E&Y (KSFUK) 6 monthly report out - some good news

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 04/11/2010 - 13:46

Hi Folks,

I see the long awaited '6 monthly' progress report from E&Y (KSFUK( came out yesterday.

Will look at it in some depth when I can, but at a glance on dividends, the higher base level from £205m to around £250m and on final expected returns - the news still seems very good.

Closing date for applications for next (5th Dividend) is 30.11.2010 - which means a payout inside 2 months. Although they did say last time hopefully in Dec 2010 - hope it is that. See page 2 of E&Y (KSFUK) Report

Secondly the base level for unsecured loans to KSFIOM not yet agreed, taking longer than anticipated but almost there. See page 12 of E&Y (KSFUK) Report

And the best news overall is the move in their final estimations in payouts from 65/78p/£ in April Report now moved up to between 75/84p/£. A rise of 10p/£ at the base level which if based on £205m would mean another £20.5m extra over the term. Or if it goes up to 84p/£ it would mean on £205m a further £18.45m on top of the £20.5m. Obviously if we go up to £250m base figure, these amounts would go up pro rata. Remember £20.5m = 2.3p/£ to us and a further £18.45m would add another 2.08p/£. This is certainly good news to us and I have always said that we should expect at least, a similar return on the KSFUK loan book as our own KSFIOM loan book as they had 22% spare on book values to our 7% spare on our book values. See page 14/15 of E&Y (KSFUK) Rep[ort

Will get back to you all ASAP with my thoughts

Gordon 45

4.933335
Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (15 votes)

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

Hello fellow depositors (or ex-depositors would be more apt)

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/12/2010 - 14:27

So much has been happening in my life (new job, family illness, new baby) that I haven't looked in the DAG site for a long time and find myself sorely lacking in up-to-date information.

As always, I see that Gordon and IceCrusher are out there, investing time and effort to get our money back for all of us. To you both - and to everyone else who is helping in any way - a mighty big thank you from me and my family. Left to our own resources, I don't know how we would have managed without the DAG lifeline.

I remembered that more of our money is going to be returned in December but I can't find anywhere on the site that describes who will be paying it (JLs or DCS) when it will be and of course, how much. I sent a shout but I guess that this is the right topic page to address my question.

Do we have that information now or are we still in waiting mode?

Thanks


Hi Podcar

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/12/2010 - 17:57

Hi There Podcar,

Hope the family illness was and is not to distressing and that the new baby is a big boost to your situation - I know when our grandaughter was born this 'wee gift' and our grandson was what kept us going.

Anyway re dividends. We expect a dividend back from E&Y (KSFUK) by 8.12.2010 to our JLs - I think it will be towards the minimum of 5% = £10.25m based on the £205m. No boost to the £250m yet, so no back money before next year in my opinion (but I'm sure it will come, giving us £20m+ in back money).

Our JLs have said they hope to give us a dividend in Dec 2010. I think they will, but will wait until the November figures are in for our own KSFIOM loan book + the dividend to them from E&Y (KSFUK). Because Sept & Oct returns were so low on our loan book I have allowed for a minimal £2m net intake in November + the £10.25m from E&Y (KSFUK). That plus existing cash in hand should give us - I think - around 6.5/6.7p/£ as a dividend in mid/late December, with a running total of 51.1p/£ + the 6.5/6.7p/£ = 57.6/57.8p/£.

And hopefully if we get the boost to £250m as a base figure with E&Y it should mean another £20m+ back early next year. I still think between this December and Jan - Dec next year (2011) inclusive we can be at 70p/£. And up at between 80/85p/£ by Dec 2012 - my thoughts anyway.

And thanks to E&Y now saying they expect to pay at least 75p/£ back to us we should hopefully see overall returns from the JLs between 86p and 97p/£ back to us all.

Once I get the November figures + E&Y dividend return figures to our JLs I will be able to work out my latest estimates with dates and post my draft Table 10 showing all the guestimated figures.

Hope the above helps,

Take care,

Gordon 45


KSF UK Dividend

  • Tank
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/12/2010 - 12:44

Hi Gordon 45,

8p on 8/12/10.

Thanks & regards


Hi Tank

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/12/2010 - 14:08

Hi There Tank,

Please note I was saying 8p/£ back from E&Y (KSFUK) back to our JLs (not us) on 8.12.2010. But it should mean around 7.5p/£ back from our JLs to us in mid/late December.

Sorry if I confused you,

Gordon 45


The new baby is a great boost

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/12/2010 - 21:35

The new baby is a great boost to every situation :-) Congratulations on the arrival of your granddaughter - babies seem to put everything into perspective.

Thanks for the explanation. You are incredible and I don't know what we'd do without you.

Podcar.


'

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/12/2010 - 16:41

Entered in error


Thanks to Gordon

  • Colpep
  • 01/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 24/11/2010 - 22:34

After a long absence from KSF, I looked online to see if there was any news re a dividend but couldn't make head or tail of the JLs info so logged on to DAG and see that some of you are still active especially Gordon whom I thank sincerely for his explanations.

