DAG support for revised SOA?

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 29/04/2009 - 11:11

If DAG acts in the interests of the majority of depositors, and I would imagine that the smaller depositors are in the majority, then DAG needs come out in support of the revised SoA because it is surely the best option for these depositors.

The SoA is less risky than liquidation - depositors who intend voting against the SoA and therefore for liquidation because they believe they will get back more money quicker may find that they end up with less in the end due to flawed assumptions and unforeseen events. Or maybe they intend to vote against the SoA in principle because they have been indoctrinated by all the anti-IoMG postings on this website. They should remember that the DCS is also an IoMG scheme.

Why vote against the SoA? The DCS route is risky, so smaller depositors may wait several years to get their money back especially from compensation payments as distributions are unlikely to exceed 70% in the first year or two. The larger depositors are apparently prepared to take the risk of getting higher distributions quicker via liquidation compared to the SoA, as most won't qualify for compensation anyway so they couldn't really care about the IoM banks' contributions, or not, to the DCS. Liquidations are known to take a long time and one wonders what the impact of an extended global economic crisis may be on all of this. The IoM banks haven't put a single penny into the DCS pot as yet. There is the possibility of a long drawn-out litigation process (the lawyers would smile). And what about loss of interest that could have been earned on earlier capital recoveries over all this time?

The revised SoA is rather complicated, but is described quite clearly in the summary provided to depositors with the voting forms. There is enough detail to make an informed decision to vote on it.

Of course everyone is entitled to vote for what they believe is best. I hear what DAG is saying (regarding a unified approach, etc) but voting against the SoA goes against my better judgement for what is best for me (selfish - but aren't we all?). However, reading between the lines, there seems to be a possibility that the DAG legal team may still support the SoA if certain issues can be resolved, even at this late hour. Lets hope this happens.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (24 votes)

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Trusts, small companies protected up to 20K and deposit <50K

  • Ten D
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 12:20

If in this group you can vote for SOA without any regret - probably the biggest beneficiary of SOA. This increases your guaranteed amount from 20,000 to 50,000. ...Or do I miss something?


just 2 reasons why the SOA provides NO GUARANTEES

  • KA
  • 14/10/08 29/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 10:16

please go to page 49, paragraph 37.1 , and page 51,section 43.1 of the EXPLANATORY STATEMENT of SOA sent to you all by KSFIOM .
These are just 2 reasons which make clear why the SOA , as it stands , is such a risk to us all And so much riskier than DCS and Liquidation. We sign away all rights and control to the IOMG if we agree to the SOA .

In practice, it is very common for SOAs to change after about a year to suit those implimenting it. We will have no say in the matter. The IOMG governs it all. Do you trust them ? ! ! ! !

Whereas Liquidation is governed by Statute and the law requires that the liquidator distributes the funds in a timely and prudent manner. There will be creditors , that we chose , sitting as part of the board overseeing the runing of the DCS and Liquidation . The liquidator wil be working for us not the IOMG.

And wy do you think that the IOMG did not send any information on the DCS and Liquidation in the pack they sent out? They want everyone to vote for or against two options , but they only sent information on one of those options ! Obviously that is the one option that suits them ! Why? Because that is the only way they have full control .


As a protected depositor, we

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 12:25

As a protected depositor, we get our money either way. One route may take longer than the other but I for one cannot see how the IOM can offer a payment under teh SOA and then not make that same payment available under the DCS/Liquidation.

Why shouldn't we help others and vote for what they think is best for them? I will help them in my small way and let the DAG legal take my proxy vote.


Thanks SgKZ

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 10:24

For or your thoughtful post.
The time difference is minimal and I appreciate your unselfish attitude.

Re Delays

It is not us the depositors that have cause all the delays.

It is the political shenanigans of the governments concerned .

How many times have the IOM delayed even putting their paperwork to the court?

We have been kept waiting for 7 months now despite being obliging and patience.

Now we are being railroaded even to the time scale of the voting - many people have still not received their voting forms - not everyone is on the internet how will they get them back in time?

It would be madness to give power to those who can't and dont' comply to their own courts decisions.

Once they have power via the SOA we are lost.

Note everyone the strong campaign being waged by people who have scarcely ever posted before now on this forum in favour of the SOA - where were they all before ?


