• The post you are reporting:
   
  Marek. I have to disagree with you.
  
  As I have said there is no such thing as 'nil risk' - there are just many types of risk. The facts seem clear that the DDC investment was made at a time when the bank was rated AA and it was a small proportion of the overall portfolio.
  
  What is important to note also is the fact that a local authority has placed upon it, by Government, a duty to achieve the best returns commensurate with risk. The risk, which can only be judged as reasonable based on independent rating agancies and being approved by the BoE, Treasury and FSA, was well within reason when the investment was made. Indeed, if an Audit Commission Review determined that DDC did not do enough to obtain the best returns then they could have been in trouble from that source.
  
  This was a one year fixed term investment made 11 months before. If this crash happened a month later the headline would be 'DDC pulled money out of Icelandic Banks just before they crashed' and make no mistake they would have made the most of that publicity!
  
  The threat/cost etc of enquiries would be a very dangerous route to go down. It could have unforseen consequences on future public body investment, forcing a greater degree of playing safe that would reduce returns and cost the taxpayers over time much more than this loss.
  
  Who, incidentally, would conduct such an enquiry? The Audit Commission - thats who would normally do it? I now know they made their investment of £10m only a few months ago. If anyone knows the rules around public body investment and has all the resources available to make such decisions its that particular body.
  
  What it shows is simply what an extraordingary situation we have experienced that has given rise to these losses. If only very few public bodies had been caught out by this then there might be a reason to justify further enquiry but that clearly is not so.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason