Has anyone else seen that IOM is compensating bondholders??

  • Emabroad
  • 10/10/08 30/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 09/12/2008 - 15:15

Do read this article, posted on Money Marketing website on 09-Dec-08,

'IoM government to offer compensation package to bondholders'
by Hannah Stodell - 09-Dec-2008

The Isle of Man government and local banks are to offer a compensation package to bondholders with cash deposits in KSF IoM.
The package, which will help all KSF IoM depositors, will combine government and bank contributions with the local depositor compensation scheme and assets from the provisional liquidation of the company. http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=177950&d=340&h=341&f...

0
Your rating: None

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

Has anyone else seen that IOM is compensating bondholders??

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/12/2008 - 18:13

I am a bondholder! Needless to say I have a prejudiced position here and would greatly support the various insurers adding to the "fund", however my view is they appear un-willing to do so? If there is any justification for us to receive favourable treatment I must say that personally, my wife and I chose this fund paying more attention to the fact that we signed up under the general safety net which we perceived to be Norwich Union. Frankly had it been properly explained that we were investing in an Icelandic bank we would have run a mile!


Bondholder Compensation - Editor admits error

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/12/2008 - 18:58

I followed up with Hannah Stodell and her Editor at Money Marketing and he confirmed to me this afternoon that they had made an error in announcing that there is a Compensation Package for Bondholders. There is no such package. I'm sorry for all of us who had their hopes raised.

He said that a 'source close to the IoM Treasury' had led them to believe that some of the DCS money would be diverted into a compensation package in the event of the Orderly Run Down. When I asked more questions, he checked and then reverted with confirmation that they had been 'misled' and that the IoM Govt have no such plans.

Be clear, in the event of liquidation, Bondholders are entitled to a fairshare of whatever the Liquidator recovers. In terms of the associated DCS though, all Bondholders within a single Life Insurance company are going to be treated as a single depositor (and receive next to nothing through the scheme). In the case of an Orderly run down, the DCS does not apply and therefore Bondholders (and the rest) will receive nothing from the Banks or IoM Govt or Life Insurance Companies as things currently stand.

He promised a retraction or an explanation. I explained that through their actions his journal had added considerable misery to vulnerable and already desperate people.


Money Marketing's Error

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/12/2008 - 19:37

Thanks for finding out about this error. Is the item about the additional £200m from the IOM banks correct though, or is the entire article totally wrong?

I'm not sure I believe the excuse Money Marketing said though - "he checked and then reverted with confirmation that they had been 'misled' ". It sounds more like careless and lazy journalism to me. A pity therefore our hopes were raised by an incompetent person.


Money Marketing

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/12/2008 - 20:00

Have you heard from anyone, anywhere (other than Money Marketing) that 'the Banks' are going to dip into their pockets to the tune of gbp 200m extra? I haven't. All I've heard previously is that it's going to be damned hard to get them to put their share into the DCS and meet their existing commitments within a reasonable timeframe.


Also reported in The Herald

  • darrmont
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 11:02

This story was also covered in The Herald which I believe is a scottish paper but maybe they just ran a copykat story.


IOM Plan to compensate Bond holders

  • stornaway
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 11/12/2008 - 17:17

This is an extremely important development, but the full dimensions of the proposed compensation, which will treat all depositors including Bond holder depositors alike, awaits the report of the Prov. Liquidator as to the amount of KSFIOM's assets he can add to the IOM Government's GBP150m and the IOM Banks' GBP200m.
Apparently half of the sum of the total deposits held in KSFIOM derive from Bonds and Bond holders would therefore greatly improve their position from gettiing nothing under the Depositors Compensation Scheme to a good deal more. Pressure will no doubt be brought by the affected insurance company product providers in support of the development, as they know that their busiinesses would be gravely affected if their Bond holders got nothing.
It is more than likely that the complete proposal is intended to pay out to depositors less than par, and our thinking is that our Depositors Action Group should be indicating right now to the IOM Government, the insurance company Bond providers and the FSC, that nothing less than par in a payout will be acceptable, and that the insurance companies in the IOM should also be adding a major cash contribution to the proposed plan. After all, is it not in their business interests to see the credibility of the IOM fully restored as a financial settlement, which will only happen if all depositors get their money back in full.


