Guernsey Financial Services Commission loan protection agreed 26/11

I would like to thank the Administrators on Vue Des Isles for allowing me post my own views on various subjects, which I feel affect the Islands, These views and opinions are entirely my own, but I hope they will may make members think and hopefully contribute thier comments on the subjects I post.

Just to give you some very brief background on myself, I was a States Deputy and Conseiller for 13 years in the period 1991 to 2004, and relevant to this subject was a Member of the Income Tax Authority for the last 6 of those years.

I have on a number of occasions highlighted the lack of sensible and effective financial services regulation in a number of areas. One of these has been the lack of a depositors protection scheme.

There is absolutely no excuse for this. There has been an obvious need for action since the Barnet Christie scenario years ago

Yet all that has happened is the Guernsey Financial Services Commission commencing a consultation exercise as late as 5th August of this year, something which should have happened a long time ago.

The GFSC Director-general was quoted in the Guernsey Press as saying... I have been in favor of a deposit protection scheme since I joined the commission but that as a result of discussions with industry and the political authorities it was clear that there was no support for the law changes that were needed... I question this statement. If he was saying, as Tom Edward's article on 28th July stated, that the banking industry was ... heel dragging... on the matter, then the Association of Guernsey Banks denied this. If he was accusing the politicians, then the only ones he can be referring to would be the Chief Minister and Treasury department at whatever time he was given this impression, because at no time has the GFSC ever actually asked States Members generally.

If politicians had been asked I hardly feel they would have said they did not back something which was in the public's interests.

I have long put forward the view that the GFSC has prioritised wrongly and not used its resources in the best possible way. The lack of a depositors protection scheme is just one example.
Some previous financial services legislation has not been delayed because the GFSC has felt there wasn't the political support, so I feel excuses are being given on this one.
During my time as a States Member I was one of a few who took an active interest in financial legislation and certainly advocated having a depositors protection scheme, and wasn't the only one, so where this idea that there wasn't the political support has no credence. It appears that the only factor which held things up must have been a combination of vested interest and mismanagement.

The GFSC has been allowed to become rudderless with no sense of policy direction. There is a difference between being independent of political control and there being no political control at all.
This has happened because there is no effective monitoring and regulation of the GFSC , and needs to be rectified for the sake of having sound and effective policies for the future.

Recent world financial events have surely superseded the need for any further investigation by the GFSC. Now it has been announced that the period of consultation ended on 15th September, we do not need, to wait, as the GFSC appears to stating, for a team of banking representatives and commission experts , to be tasked with producing a plan for a depositors' protection scheme, which is just further unnecessary delay. We know what we want and is simply the equal or better of what is available in the UK, and such propositions should be made now. Other improvements in bank regulations, which have been recommended in the consultation process, and which are also needed, can always follow later. Now is the time for urgent action, not the time for prevarication. There is no reason why the local equivalent of the UK scheme cannot be brought in here in Guernsey. Currently it is being increased from 35,000 to 50,000 pounds, and it is likely to be further increased.

The UK government has acted promptly as indeed have other financial centers such as Dublin.
Our current position is untenable and redundant, particularly if we want to enhance our reputation as a safe and secure financial jurisdiction.

There needs to be an urgent announcement by the Chief Minister and the Treasury Minister that a Bailiwick Depositors Protection Scheme will be put to the States for immediate ratification.

Here is a chance for our leaders to show that Guernsey has the capability and determination to act swiftly and decisively to put our house in order, and to protect confidence not just of customers but of our reputation as a well managed , solid and stable financial centre.

The FSA has just announced that the depositors protection scheme from this Tuesday will be increased to 50,000 and 100,000 for couples for UK depositors.

In my opinion this will be further increased up to full guarantees, bearing in mind what is happening elsewhere in Europe.

Is Guernsey going to continue to take the pace of a snail.?

When is Guernsey going to take similar action..?

The time is now, and well overdue !

Thank you for your input Tony and welcome to the forum.

