Is it now 9 Dividends Mr Simpson between 4.9.2009 and Dec 2017 with years Dec 2014 & 2016 Zero?

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 14/10/2009 - 20:02

Is it now 9 Dividends Mr Simpson between 4.9.2009 and Dec 2017 with years Dec 2014 & 2016 Zero?

Dear Fellow DAG members,

I am once more putting forward my latest view on what we might get back from the Liquidation. Although we have some more information being released, it appears to me to be part bits that make it hard to comprehend and understand the complexities surrounding the KSFUK situation.

But I have done my best to understand what is there and then rejig my table headed – is it 8 dividends Mr Simpson. I feel it is now 9 dividends with two completely fallow years in 2014 & 2016 (hope I’m wrong) and that it will now take until the end of 2017 instead of 2015 to get what we get back. This is due to the KSFIOM Loan book now stretched to 2017 from the previous 2015.

Again I have done my best to give my views/guestimates of what we might get back from the Liquidation and once again I hope to god that I am not misleading anyone with my thoughts. But the answers are the best I can come up with at present.

I attach my Table No.4 and the list of questions I sent to Mike Simpson, asking him for clarification before I issued this on the DAG Chat. Obviously no reply from mike simpson and re our 4 reps - DST cannot comment, PPD - no reply to myself.

Again, God bless to all,

Gordon 45

4.10.2009

Dear Mike,

Once again trying hard to tempt you to contact me on my latest thoughts on what you might be able to pay out to creditors over the term of time it takes to get in and pay out cash in the years ahead.

We have spoken once, and conversed via e-mail on a few occasions. The information given out by yourself to ‘Frog’ via the telephone conversations, your occasional updates on figures plus the July big update and the minutes of the 1st meeting of the Committee of Inspection have allowed me to try and form some sort of basis on which the 1st Dividend was made and what we might expect to receive in the future.

I see the KSFIOM Loan book now stretches to 2017 rather than 2015 as previously stated. The amount owed to all creditors moved from £906.2m to £908,315,000.

But unfortunately the way you seem to provide some information only gives part facts, which makes it hard to fit the ‘jigsaw’ together. Are you willing to talk to me on the areas I do not grasp or understand?

  1. For instance is there still around 25 Bank Staff employed? As this affects the costs over the period of around 8/9 years?

  2. Is my new table of cash in hand prior to the 1st dividend on the ‘right tracks’ or not?

  3. I see although you said to me and now others, that total costs were in the region of £15m against my original guess at £30m (playing it high). But you say in your July report that the £15m is conservative – so I have gone for £20m over the period although staff costs are going down.

  4. Your figures in your July document show the loan book for KSFIOM now going out to include 2017, with a total of £418m now instead of £416. You do show an update to 2016 in the documents released with the committee’s 1st meeting including 2009 but do not say if that is for the whole of 2009 or not? And further you do not show or say what interest is in the £312m total for 2009 prior to the 1st Dividend. All this makes it hard to be accurate when estimating where we are and what more is due. Would you supply that info for me please?

  5. But there is no new update for interest due from previous figures, which means I have had to re guess the interest due over the longer period. Do you have a new table for interest due by year and what was due for the balance of 2009 after the 1st dividend?

  6. The net figure due from KSFUK originally was £401.8m, then it became £349m, which you seem to still use. Then it became £245m and now based on the 1st return of 20p in the £ from KSFUK it appears to have dropped again to £205m. Is £205m now the latest figure seen as the net return from KSFUK?

  7. Would you confirm that the £154m Collateral Shares that realised £99.8m back from bookers & JJB then left the three lots totalling £54.2m. You said at one point that KSFUK were liable for this if there was a default on the shares – so I used 50% previously I.e. £27.1m as due from KSFUK by default. Is this still true?

8.The £147m in ‘trust’ at KSFUK – you have said we are due a share of this, as the court case came out in favour of KSFUK and therefore us, although you are fighting them as to their view of whom should be paid out prior to the rest of us. You have not so far come out with a figure of what we might get back – would my estimate/guestimate of £10m be anywhere near what you expect to get.

  1. Will you try and list all the various components that relate to KSFUK in monetary terms and how they interlink. Such as the recovery of £14m would be 100% but would come off the net figure due from KSFUK. These plus some interest payments due to us from KSFUK and parts of the Repo agreement make it very hard, for me at least, to try and put this puzzle together. Surely you would want clarity to all of us as to how these things interact. This could be done in some form of flow chart to make it easier to understand. Would you do this for me?

Mike would you phone me or email me your thoughts on my questions and my latest table of what Dividends we might receive and how much? I am not trying to catch you out, be devious or anything else. I know you will do your best for all of us, all I want to try and is get some sort of ‘handle’ on what we might genuinely receive from this liquidation and let my colleagues in this affair know my thoughts based on the best information I can get.

