JLs March figures out - another very poor month

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 11/04/2013 - 15:41

Hi Folks,

Another very poor month, so we now await to see what E&Y (KSFUK) say in their '6 monthly' report and any info on their dividend back to our JLs (on our behalves). Will get back to you all once I update my data with the March figures.

Gordon 45

4.57143
Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (7 votes)

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

Big thanks!

  • humphrey
  • 10/10/08 01/03/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/04/2013 - 19:16

Look in here, now and again, on the email update that works very well.

I just want to say a massive thanks to all that keep going on this, i find it incredible the energy that you have.

I was an insurance bond holder, and I screamed at my IFA in August 08 , only to be told it would never happen, now look at Cyprus.

I am now with an IFA who is so sensible i want to hit him!

You need to separate the wheat from the chaff!

This site has been superb and keeps going!

Thannks , especially to Gordon45 who seems to have an amazing brain!


shoddy work

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/04/2013 - 09:13

As Ice and Anrigaut point out elsewhere, the JLs have only managed to get the month AND the amount wrong in their report - and charge £14,000 for it. Time for Mr Simpson to get his eye back on our ball!!


re shoddy work

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/04/2013 - 10:19

To be fair, I don't imagine the £14,000 was charged for putting out the monthly update! Nor that a cut-and-paste error (in the date, now corrected) - no doubt by an office junior - means that Mr Simpson's eye is not firmly focussed on the ball that really matters, namely optimising the recovery of outstanding debts from our more recalcitrant debtors.

As for the amount redeemed in March (which, unlike the date, has not been modified following my query), I'm not convinced it was incorrect (the impression that it may be wrong could be explained by rounding in the other figures). Or maybe they are still checking ....

Be that as it may, the main news is surely that a) no loans were redeemed in full in March and b) cash in hand increased by £132,000 ("approximately £0.1m"). The latter includes of course an unstated amount of interest, as well as partial loan repayments.


Simple sentiments

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/04/2013 - 04:34

Money redeemed to the Loan Book has never included interest, which is otherwise accounted for in the cash balance. The 'overall' amount redeemed to the Loan Book is the gross return corrected for write-offs, set off and forex. This amounted to £127,843 during March. The important thing is that mortgagors continue to pay off their loans month by month - nearly 1/2 million during last month. Adverse forex movements tend to reduce that fact and JL assistants posting 10 times less than the actual net sum doesn't help the impression either. Mortgagors are abiding their obligations by repaying their debts in good quantity and, for a liquidation, in good time. Good for them.

There may be no recalcitrant debtors for the JLs to chase at this time; it may simply be a period when there are no debts due for repayment - there being only 19 facilities left to repay - and apart from one, we do not know when these fall due.

We should be encouraged that no new write-offs have been posted; this indicates to me that mortgagors continue to pay interest on their loans because they have every intention of repaying their debts - why else would they pay such large sum if they plan to default on repaying loan capital when it falls due?

Alluding to the liquidator's fees of £14,000 was tongue-in-cheek on my part - but there is a biblical saying: "If one cannot be trusted with little, how can he be trusted with much?" From the emails I've received from fellows acting on our behalf you'd think the the JLs were beyond reproach; faultless, honest and accurate, but just like the rest of us they are subject to making mistakes. There are two types of mistake: one that is made, recognised, owned to and corrected; the other is covered-up and disowned. One is of the head and the other is of the heart, one is forgivable and the other is not.
Ice


Re simple sentiments

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/04/2013 - 09:15

Ice,

I never said money redeemed to the loan book included interest. I was quite clearly referring to the increase in the cash balance.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still fail to see how you can work out, from the tables in the update, the exact amount redeemed in March as the FX figures are given only to the nearest £100,000. Or do you have other more precise figures? It does seem however, even allowing for rounding effects, that more than £12,000 may have been redeemed and I am awaiting a reply on this.

The idea that there may be no recalcitrant debtors who need to be chased up just doesn't hold water. We know for a fact that at least 12 of the 18 loan facilities now shown as due in 2013 were rolled over from 2012 or earlier (since only 6 were originally due in 2013). Do you really think none of them needs chasing? We (DST) were recently contacted by one such debtor seeking (unsuccessfully) to obtain our support to reduce his liability. I can assure you he felt he was being chased by our liquidators!


£12,000 recovered in March is correct

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 15/04/2013 - 20:13

Mike Simpson has confirmed that the amount repaid in March was exactly £12,043.67, reported rounded to £12,000 in the update.

The apparent discrepancy was - as I suspected - due to effects of (sometimes approximate) rounding in the overall summary table. For further explanation, see my post in the thread where this issue was first raised: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/simple-stories-jls-report-f...


apologies

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 16/04/2013 - 06:31

My apologies to Mr Simpson!! :(


Don't be so quick to capitulate...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 16/04/2013 - 16:37

Hi sambururob,

I wouldn't be so quick to apologise; if the JLs had done their job properly they would have entered figures appropriate to achieving correct results instead of rounding them up to the nearest £100,000.