I agree that the liquidators seem to be spinning things out - how much time do they spend on the golf course? If I have learnt one thing from this crisis - when it comes to your life's savings - never trust a bank! Why are the interest payments so low? Perhaps the PWC needs to link its payments to the interest recovery - ridiculous that they should be earning 5x!

Doesn't sound as if we can expect a dividend before Christmas!

Thanks again Gordon.

Kind regards
Peppy


5th Dividend

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/11/2010 - 12:49

Hi Gordon, what do I have to do to apply for the 5th dividend?


5th Dividend

  • sam
  • 07/12/08 30/09/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/11/2010 - 23:39

Hi Conned,

I'm pretty sure Gordon is referring to the 5th dividend from KSF London to KSF IOM. You shouldn't have anything to do for our next dividend from IOM which is due December or January.


Latest JL update now online.....

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/11/2010 - 09:35

Hi Gordon, Ice....

Look forward to your thoughts on this latest update and, as ever, hope it means good news....no mention yet of any fresh dividend, I see.....

http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.im/Pages/2010/November/08November2010.asp


Hello again Lostinspace

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/11/2010 - 21:13

Hi There,

I have almost completed my thoughts on the UK report and hope to start tonight on the JLs October update.

Don't know if I agree entirely with Icecrusher on the KSFUK update, especially as they have upped their expections from 65-78p/£ to 75-84p/£, which means at least another £20.5m over the course of their Administration, all going well.

Yes no agreement as Icecrusher says re the £205m going up to the £250.2m but they now say also that agreement is almost there. Do not know if we will see that now before our December payout from the JLs. I have only allowed for the £10.25m due back at 5p/£ from E&Y based on £205m, and that is what I had stuck by in my Table 9 and now Table 10, as I felt it would have been rash to use the higher figure plus back payment until we were informed that the figure was agreed.

Re the JLs October update, yes again as Icecrusher says most disappointing and it means with the JLs saying we will get a payout in Dec that we have had a very poor Sept & Oct, and based on that perhaps a poor November and if we get a payout in Dec it would therefore not include any Dec repayments from the KSFIOM loan book.

So I would say virtually no chance of a 10p/£ payout in Dec now, probably between 6 and 6.7p/£. But once the £250.2m figure agreed with E&Y I think we can expect another payout from our JLs before next June/July (as I had planned on). And I still think between now and a year in December that what we had hoped to get back in returns will stay the same. But once I do my checks on the October figures, finish my review of the E&Y (KSFUK) progess report and update my draft Table 10 I will be able to give more accurate estimations as I see it.

So don't get to despondent I still think we can see 70p/£ back by Dec 2011 and around 80p/£ back by Dec 2012. But as said once I get my calcs done and we see the KSFIOM Nov returns, the Dec returns from E&Y and our JLs return to us we will be in a stronger position to see ahead.

As a last point, my thoughts on the E&Y Oct progress report is almost finalised but I do have some concerns on how they will pay out the 5p/£ in Dec that they say they will do, or even higher, after looking at their Payments & Receipts account shown in appendix A of their report. I will look at it again tonight or to-morrow then finalise my thoughts before issuing it.

So stay positive,

Gordon 45


Last PWC progress report

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 23:06

Gordon, just to make it absolutely clear!
I was not, in any way, critical of your efforts on behalf of the depositors.
I am very aware that you must have spent a lot of hours analysing the figures and writing your reports which many find very informative.
Unfortunately I am starting to become extremely concerned that there is a serious lack of progress in:
1. Pursuing the redemption of overdue loans, what about default penalties?
2. Finalising the interbank status with KSFUK, this delay is in the interest of KSFUK!
3. The extremely low level of interest collected on the loan book. Remember those loans were arranged at a time when interest rates on most of these loans were relatively high (>6%).

Gordon, you appear to have some degree of access to the JL's.
I assume you have raised these issues. It would be good to get explanations from them regarding these issues! It is just possible that I am over concerned and that suddenly the money will start to "flow in".

Brabander (Mike)


Hi Brabander

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 11:26

Hi There,

Firstly thank you for clarifying what you were saying. But whether you are critical of my efforts or not is entirely up to yourself and any others who feel the same. I like you or anyone is open to criticism from any other colleague who may disagree with what we put forward - after all it is only our view or interpretation of the facts.

I have finished my write up on the E&Y (KSFUK) Progress Report except for one area of reasonable concern, so I will either try and resolve my concern and post it or withdraw the last part and post it, will decide today. As said already don't quite see it as downbeat as Icecrusher - but that's my privilege and view.

Re the JLs October figures have finished off my hand written notes and am ready to do the write up. I then need to change my Table 10 to include the new figures and then post.

