• pamigi
  • 01/03/09 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 09/03/2009 - 07:27

As a private depositor we were fully aware of the upper limit of the IoM's Depositors Compensation Scheme and, accordingly, we kept the level of our deposits within this limit.

Our deposits were, therefore, clearly made on the basis that we were fully protected by the DCS and, if we decided to deposit more, then we knew that the excess would fall outside the DCS. We expect this compensation to be fully honoured.

We are fully aware that many prvate depositors and corporate depositors held deposits well in excess of the DCS limits - that was their choice and they, like us, should have known and accepted the risks.

Our view, therefore, is that all Depositors should be firstly compensated 100% under the limits of the DCS and secondly that any excess assetts which are realised should then go in some agreed proportion to those who held deposits in excess of the DCS.
We are against moving the goal posts to any solution which scraps the DCS to proportionately compensate all depositors at the expense of compensating 100% to those depositors whose funds were less than the DCS limit. Anything else would be renege on the basis accepted by all depositors.

We also understand that EU Regulations require Governments/financial organisations to repay Depositors, under their Compensation Schemes, within 3 months. That being the case, the IoM Government through their FSC and DCS appear not to have complied.

All compensation should also be made in the currency in which it was deposited using the Exchange Rate applicable as at 9th October 2008 as anything different is likely to result in a 10%-15% lose to depositors (as at today's rates).. In our case we tried to transfer all our deposits out four days before Kaupthing's license was withdrawn but the bank failed to carry out our instructions.

Your rating: None Average: 3.9 (8 votes)

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


  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 08:41

Pamigi I agree. As you were fully aware of the upper limit you sensibly must have had less than 15000 in there as the 50,000 came after the event. I consider that by moving the gaol posts to 50000 the over 50000 people will be used to pay the additional 35000 which does not seem right.
The upper limit accepted by the depositors when people made their deposits was I believe 75% of 20000 (15000). As you rightly say any excess above this should be divided proportionally to those who had deposits above the DCS minimum.
I actually kept my Derbyshire deposit there after reading the 100% Kaupthing guarantee and thinking how great it was (not sensible)!!!!

Hi, could you clarify how the

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 10:40

Hi, could you clarify how the upper limit of "50,000 came after the event", as I understood it came into effect "before the event"?

Also, I was not aware the upper limit was "75% of 20000 (15000)" but was 50000 period.

Did I miss something?

chris, regarding the £50,000 guarantee,

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 14:40

this was approved by the IOM government (Tynwald) on the 23 October 2008 and will remain in effect for a one year period only, after which the guarantee falls back to £20,000. Therefore, to qualify for the guarantee up to the £50,000 limit either the DCS or SOA will have to be triggered within that time frame. You can read more about it on the IOM Financial Supervision Commission's website



  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 11:08

The statement below is from the IOM government site. As can be seen - approved after the event!!!

"A copy of the Compensation of Depositors Regulations 2008 which were approved by Tynwald on 9th October can be found at:"

Miss something?

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 10:49

Only the last four months or so...

pamigi, Whilst I am in the

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


Whilst I am in the same boat as you I would like to add a few comments:-

  • If the DCS were invoked payouts from liquidated funds to small depositors would be at the same % as that to those of large depositors. That is the law.

  • Any difference between that amount and the DCS guaranteed amount would be made up from the DCS fund.

  • The DCS fund is currently unfunded and will rely on annual capped contributions from the banks, any loans that the Scheme Manager may raise and upto £150 million contributed by the IOM Treasury.

  • The IOM is not in the EU so I would imagine any EU regulations would not apply.

  • Even though I kept my deposit within the DCS limit it was only after I read the small print which stated it was unfunded and could take many years to payout that I started to panic. By which time it was too late as I was tied into a fixed term.

Hopefully, whichever route we go down, DCS or SoA, we will not have to wait much longer before we start to see our money again!

What is a guarantee worth?

  • lorraine
  • 14/10/08 14/07/10
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 09/03/2009 - 07:48

I agree absolutely with what you say. I do believe that due to the circumstances of the bank's collapse and also due to the precedent set by other governments that all deposits should be returned 100%, however I also limited my deposits at expense and inconvenience to the maximum allowed in each bank being under the impression that (a) I was taking no risk, and (b) that my funds would be repaid to me in full with no loss, exchange or otherwise.

My money was in Kaupthing not for the interest rate, not to avoid tax but simply because I had already deposited in all the uk banks I was aware of that had dollar savings accounts open to me. I absolutely agree that depositors below the threshold (ie the threshold as it was) should have received their money by now.

What trust can anyone have in a government that guarantees depositor's money but does everything to wriggle out of their promise? What trust can anyone have in a government that says we need global cooperation but can't even control it's own dependencies?