Story on IOM Banks and Government repeated

  • darrmont
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 14:43

This story is repeated as a part of a longer article in money marketing today.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=178066&d=340&h=341&f...


FSC DCS Compensation

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 08:07

Reading through the comments below seems to indicate that perhaps a few have not seen the FSC DCS guidance document. I have revisited the FSC site and on re-reading the guidance material, it doesn't appear to have changed since October, however, please check for yourselves at:

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc//guidancedcs.pdf


DCS

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 15:06

Waste of time reading the DCS doc ice, it will change with the wind. If it is activated then most of the banks will be gone or opt out, there is no advantage operating from the Isle of Man anymore so why stay? Its reputation is in tatters, it is under attack from the UK, the US and the Vatican.
They could always sell their intellectual capital and pride themselves on the quality of their people providing Direction (Cashen and Gelling) and Supervision (Aspden and Weldon), LOL!
Only solution is for the IoM Government to pay out ALL investors in FULL to save what is left, damage limitation. They should have taken this tac within the first week, would have saved them a fortune in tax payers £ in both the long and short term.


DCS and Guarantees

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 08:56

I'm under the impression that the DCS is liable to change when the wind changes.

If jimg is suggesting that compensation / guarantee promise should be exactly as it was represented to non-expert savers at the time they placed their deposit, then I, for one, agree with him.


Bond holders - no new News

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 03:06

There is nothing in this article that is not already in the public domain, other than possibly the reported comment by the AILO chairman (probably done over the phone with the journalist).

What is not made clear in the article is that bond holders will only be treated equally with other depositors if the wind down/ restructure is approved by the IOM Court (as opposed to liquidation).

If the DCS is triggered the bond holders would not, to my understanding, be treated as individuals.

The 'facts' from the article are available on the IOM gov website: http://www.gov.im/cso/faq_gfs.xml

The following is the relevant extract (in Q and A format) - "If" and "may" being the key words.

What might this mean for Life Company policyholders whose policies are linked to deposits in KSFIOM?

If the arrangement is approved by the Courts, it may provide more timely and/or increased distributions to depositors, including Life Companies, than a traditional liquidation would achieve. Life Companies will be treated equally with other depositors in any distribution. This means the distribution of available liquidated assets to individual accounts held by Life Companies (including policyholder-linked accounts) will be determined pro-rata by the value that such accounts represent in proportion to the total value of deposits. The individual policyholders would need to refer to the specific terms of their policy to confirm this treatment.


No new news

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 06:08

Thanks Expatvictim,

I agree with your assessment. Feels like some opportunistic and misleading journalism rather than a breakthrough. My observations -

  1. IoM Govt are not proposing to allocate gbp 150m (or any part of it) in the event of a restructuring. They SHOULD do if there is a shortfall in the assets recovered but they haven't yet. They've earmarked this amount to assist depositors (not bondholders) in the event of liquidation, to be paid over many years.
  2. The reference to a gbp 200m 'cap' on banks is odd. No previous references to such a topic anywhere so far as I can see and certainly not clear that there is a sudden and new addition of potential funds for depositors.

I don't believe yesterday's 'announcement' means gbp 350 m is now going to be given to us to bridge the gap between our assets and whatever is recovered during a restructuring. As much as I'd like to.


Equal treatment for all depositors

  • darrmont
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 15:40

This may mean that all depositors both inside and outside bonds will be treated equally by the DCS in compensation terms. I am not sure but I am trying to establish exactly what the report means from sources in the insurance companies.


Is this not some good news..

