DCS & Agents of Misinformation

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 23/02/2009 - 22:14

It is impossible to know if certain people are remunerated for the misinformation they spread, or if they are doing it for fun or perhaps out of sheer stupidity but it cannot be denied they have been incredibly active since the last court session of 19 February. They have been telling us that there are no funds in the DCS, that it will take 17 years to pay everyone, or that the scheme in general is as clear as mud. But what are the facts?

If liquidation had been declared at the last court session, the DCS would now be obliged to pay £240 million to all eligible depositors. Deducting the 10% dividend that Mike Simpson is ready to pay us since quite a while, this sum gets reduced to £216 million.

A further deduction has to be made for depositors with accounts of over £500k who will not be able to claim payment from DCS because from the dividend itself they will have received more than the allowable £50k. Using the data available on this site I estimate that there are approximately 400 persons in that situation, so a further £20 million deduction reduces the amount payable under DCS to £196 million.

As for the funding, first of all we have £150 million payable by the Treasury under the provisions of para 12A.(2) of DCS Regulations. Since these funds may only be used to cover the amounts above the first £20,000 we may assume that only half of it, or £75 million, would be available in our case.

Then there are bank contributions. According to Adrienne's list there are 36 banks in the IoM, 10 of which are exempt from the scheme. That gives us 26 banks required to pay the levy of 0.125% of their total deposit value per year. Assuming conservatively that the average bank has deposits of around £400 million, (which is less than a half of what KSFioM had before the collapse) that gives us a yearly contribution of £13 million, first payable before 31 March 2009.

And then of course we have the loan of £110 million approved by the Tynwald, which IoMG plans to distribute in the coming weeks as an EPS of £10,000. All together it adds up to a sum of about £198 million to cover £196 million payable under DCS, or in other words we have a modest surplus!

And all that could be paid before 31 March, which is in about 5 weeks, That's right; not in 2 years as in SoA, not in 17 years as some depositors(?) would want us to believe, but in 5 weeks.

Now, can somebody please explain to me why are there people on this forum who do not want us to receive this money? Are they stupid, are they on the government payroll or do they have a zany sense of humour?

And why would anybody in his right mind want to give up such crystal clear legislation as the DCS for a murky deal in Nigerian style, cooked up by professional scam artists?

3.25
Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (28 votes)

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

misinformation and a 5 R rule ????

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 03/03/2009 - 15:38

The only point I would agree on in this forum topic, there is most certainly a quantity of misinformation floating around. This creates mistrust in the membership and detracts not only from the site and members who genuinely require assistance to understand and / or query any points forwarded or proposed from whatever source. More importantly it detracts all members from the work everyone is doing to ensure a reasonable conclusion to this debacle we find ourselves in.

In addition if a member has an alternate viewpoint, snide remarks and of the cuff sarcasm are certainly not the way to respond, this type of response does escalate and does offend many .

(for myself - I'm thick skinned, call me what you want, in the area's I've worked I've heard worse)

My suggestion to combat at least some of the misinformation would be to adopt a simple rule, in engineering one of the first rules we are taught is the 5 P rule

Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance

Perhaps by adopting a similar rule for the DAG and if everyone took heed of this rule prior to posting, it may assist in reducing the useless traffic and the development of arguments on the site :-

Here's a suggestion for the new 5 R rule for DAG,

Research Reading Removes Rectal Reponses

any other suggestions for the rule or composition thereof, anyone???


Px6

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 11:48

You went for a P--in my day, it was Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

LMAO

Bob in Davao


LOL lets go for 6 R's then bob

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 12:38

Robust Research Reading Removes Rectal Responses


R's and P's

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 12:50

Nice one skint.
Perhaps Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance=7 I think

LMAO

Bob in Davao


7-Rs

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 13:01

Reconciled Robust Research Reading Removes Rectal Responses

LOL could go on for awhile -- IF my vocabulary can keep the sentence going.


