How much are we going to recover

  • Jhas
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 21/10/2008 - 06:59

A simple calculation shows that at this time, the liquidator has only been able to recover GBP105 million. This means that we will only be able to recover 105/840 or 12.5% of our money after the liquidation process this Friday. In addition we should be able to recover GBP 50k per depositor per account (GBP 100k per joint account) from the IOM scheme after they collect the money from levies on other banks which could take up to 10 years to be fully funded. I presume that the total amount recovered would amount to less than 30% for an average KSF IOM depositor.

Our only hope to recover a substantial amount of our money would be if the liquidator succeeds in getting back KSF IOM money (GBP 500 - 600 million), which is currently withheld by Kaupthing UK and may very well be used by the UK treasury to bail out UK depositors. I think we should all focus our efforts on trying to recover all or at least a substantial amount of this money before it gets stolen from us. I don't believe there is a good chance for a body like the IMF, EU, or UK to bail us out before the Friday deadline.

I will anxiously wait to read the liquidator's final statement on Friday to see if he will be able to recover anything more than the projected 12.5%. If anyone has any thoughts on this or perhaps has done more accurate calculations, please respond.

0
Your rating: None

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

How I think this works

  • Sceptic
  • 25/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/10/2008 - 19:57

Making sense of the numbers. The best I can do so far is as follows. if anyone has a set of Financials for KSF IOM please post them on the site as I cannot get them anywhere.

What ksfiom owes us (Liabilities)
Deposits in ksfiom (our money) gbp 855
Other creditors ? but small as its a bank
Equity (to make this balance) 244
Total Equity + Liabilities 1099

what ksfiom has (assets)
interbank loan to (deposit with) ksf UK 555
interbank loan to (deposit with) kaupthing iceland 196
interbank loan to (deposit with) other banks 103
loans to customers (mortgages?) 245
Total assets 1099

Mike Simpsons job is to recover what he can from the 1099 assets and pay this across to depositors (us) and creditors. He has so far from what I understand recovered the 103 from other banks. He has to next try to recover or sell the 245 of loans. Depending on what these are he may get varying amounts in the GBP lets say 50% so 0.5*245=122.5

Now the real problem starts. The interbank loans with the Uk and Iceland is not sitting in cash it has been used to fund assets mostly in the UK (read real estate designated other loans in KSF UKs accounts?). (We deposit with the Uk bank and they lend the money to someone to buy a house. The bank gets the money back + interest over 20 years and hopefully the depositors hang around for 20 years, which in this case they didn't).

The administrator in the UK needs to do the same as Mike Simpson and sell either the businessses in the Uk or sell the assets. For what its worth he/she may recover say 30% in the gbp from the loans in the Uk and say 10% in Iceland. The maths 555x30%=166.5 and 196x10%=19.6. (I have no idea of the value of these assets.)

So our potential recovery is
103
+122.5
+166.5
+19.6
=411.6

so we recover maybe
411.6/855 = 48cents in the gbp i.e. 48%.

All of this unfortunately is little more than guesswork unless one knows the quality of the assets and the competence of the administrators. If the assets are US mortgages repackaged in the UK then don't expect a lot of recovery.


And the UK Govt owes us the

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/10/2008 - 20:26

And the UK Govt owes us the balance for causing the problem in the first place?

In the great order of things, the cost for putting us straight is minimal ... Ministries could waste that money on furniture in a few months whilst achieving nothing. c£500m is absolutely small change. The challenge is the political will so to do, and here in the generality of discussion I believe there really lies a glimmer of hope.

HMG is already, for many reasons, struggling for credibility on the National arena.
HMG effectively caused this problem for KSFIOM depositors.
HMG is trying to wriggle out of supporting British Citizens and Passport Holders [OK, apologies to you non-Brits, just keep beating your Govt as I am doing here].
And ... HMG's Loyal Opposition is now starting to take an interest in the case, if only as a stick with which to beat HMG.
And ... No Govt likes bad publicity, and the work being done by the great guys/gals in London and IOM is keeping this on the Agenda.


UK Govt

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 17:34

gomann Your comments precisely echo my own thoughts and I tried to put those thoughts in the form of one of the several question I have sent to the Banking crisis committee:

"Did the Chancellor not consider the possibility that his action in freezing
the assets of Landsbanki UK would subsequently lead to Kaupthing Singer &
Friedlander UK being forced into administration thus causing some £550M of
assets being held, for "safe keeping", on behalf of Kaupthing Singer &
Friedlander IOM to become inaccessible thus causing its current demise, and
that this would seriously affect thousands of british depositors? "

If he were to answer YES or NO he would have admitted that his actions,whether considered or ill-considered, did lead to our current predicament. If he didn't believe that to be the case he would have to come up with some other explanation.