Re the overdue loans, I keep saying about the value being 'pushed back' and it might come back to haunt us at a later stage i.e 2013 onwards, but I can understand the JLs reluctance to give out too much information as it could alert certain people who have loans and then think we will just default. Maybe it is better to try and get these people to refinance if at all possible and only go to court as a last resort - I don't know. I have asked questions on this and have more to ask, but not right now - wrong time in my opinion.

Re the interbank status, the good news for me was E&Y (KSFUK) admitting also for the first time that it was almost agreed. OK they did not mention a figure, but remember they have all their other creditors (including us) to consider. So treading carefully?
I think too many of us jumped on the band wagon when our JLs mentioned the £254 then the £250.2m as being a done thing that would come back immediately. I had hoped to see any back payments made before our next dividend in Dec, don't see it now. But it will come hopefully early next year and our JLs did say to me that they would not delay a dividend in order to receive any back money first. They would go ahead and make a dividend and when sufficient cash came back in, including any back money they would bring forward the next dividend. seems quite plausible to me. Surely the really good news from the E&Y report was that they have raised their overall estimates from between (65-74p/£) to between (75-84p/£).

Re Repo agreements, this is Icecrusher's baby, but I have always allowed for no more cash coming from this, especially if we get to the £250.2m in unsecured loans as that would cover any shortfall, and Icecrusher has said as much in bygone posts as I have. I can always dig it back out if I have to. But any more back would be very welcome.

Re interest coming back, if you look at the amount in already there is only a very small amount due back now for the duration of the liquidation. And anything back in including the £0.2m in October is excess to what was due back in total according to my calcs for the last 6 months of this year. So perhaps it is low and there should be more coming back if loans are extended by the JLs, but believe me the interest due although helpful is small beer.

So although I have many concerns as you and others have I always try and look at the reality, the probabilities then the possiblities and then the deam of the impossiblitiies.with regards to returns. And remember the lower level and the higher level of estimates is going up as we go along - so far.

So again stay positive don't go negative

Gordon 45


Criticism

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 15/11/2010 - 22:29

Gordon 45,
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I am still puzzled about the low level of interest.
I would have thought that borrowers delaying loan repayments would result in an increase in interest payments.

In my experience interest payments on most loans are either negotiated on the basis that interest is paid at agreed intervals during the term of the loan or on the basis that interest payments are deferred until the loan is redeemed.
Neither arrangement fits in with the PWC reports to the KSFIOM creditors.
Why does PWC forecast such low interest receipts going forward?
If you have an answer to this conundrum you may be able to share it with us.

I appreciate that you are prepared to accept criticism from others. I just wanted to make it clear that I can see no reason to criticise you (to the contrary).
You have been fulfilling a real need. It is clear that the JL's have been "using" you as an unofficial interlocutor who can explain to the creditors (depositors), in layman's terms, what has occurred and what is likely to happen in terms of future recovery of funds.
This task has, no doubt, taken a lot of your time. The JL's are handsomely rewarded for their work, in contrast you are doing this as a charity for the benefit of the other depositors! Hence the gratitude expressed by many depositors.

The JL's welcome your presence as they, undoubtedly, prefer not want to make any statements to the creditors which might appear to "guarantee" any specific recovery rate at any one time.
The "press releases" by the JL's on the KSFIOM web site are therefore just limited to statements of historical facts.
This is just my interpretation.

Best wishes,

Mike (Brabander)


To Brabander (2)

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 17/11/2010 - 06:11

I think your cpmment here about the JL's "using" Gordon is a bit harsh.

So far as I can tell, Gordon has been working loyally off his own bat to try to keep us up to date with what's going on Iand not going on, as the case may be). Once upon a time, we had folks like Diver, Expat and Gavin Brake etc to interact for us like that. Now...silence from them all, unfortunately. GB who is now on the COI has has to take the oath of omerta. Expat pops up occasionally, Diver has disappeared.

Anyway, as Gordon always says, he might be totally, totally wrong. Which hardly seems like the comment of somebody who is being "used" by Simpson and co. In this long, drawn out, horrible, frustrating liquidation process, Gordon's summaries are like a breath of fresh air, so I for one want to give him all the thanks and support that I can.


To lostinspace & Brabander

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/11/2010 - 22:43

Hi There,

Look I'm just on to say thanks to lostinspace for his kind words and backing but to also say I took no offence from Brabander (Mike) re his comments. And thanks for your second post also Mike.

I have said already if you have the guts to stand up and make statements and comments including guessing what we might get back, in doing that you then you leave yourself wide open to other people's thoughts, criticism and comments - so no probs, especially if it's done calmly and is reasonable, and your's was Mike. Yes lostinspace is correct you might have hinted that I was the JLs 'patsy' and nothing could be further from the truth but I suppose I try and use them and who knows they might try and use me. But believe me it is extremely difficult to get straight answers on occasions especially from one of them. Although I do think they have a hard job trying to balance what they do with the loan book due to some people falling behind with interest payments and capital repayments. And I don't think their job will be easy with E&Y (KSFUK) who have other problems, far bigger than the value of cash due back to KSFIOM. So it is all a balancing act.