Where we were all before?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 13:15

I can only speak for myself, but I joined this forum back in October and felt that there was not too much I could contribute by posting, and no doubt some would still agree. I couldn't read 'everything' posted as at that time I did not have the capacity or inclination and saw the conclusion being some way off before and after each court case. What I did read in the early days, generally seemed to be written by people far more informed, knowledgeable and intelligent than me, interspersed with some anti-IoM ranting (which I could appreciate, as it was still very raw and has not gone away).

I was fortunate enough not to need this forum as some kind of comfort or as a way of getting things off my chest, because I just put my situation down as 'one of those things'. It wasn't my life savings, that I'd get up to 50K back at the same time as everyone else and those with everything at stake are probably going to do a better job of getting all their money back than a sub-50K depositor such as myself. There're other things going on around me which puts my deposit into perspective, although that's not to say I will not fight for every penny. I was even going to contribute to the legal fund once I could get my hands on some fresh cash!

Incidently, I think the greatest thing about this forum, other than being able to share views is that it does allow others to get comfort, or things off their chests, if they want to. It's just that I didn't feel the need (until this post). But I think now is the time to put those things behind us, to think rationally and to focus and it's not because I've suddenly comprehended the fact I've lost money or by not posting I was disinterested in the fact or this forum. I basically just didn't have the time. No apologies there.

Meanwhile, I tried to help as best I could by spreading-the-word to some pretty influential people outside of DAG and generated a lead for Bell Pottinger in the financial press for instance, and although at that time I offered to help DAG strategy team, my offer was not taken up. I wasn't the least bit upset by this (I seem to remember being a bit relieved) but I kept more of an eye on things because I was a little surprised (given my business background).

Then, as I guess it did with others, the more and more I read this forum and DAG's strategy, it gradually dawned on me that DAG strategy team were not actually representing my best interests (I'm in the sub-50K class and fell for 'we're all in this together' mantra before I woke up) and were willing to gamble the structure/premise of Protected guarantee timelines as per the first SOA on which I was reliant, in return for threatening the IoM with kamikaze liquidation to get a better return for themselves! Not only that, they seemed to be asking me to contribute to their coffers for doing so, but without consultation! AND NOT ONLY THAT, but some DAG forum members were manically cheering the DAG strategy team on from the sidelines with some fantastically paranoid outbursts. I thought I'd best make my presence known.

I think it was a gross error of the DAG strategy team to not reach out to the sub-50K class (if they did, I missed it) and propose getting the Protected guarantee back within a guaranteed timeframe, in exchange for the sub-50K vote. I do not believe the over-50K class involved in the negotiations are really irrational enough to want a liquidation on the IoM, so I do not accept arguments along the lines of the sub-50K will get the Protected guarantee back through DCS = 100% back for all. I believe the over-50K class decided they did not actually need the sub-50K vote and were going to split the two classes 'as is normal' in these situations, claim it as a victory and a benefit, and as only one class is needed to defeat the SOA, their class can try it alone. By not getting sub-50K depositors like myself and others 'on-message', DAG strategy have helped our opponents (IoM) in by spitting the combined group and fueling divisions.

Since I started regularly posting I have had to ride a number of reasonable attacks and unreasonable abuse (and praise, I'm glad to say) and I've given some back. But I can assure anyone that my intentions have been to either draw out information quickly from some creditors, to 'give back as good as I get' and to highlight my perspective on things in a hope to get off this irrational anti-IoM hate-train (no, I am not from the IoM). I have posted erroneously at times, but have always stood corrected. I've attempted to be funny sometimes and this has upset people, so I desisted. I've written things that could have been misinterpreted and have immediately apologised. But I don't believe I have actually posted anywhere 'which way' someone should vote, although I am definitely against liquidation and sure some kind of SOA agreement will be reached. Let's hope.

However, if an agreement to an SOA is reached (and they're myriad clauses and %'s to negotiate between the IoM, the partially Protected creditors and the Life Companies (plus others I guess), all these anti-IoM postings will look a bit silly in hindsight. This is negotiation, and 'obviously' (which is a very over used expression on this site, by the way) people start off from different points and work to an agreement. If both parties didn't want to do business, they'd be no discussion between them. Of course DAG strategy team and others think there's a 'deal to be done' or they wouldn't be talking outside of the court.

Whether we end up with an SOA or a liquidation, we'll always be at the 'mercy' of the IoM to some extent, so the idea of having no trust at all in the IoM is a circular argument, and therefore, in my opinion, not worth having.


What the hell is wrong with

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 07:23

What the hell is wrong with you people? The longer this goes on, the longer it takes to start getting money back, the worse this is going to be. Period.

