DAG WANTS MY PROXY VOTE, BUT...

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 28/04/2009 - 14:23

As a smaller depositor I want the DAG to support the new SoA.

How can the DAG present a united front at the Scheme meetings when the interests of the smaller and larger depositors are not the same?

By all means try to get a better deal for the larger depositors, but don't disregard our interests.

2.81818
Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (11 votes)

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

What is the point of the SoA?

  • StuPot
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 02:13

I hope ALL depositors, large & small, give their proxy vote to the DAG team. WHY WOULD ANYONE NOT DO THIS?? It is the responsible thing to do.
We should do what is best for the entire group. It MUST be clear to all that the IoM is looking after their own interests. Otherwise, why has this SoA been created?
If we all give our proxy to the DAG team this will allow leverage to improve the SoA. So, POSSIBLY making the SoA the best option. We all need this opportunity to improve the chances of 100% return of what is rightfully our money.

PLEASE, FOR ALL OUR SAKES, GIVE YOUR PROXY VOTE TO DAG.


why ? (@stupot)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 09:07

why ?

Because at the moment and in the absence of a better route ALL 'Greens' ie Fully Protected Depositors (Individual) would be quicker and better served by the SoA.

In addition there may be many 'medium' and 'larger' depositors for whom the SoA, even at 70% (and hopefully some more to come) would be their preferred 'bet'.

Surely rejecting the current SoA is somewhat of a gamble for ALL remaining depositors and bondholders ?

I am a total non-expert but IMHO the Liquidation / Legal route is much more risky.

The SoA appears to have been analysed to death here in arithmetic terms.
L/L has many more variables and if a few of these conspire (and I don't mean the IoM) in a way which is not to your liking then you will wish you grabbed the 70% when you had the chance, and you will have disadvantaged FPDIs too.


SOA Proxy Voting

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 05:08

I'm getting confused - DAG is lobbying for our proxy vote to be via the DAG Legal Team but recently Liebenk in her blog for 'High Net Worth' depositors was asking that we give our proxy votes to her group ! Or are they one and the same ? If not I suggest that they both co-operate as I'm doubtful it is sensible to split our approach to IOMT. Personally I'm going with the DAG Legal Team ( albeit I've sent my details to Liebenk ).


Proxy for 50k+

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 09:38

Both the DAG and Leibenk groups are opposed to the SoA for 50k+ depositors as simply not being a good deal. Giving your proxy vote is a issue of trust. If you are in the 50k+ class (class 2 I think) and want to join with others then it doesn't matter which of these two groups you give your proxy to. If you don't trust either to cast your vote you can at least let them know which way you intend to vote.


Proxy Votes

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 06:26

Your vote is in your class whatever that is---proxy does not migrate.


DAG Support

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 15:00

DAG supports every depositor -100% return. The IOMG divided us - so they could report in the media "KSF depositors don't know what they want"


Wasn't it the Protection level which divided us?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 15:22

Those fully protected and those not?

If there was no protection limit, or 100% protection, then we would all have the same interests.

However, there would no doubt still be an argument even then, over "how much to accept", and "when", and we'd find a common enemy to blame (for both justified reasons and just plain silly reasons)