Such large numbers may have worked when returns were in the millions, but once returns fall below £100,000 these numbers become too large to be accurate. Anrigaut is correct about rounding being the problem, but the bigger problem is in choosing the wrong numbers to round. For example, in February the JLs posted a forex benefit of £15.2m and stated that returns from the Loan Book were £0.2m. Loans contractually due are given to the nearest pound, and write-offs and set-off have been the same value for months, the only variable sum therefore is forex. At £15.2m the returns for February worked out at £171,452 and to get closer to the JLs figure of £0.2m, forex should have been nearer to £15,228,500. In March the JLs have now said that £12,043 was returned to the Loan Book, but with February forex at £15.2m and March at £14.9m the actual calculated return was £127,843. To achieve the figure of £12,043 and leave February's return at £0.2m, the sum attributed to forex should have been nearer to £14,812,700. When I went to school this number would have been rounded to £14,813,000 or even down to £14.8m, but conventionally it would not have been increased to £14.9m as the JLs did. They introduced an error of some £100,000 and although they provided Anrigaut with a 2-decimal point answer, they failed to tell her how it was achieved. I don't think this was a mistake of the heart though, I prefer to believe that it was mistake of the head, the implications of which they have not given much thought to - much as I didn't until now.

The upshot of all this is that for the past 5 years we have got used to seeing big numbers - millions - returning to the Loan Book and using £14.9m or £15.2m to show the swing in forex movements was appropriate to these big numbers. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, the big-number returns are now much less frequent and we're now seeing returns from the smaller borrowers. Using large forex figures rounded to the nearest £100,000 is not appropriate when returns of less than than £20k are under consideration. The JLs would be wise to amend the figures used for forex so that errors in excess of £100,000 do not occur in future. Before anyone picks up on the point that write-offs and set-off will also be rounded to the nearest £100k, I don't disagree, these numbers could be presented more accurately (the JLs can get to 2 decimal places so they know how to achieve it) my intention here is to show the general concept and not to get down to ridiculous levels of accuracy. In the JLs case, they went from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Ice


Does it really matter?

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 16/04/2013 - 19:55

Ice - I appreciate your attention to detail but right or wrong, like many others, I am certainly not going to spend the time to review and critique either the Jls or your calculations or methods (both of which on occasion seem suspect depending on your perspective). Practically speaking 100k is ~ 0.01% of the original amount due creditors or 100 pounds per million. I doubt anyone who had a million pounds in the bank in 2008, is worried about 100 pounds now. I didn't... but I wouldn't be, the actual amount we receive is not going to change because of it.

What matters, to me at least and I suspect most others, is when the next dividend payment(s) will be and how much it (they) will be. If only from my perspective/circumstances just to bring closure to this whole affair.

I've mentioned it previously, but IMO it is time to reduce the frequency of the now monthly updates. As Anrigaut says in her response we are lucky to have had monthly updates but now, with low (or no) loan book returns expected more often than not in any given month then, is there really any point in getting updates that often? I'd rather see a quartely update with hopefully a semblance of 'good news' that shows things are progressing in the right direction; not that any analysis we do (or have ever done) will bring the returns in any quicker or increase them.


Thanks

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 17/04/2013 - 17:14

As well as choosing whether or not to read the monthly updates, creditors are also at liberty to ignore comments that they don't wish to read. There are much longer monthly dissertations than mine which go without such trivialising, but thanks for picking on me expatvictim; I know now that my time on this site has been so terribly wasted.
Ice


Thanks to Ice

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 24/04/2013 - 13:41

Dear Ice,

Well I for one always read your comments and view of the liquidation, and as a result, always gain a wider appreciation of the current state of affairs. Others are welcome to their opinion, however please do not consider that your time and effort has ever been wasted, and continue to share your views with us all!

Many thanks and kind regards,

Mike


Thanks expatvictim for your

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 16/04/2013 - 20:31

Thanks expatvictim for your sane and wise comments!

While I take your point about the frequency of the updates, I see no reason to disturb the status quo on this. People can choose whether or not to read them all and, while it is true that there will be months when nothing much happens, I think most of us would be glad to receive any good news as soon as possible. I just don't think we should be trying to read more into them than there is.

On a more cheerful note, an unexpected spin-off from my exchange of emails with Mike Simpson is that I have received (unsolicited) hints that a) April will bring better tidings than the last two months and b) a declaration of the next distribution to, as he puts it, "get some more cash back into creditors' hands" can be expected once the amount of the upcoming KSFUK distribution is known, which should be in about two weeks time. No further suggestion as to the amount (he has already said it should be at least 4p/£), but I would agree with Gordon 45 that around 5p/£ looks possible. That would bring us to 96% by late May or June. Fingers crossed!