Further to my recent ploeadings for the urgent implementation of a depositers' protection scheme in Guernsey, it is laudable that Deputy Matt Fallaize and 11 colleagues are seeking this objective.
They need to not be put off by excuses by Commerce and Employment nor any further delaying in respect of their proposed meeting with the Guernsey Financial Services Commission. No, they need to demand emergency action by the Policy Council and to be meeting with them.
The excuses made by Commerce and Employment Minister Carla Mc Nulty Bauer as to why the issue of a depositers' protection scheme cannot be rushed have no justification whatsover.
She said that introducing a scheme or replicating a scheme in another jurisdiction, may result in one which is inappropriate to Guernsey's banking sector, or at worse, serious long term consequences for the Island's banking sector. Such comments are nonsensical and make us appear bumbly and indecisive. At least 3 jurisdictions have made major changes to their depositers' protection arrangements in little over 24 hours. Are we saying that we incapable of speedy and decisive action, because if so, we seriously risk our reputation as a dynamic world leading right up to date financial centre. Also, whose interests are served by delay ? Certainly not the people of this Bailiwick, certainly not the reputation we have as a vibrant go ahead financial centre. No, only it seems vested interests and the inefficiency of some of government leaders who are not thinking of the best interests of our Bailiwick.

Interesting news release from Jersey

EVERY penny of Islanders’ savings is to be guaranteed by the States, the Council of Ministers have announced.

In a statement released this afternoon, after two days of top-level discussions, Chief Minister Frank Walker revealed that they would bring a proposition to the States that ‘the bank deposits of Island residents should be fully protected’.
It is widely expected that the proposal will be rubber stamped by the States. States Members are to be called to a meeting on Monday so that the council can brief them on its plans.

I wander what the Guernsey Goverment will do now?

Nothing as usual they will hum and har for months even years coming out with all the excuses under the sun .

Remember the states oath "Do not do anything to upset big business" at any cost.

The Gfsc are a total disgrace,purely puppets for the big boys in the finance industry,they like to flex their muscles on smaller companies and show a complete lack of compassion or understanding,the staff at the commision are vastly under qualified to deal with the current financial issues in the islands today.

What exactly is the role of the commision ? a mouth piece to spout good news and to introduce draconian measures upon small financial service companies ?

They claim to be well regulated,thats got to be the biggest load of nonsense i have ever heard in my life.

The gfsc are running scared of the big players and bend over backwards to appease them

What happened to the Freinds Provident scandal via Bacon Woodrow ?

What happened to the split capital trusts scandal which cost clients millions of pounds ?

Why are Investec still operational after clearly breaking major regulations and mlo rules?

How many cases are kept quiet and overlooked by the inept commision ?

Please dont give me this crap that they need to be discreet,full transparency would send a clear signal to money laundering ,tax evaders drug dealers and arms couriers,the islands have been awash with dirty money for many years and anyone who believes that the gfsc are well regulated live in cloud cuckoo land

What deficit are the commision running on at the moment ?

What protection do the gfsc offer clients?

They like to impose themselves on people like Tony Webber and other small businesses

Its time that the States of Guernsey started to ask serious questions about the role of the gfsc

Whilst the pressure by Deputies and others including myself have put more of a sense of urgency into the need for an immediate Depositors Protection Scheme, the delay and indecisiveness of the Policy Council on this major issue is putting our government in a very poor light.

The announcement that the Policy Council has ruled out a States funded deposit protection scheme for Guernsey, and that they want one funded by the banking industry, is an appalling example of mismanagement of this situation. This announcement has been made without any consultation with States Members, and sadly without any consultation with Jersey either.

Jersey will have bank deposits fully guaranteed and it appears that Guernsey is lagging well behind.

Just what is wrong with our political leaders at the moment. Cannot they grasp the seriousness of the situation ? Can they not see that that they are making Guernsey appear inadequate and unable to speedily respond to important financial events.

We must get our act together, keep pace with Jersey, and indeed we should be the leader in this field, not the bumbly follower.