And if we can get 80%+ we can perhaps start chasing the Life companies and the IOM government to start giving something towards any shortfall, based on as accurate figures as possible.

I look forward to hearing from you on my data and plead with you that you take the time to come back to me.

Yours,


[ng: added PDF version in attachments]

4.95238
Your rating: None Average: 5 (21 votes)

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

When will we get next dividend

  • jeffwilkins
  • 21/10/08 14/11/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 10/11/2009 - 18:24

Gordon thanks for all the valuable information we get from you. Any idea whe we will get the next one

Jeff


Will DCS 50k recipients get anything from the 2nd dividend

  • columbgc
  • 11/10/08 14/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 05:14

Because of our exposure 125K we elected to take the 50k under DCS. Can anyone tell us if we are to expect anything from the second dividend and explain how would future payments of dividends be applied in this case? I recall there was a spreadsheet published in the early days, but now the picture should be clearer (I hope).


@columbgc: The quick answer

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 07:14

@columbgc:

The quick answer is no. I am presuming that you are a joint account holder with one other person and have secured £100K through DCS (excluding EPS). This represents 100/125 X £125K = 80% return on your deposit. Under liquidation you would have received 24.8% of £125K = £31,000. Estimates of our final return vary between 73% and 88% but will not reach this level for several years (maybe 6 or 7). You may never receive more than the £100K (80%) that you have now, but if the final return came to say 84%, then you could look forward to another £5K in 7 years time. Not very encouraging, but there are many with hundreds of thousands at stake who would just love to have 80% of it right now instead of 88% of it in seven years time.

Ice


@iceCrusher

  • columbgc
  • 11/10/08 14/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 08:23

Thanks for the quick answer. Unfortunately the 125K was in a combination of several single accounts so we got back just 50K. Does this change the picture at all ?


@columbcg2: I'm afraid that

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 17:18

@columbcg2:

I'm afraid that you are somewhat confusing the issue by continuing to use the term 'we'. If you and partner(s) shared accounts (each with more than one account holder name) then each would be entitled to a DCS payment. If you hold say, six accounts, but each one has 'columbgc' as the account holder, then there is no 'we'.

As a single account holder (of multiple accounts) you are entitled to just one DCS payment of £50K - you've received this. Your (multiple) accounts sum to £125K so you have received 50/125*100 = 40% of your deposit. Had you elected to take a dividend from the liquidation you would have received £31K (24.8%). You will not receive anything more from liquidation until the returns exceed 40%. This may happen by December 2010 or even before then, but the 2nd dividend, hopefully due this December, will probably be in the order of 8% to 12% (but do NOT hold me to this) taking the total maximum return to about 37%; it is most unlikely to reach 40% so you will not receive anything more this time around.

Ice


DCS

  • barrona
  • 17/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 08:47

I apologize in advance if my query has been raised before. I elected for DCS and recently obtained my 50K. My total deposit is about 110K. Should I now stay in DCS or opt out of DCS to receive the liquidation payments?


@barrona: Please see

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 17:16

@barrona:

Please see explanations given to columbcg above. You have received your £50K already, there is nothing more for you in the compensation scheme as such, all monies in excess of 50/110*100 = 45.45% will come from KSFIoM assets gained under liquidation. It will either be administered by the DCS manager or the JLs, but you won't receive a greater sum than a percentage of the total return whichever way you elect to have it administered.

Ice


@barrona

  • columbgc
  • 11/10/08 14/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 09:38

We are in a similar situation. I don't know if opting out of DCS is an option once they have paid you already. My main concern is related to when we can see some of the remaining money reaching us and, of course, if the preferred vehicle is not DCS (despite of their claims for the contrary), I would like to know what is the best way.


I'm not quite sure what you

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 17:48

I'm not quite sure what you guys think you are going to get.

DCS just means that holders of lower-value accounts get paid up to £50K quicker than if they waited for liquidation payments. E.g., the JLs have just distributed a 24.8% dividend; to get £50K at this rate of return you would need to have had 50/24.8 x 100 = £201.61K on deposit. In December there may be another distribution, let us say for simplicity's sake that it comes to 10%. Those with £201.61K on deposit will have received £50K under liquidation from the first distribution (those with more than £201.61K will have received more than £50K of course) and will now be due to receive (the fictitious) 10% (£20.61K) from the second dividend. However, if you had £125K on deposit the return of 24.8% + 10% comes to 34.8% of £125K which is £43.5K - some £6.5K short of the £50K you have received already. The DCS manager is still waiting for the next (3rd) distribution to see whether it will finally reach the 40% needed to pay him back what he has already dished out to pay you £50K. He and the JLs are working together to provide the correct payment to the right people - but no more.