EPS SOA DCS

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 11:21

Under the EPS 1 & 2, bond holders are to receive 10,000 or more as a "loan" against future realisations.
Under the DCS, the same group would receive a share of 20,000 per insurance company.
No exact number for bond holders but in the 1,000's I opine.
300 million has been suggested as the total deposit.
If there are 3,000 bond holders, then the EPS payout is 30million.
Under DCS this would be ?6 companiesx20,000=120,000.
It would appear then that the SOA is a foregone conclusion as IOMG have put in the 30million and the chances of clawing it back under DCS would be slim to nil.
Since the total funds likely to be available are finite, it seems to me that >50k depositors will be penalised to pay the bond holders.
I am neither of the above and I am happy for bond holders(at the low end) and saddened for high value depositors---not investors like the bond holders.

I am happy to be corrected but it seems to me that SOA does not offer the same or better than DCS unless you are a bond holder.

Regards


17 years comment

  • giveus backourfunds
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 12:20

Hi, I made the comment of 17 years for DCS to pay out but I meant with all the banks paying in with no funds in place (which there is not from banks). DCS is a total farce as it makes out that there is money in the pot over the years that has beeen paid in by banks to cover a situation like we have. Well this has not happened and my comment wasbased on banks alone paying in so 17 years would not be far off the truth.


Yes, Give Us Back Our Funds NOW!

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 13:10

Hi giveus,

Please read the document regulating the DCS before you make comments like the one about the 17-year wait for funds.

If you read the Regulations you will find that it is SoA that is a complete farce, as it offers to pay you in 2 years and a half to what you are entitled immediately.

Read my topic above and read the Regulations; the DCS Manager would have enough money to pay off all depositors entitled to £50k compensation almost immediately, if the DCS was triggered as it should have been at the last court session.


As you say, read the

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 17:43

As you say, read the document.

From the guidance notes:

*"the maximum levy is the lesser of £350,000 and 0.125% of the Participant’s
average sterling and foreign currency deposit base as calculated in accordance
with the Regulations'' *

So a maximum of £9.1m for your number of 26 particpants (350k x 26) - somewhat less than the 13m you 'conservatively' estimate. Pennies in the grand scheme of things but at least get the facts right and not spread any misinformation!

As to the rest of the math - who knows how the scheme is going to work and what monies will actually be paid out - whether the money is there or not.


participating banks

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 17:48

I believe there are 31 participating banks, presumably not including KSFIOM.


DCS 30 banks

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/02/2009 - 22:33

30 banks
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc/PressReleases/deposittakersinthedcs.pdf
but so what?

I am expecting most of the funding for the DCS to arise from recovery, and since we don't know how much this will be... But under the SoA, the IoM is aiming for 60% return, so the DCS is covered many times over.
Calculations several weeks ago, showed, I believe, that the DCS could pay out completely using money currently available.

However, I am expecting that the DCS will not be activated, not after the IoM has held out for this length of time. The deemster is sweet on the SoA....


Participating banks

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 19:10

I am not sure of the number of banks, but in Court on 19th February one years contribution was estimated at £9.6m.


@ jkk

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 13:19

If you read the document, you will find the application of the DCS in the event of an institutions failure is discretionary not mandatory, this point was highlighted in court on the 19th.

I agee it's highly unlikely they would not impliment the DCS, but who knows?


@skintagainnow: Angels on a pinhead?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 00:57

Exactly. So what are you really arguing about?


@ follow_the_tao

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 02:41

This forum post headed as DCS & Agents of misinformation, is a slight on various un-named members for the simple reason they do not agree with the viewpoint or the assumptions made by the author, with respect to the documentation / legislation relating to the demise of the bank and DCS - however it is clear to most that the vast bulk of the misinformation floating around emanates from the topic starter. Even the basic arguments and assumptions used to forward the viewpoint are flawed - by design or accident who knows.

It's one of those many flawed assumptions that my post above deals with, jkk assumes the DCS is a mandatory requirement of the IoMG / FSC when clearly it's not. More members have picked up other flawed assumptions and plain untruths and have pointed out those discrepancies - if you are going to have a topic discussion relating to misinformation then it's always a good idea to ensure the information you present in the opening comments are correct and can not be held up to ridicule or dismissed completely as a set of untruths.


@skintagainnow: I think you have to go another level back.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 03:32

No it isn't.

