Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

by Thistle Wed 04 Mar 2009, 9:27 am

CHIEF MINISTER THREATENED BY ANGRY SAVERS

"It's understood police are investigating threats made to Guernsey's Chief
Minister.

They're allegedly contained in correspondence to Deputy Lyndon Trott from
Landsbanki Guernsey savers.

A source close to the Chief Minister has revealed to Island FM the threats
are being looked into by Police, who are treating them as serious.

Landsbanki savers have been pressuring Deputy Lyndon Trott to do more to help
them get their money returned, after the company went into administration.

But now it seems some angry depositors have crossed a line.

It's understood steps have been taken to improve security around Deputy
Trott's home.

An announcement from Frossard House is expected later today."

TAKEN FROM ISLAND FM WEBSITE THANK YOU

by technophobe Wed 04 Mar 2009, 1:26 pm

I wonder if the CM will be so cocky on this occasion and threaten to "knock their fu**in' teeth out!".

Strange how these angry depositors are deemed to have crossed a line when LT totally got away with threatening another Deputy at Frossard House. Double standards methinks!?!?

by Thistle Wed 04 Mar 2009, 2:42 pm

i totally agree technophobe.i wasn't aware that protection paid for by the taxpayer was employed to protect lyndon trott

by wayside Wed 04 Mar 2009, 6:48 pm

Whatever people think of LT threats are not called for, I dont know what the threat was, but I dont think the tax payer should pay money out to creditors of any failed business.

by JD Wed 04 Mar 2009, 6:57 pm

Wayside, I gather you do not use any bank that has been bailed out by UK taxpayers? !!!!
I think you are confused with the definition of a bank and a business.

by Digger Wed 04 Mar 2009, 7:13 pm

I will wait until we get the full facts on this issue until i will pass judgement , I don't particularly like the bloke but threats are another thing , if this is the case.

by wayside Wed 04 Mar 2009, 7:28 pm

A bank is a business, although I feel sorry for those who have lost money, I dont see its the place of the tax payer to cover the losses of any business,

We now all know what the situation is, and we can make a judgement where we put our money, unfortunatly it seems that we were all under the assumption that our money was safe in local banks when they were not.

we all sign things when opening accounts that accept the rules even though we dont actually read the rules

Having lost a lot of money recently by me not knowing that what I was signing put me at a huge financial risk I cant see the difference.

I think the states have a duty to try and recover funds on behalf of the the depositors and make sure the situation can not arrise again, but not to pay all the losses as we are not at the end of the finance problems yeat and if it really all goes pear shaped the Island could not afford the risk.

I have for years had the view that the finance industry will ruin the Island in the future and covering all their losses could just be way they do it.

by Digger Wed 04 Mar 2009, 7:52 pm

Good post Wayside.

by JD Wed 04 Mar 2009, 8:40 pm

Wayside
You seem to imply that people have put money into Landsbanki as they would into buying stocks and shares and running the risk of their investments losing value. We are talking about a bank that Guernsey has accepted just as HSBC, Loyds,Nat West, etc. Unlike yourself most people that deposit their money into a bank do read the small print, hence avoid putting ther savings into more risky investments which are likely to lose money. Again the Guernsey tax payer is quite happy to accept bail outs from the UK tax payer ??!! Double standards I think.

by Thistle Wed 04 Mar 2009, 8:43 pm

should the uk government not be reimbursing the lands banki savers from the money they have frozen for uk depositors after all was not the guernsey money upstreamed to a uk subsidiary bank

by Fast Robert Wed 04 Mar 2009, 8:54 pm

The point many unsympathetic people are making is that the depositors were 'chasing high interest rates'. Maybe they were, but they were still recommended in such places as Which? and financial organs because of the regulators and credit rating agencies.

The 7% was not much different to the UK ISA rates at the time, so if not eligible, it doesn't take a leap of imagination to why ex pats would deposit there.

The fault isn't Trott's, but he's made a dog's breakfast of it. It goes to show, if he isn't scripted he just barks nonsense. And it usually offends.

He has taken the line that depositors should be responsible because deposits are intrinsic to the leveraged profit making game. Tell that to your ordinary guy that is hoping to pick up his life's earnings when he's ready.