@Ice

  • columbgc
  • 11/10/08 14/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 19:58

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. The confusion on "we" wording: I had 4 accounts (none in pounds!!) out of which one was shared with my wife and it had almost nothing in it: about 500 pounds. I was in the process to shift all over to the shared account and close the single accounts (these were opened long time before "we" happened) when the crash happened.

Looks like we have to wait for the recovery to reach the level you mentioned to receive anything else. So what's needed is for someone to keep posting after each dividend where we stand on (percentage wise) for the benefit of all in my/our situation. Also, we must hope the liquidator and DCS will be playing fair and not screwing us in the process.... What are the odds of this happening .....


Reassignment of Rights after DCS payment

  • rapata
  • 13/10/08 03/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 17:25

There was some discussion on reassigning our rights back to the Liquidator for all remaining payments after the DCS have paid out the 50K. Has anyone done this yet. We received our 50K each which amounts to approx 57% of our total deposits. It will be several years before the dividents reach this level but eventualy they will and we would prefer to deal directly with the liquidator from this point on.


@rapata - not quite

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 18:17

I'm afraid you can't be a trail-blazer yet! Reassignment of your rights (to enable you to claim directly from the liquidator) is not possible until the DCS has recovered from the liquidator the £50k it has paid you. As you say this represents 57% of your deposit, that will only happen when the total dividend reaches 57%.

Once the dividend exceeds 57%, then you will be able to request a reassignment. The DCS agreed they would accept such requests. However, this will require acceptance by the liquidator and - guess what - the latest I heard was that this was now in doubt. This is one of the issues the DST is looking into.


Is there a list?

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 19:49

Is there a list?


@rapata: You've got it summed

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 17:51

@rapata:

You've got it summed up; why not be a trail-blazer?

Ice


Gordon, It's looking a lot

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/10/2009 - 20:39

Gordon,

It's looking a lot tighter - and if we get more than the 60% from London (which I'm quite confident about), then the update is easy to apply.

Note though your point 1 contradicts point 3 in the notes. Assuming a net 60% return from London, the £54M should be at 60% not 50 %. Similarly, you assume only 20% - this also affects calculation no.112-113 if I read it right (all for the positive as well!)


creditors total

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/10/2009 - 21:35

Gordon,
As you know the depositors' account status included accrued but not capitalised interest.
We have now been informed that any accrued interest not yet capitalised at the date the bank's trading license was withdrawn will not be paid out until all creditors have received 100% dividends.
Since this is unlikely to ever occur these accrued interest payments will probably never be paid out.
I believe the original creditors figure confirmed by MS would have been based on the total deposits including any accrued interest (capitalised or otherwise).
If this is correct the creditors figure should be reduced to reflect this.
It is, of course, possible that other creditors have popped out of the woodwork (like the pension fund!)
The £907.315m figure deserves querying!
Brabander


The people who took our savings got our interest.

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/10/2009 - 14:19

The people who took our savings got our interest. Justice delayed is justice denied.


Brabander - Crditors total

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/10/2009 - 09:41

Hi Brabander,

Sorry I think the figure of £907.315m will be the one taken by Simpson as at 8.10.2008 and only includes interest up to that date. So I don't think this figure includes any interest due beyond that date. Remember he did not issue his first financial statement until end of December 2008.

Gordon 45


Accrued interest

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/10/2009 - 19:00

Gordon,
First of all I inadvertently misstated "uncapitalised accrued interest". This should have read uncapitalised accrued interest in excess of 5%.
However, I believe your assumptions may be incorrect as I am referring to over 5% uncapitalised interest accrued up to 8 Oct 08. The bank balance statements issued by Simpson to all depositors on 9th october 09 included this accrued interest at the contractual rate!
The first financial statement issued by MS in October would therefore, logically have been based on these bank balance statements.
Please note that these are only my assumptions albeit based common sense.
It is obviously necessary to establish the facts as the creditors total has increased from £906.2m in October 08 to £907.315m. The £906.2m included a net of £0.6m due to Kaupthing hf and £29m due to other group companies. If we eliminate these items the net creditors total was £876.1m in Oct 08 ( NB the numbers do not add up due to rounding!).
In my case the portion of the uncapitalised accrued interest in excess of 5% accounted for 0.4% of the bank balance. If we assume that this appplies as an average to all depositors this would reduce the creditors total by £3.5m!

Why are we now faced with an increase to £907.315m? I realise that the KSFIOM pension fund has managed to "miraculously" induce MS to add their supposed shortfall to the creditors total but this does not explain this increase.
The Liquidator should be asked to explain this discrepancy.
Brabander


Brabander: you are indeed

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/10/2009 - 08:12

Brabander: you are indeed correct, the KSF Pension Fund now appears in the pot according to the Creditors Report - and I believe it has been mentioned before that although there was no 'real' money in it, it stood for £3M - which would kinda indicate that all other creditors will be making up for their under-funded scheme doesn't it? Who the heck is supposed to be dealing with these long-outstanding issues - and if they are, why are we not being kept up-to-date?