But one thing is certain if and when they get agreement on the £250.2m base figure on which unsecured loans cash will be returned they will have done a brilliant job on our behalf. Just remember the JLs have only managed to bring back £130.5m so far of our £416m loan book = 31.37% and we still have £283.7m to come back = 68.20%. Albeit as the JLs kept telling me, loans are not evenly spread throughout the recovery period as is shown on the Monthly Maturity Ladder update. And also remember £190m is covered by the 10 largest loans, and they start coming back (hopefully) next year. But the reason I mention these figures is not to down the JLs but to show we have had 51.1% back so far and (if we get £2m net back in Nov from the loan book) and £10.25m from E&Y (£205m x 5% = £10.25m) then we should get 6.7p/£ that would make reurns 57.8p/£ or 57.8% and it aint due to our loan book returns. It is thanks to the JLs starting cash figure way back in Oct 2008, our own loan book returns + interest, getting back the CDs cash from E&Y, the cash from the Repo/Collateral shares from E&Y and cash back on the unsecured loans from based on £205m at 65%, now based on 75% from E&Y. So we may not be delirious but cash back from E&Y (KSFUK) has been very significant to us and will continue so throughout their administration.

But without the JLS help I would be doing an even worse job at guestimating how things might turn out. And I do worry that I might also be misleading all of you (my colleagues) when that is the furthest thing on my mind. So as the man said I am quietly optimistic and my estimates at present probably run at 86% + up to 95% and if we are very very lucky up towards 99%.

Just got to hope that the two banks do well with their recovery strategies, and they could both be different strategies, but who cares if it works out. The next two years will tell all I think, re our loan book anyway.

Mike as regards getting data from the JLs you are bang on, I had hoped that they would give us at least '6monthly' reports although the COI hinted at quarterly way back (I think) but unfortunately they became supposedly '6 monthly' and now appear to be going annually. Very happy to bring this up in my next list of questions which I am preparing and have forewarned the JLs of of my draft list

Anyway guys nice chatting with you and you both bring things to the table as do Icecrusher, thesunnysouth, Anrigaut and a few others, most important you speak out so we all benefit.

Thanks again,

Take care,

Gordon 45


To Brabander

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 16/11/2010 - 20:03

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your comments. I have no problem facing criticism from anyone, preferably when it is based on facts or a genuine difference of opinion. That is what you must take if you stick your head above the 'parapet'.

So no probs there. Re the interest situation. Long before our JLs would speak to me I raised this weird situation and tried to get them to speak to me, but to no avail, but fortunately for quite some time we had 'Frog' to help us when he had contact with the JLs and the guy did raise some questions for me in his 'phone ins' with Mike Smpson. But totally agree with you it does not seem right. All you can say is the interest due from the first time it was reported by the JLs and the current l;ower and higher estimates are still almost the same as reported back then. So the fact that approx 77% of the lower estimate is back in is good for us as we have got hold of the cash. But like you I would expect the total back now to go higher than the current two figures quoted, due to the lengthening timespan of substantial loans now overdue.

With regard to my relationship with the JLs it has been a very hard road to 'break in' and be allowed to speak to them. They only speak to me on infrequent occasions, do not answer many of my questions and only part answer some. But I do copy them in to everything I post so they can see that I in no way am going behind their backs and hopefully by doing that allows me the odd 'phone in' with one of them. I do try to stay mannerly in my dealings with them as I could not post what I do without their help.

I can assure you the JLs do not try to get me to do anything for them, that is not the relationship we have, but you could be right in that they may inform me about somethings I then speak about, but that is my choice. Again re statements regarding appearing to guarantee a specific recovery rate, they would be unwise in my opinion to speak forth on that. But I only quote or use figures they give out publicily or figures I deduce from other figures they have given out. Although I obviously rightly or wrongly also work out in my excel tables what we might get back taking into account all I know or guestimate based on what is available.

Mike I can asure you I have no inside track to these guys, except they agree to talk to me on occasion.

Once again thanks for the comments,

And take care,

Gordon 45


Criticism

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 17/11/2010 - 10:55

Gordon,
After reading Lost In Space's observations I have re-read my last comments and I may have, erroneously, given the impression that I believe that you are being used as a "patsy" by the JL's.
Whatever the motives are of the JL's your motives are absolutely clear to me and to others as the glowing thank you posts to you testify.

As you explained in your comments of last night you have obviously developed a certain level of trust in your communications with the JL's and this enables you to obtain information they appear not to be prepared to publish on the bank's web site.
This brings me to my principal "gripe".
Following the liquidation of the bank the depositors have effectively become shareholders in the bank. Hence we are now no longer receive any interest on our deposits, instead we are paid dividends.
As effective shareholders in the bank I believe that we are entitled to receiving regular (quarterly?) financial information detailing the financial status of the company.
The JL's are indeed regularly posting such information (in a basic form) on the bank's web site but there is no explanation of the background to these figures.
Anybody who reads company accounts realises that the most important information in these accounts is often contained in the foot notes.
What is missing from the JL's statements on the web site is these foot notes.
The CoI members may have this information but they are under an omerta as Lost in Space so elegantly put it.