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 18:12

As I read things it says the Banks will Cap at 200 million plus the 150 million from the compensation scheme....so does that mean that 350 million plus is earmarked to gve one and all a better return....far short of the 850 KK we need but can somebody a little more wise than I clarify this statement...


more bad news

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 08:03

Since the beginning, it has been difficult to figure out exactly what is going on with this mess. My feeling is everything is currently heading in a worse direction for many of the depositors, especially those that were individual/joint depositors who did not have large sums on deposit (under 50k).

In my opinion, the DCS was and is still nothing but an unfunded scam. There are a total of 33 banks that will be paying into it if activated and the maximum annual contribution into the scheme for any one bank is 350,000 GBP.

So that means if the DCS does kick in the total from the participating banks is a mere 11,550,000 GBP per year. That's if all those banks stay in the program and stay solvent themselves.

If that article from Money Marketing is accurate, the DCS funds that will be available immediately (150m GBP) and on an ongoing basis (11.5m GBP) will now be spread between the entire 820m GBP instead of around 400m GBP.

So while it sounds like the IOM government is going to help out even more of the individuals who had funds on deposit at the bank, they are going to take funds away from the original depositors the scheme was supposed to cover.

I could be wrong, but it looks to me if the scheme is activated and if they now include bond holders the same as direct depositors, we have now just seen our payout cut in half. If this is in fact the case, then there should be a mounted effort to make the IOM stick to the current provisions.

It is one thing to increase the payout to covered depositors but to start giving our money away to others that were not originally covered under the scheme is another thing altogether.


To jimg

  • Emabroad
  • 10/10/08 30/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 20:21

That's how I interpret it too.


jimg,because i am a bond

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 09:02

jimg,because i am a bond holder with 391,000 pounds,you think i should not have a share of any potential payout? This forum is for ALL people, who face losing their funds,no matter how it was placed!!
Thanks for your selfish support.(we are suffering as much as you)


Of course I think you should

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 10:23

Of course I think you should get a share according to the rules and regulations that were in place at the time you made your deposit.

When I set up an account, I knew the DCS covered up to 15,000GBP per individual depositor (which I considered the safety net), but I didn't know it was unfunded. Had I known this I would never have put any money in the IOM - period. My bad as they say.

I am not aware of your own personal situation and how you came to end up with 391,000 GBP in bonds held at the KSF IOM bank. I will, however, assume you had the final say whether the funds were deposited or not and should have done more due diligence than you did.

And while we all stand to lose money here, there were and are different categories of depositors and your category was never covered under the same DCS terms as individual/joint depositors such as myself and others.

That being said, I hardly find it selfish to abide by the DCS provisions that were in place at the time we all made our commitments. Nice of you, however, to want a bigger share out of the pie than what was originally agreed to and was in writing had you cared to look.

No problem as I am sure you will find enough in a like position such as yourself who will rush to your side. Hell while we are at it - why don't we give a share of the funds available to all the residents on the IOM. Who knows. By the time this is over, the IOM government might just find a way to include them as well.


Your right, you dont know our

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 12:04

Your right, you dont know our circumstances,but if you read my blog you would(i guess you didn't bother to do the due diligence before your comment!) If you had done due diligence properly you wouldn't be in the mess you are either.We used an IFA for our due diligenceand made decisions on that proffesional advice.We should have the same rights as everyone else irrespective of how much money was put in,albeit, bond or deposit.I can only hope you never find yourself in our (or others)situation.Mind you, given how you post your opinions, i guess it is even more unlikely, you would ever have the ability to be in that financial situation in the first place!


I may be in a bit of a mess

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 12:45

I may be in a bit of a mess but because I did do at least some due diligence on what the guarantees were I didn't put in any more funds than I can afford to lose.

I would think you should be going after the IFA that got you into this and not relying on the DCS to change their original rules on who would get paid from this scheme and by how much.

Basically, you think it is fair to get extra funds that were to be paid to a specified category of depositor from the DCS, thereby reducing their share so you can gain on an after the fact basis. Where do you get that right from? Seems to me you are the one being selfish asking for what was never yours to begin with.