Gordon 45 - Real Return will be be only 50%!!

  • mikeexpat
  • 31/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/10/2009 - 12:16

Gordon, thanks for the great job you are doing.
But I believe that real return for £ 100,000 and more depositors will be only 50%.
All of us are quoting wrongly 72% to 88% return of money, including you, DAG, DST and PPD Groups, lawyers, IOM Government, Liquidator M. Simpson etc.
This return does not take into consideration lost interest, lost investment opportunities, inflation etc.
According to my calculations our real return will not be more than 50%. All of us can carry out these calculations themselves. Just assume that you kept all your deposit for 5 years (~5% interest) with a very safe Bank (HSBC, Barclays), and compare with what you will get from Liquidator after 5 years.
We are dangerously playing into hands of IOM, UK Governments, newspapers etc. claiming that return will be as high as 88%.
Our final Dividend will be in December 2017, 9 years after bank robbery was carried out. What would be the real value of £ 100,000 in year 2017?
I'd take 75% of my money now, without any hesitation, rather than wait for 9 years.
Gordon 45, I would very much appreciate if you could revise your calculations and show real return in year 2017 after taking into consideration £ 300,00 Deposit, no EPS, no DCS, only Dividends from Liquidator. To simplify these calculations please take into consideration lost interest during 9 years (2008 to 2017) and assume zero investment / real estate opportunities (which would make these calculations as optimistic for Depositors as possible).


KSFIOM is the 21st century version of Jarndyce & Jarndyce

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/10/2009 - 14:46

Clearly, Mr Simpson and his minions intend to glut themselves on our savings for as long as they can. Apparently they believe that they will have got it all for themselves by 2017 whilst enjoying their lives as parasites, living on our savings. Anyone remember reading Bleak House? KSFIOM is the 21st century version of Jarndyce & Jarndyce.

It saddens me to see civilisation waning in so many ways during my lifetime: the resurgance of piracy, proliferation of lawless failed states (incuding UK and IOM?), rampant and unbridled crime by government and business leaders, moral turpitude rife amongst the clergy, proliferating numbers of child molesters and other vile creatures, the breakdown of growing numbers of families and the devaluing of human life, fresh manifestations of genocide (Darfur, the Balkans, Rwanda, many others), otherwise intelligent people working furiously, inspired by an apolyptic religious vision to develop nuclear weapons with which to start WW III, etc.

With the wonderful £ depreciating daily (around 40% in the past 3-4 months), our savings won't do them much more good than they did us. So sorry I didn't stay in the Emirates and spend it all living it up. Oz is awfully dull without money to travel. My advice to our children? Carpe diem.

Anyone think we will ever see another "dividend"?


Is that pre or post

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/10/2009 - 15:04

Is that pre or post apocalypse? ;-)


@ Drlowry

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 19/10/2009 - 14:52

A bleaker picture than even LSLowry would have painted.

I only respond as you ask a question at the end. The answer is yes of course we will see another dividend, I assume Dec 09 but with past performance delays are always possible so Jan or Feb 10. Everyone has bad days but there are people reading this that may be concerned by the negativity and worry more than necessary.


Mikeexpat on real return of only 50%

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 17/10/2009 - 19:16

Hi there Mike,

I am not disagreeing with you, Conned, Alistair, Icecrusher or anyone else - don't know about it being a real return of 50%, might be more. I have tried to concentrate on what we might get back to try and plan what future my family and I have, rather than look at the total loss and go crazy.

But I understand where you are coming from and in relation to claims against the IOMGovernment, KSFIOM directors, UK Government. Parental guarantee etc you are all correct. Icecrusher has done some fantastic figures looking into the KSFUK situation and how the net figure has gone down from £401.8m to £349m, to £245m and now £205m - all very worrying. But I am trying to see what might we get back, not what we should get back, because we will not get it all back to my mind.

You asked me to do a scenario for you on £300k- happy to do so, but I would like some more info from you to help me. I.e length of Bond you were in, if it was a bond or whatever. To try and get the correct base. If you are living in UK, don't think you could get a 5 year bond in a british bank at 5% until this July. Would you be expecting to get the gross interest at 5% or would it be less 20% tax. These things would help me to do a reasonably correct calculation using my thoughts on Dividend returns shown in my 4th Table.

Why not contact me via my DAG Chat contact with some more info and I will do my best. I would like to show my thoughts on the DAG Chat and the new DAG members only site if that was ok with you?

Stay in touch,

Gordon 45


Gordon 45 – Real Return Calculations!