Gordon 45 I am not sure how you can further help us in obtaining this key information.
However despite these constraints you have immensely helped depositors with no financial back ground by "interpreting" the JL's statements and developing spreadsheets which are simple to understand.
With all the negative financial news we get from all sides you have also injected a note of cautious optimism in the future.
It is always easier to be negative!

To sum up my "feeling". In the short term I am fairly pessimistic re our returns during the next 12 months. In the longer term I always believed that we would ultimately receive back >85% of our original deposits, possibly as much as 90-95%.
I believe this is in line with your estimates.

Kind regards


No more interest?

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 17:41

Gordon , in your well informed analysis you comment that there is only a small amount of interest due back for the duration of the liquidation. Of cours small is always relative but with 283 million in Capitol still to be repaid one would have thought that it would be significant enough. Some insight appreciated.


To expactvictim

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 18:28

Hi There expat,

No insight, purely used the lower estimated figure given by the Jls in their July update which said balance of interest due over the liquidation would be between £6.7m and £8.7m. We had already received £19.181m from interest. I could never fathom like you why we had so much to get back in capital yet have received so much of the interest in early. Did ask a question quite some time ago to no avail.

But on trying to spread what we might get back year on year based on those figures and what can be gleaned in some monthly Cash & Maturity ladders updates we have already received, based on my very approx calcs the balance of the interest due for this year and more.

Over the rest of the Liquidation: from 2011 until it ends I guestimate a further total of £5.76m less around £0.4m that came in early = £5.36m in interest based on those July figures from the JLs. But obviously because the monthly updates do not always include interest data, it is a pretty wild guess. So just trying to say that £5.36m as against £283m from KSFIOM loan book and at least £85.25m, hopefully, from E&Y (KSFUK) the interest is small beer. But yes you are right in that £5.36m would be worth 0.592p/£ to us all.

Hope the above helps to see where I was coming from,

Gordon 45


Jumping on the Bandwagon

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 13:09

I would just like to point out that if creditors jumped to any conclusion, then they were lead to do so by way of the JLs May-July 2010 Creditors Report extract as copied below. Four months on, both sets of administrators continue to trot out the same diatribe of 'finalising' the position. 'Finalising' normally means the last steps to be taken, 'the finishing touches' as it were; the discussions that have (allegedly) taken place over the past two years could hardly be described as 'finalising' - appears more like an agreement to disagree. If every agreement in a liquidation took two years to finalise, then there would be no end to any liquidation. They will end up spending more than will be regained or won if they are not so very careful. Meanwhile, creditors are left wondering and worrying about the outcome of the squabble on their eventual returns; it is perverse.

3. Report on the Liquidation for the period from 27 May 2009 to 9 July 2010

We put this view to the Administrators of KSFUK and they have now confirmed that as part of an overall settlement they will accept a reduction in the set-off amount to £143.4m.

We have also agreed the set-off in respect of certain inter- company recharges which were originally claimed by KSFUK at circa £600,000 but now have been reduced to less than £3,000.

There are two matters that reduce these improvements, one being an agreement on the ISDA valuation (forward FX and interest swap deals) at £2.1m as opposed to our previous claim of £2.5m and a claim for set-off of circa £1m in respect of funds transferred to KSFIOM depositors by KSFUK in error. If these funds had not been paid then claims against KSFIOM by those depositors would have increased by that amount. KSFUK have provided full details of these transfers and the matter is under consideration.

6.2 Summary of KSFUK Claim:-
The position can be summarised as follows:

Cash deposits £349.6m
ISDA £2.1m
GMRA Agreement £185.0m
Certificates of Deposit (CD’s) £53.0m
Gross Claim £589.7m

Less:
Cash Received from CD’s -£53.0m
Security Valuation under the GMRA (repo) -142.1
Total = -£195.1m
Claim submitted by KSF IOM £394.6m

Less:
Depositors paid by KSFUK -£1.0m
Set-off claimed under sub-participation loan agreement -£143.4m

Therefore £394.6-£144.4 = Potential Claim on which dividend will be paid: £250.2m


8th November report

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/11/2010 - 21:49

I concur with Ice. The last JL report "head lines" make dismal reading.
I have not yet read beyond these "head lines" but I noted the following for October:
Loan redemptions £1.7m
Interest receipts £0.2m only!! (derived from £1.9m less £1.7m)
Loan redemptions+interest £1.9m
Expenses £1.0m
Dividends to creditors £0.08m
Increase in cash balance £0.8m (£1.9m less £1.0m less £0.08m)

This means the following:
During October we only received interest of £0.2m on a loan book of around £285m ie well under 0.1%.
The redemption rate was under 1%.
The expenses charged by the JL's during October were worth 5 times the interest receipts.