Currently I think our best allies could be Conservatives abroad, then the MPs of all parties who unfortunately still need to understand that 50 K compensation is not on the agenda.


if anyone isn't convinced

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/10/2008 - 20:35

if anyone isn't convinced that injuditious remarks caused a run on KSF, ask yourself why we have an "in flight" issue. why did aiden doherty say they were tring to stop a run on the bank?


Other Off-Shore Industries

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:42

I've been prodding Jersey's Minister for Economic Development, and the Jersey Evening Post, to no effect so far. Not a single email has been acknowledged.

Next week I shall start getting rather angry. Not for myself, or the 11 other KSF(IOM) depositors in our group, but for the Jersey Finance Industry which now represents the greater proportion of our GNP.

Trying to get our multi-millionaire Minister and the [imminently retiring] multi-millionaire Chief Minister excited over individual cases will be like pushing a river uphill. However, a lack of trust in off-shore finance might just bring the entire house of cards crashing down. I have heard [but seen no evidence] of cash flight from Jersey - but that's a credible scenario. The same will apply in Guernsey, where they have decided not use Govt funds to support Icesave customers. As with Iceland, and the IOM, these Govts can't possibly, in a million years, afford so to do.

My thinking is to find assorted entrees into the local Finance Industry and get their interest [ooops] on board. THEY have a lot to lose.


Simple. All of it.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 01:59

We will get all our money back. Full Stop. Forget the DCS and any other odd 'compensation' scheme, we are going to get our money back. And we will get it back within a short, fixed, timeframe.

Why? Because it is our money and we were not being reckless or daft with it. Because if we dont, the world will see that UK 'offshore' accounts are far too dangerous to put money in. Because if they dont then the political fallout for Brown and Darling et al will be deep and far ranging.

The real split is whether we follow the path laid down by Tynwald and HMG, in which case we take pot luck with 'schemes'. Or, we make our own path and force the issue. We cannot tell anyone to give us it back, so we apply inceasing pressure so that NOT giiving us it all back has very real implications for them.

There are MP's and News media organisations receiving a constant stream of correspondance from us all. On top of that, the teams in Douglas and London are meeting and talking to anyone they can. It is getting results, we are getting heard and our political masters will not be liking it one little bit.

Just wanted to chuck this in, so that everyone can be sure of what is happening. £50K over the next few decades is no good to man nor beast.


All of it depends on the negotiations with the IMF

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 16:47

I've been following the news over on www.icenews.is

There were several news postings claiming that a) the IMF deal didn't require Britain's agreement, b) Britain was asking to much. Then c) they announced a deal, they had got the loan.

This has now all disappeared from the site, and they are back in negation with the IMF. It seems the UK may have the deciding factor after all, the terms Iceland are going to deal with will be worse than Germany after WW1.

But Iceland may well be forced to pay up on its international commitments.


RE ABOVE - ALL DEPENDS !!!!!!

  • justr
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 11:13

I am not sure that any IMF / ICELAND deal is relevant to us. We held no guarantee from the Icelandic Government, only a parental guarantee from Kaupthing. Even if the bank is owned by the State now ( I am not sure of the position in this regard) any funds from the IMF would be for the Government (I assume) to help their banking system/any bank State owned, this still does not include the IOM. Sorry to be pessimistic but any attention to irrelivant issues just keeps our eyes off the ball. MOST of our money (500/600m) is said to be frozen in the UK FOR WHATEVER REASON and this is probably the only issue that we should be putting all of our efforts into. Publicity is still our greatest weapon - I am ready to join others in any demo - so please, our leaders, just let us know where and when.


The Icelandic Government is responsibile for all its bank's debt

  • dawes
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 17:56

Aside from the point where they nationalised the various banks (at which point all debt immediately and irrevocable transferred to the government), the Central Bank of Iceland is by definition the lender of last resort and therefore responsible all the banks and their debt.

But Krupthing were nationalised, so all of its liabilities have been explicitly placed under state control. Iceland is trying to wiggle out of this, but whether they admit it or not, the parental guarantee falls to the Icelandic taxpayer.


Lender of last resort

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 23:27

I'm afraid that isn't actually what 'lender of last resort' means. It means they'll provide a loan in conditions where no commercial body would (the IMF is the lender of last resort to central banks).