It is good that the Policy Council is calling a meeting of States Members on Monday, but that meeting should bring about real action now, and not excuses for further delay.

POLICY COUNCIL members yesterday ruled out a States-funded deposit protection scheme for Guernsey.
Jersey politicians will be asked to approve one but any such system here would have to be funded by the banking industry. There is still no indication as to what the level of protection would be and when it is likely to be introduced.
Speculation had been mounting that the two islands would work on a joint scheme, but that was quashed by yesterday’s announcement and the revelation that Jersey’s States was to be asked to approve a proposition that would guarantee every penny of residents’ savings.
Instead, the Policy Council, following an unscheduled meeting yesterday morning, has agreed to a ‘measured course of action’, which includes meeting all States members on Monday.
‘We, the Policy Council, have listened very carefully to a range of advice we have received and we have decided to put our full weight behind the speedy introduction of a scheme to protect depositors in Guernsey,’ said Chief Minister Lyndon Trott . ‘Jersey has decided on a slightly different course of action and it’s not for us to comment on the decision taken by the Jersey authorities.’ (frpm thisisguernsey)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7653813.stm


Interesting quote from Chancellor Merkel

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said managers at financial institutions should be held accountable for "irresponsible behaviour".
Earlier, she moved to reassure German savers all their deposits would be safe.


Merkel went on to say " That she had been lied to on a level never seen before by the banks and financial service instituition,she also questioned their accounting practices and high risk lending practices "

Maybe the States Of Guernsey and the GFSC can be as open and transparent ? Then maybe NOT :evil:

UK shares have fallen sharply, with the FTSE 100 index down by more than 5%, after another weekend of extraordinary events in the banking sector.

On Sunday, the Germany announced what appeared to be a 100% guarantee for all private bank deposits.

However, it has emerged that Germany will not pass new legislation to provide extra protection for savers.

The UK Treasury is understood to be considering buying large stakes in Britain's banks.

BBC business editor Robert Peston said it would be a way of injecting extra money into the banking system to get them lending to each other again, while at the same time meaning taxpayers could make a profit from the shares if the banks recovered.

'Radical action'

Treasury Secretary Yvette Cooper, speaking ahead of the first meeting of the new National Economic Council, would not confirm the details of the contingency plan.

"What we've shown is that we're prepared to take radical action where it is needed," she told BBC News, while refusing to speculate on what measure might be taken.

In morning trade, the FTSE 100 index was down 5.0%, or 248.9 points, at 4,731.4.

The banks led the fallers, with HBOS down 14.6%, Royal Bank of Scotland falling 14.1% and Lloyds TSB down 6.8%.

The pound fell against the dollar, hit a five-year low against the yen and a seven-month low against the euro.

The falls follow a series of events over the weekend:

The German government was forced to salvage a 50bn euro ($69bn; £39bn) rescue package for Hypo Real Estate
Denmark and Sweden both increased the amount of protection depositors in their banks receive
Iceland said its banks had agreed to sell some of their overseas assets and was trying to persuade the trade union pension funds to repatriate some of their funds too
The individual actions came after EU leaders decided at a summit on Saturday not to attempt a pan-European solution
France's BNP Paribas said it would take a 75% stake in Fortis (from BBC news)

Following intense pressure from those who have long been campaigning for a depositers protection scheme and now from States Members themselves, there is to be a meeting called by the Policy Council today for States Members. This is long overdue, but welcome.
The recent action by Germany and Denmark to guarentee all savings deposits , and moves in Iceland, has put pressure on the UK government to bring in equal protection . The position of Guernsey of having no depositers' protection scheme at all has made our current position unteneable. It is imperative that the meeting of States Members today is not used for further prevarication and that firm. swift and resolute action is taken. Nothing less than the guarentees which will be available in Jersey can be acceptable to the people of Guernsey.
Our reputation as a strong and secure financial jurisdiction is seriously at stake and this has an effect on our whole economy.
It is imperative that we show to our our public, the business sector and the world financial community generally that we can exercise sound leadership and make speedy sensible and decisive decisions.
As a former States Member who served on Income Tax for 6 years I am appalled by the dithering and excuses we have had heard, particularly over the past week, and I implore our political leaders to take the right actions now.