I believe that we need to get an explanation for these truly awful figures.
On top of that they still have not reconciled with E&Y what KSFUK actually owes KSFIOM. I am now starting to suspect that E&Y are simply stalling in the hope that PWC will eventually cave in. In any case E&Y appear to be in the driving seat.

The question is what can we do about this state of affairs.
Any suggestions should be deposited in the suggestion box at the entry to the building.


Hi Brabander

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 13:03

I am relieved that someone else does not find the situation so rosy and warm. Optimism-bias may have its place, but not here when we need to take action and let those JLs know that their actions and responses are totally inadequate.

Could I ask that you (and any other creditor who is rightfully concerned) write to the JLs at branch(?)singers [dot] co [dot] im, bringing your own worries to their attention. I am absolutely vexed at their lack of action regarding this money owed to the bank by KSF UK for the past two years. I am undone at their patronising way of telling us creditors that 'we are busy finalising the matter' - if they were so frikin' busy at it why does it remain unresolved after two years? It is an insult to us that they carry on in this lacksadaisical, cavalier manner without care or concern at our discomfort. It would take them just ten minutes to email a reply to me, or to post a comment on their site properly explaining just what is going on with that money. All repo agreements have been resolved except those with ksf.hf - so where is the money?

Please everyone, write a few words in an email to the JLs at KSFIoM at: branch(?)singers [dot] co [dot] im and ask Simpson and Spratt this very question - and any more that you might wish to add!

Ice


Writing to JLs?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 19:15

I understand your frustration Ice (and others). But I am not sure it is a good idea to have lots of us writing individually to the JLs. We have 4 CoI reps and 2 or 3 other devoted DAG members (yourself included) in regular contact who are asking questions and pushing for answers.

Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I have little doubt that PwC will be charging dearly for any time they spend in answering depositors' questions (if they answer at all) and at the end of the day it will be us - the creditors - who will have to foot the bill.

Just a thought ....


Suit yourself

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 21:11

If a great many of us conveyed our disappointment to the JLs, it does not mean they would have to answer us all individually - and the more that write the less likely they would be concerned to do so whilst the greater chance that they would post a comment in reply on their website. The point is to show that we are collectively unhappy with the ways things are dragging out without proper explanation as to why. A few reps making the odd comment over the last two years has achieved a big fat zero in this particular regard, and frankly, I haven't seen any strong comments from the inner sanctum about the repo loans. Anyway, you can either save a couple of bob and don't bother, or you can put your money where your mouth is a scream that's it's not good enough. Whatever...
Ice


Re Suit yourself

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 22:01

My personal view is rather that bombarding them and screaming at them, as opposed to well-informed questions from those who are able to follow the detail as you do, is unlikely to have any positive effect other than helping the senders feel better and will therefore only be wasting our money. But you might be right - I did say it was just a thought! In any case the question would seem to be largely academic given the apparently few people who remain prepared to fight...

While it is true that I am not screaming, I hope you are not suggesting that I am not bothering. I assure you I bother a great deal and spend many hours doing so, but my main fight is not with the liquidators. Each of us does what (s)he can.

Whatever...


Reply from JLs

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 06:30

Mr Simpson was good enough to reply to my email and here follows an exact extract from his letter to me:

"Regarding your queries on the claim with Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Limited ("KSFUK"), the negotiations are ongoing in order to finalise the claim. I appreciate the frustration of creditors who are awaiting the finalisation of this claim; however, the nature of the relationship and transactions between KSFUK and KSFIOM was highly complex. The value of the claim is affected by issues such as related claims with other group companies, contractual obligations between the two entities and financial instruments entered into between the two entities."

I answered Mr Simpson as follows and look forward to his reply.

Dear Mr Simpson,

Thank you for your attached .pdf letter explaining the JL's position on the matter. I appreciate that there might be complex and intertwining relationships with various entities; however, as I understand the situation, the issue in question concerned specific repo agreements between KSF UK and KSFIoM and according to the latest KSF UK Administrators Report, all repo agreements (save those between KSF and ksf.hf) have now been resolved. If this is true, then there should no longer be an issue of amount at stake here, but rather, agreement on when the sum will be returned.

That you claim the pursuit of maximum returns for the benefit of creditors is laudable, but it would make the bitter pill of waiting so much easier to swallow if the JLs would explain the situation in that gregarious vein rather than leaving these things unsaid and unexplained. Ordinary folk consider the passage of two years an extraordinary amount of time to resolve one relatively small issue out of hundreds. Billions of pounds have been allocated their respective place in the order of things, yet the JLs and UK Administrators are perceived to continue their pontification over circa £50m. It is extremely galling to wait month after month for the next Creditors Report (from either side) only to read that the administrators are still 'finalising' the position.

What creditors would like to hear from our JLs is that a sum of money in the order of £50m WILL DEFINITELY be returned to KSFIoM and that you have been spending all this time squeezing the last £5 out of KSF UK. The uncertainty is excruciating, and you seem to be oblivious to feelings of creditors in this regard.