  • mikeexpat
  • 31/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/10/2009 - 15:18

Gordon 45 – Real Return Calculations!
Gordon, here is my scenario that will prove that real return for £ 200,000 and more Depositors will be only 50%.
Please assume Depositor with £ 200,000. I picked up this number because for £ 200,000 and more depositors, applying for DCS did not make any sense.
Please also assume following: never applied for EPS or DCS, Non - European Union Resident, no withholding taxes, all £ 200,000 was in standard bank deposit and not in bonds.
Following calculations apply equally to £ 200,000 Depositor, as for £ 3,000,000 Depositor. In both cases real returns will be the same (~50%), but real losses in first case will be “only” £ 100,000, in second case staggering £ 1,500,000.
Please also assume zero investment / real estate / foreign currency opportunities (which really is not right, as a person who invested all his deposit in stock market in March 2009 would have made 50% profit, other person could have switched from £ to Euro etc.).
But here we are talking about very prudent, conservative Depositor only interested in preservation of capital (inflation adjusted).
Our final Dividend will be in December 2017, 9 years after our money was stolen.
If bank robbery was not carried out in October 2008, £ 200,000 could have been deposited at 4%, 5% for 9 years (2017 – 2008). Gordon, you decide what interest to assume, but I do not think that 5% for long term deposit is excessive.
After 9 years of accumulating interest year after year our total amount in year 2017 will be “£A”.
Now let’s do the same exercise with Dividends. Again assume % return. To simplify it I would use the same % interest as above, although again it is very optimistic as it is much more difficult to get good interest rates on small amounts coming as Dividends. Total Amount = 24.8% Dividend x 8 years accumulating interest + 10% Dividend x 7 years accumulating interest + 5% Dividend x 6 years accumulating interest etc., etc. till the last Dividend in 2017. Let’s call this total amount “£B”.
Divide “£B” / “£A” = Real Return (after all above assumptions super optimistic).
Gordon, after these calculations All Depositors should realize that based on present assumptions all of us will suffer gigantic losses by depositing money in UK/ IOM regulated Bank and not in speculative futures, options etc.
All of us are quoting wrongly 72% to 88% return of money, including DAG, DST and PPD Groups, lawyers, IOM Government, Liquidator M. Simpson, newspapers etc.
This quoted return does not take at all into consideration lost interest, lost investment opportunities, inflation etc.
We are dangerously playing into hands of IOM, UK Governments, newspapers etc. claiming that return will be as high as 88%.
Our final Dividend will be in December 2017, 9 years after bank robbery was carried out. What would be the real value of the total Dividends in year 2017?
I'd take 75% of my money now, without any hesitation, rather than wait for 9 years.
I do not know what to do, but I know that a dramatic action is required. Otherwise, we would be forced to accept a cruel reality of 50% of our life savings being stolen by depositing money in a bank in a “well regulated jurisdiction”, as IOM likes to call itself.
These assumptions are based on low interest rates / low inflation realities. If inflation picks up in the next 8 years, and experts do expect it, our real returns could be further reduced to even 35% - 40%.
I would be delighted (as I am one of thousands of Depositors facing 50% or more loss), if somebody could prove me wrong.


@Mikeexpat Assumptions on Real Return

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/10/2009 - 17:33
  • I would question 5% return for a prudent depositor. I'm not saying it is impossible but currently for a safe sterling account you would be lucky to receive more than 3% . I would suggest a discount value for the first 24.8% dividend of 3%. This gives 24% real terms for the 1st dividend (24.8% discounted by 3% over 1 year).
  • Any return may be subject to tax which would only further reduce the % but for now I've not included that.
  • Looking forwards it will depend on interest rates and when the dividends are made. A second dividend is promised in Dec but lets be prudent and say Mar 2010. In which case that dividend would need to be discounted by 4.5% (18mths at 3% per year). Given the funds retained for share sales was £90m I'd expect a dividend of 10% or more (but don't hold me to this). If this was paid in March 2010 that would be a real return of 9.5%. Taking our real return to 33.5%.
  • Interest rates could increase although at least in the UK with the continuation of the recession the recovery should be slow. But indeed who knows. Either way the most important time frame for this is now through 2012 - see next point.
    -2017 I would estimate that the vast majority of the loan book and KSFUK money is returned by 2012 so the 2017 is I suspect a little mis-leading. Yes the liquidator could run all the positions to the very end but they are much more likely to try and secure a buyer for these long dated positions.
  • All this does not take into account opportunity cost. Of course we could all of invested our money in houses, shares etc during this time and our return could have been higher or indeed lower. An old trading saying goes hindsight is 20:20.
  • Clearly the real return is personal to each persons circumstances (opportunity, reason for saving, tax position) and I don't' for one minute minimise the pain/loss felt by those that did not have their money deposited with a long term view and for example were saving for a house, business etc. I'm just trying to look at the real return calculation based on a prudent long term saver.