It seems Jersey is ahead of us again , not like Guernsey no lets wait until is over then we will make a decision. It really annoys me that the States dither like a bunch of old women (no offence to old women) but they just chase their own tails around for ages when the rest of the world just do it overnight.IMO its got a lot to do with 0/10 which we should have never introduced in the first place.


News from Channel Online ;

These are extraordinary times in the global finance industry, and the Channel Islands are not immune.


Both Guernsey and Jersey are planning to do more to protect islanders'
savings and it's been a fast moving day in Guernsey politics.


Guernsey's deputies had plenty of questions to be answered.
And they're probably the same ones islanders are asking about who will
pay for it, how much money will be guaranteed per person, and when the
scheme will be in place.

The GFSC launched a consultation on this issue in August and it
generally worked from the assumption that the scheme would be
industry-funded because that's what most commonly happens elsewhere. So
Channel Television put it to the Chief Minister today: Did he expect
the banks to fund the scheme?


Lyndon Trott's said: "That's something that the technical
group that we intend to set up this afternoon, chaired by Deputy
Parkinson, will be looking very closely at. There is what is I think
clear is that there is strong support for an industry supported scheme
from policy makers and that was an underlying theme from this
lunchtime's meeting."


Deputy John Gollop added:"I think my view is that the banks
themselves should behave more responsibly and help to move things
forward. Money is probably tight across the banking sector at the
moment, but I think banking is an industry that very much needs to come
out of this in a shinier state than when it went in."


Guernsey's deputies are determined not to adopt a scheme in
haste that will cause them to repent at leisure. Many details are still
to be worked out and little has emerged publicly about the banks'
views, but one thing's for sure, it's not a time to dawdle.




Quote:
"That's something that the technical
group that we intend to set up this afternoon" WHAT!!

The GFSC are incapable of making such decisions if the big players decide there will be no protection scheme then thats how it will be ?

The states of guernsey can sit and meet everyday of the week to discuss the protection scheme but without the agreement of the banks its a non starter.

The banks and financial services run Guernsey and will use the current climate as a reason not to comply, albeit a climate created by their own greed and mis management.


What will the Go Fcuk Services Commision say then ?

As a long time campaigner for a proper depositers' protection scheme in Guernsey I am amazed at how yesterday's meeting of States Members achieved nothing except further prevarication and delay.
What sort of message does the government of our Island give out, if a crisis meeting, instead of advocating firm decisive action, hasn't even thought out exactly how and when it is going to bring in a depositers' protection scheme.
What a complete and utter let down to the public of our Island, and to our credibility as a secure and well managed financial jurisdiction.
We have been waiting over 20 years for a depositers' protection scheme. The blame for this lies with the Guernsey Financial Services Commission , the politicians supposed to be monitoring and directing it, and vested interests.
Everywhere else in the world, positive action is being taken on a daily basis on this issue.
In Jersey they have decided to take firm and resolute action. In Guernsey, we can't even manage to liase with our sister Island, let alone keep up with them.
Guernsey needs to have an urgent States debate, through a requette or otherwise, on the subject of equalling what they have done in Jersey. Nothing less is acceptable.
The recent comment by our Chief Minister that there is strong support amongst our politicians for the banking sector to act as guarentors, that they effectively haven't nailed down the specific details of how the scheme will work, or when such a scheme will be brought in, is totally irresponsible delay and just not acceptable. These comments need to be put to the test in a States debate and the public need to be able to have their say via their Deputies.
Our political leaders have now shown us and the international financial community generally that when there is a crisis and swift decisive action needs to be taken, there will be dithering and indecision instead. A heavy blow has been struck against our reputation which we will be hard pushed to recover. Incredible, unbelievable, and a totally irresponsible way to govern.

Perhaps you could help here Tony what i can't understand is the States want the banks to secure a depositors protection scheme and not the government. Am i being dim but if banks are trouble how are they going secure deposits ?