The sum of money returning to the bank's coffers is getting smaller, and doubt about borrowers being able to refinance their debts elsewhere and somehow pay off their capital loans is becoming an increasing concern. Creditors need to know that you really are on their side - and you can only do that by honest appraisal and transparent effort. We have been waiting a long time already and there's an even longer stretch ahead.

For those creditors who may feel that I have cost us a few pounds of Mr Simpson's time, then 'sorry' but I personally think its worth it.
Ice


Re letter to JLs

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 09:09

An excellent letter Ice (as ever). I sincerely hope you will get the reply it merits and help to set folk's minds at rest. I too would feel that was well worth while.

You seem to have misunderstood my previous post. If you re-read it, you will see that I was not saying that you and a FEW other well-informed people like Gordon 45 and Yorkist should not continue to write to PwC with well-directed questions of the sort you raise. I think that is well worthwhile. You are all now well identified both to depositors and the JLs, have a good grasp of the issues and stand a fair chance of getting a reasoned reply. What I doubted - and still doubt - was the wisdom of inciting mass bombardment of the JLs which I fear may be counter-productive.

I do understand that sending off missives to the JLs may help the sender and am not denying anyone's 'right' to express their frustration in this way. Maybe writing to express support of Ice's letter and asking that he receive a reply which he can then share with us would have more chance of success than everyone repeating the same questions or simply screaming at the JLs?


There are formal and informal relationships...

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

Ice doesn't trust the JL's. Well who would with when the come with the postscript PWC.
But as in any communication they have the opportunity to be convincing. If there is one lesson from the 'financial crisis' it is : be cynical.
Ice is asking reasonable questions. My take, as it was in the past, is the 'delay/obfuscation is not actually necessary, it perpetuates the situation that got us into this mess, it is exactly what it appears to be: obfuscation.
The JL's are under very little pressure, you are monitoring them, that puts a constraint around their natural arrogance (we are talking of PWC), and I don't think they are losing sleep. Don't be frightened. Anything on the record is good, in some places justice exists. Where are the COI? I'd follow this with with a line of exclamation marks but it isn't necessary, we know Gavin, I hope the badgers eat his cows
Ice is right.
When the JL's treat Ice with the respect that dissolves his reserve then I'll feel PWC are acting competently and in predominantly our interests. Until such times I trust Ice's instincts.


JL'S Motives

  • flying pig
  • 16/12/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/11/2010 - 09:34

These people are spinning this out as long as possible as it is their guaranteed meal ticket for the next couple of years. Income from this "case" has already been projected in their firms budget up to 2013.

This life destroying crisis for us has been a bonanza for IOM professionals with respect to fees. They and politicians alike have all been posturing around patting themselves on the backs for "helping" the poor mugs who placed deposits there.

If the fees were added back we would probably get nearly all our money back. The IOM government should be paying the liquidators costs, then make good any difference up to 100%. return to depositors plus the interest amount we have lost over two years. This would speed things up but at the moment the JL's have no incentive whatsoever to complete the liquidation in a timely manner and every phone call or letter adds to their fees.


Spot on

  • Jean-Charles Marlier
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 06:51

Hi IceCrusher,

               Absolutly spot on as usual,couldn't be more explicit,but hope that Mr Simpson does reply to you again,this time with contructive comments,and good news!!!

J-Ch/M


Done!

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 17:14

I agree. Letter sent out. Thanks for all your views which are much valued and appreciated.


P.S.

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 17:35

I have also written to the liquidator (PWC) informing him about the IOM newspaper article in which the Treasury Minister on that island has gone into print as saying we are to get 97% of our savings back, and possibly all of it back. I have asked the liquidator to please confirm that this statement is a true and honest statement from the Treasury Minister.


RE IOMT minister's "forecast" statement

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 19:05

Response received today from Mike Simpson following question by Knife Edge regarding Anne Craine's statement:

"I don't know where she got 97p from, but it certainly did not come from us. I can confirm that we have not had any discussions, either on or off the record, with the Treasury Minister about the potential outcome. All we ever say to anyone is what we have put on the website. Mike Simpson"

As for "the prospect now that the majority will recover all of their savings", that is just more loose politician-speak. Strictly speaking, the "majority" (ie more than half) recovered all their savings a year ago under the DCS. As for the rest, either we all get 100% back or none of us do.

Jean-Charles: The link is here: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/politics/200_million_cap_compensation_sch... (Like most press articles relating to our situation, it is posted under News on the other site.) The statements were made in response to questions asked after the lecture she gave at Gresham College last week. I have listened to the recording and can confirm that the quotations in iomtoday are exact.