The entire world is going through some of the most uncertain times in modern history. Not a single day goes by without more unsettling news flashing across the screen, be it a financial crisis somewhere, or the strong possiblity of a pandemic, which by the way, will also lead to a more severe worldwide financial downturn.

Delaying a resolution to this mess is not going to help anyone. All it is going to do is allow more time for other bad things to happen, including usury legal fees that will continue to be collected, other banks that could run into problems on the IOM, and God knows what else.

Just like we all never expected it could possibly happen where we would all be in this predicament, things can and probably will get much worse if this continues to go on much longer. Anyone naive enough to think they will be getting back more money by prolonging this, or that they are helping others with larger deposits by shooting down the SoA, needs to rethink their decision before it is too late.


@SgKZ

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 13:14

That's the whole point ......... 'Fully Protected Depositors (Individual)' should as things stand at present vote YES to the SoA.

Do you honestly think that liebenk Group and DAG strategy group are, now push comes to shove, considering the interests of FPDIs and the needs of some medium and larger depositors who would accept what is on offer now ?

Of course not.

Unless I've missed it Diver's Action and subsequent have never acknowledged the position of FPDIs.

It's nothing personal it's just the way it is.


To Be or not To be

  • Pronto
  • 03/02/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 17:39

Well what a carry on. My simple mind tells me that to vote against the Soa would be folly.

if we do not vote for it then the whole shooting match will be forced into iquidation true or false??.

if it goes into liquidation then we will get peanuts, if anything, and when??.

Some of us could be dead and burned before we see any money.

I have asked a friend who is an auditor and liquidator and he is at a loss to see why anyone would vote against this Soa.

So for me....Soa it has got to be

pronto


Pro SOA

  • Ramsey resident
  • 22/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 14:34

I for one am glad to see the pro SOA posts starting to appear on this site now

As an under £35K depositor I have been feeling lately that the DAG no longer represents me with its anti SOA stance. I have already posted back my voting paper FOR the SOA as it will give me back all my cash with 90 to 100 days - end of story

I however am not selfish and I honestly believe that the SOA benefits all. Do you really want liquidation, fire sale of the loan book, reduced returns for over 50K depositors with no defined timescale. I was on the IOM during the Savings and Investment Bank collapse in the 1980's and that liquidation took I think something like 15 years. The over 50K people will end up funding IOM lawyers and accountants for the next 15 years out of their savings

It makes no sense for anyone to reject the SOA


for gods sakes let it be soa... come to your senses

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 12:28

Oh my god I can just see what hell we will all be given if soa is not going to get the vote, they will mess up the DCS and we will get PEANUTS. And you know what they wont even CARE because they will say told you we had a better scheme .I want to see my capital coming back this century , please all come to your senses. LIQUIDATION will be happy days for the lawyers and nothing will change my mind over this horrible mess.


SOA--Simpson posting on Bank site

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 10:25

I have read it through and now it seems to be reasonable for all---the charts up to 250,000 indicate this.
Higher than that, I don't know, but for the majority it seems to work and after all that is democratic.

There was one big issue before regarding changes in the future--here are the words___

  1. MODIFICATIONS TO THE SCHEME
    37.1 The Scheme Supervisor will have the power, after consultation with the Creditors'
    Committee and the Treasury, without reference to the Scheme Creditors, if they consider it
    expedient to do so and if it is in the best interests of the Scheme Creditors, to modify the
    provisions of the Scheme provided such modifications do not materially alter the effect or
    economic substance of the Scheme.
    37.2 Any proposed modification of the Scheme which would materially alter the effect or
    economic substance of the Scheme will require the approval of 75% (seventy five per
    cent.) by value and a majority in number of each class of the Scheme Creditors affected by
    the modification, and any proposed modification of the Scheme which would in the
    Treasury's sole opinion materially alter or affect its rights or obligations under the Scheme
    will require the consent of the Treasury.

I don't find this at all draconian, just a way of adjustment if something new comes up in the future.

I think I now know how to vote.


Someone who has taken the

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 13:44

Someone who has taken the time to read the SoA and make a decision for themselves rather than just blindly joining the anti SoA mob. Whatever next.


I dont like it at all

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 10:31

Why put in a clause which means they can change things without reference to the creditors?