Why have the GFSC snd States Of Guernsey not introduced a protection scheme in the last 20 Years we have constantly bombarded with "We are great at financial services rhetoric for the past 10 years" The gfsc have failed the guernsey public and depositors in the island.

Banks are now being made more accountable for their illegal accounting and high risk business transactions in most parts of the world with wide commdenation from world leaders,yet GFSC sit with a stoney silence,its time they were made accountable for their failed regulation and pampering to the financial big boys,

Richard Murphy (taxjustice network)in the past has constantly accused the commision of being under qualified and immoral,oh how those words now ring so true.

We await more skeletons to come out of the finance industry. :roll:

WHEN WILL THE GFSC BE MADE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS ?

Richard Murphy latest comments,maybe the gfsc could implement some of his thoughts ?Then again dont hold your breath


Tomorrow morning I expect substantial equity injections by the UK government into at least four major banks. In exchange we should be seeing a raft of appointments to the Boards of these banks to protect the investment made by the government.
Those appointments must be of awkward people: people who are willing to ask difficult questions. I’ve already suggested some names. What will be wholly unacceptable is that they be recruited form the ranks of existing non-exec directors. Even the President of the ACCA has accepted those people have much to answer for in the creating the current crisis. The ‘old boys’ club cannot provide these people.
But whoever they are, what are they going to do? I have imagined myself accepting such an appointment. This would be my agenda:
1) The Board should meet. The chairmanship of all important committees should be passed to the new appointees.
2) Current bonus arrangements of all existing directors should be suspended, as should all share options: there is no room for such arrangements at present when the base salaries of many of the board members comfortably exceeds £500,000.
3) I’ll want all minutes of all meetings of the last years made available for my immediate inspection. All discussions relating to risk assessments should be highlighted. I will, in particular want copies of all audit committee meetings and copies of all auditor reports for the last two years. I will ask the auditors to supply copies of their risk profile assessments from their last audit. If they don’t want to supply it they should assume they are sacked. I will, in any event, be asking Parliament to pass legislation allowing the National Audit Office to take over this role. It is clear the existing audit functions have failed.
4) I’ll want a risk profile of current finances by business sector and location. I will in particular want to know exposure by country: the capacity of a government to bail out interbank balances is right now crucial. I will want to know exposure to private equity and hedge funds. These are the next sectors to fail (and they will, let me assure you). I will want to know how much is held in offshore arrangements. I will want it repatriated and the exposure unwound. I will want to know the exposure on assets for which the bank cannot ascertain underlying value, such as sub-prime, derivatives, etc., and the provision made, with reasons, by market. I’ll want to know how fast the bank can extricate itself from certain markets, such as derivate and currency trading on its own account, investment banking, private equity support, hedge funds and structured finance (which with losses around is not going to look so attractive right now). I’ll want an assessment of profitability by product and country. I’ll want to know where the bank faces biggest bad debt risk. On mortgages I’ll want to know what chance there is of a debt for equity swap. I’ll want to know how much exposure there is to the same risk in other sectors, and have people appointed to begin negotiating such arrangements, now. And I’ll want to know what assets can be ring-fenced to protect depositors as far as possible. And I’ll want those supplying answers to provide critical feedback, including suggestion as to the completeness in scope of the questions I have asked. I suspect that few, if any, senior managers in any bank have the courage to say this to any board member right now. I have a strong suspicion brown nosing of the board is the order of the day. But the power of the non exec is that this is not your whole career; you can ask the unaskable, and you can expect answers, and can treat them in confidence. I bet that does not happen now.
5) Then I’ll want to see plans: where is the new capital to be used? There is no point pouring it into a pot. It has to be used to best effect. Which business lines should continue? What can be sold? I suspect it’s not much right now. What can be spun off? The breaking up of these institutions is vital for the future security of our banking system. So, investment banking is broken out, is possible. Pension and life companies are spun out. Mortgages might go the same way, using existing brands. They may be mutualised: mortgage holders may get shares in their mortgage company. Banking will be just that: a deposit and lending activity subject to strict ratio arrangements. Speculative trading will be consigned to history: that is not a banks role.
6) Intensive care arrangements will be needed for customers in trouble. Bailing out the bank is not enough if it cannot keep its customers going. I’ll want to know what arrangements are in place to achieve that, what skills are missing and how they can be acquired.
7) Remuneration will be reassessed: ratios of earnings from top to bottom will be set. Bonuses will be reconsidered. They will be based on supporting clients, not speculative profit. The focus will be on the long term, not making bucks on the turn of an exchange rate or other meaningless deal where there is no intention to ever actually take possession of the commodity traded.
8 ) The basis of future customer charging will have to be reviewed. Clean and safe banks may cost customers more. Packages will have to be designed to make sure that those on low earnings can have access to accounts without being penalised by this.
9) The rebuilding of long term stability on the basis of a strong national base will be key: the global reach of the enterprise is highly likely to be reduced. The current crisis has shown banking is still related to the regulation of the country in which a bank is based.
10) A review of culpability will be undertaken. If it is shown to exist it will require compensation to be paid.
11) A future based on transparent reporting of exactly what the bank does where, and how it manages its risk, will be the policy required. Never again should the public have to bail out banks.
12) Banking will become boring. That is exactly as it should be. But then it was always meant to be the servant of productive enterprise. It has limited wealth creation possibility in its own right, because the fundamental message will be cash is king when it comes to solvency, but generating cash in a bank is not the same as generating wealth, and it’s real wealth that meets real people’s needs, and banks can only earn from servicing wealthy economies. Anything else is an illusion.
I stress: this is an agenda written in 30 minutes. It could be refined. It would be within two hours of beginning the implementation process. But it’s something for all those who get the task tomorrow to think about, I hope.