As for your last statement I cannot even comment on it as it makes no sense at all. Sort of like the rest of the comments coming from you.


bickering

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 13:05

Sorry , but if jimg and cottesmore wish to continue this bickering would you please do it PRIVATELY !


Hey Tricky Dicky, i never

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 13:31

Hey Tricky Dicky, i never started it.I do have a right to reply to these selfish comments.Its people like him that cause the bickering in the first place.


67p

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 08:38

Well done jimg, you are starting to get the picture. As advised last week the current proposal within "Treasury" is understood to be 67p which will be 60p by the end of January, once the "advisors" and KSF Directors have had their Xmas drinks and bonuses out of it. The pot gets smaller the longer this goes on.
This will of course disadvantage those with less than £50k as they were expecting all their£!
Who wins, the advisors and the Directors of KFS. We are all destined to loose whatever. Mr Bell should be forced by Tynwald to declare his hand or be asked to step down from his post. He won't even make it public what the Government have in Reserves, should be public information. Something is going on that isn't quite right. All a sham.


good news

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 08:28

There has been no change in the Depositors Compensation Scheme.
The 150m you refer to, jimg, is NOT part of the DCS.
The DCS (including the 150m) covers depositors' losses up to GBP50k. We do not know how many depositors this covers.
Your post is scare mongering. Provide the link.


This is not scare mongering

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 08:38

This is not scare mongering and the 150m is part of the DCS as being provided by the IOM government.

And what exactly are you looking for a link to?


DCS

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 09:34

jimg

I can understand your nervousness at the lack of information.

The IoM govt are currently working on a scheme with Alix partners.

In terms of numbers, the IoM govt have said they will put up £150m plus whatever the banks pay in.

There will also be the funds recovered by PWC so far, which if memory serves me right was about GB£60m and US$40m plus further cash that was disputed plus £57m of certificate of deposits (some of which were disputed) and then a loan book of £400m (if offsets with KSF UK can be agreed)

Lets say the govt decide to sit on the loan book and run it down you would expect that to be worth £350m allowing for some bad debt.

So just as a quick back of fag packet calculation I would say

Loan book £350m
IoM Govt £150m
Cash recovered £100m
Certificates of deposit £ 25m

Total £625m

So about £600m+ available for distribution even without any funds coming back from London.

Therefore as you can see there would be plenty of funds to pay every depositor at least the £50k each under the DCS.

If the IoM Govt does not go down the liquidation route then the DCS will obviously not be triggered. However do not worry. Speaking to people in the IoM govt they are well aware that all under £50k depositors will have to have a 100% return as this is what is guaranteed under the DCS legislation.


DCS - Ally can you help please?

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 19:35

When did the IoM Govt say they would put in gbp 150m within the 'Orderly Run Down' scenario please?

My understanding is that the 150m is linked solely to the DCS which in turn is activated only in the event of liquidation.


DCS

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 21:45

chb

Currently the £150m has been made available only for the DCS.

Public annoucements have been made on using the £150m for other purposes. For example at the last Court hearing on the 27th November the attorney general said the "payment on account" (or interim payment) could come out of this £150m.

The IoM govt are aware that if they put together a scheme to run down the bank that will result in a high overall payout for larger depositors then they need to pay <£50k depositors in full as this is what they would legally be entitled to under the DCS.

Personally the feeling I get is that any plan that is put together will involve funds recovered by PWC, funds from the IoM govt and the running down of the loan book.


DCS / Question for Ally

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 12:17

Ally - I respect your detailed understanding of the Finances and watch for your postings because your views are always well articulated.

Do you mind if I ask what the 'feeling' you have about the IoM Govt diverting funds to depositors (currently earmarked for the DCS) in the event of the Orderly Run down, is based upon? An earlier, obtuse indication from the Attorney General is relatively thin isn't it? What were the other public announcements please?

I hope you're right and I can see (of course) the justice this would represent but wouldn't such a move be heavily publicised by the IoM Govt if it were in fact going to happen?


DCS / Question for Ally

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 12:51

chb

We will have to wait for the IoM govt plans to go before the court to get concrete evidence. That has to be filed by 15th January however I would hope we would get a feel for it before then.

