David Lock

You'll have read the headlines "Icelanders refuse to give UK back its money". Quelle surprise when the good folk were asked if they would like to donate their hard earned to strangers overseas

But there is quite a different story behind the headlines which a chap was explaining this morning. In fact UK and Netherlands will get back about 90% of the billions owed from the sale of Icebank (although why it is worth so much was not explained - a few up market igloos don't cut the mustard).

The Icelanders by voting No were really protesting against paying for a mess that the bank and Gov't got them into. So good on them I say

gpssti4

iTrader: (6)

When you look at the population of Iceland, that's a lot of dosh per head!

Trout

iTrader: (1)

DL - I am sure if it was £100k of your nest egg you were missing you would have a very different view.

Leslie

Surely they have a responsibility to the depositors and therefore should pay the money back to them.

Les

David Lock

If it's all down to the bank then yes they have a responsibility but if they haven't got any money there is not much they can do. Anyway it's going to court (which one?) so there may be an answer in a few years with more rich lawyers.


Trout - If I had a nest egg it wouldn't have gone to an Iceland bank but if it had I would be delighted to be getting 90% back. Anyway I thought the Treasury had stumped up for individual losses?

dl

Gordo

But the difference is it was a state-owned bank, so effectively owned by the tax payers. Unfortunately for them that means it's a national debt - which they're also responsible for.

They can default, but that could have a worse long term impact on their nation than paying up due to the long term negative impact on their credit-worthiness. I feel for them, but the answer isn't so clear-cut.

Gordo

David Lock

OK - yep that puts the repayment down to the citizens (in theory anyway!). dl

Trout

iTrader: (1)

EFA

Even better

hodgy0_2

are you sure? when?

David Lock

Why the edit?? Of course the Treasury is UK tax payer. dl

Trout

iTrader: (1)

It was the state bank until 1961 and then it was privatised in 2003.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Because the implication of what you write is that it is better that the UK tax payer bails you out rather than the Icelandic tax payer

David Lock

Look it doesn't really matter does it? If I had lost money and I was then refunded then, quite frankly, I wouldn't mind who funded that In this case it would seem unlikely that the hard pressed Icelandic tax payer would be paying out, for a while anyway.

The more important general question is whether the UK Gov't should have bailed out the UK investors anyway. Why did they? Hardly a mass vote winner... And weren't there warning signs about the bank which were picked up my astute investors?

dl

tony de wonderful

I can see both sides of the argument to be honest, but ultimately contracts should be honored if we wish to live in a civilised world.

If we had a 'race to the bottom' where nations etc decided not to pay their debt etc then we would be entering the unknown and perhaps lots of instability and pain.

Leslie

Seems to me that if the sale of the bank yields enough to cover a large amount of the lost sums, then that should be used to compensate the depositors.

Les

Trout

iTrader: (1)

It doesn't matter that you as a UK tax payer (I assume you are a UK tax payer) has paid out billions to rescue a foreign bank/community?

Actually, I need some work done on the house, do you mind sending me some money as it clearly 'really doesn't matter'!

David Lock

Did you actually read what I said I said the important question was whether the UK tax payer should have bailed out UK investors when an overseas (non-EC) investment went **** up.

And in my OP I said that in fact the UK will get 90% of the money back so they won't end up paying billions.

Good luck with the house - do the staff quarters need tidying up

dl

stilover

Iceland gave it's population a Referendum on the subject.

Not supprising they voted "No" to paying the money back.

Do you think any British Government would give us the vote like this? No.

dpb

hodgy0_2

and this goes to the crux of the whole debate - the risk/reward environment is totally skewed

tony de wonderful

The gov had to bail out UK investors because loads of councils would have lost millions.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Have the councils been bailed out? Or just individuals?

Trout

iTrader: (1)

No, I need to build a larger garage for all the cars

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

You can give the beetle to me if you like.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I suppose that would solve a problem!

Devildog

It's not much different to when BCCI went down, to be honest.

Everyone was more than happy to be making greater than average returns when all was going well, but then whinged when it all went **** up.

Someone has mentioned the risk/reward issue. You chose to deposit your cash in Iceland, you accept the risk associated with that and stop whingeing.

And as for the Councils, they should have learned their lessons from BCCI.

I'm not pissed at Iceland, I'm pissed at the fact that taxpyers money was invested overseas, just to get a better return.

If I was an Icelandic taxpayer, I'd be telling UK plc to **** off too.

David Lock

IIRC (probably not) there were a few police forces and charities who got caught as well. Probably councils with CEOs paid £200k plus to look after their council's funds

I wonder if the tories woud have done the same?

dl