It's a problem with communication. It's a problem because the politics of the situation are not clearly identified.
It's a problem because the axioms of the debate are not clearly identified or not agreed on.

I believe jkk is being totally up front, and I believe you are too.

It's a communication problem, or two realities clashing.


@tao

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 09:31

Tao, I've read your other forum topic, (http://www.chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/those-havent-worked-it-...) which deals with many of the issue's we face in a sensible and pragmatic manner.
Therefore I'll take onboard your comment here to a degree, I will however leave the debate open on jkk, if he wishes to continue posting attempted intimidation and sarcasm at anyone who forwards a difference to an opinion he holds, or claims for a fact and these opinions or "supposed" facts are clearly incorrect, then I and I suspect others will continue to balance those views.

added :-

Just in case anyone thinks I'm forwarding myself as something of a saviour for the underdogs, I'm not, my motives & reasons are far more selfish. I have far too much tied up in this to allow anyone to attempt to ride roughshod over or misrepresent the actual facts, even the possible loss of an extra couple % means many thousands of £ of very hard earned money.


@ skintagainnow

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 13:47

I read it and did not find anything about discretionary powers to implement the DCS. Who has those powers? Can you quote the relevant paragraph?


@ jkk - Right at the beginning, the

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 14:24

Right at the beginning, the scheme manager has the overall determination, an in (a) the use of the word MAY - yes everyone knows it's in default, but as the use of may leaves the matter open and worst case another court hearing to determine the use of that word and / or the interpretation of the scheme manager.

Yes it's being pedantic, but????

Meaning of "default"

  1. (1) A participant is to be regarded as in default where the Scheme Manager determines that it should be so regarded, on the basis that —

(a) by virtue of one or more of the following paragraphs, the participant may be so determined; and

(b) the participant is unable, or likely to be unable, to satisfy claims in respect

of any description of civil liability incurred in connection with deposit taking

business carried on by it.


Wrongagainnow

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/02/2009 - 12:06

Oh, skint...

Again, you are reading and not understanding. This part of regulations defines the meaning of default and when a bank may be determined to be in default. In our case it has already happened long time ago, in October 2008.

You mean, you never heard about it???


re - Wrongagainnow

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/02/2009 - 16:08

Yet again jkk your lack of comprehension abounds and amazes, the bank is in Provisional Liquidation - it has not been "wound up" therefore no liquidation, therefore no decision as yet has been taken by the DCS Scheme Manager as to whether the bank failure qualifies for the application of the DCS.

ONLY when the bank is IN LIQUIDATION will the scheme manager decide if the DCS should be applied.

Of course it will apply, ... but that's not the point of your bigoted narrow minded postings. Go get a life, and leave those who are genuinely trying fathom out which would give the best possible return to the most people affected by whatever scheme is applied, liquidation / DCS or a SOA.


Skint, I am gradually losing

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/02/2009 - 17:51

Skint, I am gradually losing my conviction that you are not a genuine shill but, as in my other posting below, I will put up with your nonsense this one last time and I am offering you this explanation to calm your confused mind.

  • KSFIoM is in default by its own admission since evening 8 October 2008.

  • On 9 October a petition for winding-up was presented to the High Court jointly by the Board of Directors and the FSC.

  • FSC is the Scheme Manager as defined in the DCS regulations (read it) and it needs not to determine for the second time that the bank is in default after having it done in the petition of 9 October.

  • The only decision required for the bank to be put into liquidation is the winding-up order of the High Court. When that order is issued the FSC as the Scheme Manager must fulfil the provisions of DCS regulations. It has no discretionary powers to decide if DCS should be implemented or not.


jkk,skintagain....: for what

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 15:51

jkk,skintagain....: for what it's worth here are 2 contradictory statements from the FSC

1) here is an extract from the FSC Q&A paper posted on their site. It does seem to be saying that the bank is not yet in a state of default:

"At a meeting of Tynwald on 9 October the Treasury Minister indicated that the (DCS)
Regulations might be subject to amendment. The Commission is presently advised
that, if the DCS were to be triggered in respect of KSF (IOM), it would be subject to
the Regulations in force when the event of default was declared. At the time of
writing (10 October) an event of default has not yet been declared.
If KSF (IOM) was wound up and an event of default was declared, you should expect
to be contacted by the liquidator and the DCS manager."