And I must admit that having written this I realise it’s a task I’d relish. But I’m not expecting the call.

THE £600 million rainy day fund will be used ‘as the backstop’ to repay Island savers if banks go bust, the Chief Minister announced this morning as bank shares plummeted.

He said that the strategic reserve would be used to bail out banks if all other measures failed. Senator Frank Walker announced the details of the deposit protection scheme this morning and insisted that such a worst-case scenario was very unlikely in Jersey.

He said that the announcement should steady the nerves of savers across Europe who were today looking for reassurance as the international banking crisis deepened further. The value of shares in RBS lost around 40 per cent of their value today, while those in other banks including HBOS also fell considerably.

Senator Walker said that before the rainy day fund was dipped into, the Island could be forced to borrow and make the banks repay the loans. It is not clear at this point whether the money would be available on the world money markets or how a bank that had gone down would meet such obligations. (from thisisjersey)


So Guernsey Minister's what is your answer?

Here is one answer :The Treasury Minister's vowing he'll do all he can to get deposit protection in place by the end of the…
year. A new technical group, chaired by Deputy Charles Parkinson held
their first meeting this morning... looking at the introduction of a
scheme. Legislation's being drawn up and plans are then expected to go
before the States at the end of November. It will ask politicians to
approve measures for financial institutions to guarantee savers' money.
Banks have been asked for provide certain technical data by the end of
next week and the group will then meet again.


BY THE END OF THE YEAR , NO RUSH THEN!

PETER HARWOOD, the chairman of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission, made a rare public statement yesterday to rebut criticism from Vale deputy Matt Fallaize.
The States member had claimed that deputies had been told in a meeting with the regulator that all banks trading in Guernsey were secure. But in a letter sent to all States members, Advocate Harwood (pictured) said that was not true.
‘I was present at the meeting and I want to make it clearly understood that at no time during the meeting did any representative of the commission make comments on banks’ security or capitalisation,’ he said. He said the GFSC had been made aware by Landsbanki Guernsey before the meeting that it had begun to experience a significant level of withdrawals from its depositors.
‘This information about the bank was communicated to the chief minister immediately before the meeting with States members and repeated to members of the Policy Council at the meeting held later that afternoon,’ he said.
* Deputy Fallaize refused to back down yesterday.
‘What we know from Mr Harwood’s letter is that concerns were raised about Landsbanki Guernsey before the meeting because the chief minister was briefed,’ he said. ‘I would ask why that information was not made available to all the other deputies?’ (from thisisguernsey)

