There is no way that I would contribute to this bunch of investment idiots. They went for a high return in a FOREIGN bank, in spite of the fact that virtually all other banks were offeriing 2% less. Boo Hoo, but they will get nada from me. The trustees should be responsible not the taxpayer.
Had they invested in fred umbongo's bank of nigeria I would have joined the people condemning them. However, they instead chose to invest in the (at the time) largest bank in iceland. Now can anyone point to any evidence available at the time that iceland was less than a secure risk?
Also, there seems to be some disagreement over the final cause of the banks demise.
As yet I havent been able to find out if the case has been heard. But if it can be shown that the UK government (that bastion of honesty and competance that we all respect and admire) had a hand in the banks collapse then there might be a case for some form of compensation.
I'm not saying I like it, but it appears (as so often is the case) that things are not as clear cut as some would have us believe.
Nothing to do with hindsight in this case, the alarm bells were ringing re the Icelandic banks as far back as March 2007 and the credit default swap ratings bear this out. Anyone handling large sums of cash should have been prudent and ask why they were paying well above market rates and at the very least, spread their risk by investing in a spread of safer deposits.
available at the time that iceland was less than a secure risk?"
In the year leading up to September 2008 the money supply in Iceland grew by over 50% and GDP grew by 5%. Anyone with a grain of investment knowledge would have known what the Central Bank of Iceland was doing - it was trying to shove its finger in the dyke by printing money, and the economic bubble was bound to burst.
Investing other peoples' charity donations in an Icelandic bank in such circumstances was asking for trouble, but that's exactly what the trustees did.