2) On the other hand this is an extract from the DCS which appears to state the opposite,since a winding up order has been made:

"(2) Where a participant is a body corporate incorporated in the Island, it may be
determined to be in default -
(a) on the making of a winding up order against it;"

No wonder there is confusion!


Clown Duo

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 02/03/2009 - 00:52

Actually if you read carefully, there is no contradiction in those 2 statements. On 9 October only a petition for winding up has been made to the High Court, but the court did not make the actual winding up order. Neither on that day nor on any other ever since.

The FSC has determined that the default had occurred on 8 October, but it is up to the High Court to declare it officially and issue the winding up order. And since the High Court hearings in the Isle of Man are reduced to pre-scripted cheap skits played by two brothers in wigs, those two clowns can postpone issuing the order for as long as the government tells them

And so we have been left in limbo for nearly 5 months now; with no access to our own money nor to the compensation that should have been paid out in full by now. But since hardly anyone among us seems to mind, the clown duo in wigs should be able to continue their burlesque unimpeded for the rest of the 2009 comedy season.


Mikeinfrance - it's all in the wording

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 16:50

The wording makes it clear - but I agree, difficult to get your head around, at the moment the winding up order has not been passed by the courts - it has only been "brought" to the court -- that is all, it actually means very little.

I'm not a legal person, I have no formal training in legal matters - I do have some experience in the reading of contracts /implimentation of - not a lot as they say, but enough to get through the first reading then call in the professionals.

If I'm incorrect in my reading and conclusions I'm sure elgee, or others who has / have a much greater legal experience and understanding will "correct" me.

The use of the word MAY --- creates an element of choice, possibility or multiple outcomes ... it does not state "will" or "shall" - which would then indicate that there is only a single outcome.

The use of the word "and" between 1(a) > 1(b), both statements must be fulfilled -- had it been an "or" then either 1a or 1b could apply as stand alone entities.

(1) A participant is to be regarded as in default where the Scheme Manager determines that it should be so regarded, on the basis that —
(a) by virtue of one or more of the following paragraphs, the participant may be so determined; and

(b) the participant is unable, or likely to be unable, to satisfy claims in respect of any description of civil liability incurred in connection with deposit taking business carried on by it.

Determine in a "contract" sense means "to close" > "to finish" > "to end"

The bank is in default, but that default has not been defined or determined by the court.

Until the court either "determines" or other words "winds up" KSF IoM or allows the SOA in whatever form this half way state continues. Nothing else can be "determined" by anyone, including the FSA as Scheme Manager - for either DCS or SOA - they are the scheme manager for SOA until they devolve that role to PWC, who may or may not depending on the court remain in their current role as Provisional Liquidator or be appointed as full liquidator under a "determination" or winding up process.

The court may - "determine" the bank and still allow an SOA to be progressed - it is a possible route that has been discussed - thus if an SOA failed for whatever reason - the DCS would be available.

This is why I belive that on this and many of his "other" postings jkk should :-
STOP > THINK > READ AGAIN > CHECK A DICTIONARY > WIPE HIS 8888 AND KEEP HIS MOUTH FIRMLY SHUT


Mikeinfrance - it's all in the wording

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 18:48

skintagainnow: I can help a little on this.

"Posted: Sun, 01/03/2009 - 16:50 The wording makes it clear - but I agree, difficult to get your head around, at the moment the winding up order has not been passed by the courts - it has only been "brought" to the court -- that is all, it actually means very little."

This is correct. Strictly an application has been made to the court to wind up the company; the petitioners are the company and the FSC. The court has adjourned the application several times, so no winding up order has yet been made.

"The use of the word MAY --- creates an element of choice, possibility or multiple outcomes ... it does not state "will" or "shall" - which would then indicate that there is only a single outcome."

"The use of the word "and" between 1(a) > 1(b), both statements must be fulfilled -- had it been an "or" then either 1a or 1b could apply as stand alone entities."