What is my feeling? As you will be aware Dave Braddan has been leading the liason of the depositors group with the IoM govt. I have been lucky enough to be present at a number of meetings and have meet some of those in the IoM "gold team" and also some of the Alix Partners people on the island. They will obviously confirm nothing officially until the final plan is out but in those meetings there has always been a feeling, that the IoM would contribute to the best solution for all depostors holders. Well, although it has never been confirmed when we have mentioned it they have never come out and said an outright no. Which they have to other things. This is why I also have a feeling that any scheme that is put together would look to pay off <£50k in a relatively short time.

I know full well that it is easier for me to have these feelings as I am present on the IoM and have met these people. However always as the back of my mind I do have downside thoughts, I am a born pessimist. I can't guarantee anything will happen until I see the documents before the court. However from the meetings I have been in and from talking to people in the IoM I do believe there will be a contribution from the IoM govt to whaterever shceme they come up with.


fag packet broken

  • rk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 10:49

hey ally,

how does the GBP 550m with KSFUK fit into this then??

because taking your figures and removing IOMGovt £150m, means assets of £475m.

Add the frozen £550m assets in KSFUK and you have £1,025m, which can't possibly be right.....

The £550m of assets in KSFUK must be made up of the loan book + other disputed assets.

The only "fresh injection" of capital is the £150m pledge from IOM Govt, which I think they will put in regardless or not of whether DCS is triggered (they have to really)

The £200m figure bandied around is the amount that the other banks would be maximum liable for as a contribution to the DCS (if it was triggered), but think that's what the whole of the restructuring is about.

Is there a way by which IOM Gov and Banks can contribute their combined £350m WITHOUT the triggering of the DCS??

As this is only way at the moment in which bondholder could receive MORE than they were entitled to IF DCS was triggered....

So IF the restructuing was able to secure the £350m without triggering the DCS, add this to the assets under control
£100m + £25m

gives £475m / £840m liabilites = 57% recovery..... at least, without any recovery at all from KSFUK.

Crossy fingers.....


rk - Fag packet damaged not broken

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 11:29

rk

The balance sheet of KSFIoM as at 30 Sept 2008 show total assets and liabilities of £1,346m.

There are inter-company balances with Iceland and KSFUK and if all these are netted off you would have total liabilities of around £940m, being deposits of £927m and other creditors of £11m.

The total amount KSFIoM has in KSF UK at 8 October is just over £600m (as per Mike Simpson’s affidavit to the court on 27 Nov 08). However KSFIoM owes KSF UK £164m. It is hoped these amounts can be offset so KSF UK would owe in the region of £460m to KSF IoM.

As at 30 Sept without the funds in UK KSFIoM had assets of loan book £410m and cash of £180m (this last figure was reduced to approx £100m by 8 Oct.


Top up from London

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 09:53

Ally, you and John Wright's report on the main site has renewed my hope. I think your figures seem good and by that if the IOM can get back 50% at the deposit in the UK we should get our 100%. Anything above would be offset to the 150M given by the IOM. I live in hope and that it happens as quickly as possible.


Read the DCS regulations!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 16:54

According to the DCS regulations the 150GBP is not as available as you think. Note the following paragraph 12A (1):

"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."

As I understand the above clause, a shortfall up to 20k per depositor will be paid from the banks' contributions to the DCS and only if the shortfall EXCEEDS 20k will the amount that exceeds 20k be funded from the IoM government's contribution of 150m.

According to my calculations a 50% recovery of assets will result in very little, if any, of the 150m being used, because not much more than 20k per depositor will be required from the DCS if recovered assets are distributed on a pro-rata basis. (DCS compensation does not apply when the amount received from the distribution of assets exceeds 50k.) The DCS payment of up to 20k per depositor could take anything from 15-7 years depending on the percentage recovery of assets (15% - 50% resp.). The IoM government's contribution to the DCS only becomes significant if there is a very low percentage of recovered assets.

