DELAY THE VOTE

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 13/04/2009 - 08:48

Both the DCS and the SOA guarantee on thing: that depositors with more than 50,000 pounds are going to lose much of their savings. It is as simple as that. Therefore, in our particular circumstances, it would be sheer stupidity to vote for either scheme. And to have to vote for either scheme before knowing how much is going to be returned to us from Kaupthing UK is totally unreasonable. I would like to propose that we send a petition signed by ALL of us affected, that we cannot, and will not, vote on something, the outcome of which either way, will change our lives irreparably. The amount that is returned from UK is the linch-pin upon which everything else rests. We need a delay on the vote until we have cognizance of how much is going to be returned. If the IOM government is fair and just it will see that this is not an unreasonable request. If we ALL sign the petition they will have to act. And if we inform all the radio and television stations and all the newspapers what we have done and why, then, whatever the outcome, the whole world can judge for itself whether justice has been done on the IOM. We need to move fast.

3.47059
Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (17 votes)

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

DCS vote

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 12:30

We are being asked to vote on the SoA, not the DCS. The DCS is triggered on liquidation of the company. Anybody who does not wish to be compensated under the Depositors Compensation Scheme does not have to apply to be compensated under the scheme.

The DCS "guarantees" compensation of up to 50k to eligible depositors. It is only a compensation scheme.


Delay in vote will not help

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 16:24

IN the current circumstances the best choice is SoA and not DCS. We are waiting for nearly six months, it is batter to have something now and after that wait for further recovery from UK. In my openion and also have said many others , this is the batter choice to vote the Scheme and not to delay further.


Sure, let's keep this going

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 09:45

Sure, let's keep this going on forever so whatever funds that could be made available now, either continue to get eaten up in usury fees or somehow become unavailable do to some other unforeseen financial crisis that is coming around the corner.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee. The game is over and pleading, begging, praying and most definitely asking for more delays is not going to change anything.

There is no white knight coming to the rescue, the UK and the rest of the world could care less about what happens to those that had money in this bank, so except the reality of the situation which is we need to bring this to a resolution.

It never was going to end to everyone's liking but the sooner it ends the better.


Sure, let's keep this going new

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 13:53

Wise words Jimg - the sooner the realisation hits us all the better, I agree with you that the longer this fight goes on the more likely other failures will emerge or the IOM finally collapses leaving us 100% penny-less! Right now any recovery looks positive to me, I for one am a strong advocate of the SOA.


grapow.so am I, its the feeling i get...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 14:44

I get that feeling too, the soa is a better deal than liquidation as it can be controlled.,Yes, expat is right there have been mistakes in handling this nightmare from the start, the isle of man have never had to deal with a crisis,but my gut feeling is they want to get this right and maybe show the world you know what this is how we did it, its up to us to fight for that 100 percent and that will never be with liquidation. We should be putting on the pressure politically like dj has said , keep up trhe work with mps, mhks, govts etc no matter how hard it is. The word is PERSISTENCE, not persistence in getting liquidation, ...


Can someone please explain

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 17:28

Can someone please explain to me what is to be gained in delaying the vote in order to determine how much is to be returned from KSF UK. Whatever the UK Administrator says now will not be cast in stone, it will be an estimate and the actual amount will only be know when assets are realised and dividends are distributed. This could take many years, are you suggesting we wait until then before voting?

In any case I thought that whatever was returned from the UK or any other source would be distributed to depositors as assets are realised under both liquidation/DCS or the SoA. Or am I missing something?


Like expatfrance1, I don't

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 17:54

Like expatfrance1, I don't see how our vote for or against SOA will be affected by knowing how much will or may eventually be returned from KSFUK. Although I still don't know how I will vote, I reckon we have waited long enough and it's high time we started getting at least something back, by whatever means. Or maybe I too am missing something?


Delaying voting

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 12:24

I am afraid that in my opinion delaying the vote (even if this was possible!) would not help us one bit in fact it may further reduce the final payout.
The first reason is that it will only add to the administrative costs we, the depositors, are already bearing.
The second reason is that if the purpose of any delay is to obtain special treatment from the UK government the chances of that happening are smaller than minuscule. The reality is that we will have to wait in line with all other creditors for payouts from KSFUK. I am confident that we will get some money back, the question is how much and when.
What government minister or MP wants to be seen helping what the general public suspects are tax dodgers. The reality is that homeless cats will be seen to be more deserving. I have written to my own MP on a number of occasions. My own case is pretty solid as the money frozen at the bank was to be used for expanding my son's engineering business in his constituancy creating additional jobs!
I am sure if a minister took up our case the Sun or Mail would quickly produce a head line "Minister gives millions to tax dodgers!".
I know that this is unfair on most depositors with KSFIOM but we should accept the reality as it is.
My own view is that we should get this over without further delay as as the clock ticks more money is bled from the bank


THAN DELAY THE VOTE...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 11:38

LETS DELAY THE VOTE IF THEY ARE GOING TO PLAY LIKE THIS,OVER 50ks make a petition lets fight what is the matter with everyone, they have taken our money and we just sit here.Our dreams have become nightmares because of these people.None of us will ever find peace in our minds if we do not do something about it ,I agree with peter and louise...