So in summary I agree that the 72-88% numbers are not in net present value or real terms but I still don't see a real terms return of 50% or lower and given that the current return is 24% (likely 33.5% in Dec/Mar) I see a prediction of 35% as alarmist.

DAG's aim is 100% return and this should be a 100% real return so any political or legal solution should be with this in mind.


Alsistair re 10% next dividend Dec or early next year

  • fight theft
  • 10/10/08 28/05/13
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/10/2009 - 21:29

I think we must hold them to Dec - not let them keep playing for time and making out it is OK even if it is March! Only another 10% is rather depressing let's face it Landesbanki Guernsey got 33% within weeks of the Landsesbanki Icesave collapse and a further dividend which has brought them to over 50% at the same time we only received our initial 24.8%. They seem t have a better legal team than we have ( this is not directed at yuo, but at the DST appointed legal eagles - I hope they can finally guide us and come up trumps). Their team are also suing Iceland for another 5% ( not great granted and I think their estimated overall returns are not great at this point either. I wish at this point we lie them had at least over 50% of our money which would at be an amount of useful re-investment potential. What about futher dividend payments next year - overall much better than 10% extra I hope! Especially with all the bank staff we are paying. Who do we sue now?


@fight theft

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/10/2009 - 10:45

Yes indeed, what is this talk of March 2010? Someone managing expectations? The liquidators stated that 65% of the £93.5M shares return (~£60M) would be available for distribution in November, we don't want them hanging on to that money until next March thank you very much; the liquidators have now verified us and know our addresses, there is no excuse for not making this payment as soon as we reach the release date for the 65% - unless someone else is pulling the strings...


Dec % 0f what ??

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/10/2009 - 11:38

Assuming we get the nxt Divi in December ...and assuming its 10%..............but 10% of what. Is it 10% of the original deposit I made or 10% of the original deposit I made minus the 24.5% I have already received ??

Can somebody clarify , and anyway whare did this 10% number come from ?'


To Chipmunk - 10% of what?

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/10/2009 - 13:37

Hi Chipmunk,

If we get 10% back in December - and I think we could. Note alistair mentioned the 93.5m lying from sale of shares. you should note that only 63.5 is available to use in Dec and the 28m+ balance next May.

Anyway if we get 10% back in December it will be based on the same figure that the Liquidator used for your first 24.8%.

So if you had £100,000 as a total last 8.10.2008 (based on Mike Simpson's figures), you should have received £24,800 from the first Dividend and should expect £10,000 from the 2nd dividend. This takes no account of any ESP payments.

Gordon 45


@Gordon

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/10/2009 - 17:31

'you should note that only 63.5 is available to use in Dec and the 28m+ balance next May.'

Gordon please can you explain this statement?
Where are you getting your figures from?


@bellyup: Gordon 45 is likely

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/10/2009 - 18:57

@bellyup: Gordon 45 is likely gaining his figures from interpretation of the !st report from the KSF CI Meeting. (Similar variations of this information can also be gained from the Simpson/Frog telephone calls.)

Here is an extract from the KSF CI Report (available on the bank site) which supports Gordon's statement:

2 – Update on Asset realisations

2 a) Receipts and payments account
Assets and liabilities at and expected costs to 31 July were reviewed. These were rolled forward versions of spreadsheets previously provided to 27 May in the Official Receivers report.

Key movements highlighted were:

 £18m increase in receipts from loans advanced to customers
£93.5m received in respect of collateral shares
 £41m recovery of the net balance due from KSFUK
 Total cash assets of £312m

It was further noted that £10.2m in respect of CDs had been received since 31 July, and that a further sum of £25m plus interest is expected shortly.

It was noted that, due to the indemnities which had to be given to enable the sale of the collateral shares [£93.5M], the proceeds cannot yet be distributed – 70% can be distributed at the end of November, the remaining 30% at the end of May.

70% of £93.5M is about £65M

Cheers, Ice


@icecrusher

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 08:58

Thanks Ice &Gordon


Balance sheet of KSFIOM

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/10/2009 - 09:38

Doesn't it strike you as somewhat remarkable that Mr Simpson - working on a day to day basis with Mr Docherty, produced a balance sheet containing fundamental mistakes/ uncertainties? Surely Mr Docherty would have known the basic reasoning as to the sums he had posted to KSFUK and the terms on which this was done? Surely.. surely? Unless he was simply implementing orders from UK without thinking? In which case - if the monies were transferred to KSFUK in breach of his directors' duties (ie to act for best interests of KSFIOM and its creditors) and this was to the knowledge of KSFUK, KSFUK would received the monies on trust for KSFIOM. You would expect Mr Simpson to be fighting our corner hard on this. Instead - on day 1 he states "nothing wrong was done on the IOM".