Right or wrong for the legal stance, Trott has showed himself as a twot. And that's Jonathan Ross' appelation.

by Dell Wed 04 Mar 2009, 9:10 pm

Oh dear! Have to wait and see what the 'threats' are before commenting further I think.

by Dave Jones Thu 05 Mar 2009, 7:39 am

Just to put the record straight, Deputy Trott has no power or mandate to promise to bail out these savers. There was no fault with the Guernsey States or The GFSC the regulator, as they have just been investigated by an independent sauce and the report from that investigation said clearly that there the GFSC had behaved quite properly throughout this Landsbanki affair, The entire Icelandic economy collapsed together with their banking system. Lyndon can only give out the information as it stands and that is that the administrators are trying to retrieve depositor’s money in order to make sure they get as much of their savings back as possible. Charles and Lyndon have done a good job but they clearly wont be able to please any Landsbanki depositors because they want the Guernsey taxpayer to bail them out and that I am afraid is not possible and the majority of Deputies I know will not support such a move. So kicking Lyndon is the wrong target in my view it is the Icelandic government who have abandoned their banks that the flack should be directed at

by technophobe Thu 05 Mar 2009, 7:59 am

Dave

Do you not think the GFSC were negligent, or at least extremely slow off the mark, bearing in mind that in March last year, more than 6 months before Landsbanki collapsed, it was rated as one of the 2 riskiest banks in the western world? That article appeared in the Financial Mail, which I'm sure at least some GFSC staff read, so why on earth was nothing done, or at least the public made aware of the situation. One of the chief duties of the GFSC is monitoring our licensed banks/trust companies etc from the point of view of reputational risk to Guernsey. Looking at the negative publicity that we have received worldwide they have clearly failed in this area.

The "independent" review of their actions was nothing more than a sham. Carried out by an ex senior UK regulator, known personally to some of the senior management in the GFSC, how on earth is that independent? It stinks.

by Fast Robert Thu 05 Mar 2009, 8:57 am

or indeed that the managing director of LG was assuring clients THE DAY BEFORE it went t1ts up that the deposits were safe and to stick more in cos life is all rosy yeah.

where is that geezer now?

Independent review? my arse. Michael Foot is a paid up stooge.

Of course Trott isn't the cause, but he talks a very bad game and he needs to be told.

by Chok Dee Ja Thu 05 Mar 2009, 9:06 am

Dave Jones wrote:Just to put the record straight, Deputy Trott has no power or mandate to promise to bail out these savers. There was no fault with the Guernsey States or The GFSC the regulator, as they have just been investigated by an independent sauce and the report from that investigation said clearly that there the GFSC had behaved quite properly throughout this Landsbanki affair, The entire Icelandic economy collapsed together with their banking system. Lyndon can only give out the information as it stands and that is that the administrators are trying to retrieve depositor’s money in order to make sure they get as much of their savings back as possible. Charles and Lyndon have done a good job but they clearly wont be able to please any Landsbanki depositors because they want the Guernsey taxpayer to bail them out and that I am afraid is not possible and the majority of Deputies I know will not support such a move. So kicking Lyndon is the wrong target in my view it is the Icelandic government who have abandoned their banks that the flack should be directed at

Thats nonsense CANT HELP or WONT HELP isnt Guernsey constantly stating they are a premier offshore centre? Isnt Guernsey standing alone with their NO HELP STANCE ? if you can put your hand on your heart and say in your opinion the GFSC come out squeaky clean in this affair then you seriously need to take a look at yourself.

Simple questions

1 Why did guernsey not have a protection scheme in place ?

2 Do you think the repuataion of Guernsey plc has come out of this affair somewhat tarnished?

3 Whats your opinion of the gfsc role as regulators and promotional body for the islands,for example how do you feel their mechanism for dealing with complaints rate ? On a scale of one to ten.

by Dell Thu 05 Mar 2009, 3:53 pm

Good point, well made Chok.