Vote - delay

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 10:40

The only way that the vote can be delayed at this stage (and I am not necessarily saying that it should be) is by an order of the court. Only a (higher) court can stay or amend or overturn a court order, and presently it is ordered that there will be a vote on 19 May. A petition will not help.

As for the reasons for your proposing a delay, I do understand them and of course the idea/excuse for pushing for a vote now is to ensure that depositors are repaid quickly. The bank could be put into liquidation instead, and the DCS activated, and then further down the line an SoA could still be proposed and voted on, but we all know that is not what would happen because the SoA is not really about increasing the return for depositors but about avoiding liquidatiion.


Money Return from KSF-UK

  • jamjar
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 18:11

Elgee,would appreciate your comments on a recent thought,on recollection,the prime reason the IOM-FSC and KSF-IOM,transferred that large sum of money to KSF-UK,was to supposedly for safe keeping,albeit in an Icelandic bank!!,all nice and kosher,both banks solvent,and operational.Then along came the UK Govt,stating they were closing down all Icelandic buisness,s etc,including the Landsbanki and Glitnir banking operations,because they thought the British public were about to get ripped off,this causing a run on ALL Icelandic banks,inc KSF-IOM,and KSF-UK,the results of which are now part of banking history.What I am not sure of,and under the banking legislation,which KSF-IOM assetts are presently subject to,would or could those assets,be paid back to KSF-IOM,whilst the bank is still operational,as it is,and only under provisional liquidation,and still Icelandic owned.Personaly I cant envisage the UK-Govt,authorising the UK bank administrator,to pay any monies to an Icelandic owned bank,but I can if KSF-IOM was in full liquidation status,and the monies claimed and paid to a UK registered liquidator,such as PWC,this maybe another twist in the thought process,in deciding to vote in favour of liquidation and DCS,all comments are welcome,in an attempt to put this one to bed.


Money Return from KSF-UK

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 15:50

The bank isn't "operational". Being in provisional liquidation quite definitely means that it is not trading except in a very limited manner (and obviously not taking deposits). Moreover, the parent bank is also in administration. I am almost certain that your doubt as to whether money would be prevented from returning from KSFUK to KSFIOM is a non-issue, even when KSFIOM is not in liquidation. The only thing that I agree on is that a full liquidation could not possibly have a negative influence on the position in respect of those funds.


Delay The Vote

  • gazfuk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 09:40

100% agree. We cannot be expected to vote for either scheme without the most crucial information being provided...how much will we get back? A delay is the only way forward and who knows, it might allow the powers that be in 3 governments to reconsider their positions on this matter and take the correct course of action.


gazfuk @ Delay the vote

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 10:15

We totally agree, we are bondholders with Royal Skandia. We deposited our money in KSFIOM for safekeeping, thinking in our retirement. KSFIOM was one of the safest banks mentioned in Royal Skandia flier.

How can we vote in favor or against SOA without knowing if 60% of funds recovery is realistic or not? This is fundamental information that we need to know before taking this important decision.


delay the vote - great. But get at the UK...

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 11:27

I am all in favour of delaying the vote. Soa = DCS, so both are just as bad as each other,

However. And it is the biggest HOWEVER any of us have faced in our lives. And that is not an overuse of superlatives (nor big words i've looked up in a dictionary), unless we use that delay to good effect - and, lets face it, we havent so far! - it will just delay the inevitable yet another 3 months.

The crux of the matter is the UK Government. Many of us had no choice in using offshore banks; It was the UK Government who brought down KSF UK; it was the UK Government who advised (no, conned!) KSF IoM Directors to put over 30% of the banks assets in a UK bank it knew to be dodgy; it is the UK Government who now wont give back the money (using Appendix 1, Claise 27 of the Banking Bill 2008) as it wants it to win votes from Cat supporters and millionaires and public companies; it is the UK Government who are holding the IoM to ransom. Yet we are not sending letters/Faxes/Emails to MPs, the Press and (now) the damn clergy.