Icecrusher - re@bellyup: £93.5 from sale of shares distribution

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/10/2009 - 19:20

Icecrusher,

Bang on with your statement to @bellyup. There is at least 7p in the £ from the sale of JJB shares so another 3p in the £ should not be hard to come by for Dec - KSFIOM loan book + more returns from KSFUK.

And that still leaves a starter of 3p in the £ for next May

Gordon 45


2nd Dividend - No-one knows yet.

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/10/2009 - 12:20

Time-out

I used the 10% as a indicative number in a discussion (see above) with mikeexpat about "real returns". I said do not hold me to this number or date and I have no prior knowledge.

The only thing I recall is that there was approx £90m in share sales that PWC could not release to us until December due to a restraint clause in the sales contract. This would be approx 10%. If this was correct then that would be 10% of each creditors claim (outside of DCS considerations) taking total unajusted return to 34.8%. BUT I stress no one should rely on this and I was only using 10% as a indication that 35% or even 50% real terms return was unrealistically pessimistic.


@ Fight theft

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/10/2009 - 10:29

I was deliberately using conservative numbers in order to try and demonstrate that the deep discounting that mikeexpat is predicting is extremely pessimistic. I too want to hold them to the Dec and also hope for higher than 10%. The only information I remember relating to this dividend was the share sales of £90m which can't be released till Dec for legal reasons hence the 10%.

I'm not sure the Landsbanki group have better lawyers and I don't see what Edwin Coe could have done at this stage differently. Meanwhile we wait for the forensic team of PWC to report back to the CCI with their findings. Personally I would prefer that any legal action is taken by the liquidator that way we all contribute and all benefit equally.


@mikeexpat

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 17/10/2009 - 11:39

I agree totally with you about our return being in the region of 50%, perhaps even less. We are constrained by our naievity in believing people who want to run rings round us. We have to fight for our money now and that is what I am doing everyday. The only thing the IOMG understands is a bloody nose, we tried being nice and it got us nowhere. More videos please, more twitters and more contact with the media. Do you know that it is entirely possible that we have reached over 100,000 people with our campaigns? Time is up for the IOMG and they had better do something PDQ if they want to start getting out of this hole they are in. GIVE US ALL OUR MONEY BACK NOW!


IOM too small to do this

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 21/10/2009 - 10:17

Only BIGBROTHER can pay such type of money back. IOM too small to do that


@ Conned - Assumtions?

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 17/10/2009 - 13:31

Same question to you Conned as Mikeexpat on what time discount (Net present value discount % in project development speak) would you use to justify the less than 50% return. If we are going to use figures such as these it is helpful to back them up with the assumptions.


@ALASTAIR, STITCHED UP,STUFFED,AND BARBECUED AGAIN?

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/10/2009 - 10:15

My assumptions are based on what I have seen happen to others in similar circumstances. Just like us they have been, stitched up, stuffed and barbecued. Having assumptions has got me where I am today, often ahead of the game. What have I got to lose, money?


Real Return

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 18/10/2009 - 12:02

Conned I feel your anger, which I share, but that wasn't really an answer to my question.

Mikeexpat (I believe not for the first time) raised the issue of what the real return will be in terms of lost interest and opportunity due to the time delay in getting any dividends in liquidation.

There are many people who read this site who are looking for information. They are often not financial experts and feel very vunerable. So when a figure such as 50% or lower real return is mentioned I think it is reasonable for non-financial experts to be given an indication of what are the hard assumptions that this is based on. So please could you or Mikeexpat give an indication of these. Specifically the NPV discount you are assuming to reduce the PWC indicated payout of between 77% - 88% down to 50% or below. I not necessarily disagreeing just would like to understand the basis.

As for prevoius experience with liquidation I too have plenty of front line experience and the results span the full range from nothing to 100% payout in real terms. The one thing they all have in common is that the creditors didn't trust the liquidators and they felt they were being robbed.


@ Mikeexpat - Real Return

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/10/2009 - 20:17

Mikeexpat I completely agree with you that any returns must be discounted to account for the time delay and the lost oppurtunity. What I'm not sure about is the net present value discount you apply in order to come up with a numbers as low as 50%.

Assuming no DCS claim we have 24.8% with a one year discount and a second dividend indicated for Dec 2009 with a 15 month discount.

Gordon, I've not had time to fully work through your assumptions but I think it is difficult to say anything more than that give a particular set of assumptions that would be the outcome or not. There are so many variables and their ranges potentially very wide. The biggest assumption (I am assuming) and the one that affects the NPV most is that the loan book will be run down naturally. In the event of an improving economic climate it is quite reasonable to assume a sale of the loan book at some stage accelerating the dividend payout. I certainly find it hard to believe, given the costs of managing it, that the rump of the loan book would not be sold off well before the last loans naturally expire.


