeable capital (cash terms) reserves of £800m that the States had available for projects or capital expenditure.
I understand that issues were raised at the time regarding the excessive capital outlay on multiple projects (Beau Sejour, Prison, New Jetty, Airport etc) however the States, being as it is (an old boys club with no credibility nnor objectivity in the way it operates) carried on regardless and wasted over $650m in 5 years.
Had the majority of these funds been retained then it is likely that most private depositors could have had some small recompense from the States; having said that I believe the blame, if you can call it that lies locally with the GFSC and the States, and internationally with the USA and the Senate’s decisions to provide 100% mortgages to people with no income et al and have the loan secured against the property instead of the person!
Nothing will change – the people in charge in Guernsey have enough money to retire so they don’t care about the average joe who makes investments, but they do enjoy playing with a large chess set.
Only problem is they seem to think they are playing dominoes.
Report abuse
EXCELLENT POST from “J GREEN above.
J Green. You hit the nail on the head.
Lets get to the marrow of this..
Landsbanki Guernsey failed ..
Depositors loose 70+% of their deposits..
Many of the depositors are ex-pat British citizens who had little choice but to deposit their savings offshore…
and chose Guernsey because they beleived that their money would be safe there. ..
People like YOU and me who have worked for years in the UK..
Paid taxes.. raised children.. served in the armed forces…
BRITISH people..
People who thought that an Island which is part of the UK and which had (until recently) been very active protraying itself and its regulation of the banks which operated on its soil as solid and secure…
And now the Governement of Guernsey..and it sems the UK.. appear to be doing all that they can to distance themselves from any responsibility which might lead to their having to offer compensation to these same people..
** Simply disgusting!! **
Who are these jokers?
They, (THE GUERNSEY GOVERNMENT acting under the protection..and overall state supervision of the UK GOVERNMENT) were responsible for the regulation and supervision of banking activities of Landsbanki Guernsey…!!
Yet! Now that it is clear that such regulation and supervision, (”SUPERVISION” HA HA HA one has to laugh…) of Landsbanki Guernsey failed to prevent this awful event.. THEY, (read the government of Guernsey) fail to take any responsibility for ensuring the repayment of monies lost as a result of the banks failure.
Infact, it is clear that they are introducing a scheme AFTER the failure of a bank whilest also making it known to anyone who is willing to listen that this same scheme shall not be available to the very people (read Landsbanki Guernsey depositors) who are in dire need of it.
Franky, in this readers oppinion the Guernsey Government is displaying the same type of irresponsible and dubious behaviour that one might attribute to some offshore tax avoidance haven in the South Pacific..
Why invest your funds in a duristiction that does little if anything in the case that the institution they are responsible for overseeing and supervising fails..??
Good question huh!?
Well .. easy answer.
DO NOT DEPOSIT YOUR FUNDS IN SUCH A DURISTICTION..and.. I woudl go so far as to add.. I would strongly suggest that you withdraw all funds you have currently in such a duristiction without delay AND move them to anbother where at least the depoit protection scheme is far more than just a lot of HUMBUG!!
Get your money out while you can!!
Report abuse
Darren
Instead of repeating the same post why don’t you answer how you come to “States, being as it is (an old boys club with no credibility nnor objectivity in the way it operates) carried on regardless and wasted over $650m in 5 years”
Where do you get the $650m of waste from?
Steve UK expat. How do you calculate “Depositors loose 70+% of their deposits”
I thought they had been offered an interim payment of 30% Add this to 70%plus and you get over 100%
Just disinformation?
Report abuse
Steve the UK Expat -
Guernsey is NOT part of the UK ! The UK Government does NOT govern Guernsey. Please get your facts right and consider whether some of your more ridiculous statements might be presented rather differently if it was factually correct.
You actually placed your money in a bank in a jurisdiction seemingly without even checking the status of that jurisdiction and seemingly without checking whether a depositors protection scheme existed. Is it really the responsibility of the Guernsey taxpayer to do your due diligence for you ? Isn’t that what financial advisors are for ? They carry professional indemnity insurance cover if they make a reckless investment recommendation. Or were you simply blinded by the rates on offer from a little-known bank without questioning why they were so much higher than the major high street banks and the major instutitions from abroad with operations here ?
Report abuse
Well David some much needed questions to Steve the Ex Pat.
I’m beginning to wonder if he vitriolic, blame everyone but myself approach of a few of the Landsbanki Guernsey investors is starting to become counter productive.
I wonder if the “financial innocence” you are implying is beginning to make people wonder if these people are really such financial innocents as they try to make out.
Perhaps the tactics and the almost total abdication of any personal responsibilty are detracting from the merit their case may have, and instead make observers wonder if they have cried wolf once too often.
It just seems so unrealistic that so many could have deposited so much, in a bank of which they knew so little.
Report abuse
Stephen John, the righteous one. . .
I posted my reply to your request on the other post, as you requested ‘your money is safe with Barclays’.
You are good at asking questions, and sticking up for the States, but you don’t offer any evidence of their capability yourself.
Disinformation? Yes, I would say that is what you are offering.
As for your query to Steve the UK expat – he makes total sense, the administrators have stated you, or investors in Landisbanki may get 30 pence in the pound. Now I am no mathematical genius however working this calculation backwards, and converting the pence to percentages I would suggest that the statement ‘Steve Expat’ makes is accurate based on the information that the Administrators have given – this is, what they are hoping to return to investors, not what they will acturally get.
Who will make up the 70% then Stephen John? A detailed answer is welcome given that is what you are constantly looking for.
Guernsey will still be in business with banking as is stated on other posts, this is seen as a tax avoidance area (people pay higher taxes elsewhere so try and hide the money here).
Of course there are a lot of legitimate investors, but the big bucks is likely to be in avoidance / fraud / drug trafficking etc.
Report abuse
What would anyone expect him to say? “Barclays is potentially as deep in the poo as anyone else, because really none of us have any idea how this will work out. Anyway, there might be a compensation scheme coming along in 2009, which might cover a little bit of your money if things go wrong.”
Report abuse
GO MANN
You are so right, I have just read this on a BBC news page, it’s pretty scary eh.
“The current financial crisis may be more far-reaching than even the 1929 crash, a Bank of England policymaker has warned.”
Report abuse