There have been numerous comments through all the media about the Landsbanki crisis.
It is clear that they way that this has been handled by our authorities has caused the Bailiwick of Guernsey horrendous damage throughout the world potentially putting our whole economy at risk. It is clear, too, that this could have been avoided by different action and it is therefore necessary to do two things:
1.) Take action to put matters right
2.) Investigate the detail of what happened, when exactly did our authorities know there was a problem, who told who and when ,and what was done or not done. We need to know who those are who jepoardised the very future of our Island.

1.) The action which needs to be taken is to stop all the spin, which no one believes, and to start being honest. This means admitting that our authorities got things wrong, were too complacent about the security of bank deposits and the financial sector in general, that we have had our financial legislation priorities wrong, and that we still have areas to resolve in that respect. The pretence has got to stop.
Our political leaders have to make person to person representations to the UK politicians dealing with the Landsbanki and indeed the world financial crisis. Dealing with the UK Treasury on a top level official basis has been a good start.
We need to make a public statement that we will equal the depositer protection offered by Jersey. This means changing the idea of having a bank funded deposit protection scheme, and do what is necessary to provide investor security, which we now know means security in our economy.
Not only must we equal what Jersey is offering, we have to work with them as a Channel Islands team.
We have dragged Jersey's reputation down with ours because of our dithering and indecisiveness.
There has to be a joint approach on financial policy and end the petty rivalries there have been in the past.
We must put ourselves in a position where we can take swift action to deal with events, and the Policy Council needs to appoint a team of politicians whose responsibility is day to day monitoring of the situation. The answer is not to give more power to the Chief Minister because we cannot afford the risk of mistakes being made.
The politicians must take firm control of the policy and direction of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission so that the government of our Island decides on financial legislation priorities. There needs to monitoring and scrutinising of the role and workings of the GFSC by the equivalent of a House of Commons Select Committee, so that someone is effectively regulating the regulator. The role of the GFSC has to be focused on sensible supervision and regulation ,rather than not fit for purpose regulation.

2.) The investigation we need to set up should be Chaired by an elected politician who is not seen to be identified with the current crisis together with other politicians who are not afraid to question the actions of colleagues , senior public servants and senior figures in our financial community. The investigation committee would need to be assisted by individuals with an understanding of the financial sector who were not States Members. The investigation would look at the role of the GFSC, Chief Minister, Policy Council, Treasury and Commerce and Employment , senior public servants and anyone else relevant.

I would be interested to see what others think about my suggestions as to how to move forward.

Tony Webber

AN INQUIRY is to be launched into the regulator’s handling of the Landsbanki Guernsey crisis.
This follows the bank’s customers being left out-of-pocket after administrators announced an initial repayment of just 30p in every pound held on deposit.
Many savers questioned the role of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission after it emerged that Landsbanki Guernsey had sent more than £36m. to UK-based Heritable Bank, its sister company now in administration.
Asked by the Guernsey Press yesterday why, with the knowledge that banks in Iceland were on the verge of difficulties, Landsbanki Guernsey was allowed to send large sums of money to a fellow subsidiary of Iceland’s second-largest bank, GFSC director general Peter Neville (pictured) said: ‘You have asked for a comment on the actions taken by the commission in relation to Landsbanki Guernsey and Heritable Bank in the UK.
‘This raises the whole question of the commission’s approach to the regulation and supervision of Landsbanki Guernsey.
‘It is normal practice for a regulator to have an inquiry into its performance carried out following a major event such as this. I have therefore recommended to our commissioners, and they have agreed, that an independent person of undoubted standing and expertise should be appointed by the commissioners to conduct such an inquiry as soon as possible.’ (from thisisguernsey)