Letters to PWC

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 21:05

Some time ago, it had been posted on this site that that bill for legal fees for over 360 thousand pounds was not much really by comparison to the whole amount involved. In the same vein I believe I have every right to write to the liquidator, who has already charged us millions of pounds, (so another letter is neither here nor there) to enquire as to the veracity of a statement which will impact enormously on my life. That statement of us getting back at least 97% was made by none other than the Treasury Minister on the Isle of Man. She told everybody, who is interested to know, that we are to get back our life-savings. And what? It now appears this statement is untrue, a lie. What the hell are our expensive team of experts going to do about this? Are they going to let this pass? They have been paid to fight our corner... so get going. If there was ever a time to fight our corner it is now. Tynwald is in its final week on its deliberations over the collapse of KSFIOM. Is this or is it not the time to nail things down and ask that question directly to the Treasury Minister: WHAT IS SHE GOING TO DO ABOUT THE THOUSANDS OF DEPOSITORS STILL DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIFE SAVINGS? No, I am not raving, I am not drunk, nor am I an idiot. I am sick to my back teeth after 2 years of being buffeted from pillar to post, hands and feet bound, my rationalizing ignored, pleading sneered at, whilst those shameless individuals in the IOM astonishingly still go on with their lies and deceit, even in the public arena.


Anne Craine & the 97p forecast

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 12:30

Just to set the record straight, the statement in iomtoday that "Latest forecasts suggest that Kaupthing depositors will get back some 97p in the pound, with the prospect now that the majority will recover all of their savings" was made by the (unnamed) journalist, who did not in fact say that it came from Anne Craine. Since it appeared in an article about the forthcoming amendment proposed by Treasury to the new (2010) DCS Regulations about which Anne Craine had presumably been interviewed, it gave that impression, which I feel I may have helped to propagate. But it could equally be a mistake by the journalist or a figment of his/her imagination.

In response to questions following her speech at Gresham College last week, she had said "the liquidator tells me that over 90p in the pound will eventually be paid out". I very much doubt (from what MS has said) that she was told exactly that, but it is at least a more reasonable simplification (politicians like to keep it simple!) and well within the 83.5 - 95.7 range of the latest official predictions. The other statement she made on that occasion - that 75% of depositors had been fully paid out within 6 months - was however manifestly untrue.

And of course she was able to cite the summary conclusions of the Select Committee's Interim Report to put all the blame for the collapse of the bank on external factors outside the control of the IOM. At the same time she said they have learnt from the experience and are now much better prepared to cope in the event of another crisis. Given they were apparently so perfect before, I'm not sure how that can be!

The full recording of the Gresham speech and questions can be found here: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=39&EventId=1100 The questions start about halfway through and start with those about KSFIOM.


To Anrigaut

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 14:27

Anrigaut,

Thank you for your help re this.

And I agree, knowing Mike Simpson, he would not be as stupid to quote a figure of over 90% being repaid at present. He is more astute than that, as I know only to well.

Gordon 45


@peter and louise

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/11/2010 - 09:08

Well said, peter and louise.


IOM article

  • Jean-Charles Marlier
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/11/2010 - 18:06

Hi Peter & Louise,

                      Would you have a link to that article?It would be quite interesting for all to read.

Thanks,

Jean-Charles


Hi Lostinspace: SIMPLE SUMS

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/11/2010 - 14:45

I have reviewed the JLs November report and the trend is not good I'm afraid. Perhaps repayments might increase in 2011 and beyond, but since July, our required monthly average repayment has increased by approx £1.5m per month and is now around £6.6m whilst we scraped just £1.9m this month and only £370k last month - and this leaves out the negative correction of -£1.8m in write-offs and set-offs even after positive forex benefits. No point in beating the bush, the results are poor at present and the economic climate doesn't bode well either.

I was not happy with the UK Creditors Report because the Administrators have no advice to give their clients save 'make arrangements with another lender before your mortgage falls due' - take a look and you will see this remark scattered throughout their report. People may be making the monthly repayments, but these are interest-only loans - where are the final capital payments to come from? Boats, planes and expensive London houses are not easy to turn into cash. The Administrators must think we all came down the Thames on a barge; they have been telling us that they and our JLs are 'near finalising' the KSFIoM claim since November 2008. They even state that the only 'Repo' deal outstanding is with ksf Iceland - so if all other Repo loans have been dealt with, why is KSFIoM still waiting for the ~£50m KSF owe us?


Latest Report

  • Blades
  • 19/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/11/2010 - 08:11

Many thank once again Gordon for your speedy overview. We all wait eagerly for your more detailed and considered analysis. Your perspective is invaluable to all of us.


thanks to Gordon

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/11/2010 - 13:16

Echoing Blades' sentiment. Thanks Gordon. It is not just that, recently, you are the bringer of good news....you are the only bringer of news and for that we all are eternally grateful. If there is an 'Accountants Heaven' you will surely go there!!!
Rob and Wendy


Agree - thanks to Gordon

  • Lostinspace
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 05/11/2010 - 16:14

As ever, Gordon is doing a great job. Hero, in fact!

Such a pity we don't get the same level of response and communication from our beloved JL's....


Good job, Gordon

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 06/11/2010 - 01:53

I echo the above sentiments. Thanks, Gordon, for your hard work and diligence.