This is also correct. Normally, "and" means that the statements are conjunctive. In other words if (a) AND (b) means that both (a) and (b) must be satisfied. Normally "or" means they are disjunctive, so if (a) OR (b) means that either (a) or (b) or both have to be satisfied. "

Also, as you have suggested, "may" is permissive and "shall" is mandatory.

"Determine in a "contract" sense means "to close" > "to finish" > "to end"

The use of determine to mean "put an end to", as in "terminate", is a limited use. In the example you give, dertermine has its everyday meaning, which is to decide.

"(1) A participant is to be regarded as in default where the Scheme Manager determines that it should be so regarded,"


Thx elgee, in complete layman's terms

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 21:20

The bottom line in complete layman's terms is, as my post above http://www.chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/dcs-agents-misinformati...

the DCS in the event of an institutions failure is discretionary not mandatory

If FSC really wanted to play at being silly "it could" declare DCS in this case was not applicable - then sit back and watch the fireworks, going up, big bang - all fall down -- just like the financial system.


Note to self - must learn to separate replies to posts, the explanation of determine and the example as below was for another set of posts, related to these, not used as an example for DCS text. However it works whether it's contract or everyday use (as in a couple of posts up) in this context it's probably more of a concern in it's everyday use than had it been as contract use.

Determine in a "contract" sense means "to close" > "to finish" > "to end"

The bank is in default, but that default has not been defined or determined by the court.


Mikeinfrance, I am not sure

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 01/03/2009 - 16:10

Mikeinfrance,

I am not sure that a winding up order has been made yet but I stand to be corrected.

But if you believe everything that jkk says, then the event that should have triggered the DCS occured on the 8th October, before the DCS was increased to £50,000!


default

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/02/2009 - 22:41

good point: default
I thought the DCS would only be activated upon winding up. You are right jkk. Somewhere it is written that the if the bank is unable to meet a call on a deposit, the depositor may apply to the scheme manager. So, ages ago, I thought I'd get some money back soon through the DCS. Nothing to do with winding up or liquidation provisionally. The manager is dragging his feet.

A reminder to posters: Please do not make unpleasant remarks about other posters. Rebut their opinion in a mature manner suitable to for a website of victims.


My only comment to this

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/02/2009 - 19:12

My only comment to this drival is :-

KSF IOM has not been "determined".

Therefore nothing relating to KSF IOM can be "determined."

you may need a dictionary to understand what "determined" means


EPS SOA DCS

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 12:13

Would somebody please explain to me why there appears to be almost a dis-interest in us bondholders? We are worse off in every way, getting no protection nor guarantees from the Insurers and, increasingly, hostility from those we took to be within our peer group in this group? We are normal people, in our case my wife and I decided to invest 100% of the proceeds from our house sale last year, currently our bond stands at zero with not even the miserly £1,000 restored? Why does this place us in "no mans land" by many (not all admittedly) in this group? Needless to say I hope the SOA prevails as it doesnt appear to disadvantage smaller or direct depositors and gives some modest comfort to bondholders?


grapow - depositors <> bondholders

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 15:46

hostility from those we took to be within our peer group in this group?

It's not a question of hostility from your peers in the depositor group, however if the insurance companies are able to convince the IoMG or courts to treat bondholders the same as direct depositors, this could have a marked knock on effect on all >£50K group depending on whose financial arguments are correct.

The issue would also save the insurance companies millions, to even attempt to alter the SOA at this stage they have to be concerned with respect to possible court actions from bondholders / IFA's, re misselling / misrepresentation of their products, where not only if these actions resulted in them having to meet all claims including costs but additionally the consequential damage to their image whether the actions were upheld or not.

Direct depositors have in reality only one bite at the cherry - a direct claim on the bank and any subsequent legal action against the FSC / FSA etc,.

Bondholders (like it or not are classed as investors) - have in the main several possible avenues - first the IFA who sold the bond - 2nd the actual company who's bond it is - 3rd IoMG / FSC / FSA etc,.


