DCS - 'ROB FROM THE RICH AND GIVE TO THE POOR'. w=What do you think ?

  • paulcuthbert
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 07/04/2010 - 10:36

Hi All ,
This is a letter I have recently emailed to the IOM today journalists for a response.
Any oppinions on it extremely welcome , agree or not !!

My name is *************, unfortunately I am a depositor with KSF IOM still awaiting access to over 240 000 pounds of my money. I have recently read an article about how the IOM treasury is only going to be out of pocket by 5 Million (http://www.ksfiomdag.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51... ).

I would like to ask whether or not you would consider doing an article about this fiasco to get a few points across.

The Depositor Compensation Scheme is a big scam, it really takes money off the ‘richer’ people to fund those with less in the bank in order to pay them out in full up to 50 K. I did not realise that the IOM Treasury would be a creditor of the bank in order to get its 100 Million back that it has used to fund the DCS (basically a temporary loan !) I thought that the Treasury took monies from the big banks (i.e. like an insurance scheme) and placed it in a pot so that if anything like KSF IOM was to happen then ‘this’ would be there to fund the DCS. What would happen if the bank went down with very few or even no assets; They would have to pull the money from somewhere in order to honour the DCS.

We as depositors have been dragged over the coals on this one, we have been initially delayed in getting access to our money as the Treasury came up with its thwarted Scheme of Arrangement, which was voted out by depositors and cost us depositors over 3 million. Why should we have to pay for this when we did not ask for it in the first place. ! The treasury keeps saying that eventually we will receive over 90 % of our money back over the next 7 years !! Absolutely brilliant !! There is only supposedly going to be a shortfall of around 10- 15 % so why can’t the treasury fund this shortfall with the so called levies that they take from the big banks, as 80 million is mere small change to those guys.

I originally had my money with the Derbyshire Offshore, having moved out to Australia to live and sold two properties and the funds went into my account. The money was there for us to build a house in Australia, but I don’ t think it will happen now. This whole situation is a nightmare, it is my opinion that it is the fault of the FCS for allowing it to happen and not regulating things properly and we are the ones who suffer. I feel that the treasury should do more to sort this problem out. Basically what happens to the levies that come from the big banks on the island ?

Please, all oppinions are welcome. Maybe we can get some feed back on this from treasury etc !!

Regards

Paul

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

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

DCS - from rich to poor?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/04/2010 - 14:30

Hi Paul,

As you know, I have tried to reply to you on this theory on the ksfiomdag site, but I guess you don't believe me. However, just for the record, I repeat the essential here, as I see it:

The "compensation" offered by the DCS consists of "top-up" payments to £50k (or their full deposit if less than that) to depositors who would otherwise receive less than £50k from the Liquidation. The money for these top-up payments come from the bank levies (collected only after the bank in Liquidation has defaulted - there is no standing fund), supplemented in this instance by a small amount of Treasury funding (agreed because of the last-minute increase in the compensation limit).

In other words, all depositors get exactly the same percentage payment from the Liquidator; those for whom that is (or rather will be) under £50k get some additional compensation (paid for by the bank levies) to bring them up to £50k.

What may be confusing the issue is the fact that the DCS actually pays out the whole £50k up front - and then recovers, on behalf of each depositor who has received this payment, the amount that depositor would have received from the Liquidator (up to a limit of £50k, with any excess going to the depositor). So, at the end of the day (by 2017), a depositor who claimed via the DCS will have received (say) 90% of his deposit from the Liquidation, plus (IF that 90% is under £50k) a top-up to £50k from the DCS (paid for by the bank levies and Treasury).

Like it or not, that is what the scheme promises (as I believe with most other depositor compensation schemes) - and I fail to see how you can say the richer depositors are paying for it.

Don't get me wrong: I too feel the IOM Government could and should do more - in line with all others in Europe except Guernsey - and would obviously be totally in favour of the Treasury stepping in to fund the shortfall and doing it now. Hats off to anyone who can persuade them, against all the odds! But I just don't think using dubious emotive arguments about the rich paying for the poor will help our cause.

For what it's worth, that is my opinion.


@Anriguat: You are mistaken!

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/04/2010 - 01:20

I think it was Mr Paul Cuthbert.. but I believe essentially his complaint is correct.

I fail to see why you are arguing against it.

Let us put it this way:
Everybody was going to lose. The same percentage.
The IOMG (innocently - bullshit) decided to offer increased insurance for deposits up to 5oK GBP.. To fund this it was going to 'extract' money from either the IoM banking community or the IoM taxpayer. Those funds were going to be redistributed unfairly/directly to those that had deposits up to 50K. A significant proportion IoM residents.

Now what is it you don't understand Anrigaut?? It was a political move to take the sting out of the obvious response of the IoM small depositors that would have been able to sting the IoMG's deplorable negligence thru' their agency the FSC.

Mr Cuthbert is completely correct.
You are incorrect.
I do not know why you are pushing your line.
Perhaps you don't understand?

This response is short, rapid. If you want to give me an answer I will respond in a measured way.


Anrigaut is correct

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/04/2010 - 08:37

Sorry Follow the Tao but having read through Anrigaut's understanding of the IOM's compensation scheme, I believe her interpretation is absolutely correct. The bottom line is - depositors who had over 50k invested do not compensate depositors who had less than 50k invested.


