HOW ABOUT SOME CLEAR INFORMATION FOR LARGE INVESTORS????

  • jeffwilkins
  • 21/10/08 14/11/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 13/03/2009 - 20:27

My wife and I have over £500,000 invested, despite all the discussions there has been a lack of clear analysis as to which of the current options is likely to give us:

Chance for the best return

Time scale in returning our money

Whilst I can see that smaller investors could very soon get all of their money back through compensation very little information has been put clearly on the table to help investors with a lot to lose.

Am I alone in this view? What can be done to clarify the situation for us???

Jeff Wilkins

4.26316
Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (19 votes)

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

GETTING OUR MONEY BACK

  • jeffwilkins
  • 21/10/08 14/11/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 14/03/2009 - 12:16

REPLY MY WIFE AND I ARE DEPOSITORS WITH OVER £500,000 INVESTED

JEFF WILKINS


Large depositors

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 13/03/2009 - 22:40

Jeff,
i do not want to be pedantic but you were a depositor not an investor in KSFIOM. Investors know and accept that there is an element of risk. Depositors assume that their money is not at risk. This has been the case in virtually all countries during the current financial crisis. The sorry exceptions have only been in British controlled offshore islands! Even Iceland has guaranteed 100% payments to its own domestic depositors in their failed banks!
The unfortunate (and understandable) reality is that the IOMG is putting all its energy in safeguarding up to £50k depositors as a high percentage of these are located within their own jurisdiction.
Larger depositors therefore have to be watchful that whatever scheme or other solution is proposed by the IOMG does not unfairly disadvantage the larger depositors.
The simplest solution would have been to put the bank into liquidation and subsequently trigger the DCS.
The DCS itself is of no benefit to the larger depositors but if the bank were liquidated there would be an excellent chance of receiving 12.5% very quickly and up to 20% (in total) by the end of this year.
I personally believe that over 3 years we would have a very good chance of receiving >70%, possibly >80% dependant on the eventual recovery of the deposit from KSFUK.
The SoA may possibly have some small advantages in terms of earlier compensation dates but the jury is still out whether this is a fact. On the other hand the SoA, as currently structured, may well have very serious drawbacks as this scheme may result in larger depositors paying for part of the compensation given to smaller depositors. I say "may" as this is currently not proven to be the case. Unfortunately the document produced by Alix is very complex and confusing as well as contradictory (in my opinion). Until we receive a document that clearly and unambiguously states what we will get and when it is impossible to be positive about the SoA.
I am afraid that we will have to wait for what transpires at the next hearing and after that we will still have to wait for news re KSFUK disbursements/recoveries. Speed has not been of the essence in this sorry saga.
By the way Tricky Dicky's comments are spot on!


Brabander, be careful with

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 14/03/2009 - 13:54

Brabander, be careful with the blanket statement of "depositors" ..

depositors - are those who placed their money direct with the bank
investors - are those who placed their money with a third party, who then deposited theirs and others in an account in the third parties name.


blanket statement??

  • barnie
  • 19/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/03/2009 - 23:47

We are ALL depositors. It does not matter if your money was placed directly or via a third party (bond) our money was DEPOSITED with KSFIOM and we are all in the same boat!

Stop trying to drive a wedge between us. We need to fight this fight together.


re - blanket statement

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 05:42

There's no wedge, and I agree we all do need to fight it together, whether you are a "product holder" or "depositor" the more that can be put into the pot = a bigger share for each at the end of the day.

But you must look at the simple facts, if there's a single incorrect item in a letter of 100 correct items, politicians will jump on that single incorrect item and ignore the remainder. Hence.

Ox Eng Dic, -

depositor - places money (deposits) directly into bank account.

investor - buys a product or goods on the premise of an increase in value of that product or goods.

Perhaps if you view one of these two ways, it makes more sense.

1) When a deposit is direct with the bank, those who made that deposit are account holders and direct creditors of the bank, they have one and only one line of claim.
Those who's deposit was via a third party "product" have a claim on that third party and / or the professional advisor that sold the product - the third party as the depositor has a claim on the bank. The "product holder" does not have a direct claim as a ceditor of the bank.
Therefore someone who "bought a product" have these possible avenues of claims, a professional advisor (IFA etc,.), the product company.

2) If for example a product holder is successful via the courts in suing their "product seller - eg AXA" for misselling that product, then all similar AXA products would be deemed as missold and the holders of those "products" would be reimbursed by the company (not the bank) - other product holders from similar companies would not be reimbursed nor would direct depositors. Even if all the companies were successfully sued by product holders for misselling all their products, all product holders would receive 100% return from the respective companies. This however would not assist depositors, as they are still simply creditors of the bank, as are the product companies, who would still have a claim on the bank parri passu with all other "direct depositors" above the "DEPOSITOR compensation scheme" limit 20 / 50K respectively.

As things stand at the moment "Product holders" are actually in a better position to receive a greater proportion of their money back than larger direct depositors.


@barnie: Where's the wedge?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 02:29

I agree with your sentiment, that is assuming I have read it correctly.

I feel it might be helpful for you to entertain for a moment this following perspective. Try it and see what you think. If it helps you by giving you the feeling that through such a lens the issues seem clearer then you might want to explore further the implications of such an analysis.

I suggest that the KSFIoM had three faces. One for manxes, a local bank with good rates. Secondly, for UK & expat (but predominantly expat clients) a private bank (minimum deposit 50K) for depositing a substantial amount way above the guaranteed limit in a variety of currencies fitting their particular needs and giving above average but still reasonable rates of interest to protect against inflation. And finally for a group I'm really not familiar with but the bond holders will be, insurance cos, something close to an investment, bonds.

Given a liquidation we would have been all in the same boat. But the IoMG have muddied the waters with their actions suggest that we are no longer in the same boat. The IoMG have created three boats. And their SoA is designed to look after these boats in a descending order of importance.

That order is:
- their local accounts first,
- the bond holders second
- the rest third, and within this group there ate two subgroups; GBP account holders and foreign currency holders.

If there is a total rescue all will be treated equally.
If there is an SoA, local accounts are safe, bond holders have a better deal and the rest "swivel".
If there is a liquidation then all are treated equally.

And the reality is clear for all to see.

I would like to stage this debate. Therefore I absent myself from this debate at this point whilst waiting the response of individual depositors like myself


Minimum Deposit 50K?

  • Mekong
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 06:59

Thats news to me, as an expat I opened MMCA's with a minimum of GBP2,000 (or equivilent) in each account with Singer & Friedlander IoM.


@mekong: It changed apparently.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 13:25

Hi Mekong,
When I picked KSFIoM to deposit Euros the situation was that to gain the rate of interest that made the bank attractive over say Investec (which was close occasionally for a while) there was a minimum deposit. Now I try to remember the detail I find myself struggling to do so. And that is probably because I wasn't looking long term, to go back to Apsden's comment, I was depositing not investing. The money was essentially moving through the bank.
I think it might have been to avoid account charges the minimum deposits were x,y,z according to currency.
But the impression the advert/information sought to give was that 'these accounts' are geared to those depositing substantial sums, if your balance drops beneath x,y,z, you will pay. But then again no, if I recall correctly it was that to gain interest the amount had to stay above these minimum amounts.
And this seems to conflict with others view of the bank.
We seem to be looking at a highly manipulative account structure.
Hence my comments that the bank seems to have had 'different faces'.
I only saw one face. But those selling the bank obviously knew of all the faces.

So right now I'm thinking "Where are the directors?".

And the only current directors are employees of the FSC, possibly they are trapped, or possibly they are there to massage the data, or possibly they are there because they are so greedy and unprincipled they can't do the work pro bono, they can't give up the salary, I couldn't possibly say. The rest have fled, and I'm wondering where they are. I'm also wondering about the name Aidan Doherty. That name sounds very Irish to me, I had a girlfriend called Siobhán for years, from County Clare. And I'm thinking the letter to the bishop came from Eire. And I'm thinking why would there be any KSFIoM depositors from Eire, why not use AiB etc. Possibly a tax dodge but unlikely. And who would know of IoM dirty tricks more than an insider.


Happy St Patricks day

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 21:54

Aiden Doherty is Irish i have spoken to him numerous times and he assured me everytime i had a twinge of misgivings - in his soft brogue that all was well blah blah guarantees blah blah even to the last day.
well maybe he believed it too.

Happy St Patricks day everyone.


Birthday Eve

  • Mekong
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 22:58

Its now the 18th in my neck of the woods, my birthday and I made it to another year older. I have always celebrated my bd on paddy's day same as I celebrate new year on 31st Dec, Gregorian that is we also have Chinese and Thai New Year over here, can't fault a country that has 3 New Years per annum.

I have a slight hangover at the moment but the headache pales into insignificance compared to the headache this fiasco has given me.

Aggggh I am now closer to 50 than I am to 40


Happy St Patricks day

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 22:53

As to Aidan, I once employed a builder just like that.


Aidan Doherty

  • doubled
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 20:45

Definitley Irish - listed as so on Annual Returns!


Only £2000 minimum deposit

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/03/2009 - 07:28

Only £2000 minimum deposit for me also. So the assumption that the majority of those depositors with less than £50k are IOM residents may be incorrect!


Depositors/investors

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 14/03/2009 - 23:39

Good point! I stand corrected.
I made the point as certain IOMG spokesmen called us investors.
My point is that depositors with a bank can generally expect their money to be totally safe.
We did not deposit our money in a third rate bank in a developing country (or so we thought!).


Clear Information

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 13/03/2009 - 20:35

Hi Jeff,
We are all still waiting for clear information on this subject. IOMG have been trying to clarify their 'new' SoA for 4 months, there is still confusion in the highest ranking brains on IOM as to the clarity of the DCS, and we are still awaiting the promised comparison of the 2 schemes from IOMG/Alix.
The DAG legal team are constantly trying to obtain clarifications, but the phrase 'blood out of a stone' come to mind. They are also formulating their points for inclusion into an affadavit for the next court hearing (9th April) by when we should also have received the 'polished' version of the SoA for comment