:: Manx Radio :: The Isle of Man's Premier Radio Station :: .
Deposits decreased by £2.99 billion (-5.33%) to £53.09 billion between March 31st and June 30th, according to figures released by the Isle of Man Financial Supervision Commission.
People are realising this is not a place to trust.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Exactly! The Isle of Man government will never admit that it has anything to do with the collapse of Kaupthing IoM or the dispossessed depositors’ video campaign DON’T BANK ON THE ISLE OF MAN on http://www.youtube.com However people are commenting on my blog and on the guestbook of http://www.kaupthingiom-dag.co.uk that they are closing their accounts. The IoM simply does not have the infrastructure to operate a large offshore financial services industry and the FSC rule book now makes anyone other than the FSC to blame if a bank gets into difficulties.
The IoM has been left alone to paddle its own canoe since the Kilbraddon report in the early 1970’s. Now it is going to come under the Whitehall microscope, and Lord Wallace has given a strong pointer on the level of magnification that might be expected.
Right now the IoM is out of step with UK & g20 policy concerning security of bank deposits. Despite it having got itself on the OECD ‘white list’ it appears to be well known to be a haven for ultra rich people & companies wishing to escape taxation in one form or another.
Following the KSFIoM fiasco I can see regulation of its banks coming under the regulatory umbrella of the UK.
Taxing times lay ahead for the IoM.
Jim
http://www.ksfiom-blog.blogspot.com
In my comment above I said: “…it appears to be well known to be a haven for ultra rich people & companies wishing to escape taxation in one form or another.” I was not of course referring to the thousands of expats who have been forced to use offshore banking NOT for the purpose of avoiding or evading tax (income from interest is declared by everyone to their home tax authority), but because as a result of anti-terrorism legislation UK banks have not allowed them to open accounts onshore because they were not resident in the UK. The Treasury Select Committee has called upon banks to review this policy but to date very few have changed it.
Richard
This is an example of very poor journalism on your part. You have used quotes but as usual taken matters out of context. For clarity, I will add the bit you’ve missed:-
“1) The figures at 30th June 2009 exclude the historic deposit base of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited following the placing into liquidation of that entity in May 2009. The deposit base of this entity was included in previous quarterly data.
2) The total figures at 30th June 2009 compared to those at 31st March 2009 have been materially influenced by exchange rate movements. The quarterly decrease in foreign currency deposits, expressed in sterling, was 12.7%, whilst the decrease in sterling denominated deposits was 1.44%. The value of sterling appreciated against both the US dollar and Euro between spot dates of 31st March 2009 and 30th June 2009 by approximately 11.5% and 8.3% respectively. The appreciation of sterling has caused a decrease in the sterling value of deposits denominated in those major currencies.”
If you look at the historical figure, you will see that there was an increase in deposits even post-KSF. The FSC, quite rightly, pointed out at the time that the increase was due to currency fluctuation.
I didn’t see you publish a blog at the time saying everything was rosy in the IOM because deposits are up so when they decrease for the same reason, i.e. currency fluctuation, please do not use this information for your own self-righteous needs.
Your lack of credibility has once again been exposed.
Paul
I’m so sorry I did not publish the Isle of Man’s excuses
I’ll just go and berate myself
Richard
well said PJM
Richard, your response is petulant and befitting the playground!
The IOM FSC ”excuses” are analytical explanations of facts, as a chartered accountant surely you can understand this. Unfortunately the facts do not fit with your world-view.
However, do enjoy reading your web-site / blog. Believe it or not I do empathise with a good deal of what you say. (Well, the more considered analytical arguments.)
Still hope you can offer some independent 3rd party confirmation on your assertion that the IOM is a drain on the UK re VAT.
Also do you really have a fully formed economic argument for the CI/ IOM et al, should you succeed in eliminating the finance industry?
Eugene
No, not petulant – just an honest response to spin
I can spin numbers too – if I wanted to do so – I am a chartered accountant after all. And that’s how I read the comments. Of course they may be true. But I candidly doubt they’re the whole explanation – they feel like desperately grabbed excuses
I do not have published confirmation of official approval of my version of the common purse agreement – I do have it in ‘off the record’ comments – but I’m aware that won’t do for you. And Alan Bell won’t even talk about it to MHKs – so honest is he on the subject because he knows it is so sensitive
And no I do not have a fully worked out plan. But nor did those opposing slavery have a worked out plan of what to do with slave traders. I equate the two issues. Correcting a wrong does not require me to have a fully worked out compensation plan for the perpetrators
I would expect job losses and serious negative equity in the Crown Dependencies. Banks should be forced to lose the negative equity, not the home owners
And I would support aid for new business
But I see no reason to support those transients who work in finance
Richard