It does not imply any duty to assume the debts of a limited liability company (the hf of 'Kaupthing hf.' is short for Hlutafelag, which means 'limited') even if it is a bank. The US government didn't pick up the debts of Lehman Bros, did they?

Also, nationalisation is a very broad term, and can refer to many different scenarios. Be careful about assuming that the Icelandic government are legally obliged to assume liability for Kaupthing's debts.


when is a Guarantee a Guarantee.......

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 11:28

I wonder whether this is in fact a guarantee or a letter of comfort.... I have had experience of attempted enforcement of multi-jurisdiction guarantees and this can be a complex matter.
If the Icelandic government has the cash to sufficiently capitalize kf and the guarantee is enforceable due to the failure of the primary obligation (i.e. KSF UK) then perhaps this would be enforecable against them.
This all hinges of course on what this 'guarantee" actually is.


GUARANTEE !!!!

  • justr
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 11:47

I assume that if the Icelandic government had enough cash from the IMF to fully capitalize KF (who we have the parental guarantee with) allowing enough to compensate with regard to any parental guarantee to IOM, then any outcome with regard to the UK situation would ultimately not effect us. However, it would seem likely that Iceland/KF Iceland would wish to try and 'get the money back' from being frozen in the UK first.
I cannot in reality see a huge slice of any IMF loan being used to compensate us, we represent a very small entity compared with the overall needs of Icelandic entities/banks who would surely come first.


why is the guarantee a secret?

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 11:43

Good point... and the FSC has so far refused to publicly disclose the details of the guarantee, or provide a copy of it, saying to me that it was "for regulatory purposes only" and couldn't be disclosed to the public. I don't really buy this argument myself, and someone somewhere somehow needs to get hold of a copy of it....


guarantee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 13:20

I have applied under the Manx Code of Practice and my application has been refused for what I consider to be improper reasons. I have posted them on another thread and I will shortly re-post them here.


was NOT just for regulatory purposes

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 11:53

This wasn't for regulatory purposes only, it was use to assure customers of the safety of the bank.
Paragraph 61 of the Banking (Regulatory Code) 2005 is in point here


Sorry, am not aware of that

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 11:56

Sorry, am not aware of that particular Code. Can you advise what the relevant part says?


Advertising guarantees - regulatory requirement

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 11:59

I am sorry I should have posted it

  1. Reference to the depositors compensation scheme in advertisements

(1) A bank shall not issue an advertisement which states or implies that any deposits or interest will be guaranteed, secured, insured or the subject of any form of protection (other than that provided by the Banking Business (Compensation of Depositors) Regulations 1991) unless it states:-

(a) the form of the protection;

(b) the extent of the protection; and

(c) the full name of the person who will be liable to meet any claim by the depositor by virtue of the arrangements conferring the protection.

(2) All advertisements issued by a bank which is not a participant in the Depositors Compensation Scheme, as indicated by the schedule to the Banking Business (Compensation of Depositors) Regulations 1991, and which refer to its banking business or contain an invitation to make deposits shall state that the bank is not a participant in the Depositors Compensation Scheme. Such a statement shall appear in a prominent position.


VERY Interesting - guarantee

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 12:13

It seems pretty clear to me that on this basis KSFIOM broke all of (a), (b), and (c)


did they break the rules?

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 12:19

tell me why you think so, and post the email you received and details of where u think it was broken.
If they did you could make a regulatory complaint to the FSC and the financial ombudsmen in the Isle of Man ;-)


Well, because the KSFIOM

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 12:29

Well, because the KSFIOM brochure said this:

"Not only are all deposits held with Kaupthing Singer and
Friedlander in the Isle of Man covered by the Depositors
Compensation Scheme, all deposits are also fully guaranteed
by our parent Kaupthing hf."

...but did NOT provide any info as to (a), (b), or (c).

See the document named "iom-international-brochurev2.pdf" in the documents package you can download here:

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/node/46

In all of KSFIOM's advertisements and other material I never saw any details that should have been stated in the Code you refer to.


agreed

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 13:23

I agree - it appears prima facie that there is a real issue there for the regulator. I think you can rest assured that the regulator will do nothing.


Continue on NEW THREAD

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 12:34

manx-person - I think this subject deserves it's own topic - Let's continue the discussion on this new thread:

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/node/801


Secret - or commerically sensetive , but disclosable I think

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 11:51

If you received an email from the bank telling that you that there was a guarantee in place, then you placed a reliance on this.
The guarantee is a commercial document between the IOm and the parent co.
However I think that it would be helpful to request this from the liquidator prov. as this was a document you placed reliance upon.
It would be available for disclosure if there was civil litigation.
If the document was not in fact a "guarantee" I think that there are grounds for misrepresentation against the company/directors.
Pressure on the directors over this may make them more minded to help in resolving matters.
Just my 2p worth....