Hi grapow

  • giveus backourfunds
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 12:26

I feel for you, I think you are all in a very hard situation but I think your action needs to be made against the IFA/Insurance companies as a group. I think it was be hard to do it on this as most people like me hopefully will have funds back soon and never to need to go oh this site again (fingers crossed) but itleaves you out in the cold.

You all need to get together as you really are a uniquge group as you are not £40K depositors in a bank as such. Think about aseperate group for you all and fight this for your group alone ?


No £50k Compensation for Bond Holders

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 12:24

There has been some confusion concerning the compensation for bondholders under SoA, but it seems to have been cleared now.

The classes of depositors entitled to compensation are identical in both schemes, DCS and SoA.

There is no top up to £50k for individual bondholders in SoA. The only party that benefits from SoA is IoMG.


Bond Ho;ders

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 12:49

JKK please read my post EPS SOA DCS

The bond holders have already been given preferential treatment c.f. DCS.

The EPS 1 & 2 will give them 10,000 plus--almost the same as depositors(EPS 2 does not apply to joint bond account holders in the same way as deposit holders).

I think the insurance companies have a deal to treat their bond holders in the same way as depositors.

Since they claim they are small investors--see their affidavits on 19th Feb.

High value depositors will pay for this I believe.

Regards


SoA and Bondholders

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 13:29

Bobwin,

So far the preferential treatment for bondholders turned out to be rumours or perhaps wishful thinking on the part of insurance companies.

There is no offer to include individual bondholders in £50k compensation in SoA. They receive the same percentage of dividend in SoA as in the liquidation.


Bond Holders

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 14:02

JKK they already got more than DCS would give under the EPS and who will actually pay for that do you think?

Am I senile or what?


High value depositors paying for bondholders

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 14:28

It seems extremely unlikely to me that under an SOA, IOMG would propose to claw back EPS and any other DCS-style compensation.

Whilst not a legal expert, I suspect it is illegal in a liquidation for one group of creditors to be "voted" out of their full % recovery entitlement.

IOMG therefore will have to foot the bill for any compensation payment incorporated into an SOA. From their point of view I guess a necessary evil to gain some support for a non-liquidation route.


Bobwin, Good For You!

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 14:27

I see your point now and it is a good one.

So perhaps including individual bond holders in the EPS is the reward for the insurance companies in exchange for supporting SoA? Could be.

We will have to closely watch the EPS-2 regulations which are due to be published at the end of this week.


EPS SOA DCS

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/02/2009 - 13:25

Thank you for acknowledging my point regarding payments through the EPS which are treating bond holders more favourably than would the DCS.
The insurance companies suggested that their investors ( "who are small investors mostly") should perhaps be viewed in the same way as small depositors.
IF the DCS were actioned, then all bond holders who had received EPS 1& 2 should pay most of it back!
My point is that this would be a most unlikely scenario.
My deduction "Holmes" is that this will not happen.
The IOMG are convinced that the SOA will go ahead and they are gambling high stakes on that premise---as I said 3000 + bond holders @ 10,000 is already 30 million from EPS.
The exact number of bond holders ( descibed as small investors--what is small? 50,000??)
If average was 50,000 then we are talking about 6000 folk at 10,000+/EPS = 50million+.
This will come from the higher depositors---29% or 3000 accounts? so about 16000 each.
I have nothing against bond holders, but i feel for the higher investors who are being shafted because they can "afford to lose cos they are rich anyway" that will be Joe public's view I think.

regards


Yes bobwin, but you are not

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/02/2009 - 18:20

Yes bobwin, but you are not counting the money from the liquidated assets. Bondholders receive the same percentage of dividend as depositors, so the amounts they will have received from the EPS will be later deducted from their share of the money distributed by the liquidator.

But including them in the EPS is a clever move on the part of IoMG. It creates the illusion that the SoA offers a better deal than the DCS for the clients of insurance companies and may convince the latter to vote for the SoA.


EPS2 and bond holders

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 04/03/2009 - 11:44

JKK--the published info. from Tinyworld seems to EXCLUDE bond holders from EPS2 so I was wrong!

IMHO, the DCS is not going to happen--over the dead bodies of Bell, Brown(T), Aspden et co.