SOA changes after implementation

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 14:13

bellyup -
Not totally "without reference to the creditors". It does require consultation with the creditors committee. Though in my view it should require their agreement, not simply consultation. It surely makes sense that relatively minor (hopefully beneficial) changes can be made without the need (and associated costs) to consult ALL creditors (as IS required for "material" changes - though I'm not sure who decides what constitutes a material change...).

Otherwise I tend to agree with bobwin and would like to see a clear statement from our lawyers of the legal pitfalls they see (and which we may not see) in accepting the SOA as it now stands.


SOA CHANGES AFTER THE EVENT

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 12:11

Belly up--they cannot make MATERIAL changes without a vote --- am I unable to read??? Am I misinterpreting the words--advice please


revised SOA payment shedule

  • kevkev1888
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 14:06

Can someone tell me what the payment shedule is for the SOA.

Sorry but after some time looking on this site i cant find it.

Many thanks


scheule for payment

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 14:24

You will get 1st payment after 100 days that the scheme comes into action, and at the latest, on Sept 7 2009. The second payment in June 2010. However, these are only indicative dates, so again, even though people are saying that the SoA is a "safer" option, nothing is set in stone. Those within the DCS limit will be paid out in one year. However, I spoke with someone at PWC yesterday, and he said that under liquidation, the 50k payment will also be within the same time frame.

If the expected 10% dividend from UK doesn't come back in time, the first dividend will be 14.5%, and if it does, it will range between 18 & 22%..

The SoA is no more secure than liquidation, because dividends are dependent on available assets. In my mind, it's just a cover up for liquidation, as both are the same, except that SoA sounds better than liquidation.

Also, note that Mike Simpson expects returns to be between 77 & 88%. So the IOMT, knows that it will get every penny back, because they start clawing back at 70%. A nice little ruse to cover up their "generosity."

Mike's latest update: http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/Pages/4080


It seems strange that

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 15:34

It seems strange that someone would not accept what is specified in the SoA but is prepared to accept a conversation with someone at PWC stating that the DCS would payout in the same timeframe!


IOMG will not get ALL their money back

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 15:23

IOMG will not get "every penny" back unless the dividend reaches 100% because all under 50k (and some over 50k) depositors will still need topping up.

Neither for not against SOA - just trying to be accurate.


@anrigaut IoMG will not get ALL their money back

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 07:41

Thanks Anrigaut, I've been posting this over and over!


AND WHY SHOULD THE IOMG NOT GET THEIR MONEY BACK?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 15:17

Don't expect the IoM taxpayers to bail us out - they have nothing to do with the fact that we all decided to bank with KSF (IoM) and now stand to loose some money.


@Why should IoMG not get money back?

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 01/05/2009 - 09:09

The 'taxpayers' include all of those commercial enterprises that make money from using other people's money. To get that money they need to encourage others to place their savings in such places with a level of trust that should be beyond question. This has not happened here; the Statutory body of the island failed to properly monitor and advise the KSF bank to place its monies appropriately at a time of heightened awareness within the industry. Hindsight is 20/20, but people dont get paid £225,000 per year to act stupidly. They hold these positions to protect the public from outside influences and in many cases, from themselves. They represent the public; the Government; and the country that collectively elevates them to these positions of power and responsibility. When they fail to conduct these duties with due diligence - and evidence of that is plain to all who chose to open their eyes and minds to it - then they are not rewarded with another annual salary, but should be removed from office for incompetence because that is the only proper course of action if they fail to resign in recognition of their involvement; only then can justice be seen to be done. The collective shares this responsibility and contributes to any subsequent failure the same as in any other country - why should the Isle of Man see it any differently? Go ask the taxpayers of Iceland who it is that is paying for the mistakes of their regulators and Government officials!


Swiss

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/04/2009 - 15:24

I believe you are correct in stating that some believe SOA is a "safer" option, and that these same creditors accept these payments, in the current SOA on offer, are not 'set in stone'.

On the other hand, I do not agree that the DCS limit paying out in "one year" is set in stone either, as you would seem to imply (above).

In fact, I believe that liquidation on the IoM is so full of problems that over-50K creditors already realise this and most would be willing to negotiate for an acceptable SOA as a compromise, and continue their claim for 100% through other channels available.

The over-50K's don't seem to want the sub-50K's vote to achieve this as they believe they can defeat the SOA alone. That's fine. Just don't ask sub-50K's for their support or money or pretend the sub-50K's best interests are not impacted by this action. Better still, sub-50K's should not be berated for sticking up for themselves or labelled selfish if they do not finance such activity.

To state the obvious: 'time will tell'.