Email about guarantee

  • cerberus
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 12:27

Here is part of the email response I received on 2nd October 2008 from ksfiom concerning my enquiry about deposit guarantees (which I am posting in case it may be useful at a future point)

"All deposits with Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander in the Isle of Man are fully guaranteed by Kaupthing Bank hf. With this guarantee, you have peace of mind that your savings are fully secured."


Please repost your messages

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 13:11

Please repost your messages on the new thread here:

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/node/801

It's an important issue I think and I want to keep discussion of it going......


Recover then bring Criminal action

  • Relentless Posse
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/10/2008 - 05:21

Remember this idea of fighting to get the money back needs to be put into context.Those (and it goes all the way to the top) need to be held responsible for this and meet justice.


how much will we recover

  • not happy
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/10/2008 - 15:02

i believe that on top of the £ 105 million, that the liquidator will also try and sell off the loan book ( £ 245 million at end of 2007 ) ........ hopefully he gets 50 pence plus in the £ 1 ..... most of the loan book is classified as " residential " loans with low / fair risk ..... with only £ 33 million which was " not current" but has £ 22 million of collateral against it.

This should give us another £ 100 million + against the £ 840 million due to depositors.... if the loan book was similar to that of 31 december 2007


All adds up to £1billion +

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 12:24

I am beginning to lose track of the figures bandied about. I know we have £103m and that £555m is in London. I have also read that the rest or most of the rest is in Iceland. If that is the case where does this £245M come in? Can we get an accurate figure from anyone as this all adds up to a great deal more than has been invested and I would like to think they have made a profit but these figures add up to over £1billion. If the loan book is in fact house etc mortgages there is no reason why the creditor should not get fairly near to full value unless they are 'toxic'.


What are the Assets - Ask Simpson

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 20:13

There's clearly confusion on what and where are the assets of KSF IOM. Since it is his job to know this why not just ask Mike Simpson to outline where the assets are. In particular whether the "loan book of 200m GBP is separate from 550 in the UK, 150 in the Iceland and the 105 in the IOM. Has anyone asked? Mr Simpson please include this in your next briefing note thanks.

This loan book could yet be key to us getting an 100% solution.


Must be overlap somewhere

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 12:36

We think £821m was deposited in the IoM and we've also been given these figures:

£555m is in London
£196m is in Iceland
£103m recovered by Liquidator (presumably from other banks on IoM)

and then we have the loan book. The figures above already total to £854m without including the loan book so there must be double counting somewhere.


Adds up to more than 100%

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 23:46

Any business should have more assets than liabilities - S&F and Derbyshire had been running for a while and could have been expected to have built up quite a bit of capital.

Deloitte, liquidating Landsbanki Guernsey, said that the accounts for that bank showed assets worth 110% of deposits.


Diver, Thats my point. We

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 12:41

Diver,
Thats my point. We know PWC have lots of people keen on the loan book so it does exist. If it is circa £250m taken together with the £555m and the £103m we already have more than the deposits, not withstanding any money deposited with Kaupthing in Iceland.
Does anyone know a way of finding out these figures? Selling the loan book and recovering the money from HMG would cover the liabilities and leave Iceland with a face saver as they could in effect keep some of the money deposited with them and perhaps only make up any possible shortfall due to costs incurred for example.


Can't currently sell loan book

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 23:48

As per the court hearing, because it would have prejudiced that chap with deposits in an account and a loan (if both the loan and the deposit are in the company when it goes into liquidation he gets 100% of the value of his deposit written off the amount he owes - in effect, he gets 100% back)

So the court ordered Simpson to hang onto the loan book for the moment


We have to ask....

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 13:15

.....if the £555m is still in London. We know it was there before 8 October but what happened after that? We know there was a scramble of people trying to get their money out before the FSA seized the bank and transferred funds to ING so we don't know how much was left in the bank after all of this.

We have to be prepared for the possibility that the £555m isn't there any more which means that KSFIOM is just another unsecured creditor of KSFUK - a bankrupt bank. This is why the UK government needs to be held accountable for it's actions. This may be more complicated than just simply asking for our cash back.

We know we have the loan book and the £103m but that's about it and that won't cover us. We may get the £196m back from Iceland if there are numerous loans given from the IMF and other countries but we need to focus on the UK government's culpability in the disappearance of the vast bulk of our deposits. That is the only chance we have of coming out of this with our cash. IMO of course.