Just what are the GFSC doing? They appear to have been eerily quiet during this whole matter!! Are they responsible / involved (whether by default or failures) in any way?

by Ross Thu 05 Mar 2009, 5:45 pm

Dave Jones wrote:Just to put the record straight, Deputy Trott has no power or mandate to promise to bail out these savers. There was no fault with the Guernsey States or The GFSC the regulator, as they have just been investigated by an independent sauce and the report from that investigation said clearly that there the GFSC had behaved quite properly throughout this Landsbanki affair, The entire Icelandic economy collapsed together with their banking system. Lyndon can only give out the information as it stands and that is that the administrators are trying to retrieve depositor’s money in order to make sure they get as much of their savings back as possible. Charles and Lyndon have done a good job but they clearly wont be able to please any Landsbanki depositors because they want the Guernsey taxpayer to bail them out and that I am afraid is not possible and the majority of Deputies I know will not support such a move. So kicking Lyndon is the wrong target in my view it is the Icelandic government who have abandoned their banks that the flack should be directed at

HP or Heinz

by plimmerton811 Thu 05 Mar 2009, 7:11 pm

One point Chok is making is that we didn't have a protection scheme in place which would not have impacted on the collapse but would have bailed out investors. The lack of this scheme would reflect on the states and/or GFSC.

Guernsey mneeds an Ombudsman for banking complaints but that was muted about 4 years back but when the banks discovered that they would have to fund the scheme they decided it was not a good idea. In other countries the banks fund the Ombudsman scheme and from my experience it works well.

by Dave Jones Fri 06 Mar 2009, 2:00 pm

It is not a question of can’t help won’t help, whose money do you suggest we use to pay back these depositors? Guernsey will not make empty promises that it can not keep the Irish & Jersey governments and indeed the Icelandic government have promised to cover all deposits in their banks, all of then know that that is simply unaffordable, as a tiny economy like Iceland’s has just found out. If any of these jurisdictions were called to honor those pledges they would go bankrupt, that is the stark reality of the situation. The only way that these depositors can be helped financially is by using taxpayer’s money and where would that end? If the Germany economy collapsed would we pay out to all the German banks on the island and their investors? Would we give it to local businesses that collapsed in the high street?
I read the report into the GFSC role in the Landsbanki affair and it clearly states that the Guernsey Financial Services Commission behaved quite properly in this matter, it is not our report it was carried out by a very respectable UK treasury official who was given the task to go over the events and timeline leading up to the collapse of this Icelandic bank.

Now clearly you have your doubts about that investigation but tell me this, what possible motive would him and his officials have to lie?
Guernsey did not have a protection scheme because the majority of banks in Guernsey do not do retail banking business, It was always going to have to be a scheme set up and funded by the banks and not by the taxpayer and many of the non retail banks did not see why they should contribute to such a scheme that had nothing to do with their core business. You have to remember too that Guernsey only permitted banks that were in the top 500 to operate, Landsbanki for instance rated at about 176 in the top 500 it also showed that it was funded at about twice the capital that it required under regulation to operate in Guernsey, so it ticked all the boxes. Its downfall was NOT anything that happened in Guernsey that caused its collapse, it was the fact that the whole Icelandic banking system collapsed and Iceland could not honor its debts. Your question 2 is an interesting one and difficult to answer, all I can say on this issue, is that since the collapse of this Icelandic bank deposits have continued to rise I think the figures were in the press a week or so ago and I can’t find them at the moment but what was indisputable in those figures, is that deposits continue to rise. I think the reason for that is that in the overall scheme of things investors know that Guernsey was not to blame for this collapse and in any event where is anyone’s money really safe? Has it damaged our reputation? Well any bank collapse wherever it takes place is bound to have some effect on the place where it happened but the truth is only time will tell. People have said there should be no risk when you put money into a bank, However there is always a certain amount of risk putting money into any financial instution, which is why all the jurisdictions now have DPS’s in place. What are they for, if banks never fail?

As for no 3, the GFSC as regulators. well we know one thing and that is that they are significantly better in Guernsey than in other parts of the world, turn on any news bulletin lately and you will hear MP’s and others complaining about the lack of regulation in the UK and the USA, the whole financial meltdown is due to sloppy practice and failure by the regulators in those countries to scrutinize what was going on.In the U.S for instance quite a lot of people are going to jail for fraud and other financial crimes which had their regulators been more vigulant would have come to light much sooner. Remember the global financial crisis was imported to us not the other way round. We as the States on the other hand were receiving complaint after complaint from some in the finance sector about how strict some of our regulatory framework is together with members of the public about how difficult it had become to open a simple bank account because of rules on money laundering. Why? Because we are small and we can keep a tight rein on the banks and finance businesses that want to do business here.

by Chok Dee Ja Fri 06 Mar 2009, 2:57 pm

I never said that Guernsey was the reason,however there were definently failings with regards protection schemes and the availabilty of a vehicle for customers to lodge complaints eg a ombudsman and not a ex gfsc crony a independent authority to deal with investor complaints,do you not feel this should be a basic requirement from a off shore centre ?

The fact that you say the states dont want to use income tax funds and that banks were not prepared to back any such funds,may i ask whats changed as there is now a basis of a scheme in place,do you not think the regulators eg GFSC should have applied pressure to banks to have such a scheme in place prior to the landsbanki affair?

The reason i ask you how do you think the gfsc deal with some issues are i was talking to someone recently who has emailed the gfsc 37 times regarding a issue and they received 1 email of which the contents of that email was false.Do you find that satisfactory ? Seems lessons have not been learned since 1 The Equitable Life Fiasco 2 The Split Capital Warrants fiasco were many channel island residents lost large amounts of money sold by channel island advisors who are still in buisness today. Do you think that is acceptable ?

by Chok Dee Ja Fri 06 Mar 2009, 3:03 pm

Btw Dave ive still not seen the current states pension fund values which you promised ?

by Dave Jones Fri 06 Mar 2009, 3:48 pm

Pension Fund

It is currently around 650 million it has dropped about 250 million in 3 years and when the stock markets rise again as they surly will, it will start to climb again. We are in a global recession and it will not last forever. Charles who I have a lot of faith in is confident that it will return at some stage to its former value.

The fact is I am not privy to management decisions or information from the GFSC they have a very robust complaints procedure and I do know that they take all complaints against financial institutions very seriously. I can’t be expected to comment on the e-mails they have or have not responded to, you must direct those questions to the GSFC. As for more outside scrutiny, we have proved on several levels that we are significantly better regulated than most of the countries that constantly attack us. Do we need ombudsmen I don’t think we do as the GFSC is there to make sure customers are treated fairly, However if the States want to have an extra level of arbitration by having an ombudsmen then I wouldn’t die in a trench over the decision. The regulators did apply quite a lot of pressure over several years trying to get the banks to fund a DPS but many did not want to take part in it because of the reasons I have stated in a previous post. What we can not do is make the scheme retrospective. On your other points I can’t comment on the Equitable life issue as I don’t know all the details, as for split funds it was the GFSC that brought this matter to the attention of the UK regulator and HM treasury.

by Fast Robert Fri 06 Mar 2009, 3:55 pm

Dave Jones said

"I read the report into the GFSC role in the Landsbanki affair and it clearly states that the Guernsey Financial Services Commission behaved quite properly in this matter, it is not our report it was carried out by a very respectable UK treasury official who was given the task to go over the events and timeline leading up to the collapse of this Icelandic bank."

But Michael Foot was MD of the FSA until 2004, so smack bang in the middle of the softly-softly regulatory practices that the FSA have been heavily criticised for. Is this the same Treasury that you accuse of being anti Guernsey, from a Government who you can't stand? Christ, I bet he's got good friends over here. What makes him the right person to help protect our integrity? And what do you think the LG depositors think about such a shoe-in? And the critics? All it shows is that 'behaving properly' is not really very adequate.

by Chok Dee Ja Fri 06 Mar 2009, 4:00 pm

Dave your talking nonsense when you say the gfsc is there to make sure customers are treated fairly,they even state on their own website that they cannot assist in disputes and advise that customers use a advocate,regarding the split capital warrants people lost thousands of pounds with this product many sold by guernsey advisors and finance companies,regrding the emails im not asking you to make a judgement regarding a specific case im asking you what do you think of 37 emails being sent and with only one reply and that reply was false,dont you find that disturbing from the islands regulator?

The gfsc view on complaints

http://www.gfsc.gg/content.asp?pageID=341

a extract

There is no financial ombudsman scheme in the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Commission has not been given the role of an ombudsman. It is not able to adjudicate in disputes between customers and regulated entities. Those considering lodging complaints with the Commission should always bear in mind the above limitations If you feel you have a justified complaint against a regulated entity and you have suffered a loss you should first raise the matter with the regulated entity itself. If this does not resolve the matter to your satisfaction you are advised to seek advice from a qualified Guernsey advocate (lawyer).

SO I THINK WE CAN AGREE THE STATES OF GUERNSEY DO NOT TAKE CARE OF THE INVESTORS AS YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED?

by Sponsored content

Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers

Re: Chief Minister threatened by angry savers