The above results are based on assumptions regarding the distribution of deposits estimated from the poll results posted on this site.


DCS

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 19:43

The DCS was supposed to be funded by all the banks participating as an insurance. The £150M that the IOM government have earmarked doesn't necessarily have to go toward that scheme - they can use their cash in whatever form they want (and it isn't limited to £150M either).


insurance companies coffing up

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 18:11

This was alluded to in a letter received last month from Prudential who my bond was issued through. It stated they were in discussions with other life insurance houses to achieve a better outcome (via AILO). This must have meant they had realised they were potentially liable for mis-selling and were looking to help out bond holders affected


Chipmunk, it

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 18:20

Chipmunk,
it would be the approx 100 million in the bank already saved, plus proceeds of liquidation( there is a loan book of 400 million to be sold off hopefully raising high percentage of 400 million). As i read it the DCS would chip in upto 150 million and banks/insurance companies upto 200 million - these figures would be dependent on liquidation proceeds. This could potentially get us a lot nearer the 821 million required for salvation. Lovely jubbly


Lovely Jubbly..indeed

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 18:52

So if this is true why are we not all jumping with joy at the news that the IOM and banks are puting this package together which will give us at least 40 % of our money back and maybe over 90%.......it seems nobody other than myself is getting exited...and if that loan book does come into the pot surely we are nearly there.....but this article and response seems very low key ...why


new compensation scheme?

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 01:38

The £200M has always been (theoretically) available by virtue of the IOM compensation scheme. The IOM govt said many weeks ago that it would put up a further £150M, the only new thing which I can see is that bond holders will be included in the scheme whereas previously it was £ 20K per Insurance company, I believe. All in all the same amount of money spread among more depositors and therefore taking even longer to pay out. There's nothing to suggest that the £50K limit changes. Any extra has to come from any liquidation proceeds.

I notice that this has been reported in several papers but not,as far as I have seen, in the IOM press ..perhaps because it's not really new. If the bank is restructured then presumably this means nothing anyway?

Has anybody seen the actual report referred to in one of the articles?


chipmunk, being a bond holder

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 19:23

chipmunk, being a bond holder with £391,000 in 3 bonds.I am very excited by this link.
I could not believe, that the Insurance companies would just sit there and wait for miss selling litigation to start rolling in.They need to do something, or their industry is dead in the water. I.E who would ever trust them again,if they left us high and dry?
I am really feeling confident, despite Simpsons typical posting.I.E tell us buggar all and make out he posted it 5th December,when it came on the, 9th Dec'.Someone should make an official complaint about this.It proves the guy doesn't give a 'toss' about us.Surely 'our adovate' is as fed up with this type of reporting as we are?


lovely jubbly indeedy

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 19:09

Perhaps we are all getting used to negative and depressive news and do not want to allow ourselves to think there is good news only to have our hopes dashed on some technicality. But i read about this and the offer for the potential purchase in Luxembourg and could not understand why there was no greater positive comment. I have mentioned the loan book before - good to see a £400m figure on it. Sod it - I am going to be happy, just for a day!!! It's not a crime to be positive is it ?


Rob, i'm with you on this! I

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 19:27

Rob, i'm with you on this! I will be happy today.I guess i've no choice either,as i go in hospital this Thursday for a Colonoscopy! (well my family say, i talk a load of sh*t, so i guess they want to check it out!!)


Just had my Colonoscopy last

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 09/12/2008 - 22:14

Just had my Colonoscopy last Sept at Hospital Particular.....Cottesmore we have a lot in common it seems.......

So yes I will have positive thoughts as well for a few days ...why does this stuff come from a reporter and not IOM official sources....so I wonder how accurate it is but if it is true then why havnt Diver and the London /IOM team picked this up as a real plus....or maybe I have those old tinted glasses on again.....


My god chipmunk,i had one

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/12/2008 - 13:49

My god chipmunk,i had one done there in January of this year.I then had surgery there as a follow up.The staff were amazing, especilly the surgeon.What a small world we live in!