ING...taxpayers money

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:32

Remember that the transfer of accounts to ING was done using £2.5Bn of taxpayers money, according to the statement from the Treasury,they didn't take any money from KSFUK,but I've no doubt that they're trying to do so now.....then there's the mystery of the sealed papers...


What is the most effective action for a footsoldier?..

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 13:50

Diver's comment in this thread (how much are we going to recover?) has some bearing on what I could do to contribute....
have already sent email to local & other MPs and sent questions to Treasury select committee , first question was answered by Caroline McElwee, other replies anonymous.
Any suggestions for most effective next action?


EMMMM. So although we know

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 13:28

EMMMM.
So although we know that circa £555m went there at some time we do not actually know how much was in their once KSF seized the money. If not £555m where the rest of it went/is. I accept that depositors took money out of the bank and I see suggestions of £40m per day but that should also reduce the £820m owed by an equal amount. I would be very surprised if PWC do not by now know ball park figures and wonder how we get this from them. We after all are the people that he is ultimately working for. I understand some commercial sensitivity but we are only asking for the figures you would expect in a balance sheet.


London deposit

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 13:36

I might be wrong but my I think what Diver means is that yes KSF IoM is owed £555 million by KSF UK however it doesn't mean the funds are physical there.

Chances are all available funds were swept out when the administrator of KSF UK transferred accounts to ING.


What happened to the

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:00

What happened to the creditors meeting? surely required if not all creditors were satisfied?


KSF London

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:05

KSF UK is in administration not liquidation. So for time being no need for creditors meeting.


Only the Edge online account

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 13:47

Only the Edge online account funds were transfered. Normal accounts remained at Kaupthing and are referred to as retail deposits. If ING do have the money they have it illegally as they have been paid out by HMG. There was an article the other day on the Barnsley BS. It has £10m in KSF London and are trying to get it back as well.
They have just been taken over by Yorkshire BS.
Someone must know where the moiney is, its not a bit of loose change!


Now I'm REALLY confused. I

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:10

Now I'm REALLY confused. I was with Kaupthing Edge IOM, albeit that according to my documentation that's a trading name of KSF(IOM)Ltd. So has my money gone to KSF(UK)? Or who ... ING?

God, I hate Bankers, in large capital letters!


K Edge Isle of Man is

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:14

K Edge Isle of Man is effectively the same as KSFIOM.
K Edge UK was somewhat separate from KSFUK, and had it's business transferred to ING by the UK Treasury.
They did NOT transfer K Edge IOM in that deal.
K Edge IOM stays with KSFIOM, one and the same I think, therefore you are still in the same Douglas-based mess as everyone who banked with KSFIOM - whether their account was a KSFIOM or a K Edge IOM.


Kaupthing Edge

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:33

Kaupthing Edge is a registered business name in the Isle of Man - number 021267B
It was only registered on 3/4/08 thoiugh, when did the start using this name?


Why? What's the bloody point

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 15:07

Why?

What's the bloody point of all these sub-sets of the parent?

Unless to provide a lifeboat?

Cynic of Jersey.


Does being a separate

  • occams razor
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 15:00

Does being a separate business name make it a separate business, or just a different name they can use as one business?
Does this have any bearing on any of the matters relating to us?
Genuine question... I'm interested.


I have a print-out of those

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 15:20

I have a print-out of those words, along with something about guaranteed by Kaupthing H.f. , which is why I deposited with them.

Anyway, if this column of text gets much narrower it will become unreadable ;-)


Edge..trading name

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 15:16

I posted this somewhere about 10 days ago (Taken from the bottom of a letter from Kaupthing EdgeIOM):

"Kaupthing Edge is a trading name of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (isle of Man) Ltd." ie just a "brand name" and just part of KSFIOM.
You might also be intersted to know that KSFIOM was "Authorised and regulated by the FSA for UK mortgage business" also taken from the same letter


Its a name they can use as

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 15:08

Its a name they can use as one business.
For example if I had a business called Manx Person Limited, I Could register Manxie Me as a name and use that, subject to the disclosure requirements under the Business Names Act 1918.
If they were using the business name and it wasn;t registered then they were committing an offence.
I am saying this in case people want to make a complaint about those running the business for possible technical offences


KSFUK separate from K Edge ?

  • darrmont
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 14:26

Does this then mean that the funds which KSFUK held on behalf of KSFIOM definitely have not been used to transfer to ING Direct as feared by some ?