Dividends and such

  • Podcar
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 15/10/2009 - 08:39

Hello Gordon,
You appear to have done a very thorough job and I hope that Mike Simpson appreciates the manner in which you present your hypothesis and addresses your calculations to enable them to be more precise.

My problem is - I don't understand anything and I'm at a loss to understand when / if I'll see more of my money. In 2008, I had 157K pounds, I've received 50K pounds back (minus 14 pounds deducted at source for some reason that completely defeats me). My question is: when are we likely to see the rest of it?

Many thanks, I appreciate the job you have done and apologies for asking for a simplistic clarification.


Icecrusher - are you able to help with this?

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 16/10/2009 - 13:16

Out of the "pot" at KSFIOM, what has actually been "lost" so far, in the context of loans that have definitely gone bad or definitely will go bad?
Likewise for KSFUK?
From all your comments about repo's and all that - did KSFIOM have a "balanced" balance sheet at the time of collapse - ie 100% assets (notcounting non-performing) against 100% liabiliities?
If not - were they trading insolvent?
How on earth has Aidan Dougherty managed to lend out 25-50% of our money on non-performing assets in 6 months? If that is the case.
When did all these baugu buy-outs take place - were they in the 2008 period in question.
Or did Dougherty somehow agree to "buy-into" KSFUK's old loans.
If so - why on earth???


steveservaes: my letter

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 17/10/2009 - 16:31

steveservaes: my letter contains questions for Spratt and Simpson to answer - if I knew all the answers I wouldn't be asking the questions :-)

Fact is, the KSFL administrators E&Y, paid a dividend of £41,144,400 to KSFIoM, this sum represented 20p/£, therefore the principal sum which E&Y considered owed to KSFIoM was £205,722,000. It was Simpson and Bell who first announced that the UK held £577,000,000 of KSFIoM assets, so this represents a fairly hefty discrepancy doesn't it? These people are allegedly professional experts, but if I got my sums so far wrong I think I'd choose another career...

Spratt & Simpson stated in their report to the creditors (prior to the 20p/£ payout) that they disagreed with the way in which E&Y had determined the date on which value had been given to certain Repo shares. They may have argued (or may not even have bothered) but E&Y paid out £41,144,400 anyway -- and this represented the return on their interpretation of the date and value - not Spratt and Simpson's. This is evidenced by straightforward arithmetic of the numbers involved, nothing fancy.

E&Y have paid out 20p in the £ on their construed numbers - and have clearly ignored Spratt and Simpson's 'efforts'. The latter would seem to have been hung out to dry (again) and will find that to win more money from KSFL now that they've decided what KSFIoM should get, will be a darn sight harder than hanging out for their interpretation of the correct amount in the first place (IMO). S&S have not deigned to answer my legitimate questions to date - if they were not ashamed of their efforts why would they try to obscure these sums and figures from us in pages of tables and text when it takes only 1/2 page of A4 to explain the whole thing without obfuscating the issue - and why haven't they even acknowledged my letter reproduced above?

These people are not, and never have been, on 'our' side - and there were more than a few of us voicing an opinion to get rid of these sloths - they're still not doing us any favours and will continue to suck £400 - £600 an hour from us for as long as it takes, covering their backsides as they go in the hope that we unsophisticated losers won't even notice.

BTW, what's the point of having a Creditors Committee that cannot report to the creditors any more than what the 'IoM' reps allow them? Any excuse that something is too 'sensitive' for public consumption and there'll be a lid on it. What is all that about?!


anotjher worry

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 17/10/2009 - 19:19

given iomg seem to have bent over for hmg in every way - will a iomg controlled creditors committee backing the iomg compliant simpson accep everrything a hmg controlled creditors committee in ksfuk direct?? looks like it. What have the DAG cred's committee members to say on this?


CCI - DAG Majority

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 17/10/2009 - 19:49

Steve again not sure I understand the comment "will a iomg controlled creditors committee...". I see 4 DAG reps and 2 Life Co's out of 7. In what way does that make it a IOMG controlled committee?

That said it is important not to overstate the role of the CCI. My understanding from previous liquidations I've been involved in is that they can have influence but it is largely in a oversight role.


thanks for the explanation

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 17/10/2009 - 23:27

i assumed with the iomg taking all the assignments to the dcs they would have taken control of cci for ksfiom and am glad to see i am wrong since simpson is iom establishment and iomg may be interested in rolling over against e and y who are of course under hmg cci orders.
100 per cent would be nice but at least i want to see what actually happened and if directors and regulators screwed up - the appropriate legal sanctions applied.
the feeling of cover up and injustice and that no one wants to see the right thing done -except us- is unbearable