I have to say I agree

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/04/2010 - 14:22

I have to say I agree with Anrigaut's intepretation. The DCS compensated everyone up to 50 K ( out of depositors money) which they will take back, having put up the money up front, from the liquidator. There is no compensation from one investor over another. The below to 50K invesor will be fully compensated and the money re-couped from the liquidator. Over 50 K depositors will get his 50K compensation, then the rest received from the liquidator as time goes on.


DC|S

  • caledonia
  • 14/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/04/2010 - 16:00

As under 50k depositors have/will received ALL their deposit back by the DCS and the rest of us are at present looking only to receive a percentage - whatever that may be - Where does the DCS get the funds to make up the difference between the same % and up to the 50K deposit?


@Caledonia et al

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/04/2010 - 13:48

Let us say there were 11,400 depositors; let us accept that the IoMT figure of 70% of creditors fully compensated is correct; let us assume that the median amount held on deposit by these ~8,000 creditors was £35,000. So far the JLs have paid out 40%, which provides just £14,000 for each account, leaving 8,000 x (£35K - £14K) = £168,000,000 that has been paid by the DCS. One hundred and sixty eight million pounds...

As declared elsewhere, this money is supposed to come from bank levies (I believe a figure of £11M/year was once mentioned, but don't hold me to it) but most of it must be coming from the IoMT (taxpayers). Now, if the IoMT is really only going to end up £5M out of pocket and the banks contribute just £11M per year then it will be (£168 - £5)/£11M = ~15 years before the IoMT is compensated -- or they will just take the money from the JLs (which would otherwise be paid to those depositors who held sums greater than £50K) and argue about it later -- but we'll have forgotten about it by then so there'll be no one left who cares to argue.

Gordon 45 and I have colluded on findings from our dear JLs, and we don't trust them anymore than any other official on the IoM; their number crunching of our deposits is sorely lacking and they are seeming able to make millions come and go at a whim. Who audits the auditors eh? They claim that you can write to them, but they don't say they will answer -- and they don't -- especially if it's 'tricky'. They have our best brains in the CoI so tied up in clauses that they are bound not to tell. We are so far on the back foot it's unbelievable, these people have us where they want us (see previous liquidations) and will continue to delude and deceive us for as long as no one resists them in my opinion. Hitler once said that '...it is fortunate for leaders that men do not think', he was not wrong when you look around...


There is something missing here.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/04/2010 - 06:55

Caledonia is essentially correct. Anrigaut is wrong.
Now Anrigaut is 'una buena tipo'.
But she is confused.
An insurance policy pays out the same percentage to all injured.
The DCS pays out differential amounts.
They changed the rules after the incident occurred. What a manipulative load of bastards are the IoMG?
They knew, they know. Theyu stink. And the law knows, and this is the most important aspect.
If you have less than 50K OK, more forget it.
ANRIGAUT : I actually respect you incredibly... but where did you leave your brains when you wrote your response?

I'm sure I'm correct.. you can contact me easily... I'm quite reasonable unlike the bank, the financial world and the IoMG (who are fucjers).

Try it and see.


reply to caledonia

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/04/2010 - 16:45

Anrigaut has already explained this in her message on this subject. The funds in excess of those funds obtained from the liquidation are coughed up by all the other IOM banks in accordance with the IOM government's demands and/or paid out from the government taxes received from the IOM residents.


THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT:

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/04/2010 - 07:04

Anrigaut isn't correct.

There was a 'fuckup' by the IoMG/KSF(IoM)
People lost money.
Some lost little.
Some lost a lot.
Two groups.
What is the difference between the two?

Does anybody have the intelligence to see the difference?

ANRIGAUT....... call me!

Jesus Christ.. can't anybody do simple logic????????????????????????????????????????????

I know the IoMG can't do their shoelaces up. And there is a incredible number of basic depositors that don't appear to have been able to add 1 and 1 ... but for fin... where are we now?

ANRIGAUT.... I want to talk to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT:

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/04/2010 - 07:04

Anrigaut isn't correct.

There was a 'fuckup' by the IoMG/KSF(IoM)
People lost money.
Some lost little.
Some lost a lot.
Two groups.
What is the difference between the two?

Does anybody have the intelligence to see the difference?

ANRIGAUT....... call me!

Jesus Christ.. can't anybody do simple logic????????????????????????????????????????????

I know the IoMG can't do their shoelaces up. And there is a incredible number of basic depositors that don't appear to have been able to add 1 and 1 ... but for fin... where are we now?

ANRIGAUT.... I want to talk to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Thanks hopeful - at least

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/04/2010 - 16:47

Thanks hopeful - at least someone understood!


@Caledonia

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/04/2010 - 16:47

The extra funds come from levies on the other IOM banks and the Treasury. They do not come from the Liquidation or from the other depositors.

That was allI was trying to explain earlier (in a rather more long-winded fashion) - nothing more, nothing less. Sorry if it wasn't clear to everyone.


Many thanks - it is actually

  • caledonia
  • 14/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 10/04/2010 - 17:23

Many thanks - it is actually as I have understood it from the start, which is why I couldn't understand the reason for all this recent discussion.