The 150 million is a recoverable loan when liquidations exceed 60%.(SOA or DCS or whatever).

Whichever way you take it the IOM want their money back "Pari passu?"

Numbers--10,500 individually named depositors get 9,000 each(includes joint or multiple) under EPS2=94.5 million--that's why IOMG in their statement to Tinyworld said 95 million maximum.I know there are a few under 10,000 but that don't matter much.
Companies and bond holders? get a share of liquidation assets--over and above the 20,000x75% calc.

Have I lost the plot--I have always been good at maths--maybe I am getting(got) senile.

Regards

Bob in Davao


@ bobwin

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 13:02

No - they insinuate they are ordinary depsitors


Bond holders

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 13:58

Skint

I will make a small bet with you--they will get 50k under the SOA.

10p is all I can afford!


bob

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 14:32

:-) I couldn't and wouldn't take you up,,

That para 6 has me decidedly unhappy, my trust in the IoMG is at an all time low and the insurance companies have a hell of lot of sway.


The only money that I can see

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 07:35

The only money that I can see would be immediately available upon liquidation is from the 10% that Mike Simpson has said he could distribute from liquid assets.

As for those with less than £50,000 deposited and that have already accepted the EPS, then the IOM would have first call on this to pay back what they have already distributed so it is unlikely that this would have any immediate benefit for people in that group. For others there may be a benefit.

As for the £150 million contribution from the IOM to the DCS. It has already been stated in many places that it is unlikely this would be available immediatly (possibly not until after October 2009). and may also not all be available to KSF depositors as it depends on what happens with other banks on the Island.


Ominous

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 12:47

To me this is ominous not until after october 2009?
When the DSC will return to its previous level of 75% of the forst 20k ie 15k.


Not quite bellyup

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 12:56

These Regulations amend the Compensation of Depositors Regulations 2008 (S.D. 828/08). The amendments are introduced by regulation 3. They restore the range of depositors entitled to compensation to the position under the Banking Business (Compensation of Depositors) Regulations 1991 (G.C. 47/91), which were in force prior to the 2008 Regulations, save that the compensation limit for each of these depositors is increased from 75% of the deposit up to a maximum of £15,000 to 100% up to a maximum of £20,000. The increased protection for depositors who are individuals beneficially entitled to the deposit remains at 100% up to a maximum of £50,000 (regulations 5 to 7).

The bank would still have to be in this transitional mode for just over another 7 months - surely not possible?????? is it.


Lies about DCS

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 10:27

Yes, I am aware that people working for IoMG have "stated in many places that it is unlikely this [£150m] would be available immediately" but they are not legislators, and the legislation is unambiguous in that respect:

Treasury funding

12A. (1) Where a default has occurred the Treasury shall pay to the Scheme Manager such sum as appears to it to represent the total of the amount by which the compensation payable in respect of each depositor exceeds £20,000.

(2) The total sum provided under paragraph (1) in respect of all defaults shall not exceed £150,000,000.


Yes pretty clear to me. As

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 25/02/2009 - 12:04

Yes pretty clear to me. As the DCS is to cover all banks, not just KSF, the clause regarding Treasury funding refers to ALL defaults, again not just those relating to KSF.

I would have thought that even if that is not what is meant, it is so ambiguous that to state that it would definately be available to be distributed immediately is interpreting the facts in the way you want to. Or perhaps we should try and force liquidation and the DCS just so we can see what is really meant. Only trouble is it might be a bit at then.

And by the way just because someone may have a different opionion to you does not mean they are stupid or working for the IOM as you have suggested in previous posts, it might just be that they are trying to understand the real facts not just your interpretation of them.

It seems to me that there are some people on this forum who are so anti anything Isle Of Man that they want to invoke liquidation and DCS and then for the DCS to have problems paying out just so they can turn round and say 'I told you the Isle of Man could not be trusted'!.

Whether you are one of those I dont know. All I know is that I want to go down the route that offers the best chance of getting as much money back, hopefully 100%, for everybody in the shortest time possible. Whether that is via the DCS or SoA I dont know yet and I would suggest that with all the facts currently available neither do you.