Get real folk, the IoM cannot afford to pay us the SoA, let alone the 100% money back; it is a dead end. We are chasing a dead duck. The IoM is no bigger than a small UK constituency and many of us were stupid to put our money there in the first place if we had the choice, of which many of us didnt. The IoM cannot hope, under ANY weird scheme they may spend a million pounds devising with dishonest money grabbing law firms, to pay us back even 61% (which is why they cleverly chose 60% before they get their money back) without the £557Million from the UK.

The UK Government is a much harder nut to crack as they have the resources to fight us; but they are the real culprits for our predicament and they are the only ones who can resolve it. MPs, on our side, have said that they are suprised at the lack of correspondance from us - even Equitable and Northern Rock caused bigger mail-bags - so please, send an email/fax/letter to every single MP and dont get fobbed off by the 'you are not in my consituency' filter (that is rubbish and just setup to filter out vexatious correspondance). No-one else is going to fix/win/resolve this except us.

DONT RELY ON OTHERS TO SEND THE EMAILS OR DO THE WORK! WE ALL HAVE TO DO IT!!! NOW!! AND CONTINUOUSLY. NOW!


All bond holders

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 09:28

Peter & Louise,

Thanks to you both and to everyone who went to IoM last week. I agree with what you are saying but whether or not IoMG and their courts actually do "fair" remains to be seen.
Can I just add that it isn't just the over £50K protected depositors who are at risk but all unprotected depositors.
Every bond holder (and other unprotected depositors) at whatever the value of their deposit (many are under £50K) are fully exposed. They have no guaranteed return at all, other than that from EPS payments.
At over £280 million in value the bondholders have just as much to lose as everyone else and no protection whatsoever.
If this is a fighting action group for us all, then I think we should also be included in varying discussions and proposals as it seems we rarely get a mention and if we do it is often in derogatory terms.
There seems to be no clear discussion on this board to give any guidance as to just what bond holders may get and when. I have tried several times to get answers but invariably my posts have either remained unanswered or gone off track.
Before I get any inflammatory comments, no we did not invest in KSFIoM, we deposited our money for safekeeping in line with the then existing 75% up to a maximumn of £20K. We did not invest in bank shares, we did not choose KSFIoM for higher interest rates. We spread our money across several accounts to keep the deposits low on purpose, purely for safety reasons in turbulent times and not for higher returns.


Bnd Holder

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 11:36

Totally agree with above but not sure what to do. Yes we do seem to be left out all the time but its very important that all depositors fight together. My Insurance company with whom I placed my money has hinted that I and other bond holders will be allowed to vote through them. Im still waiting clarification on this. If this is correct and Skandia and the rest follow then near to 300 million worth of votes are relevant and suddenly we have a big say in this fiasco.
To make it clear I am a larger depositor who because of my IFA placed my cash into Kaupthing IOM a week before the crash and I accepted because the Life company gave me a lump sum for doing so and the Bank gave an 'OK' return.....quite simply I did it to get what I thought was a good return on my money......and if anybody comments negatively on that , well I can only say I do not believe you and that you and any sane person wouldnt do the same.
Todate I really have no idea how much I might get back so how can I vote one way or the other....
Bond Holders, stand up and be counted and get onto your life company now to demand just what is their intention wit the vote.
I will post my findings from my Life company as soon as I get an answer later this week.


Typical UK MP Reply...

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 11:59

From MP for Linlithgow & East Falkirk:-

...My son moved to Australia some time ago. He was a contractor and had all the same choices as you.

He has never closed his account with his UK bank and certainly never followed the advice he was given which would have minimised his UK tax contributions, by having his money transferred into an offshore bank. The IOM was one route suggested which he did not take. I would have given him similar advice, particularly in in regard to the Icelandic banks, as my Economics studies warned of disaster impending. The cause of your financial situation was the Icelandic banks combined with the use of the Tax haven of the IoM, not the UK government or the UK tax-payers...

This is RUBBISH!!!! I was forced to use an offshore bank as my UK banks forcibly closed my UK accounts. This is the bollocks (sorry to drift into French) we are up against with the UK Government. Unless we fight it we have lost. That is the simple bottom line.


Very interesting reply from your MP

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 15/04/2009 - 10:43

You state this is 'typical'. Are you saying nearly all the replies you receive are along the same lines, i.e. UK tax payers will not fund those who tried to minimise their own tax contributions via the IoM?

Are you able to 'prove' the UK banks forcibly closed your UK accounts? For e.g. do you have a letter from a bank confirming their action?

I'd imagine this would be a good PR angle if you can and are willing...


chipmunk.. podfathers post

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 11:44

chipmunk did you see podfathers post on the divident payments?


Hippychickrobbed

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 16:06

No please tell me how to find it...?? Thanks


@ chipmunk

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 13/04/2009 - 16:19

I think Hcr means today's posts on the thread "Message to Diver"