April Tidings

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 17/04/2013 - 14:43

Must of had my sensible hat on last night - it does happen on occasion! Sounds promising - hopefully some of those carry over loans have been paid. I guess we'll find out how much better April might be than the previous few months in 3 or 4 weeks time.


Simple facts

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 16/04/2013 - 19:54

I had promised myself not to intervene further in this debate. But it really seem to be taking a really crazy direction, so - at the risk of being shouted down - here goes with one last effort.

The liquidators didn't need to "calculate" the return from the loan book - they knew perfectly well what it was! £12,043 was the amount they received in March (after conversion to sterling at the rate on the days it was paid), and that (after rounding to the nearest £1000) is exactly what they informed us in the update. So to say they failed to tell me how it was achieved makes no sense - it was achieved by being paid into the bank.

The decrease of £427,843 in the sterling value of the loan book between February and March results from a) the repayment of the £12,043 and b) the effect of forex movements on the value of the still outstanding loans. From this we can deduce that the effect of the forex movements in March was to reduce the current value of the outstanding loans by £415,800 (or approximately £416,000 rounded to the nearest £1000).

Together with the cash position, these are surely the main figures of interest. And they were not in error. So I suggest Sambururob was right to apologise.

The overall summary table is provided to give an easily assimilated and uncluttered overview of the overall progress of the liquidation to date and is not intended to be used for accurate calculations. The degree of rounding applied is clearly a matter of choice. But given the overall size of the liquidation, the decision to round them to the nearest £100k seems (to me at least) not at all inappropriate and I would certainly not regard the JLs as not doing their job properly in deciding as they did.

Unless the figures in the summary table are given to the same accuracy (in this case to the nearest £1) as those in the maturity ladder (which would to my mind make the table much less readable), there will be no way they can be used to accurately calculate the return. But then why would anyone want to do this anyway when the return (the primary data) is clearly stated in the report? The result of nevertheless trying to perform this calculation (presumably with the aim of verifying the consistency of the data presented to us?) can be further in error because - as Ice has rightly deduced - the rounding may not always be quite 'correct' in the sense that some figures which should be rounded up may have been rounded down - or vice versa. The reason for this is not that the JLs don't know how to do it correctly, but that it can happen that the (correctly) rounded figures do not add up to the correctly rounded figure shown for the total (ie for the loan book, as in the maturity ladder), something the JLs say they wish to avoid. This is a well known problem (with no easy solution) in presenting tables based on rounded figures. Personally, I tend to prefer to retain all the figures properly rounded and add a note to the effect that, due to rounding effects, the total shown may not be exactly that obtained by adding up the individual figures. But I quite understand the JLs may have felt that would cause more confusion to the majority of readers.

When all's said and done, I really do think we are making a mountain out of a molehill. I for one very much appreciate these monthly updates (which the JLs are under no obligation to provide). In this respect we are very much better served than the creditors of KSFUK who have to make do with a 6-monthly progress report. Dare I suggest that we should simply accept them for what they are and stop trying to over-interpret them?


'

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/04/2013 - 14:44

'


To anrigaut

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/04/2013 - 18:46

Hi Anrigaut,

Following on from your fairness shown above to our JLs, we know that Feb was a disaster and March not far behind, but the net intake in March from loans or things affecting loans, was £0.427m, offset by the £0.3m loss due to FX Fluctuations. So although a very small return it is still something back towards our aim of 100%.

We all know that returns now will be a lot harder to get back in as we head towards the end of the Liquidation, especially as the larger loans or 'loan arrangements' account for more than 94% of those still to be repaid.

But we have 91% back, I think we now have around 3.583p/£ lying towards our next dividend and if we get only 3% back to our JLs from the 10th dividend back from E&Y (KSFUK) that means £7.383m or 0.8158p/£ to us. That would give us 4.3988p/£ for our next dividend (June?). Or if we managed to get 5% back it would mean £12.305m or 1.3596p/£ thus giving us around 4.9426p/£ come June (hopefully).

So, to me. I think around 5p/£ is still a possibility and that would mean around 96p/£ back by June.

So why are some castigating the JLs when we know that 96p/£ is virtually there with more to come at a later date, albeit probably quite a gap between our next dividend and the following one. Have not quite finished my thoughts on the March figures yet, need to update my main spreadshet to see what I say above is correct (to the best of my ability), but as said before and I will say again in my thoughts on the March figures, even if we do not get another penny back from the KSFIOM loan book, if E&Y (KSFUK) meet their 84% lower estimate (that means another 8% as of now = £19.688m, or another 3% if we allow for 5% back from them in May. That 3% equals £7.383m or 0.8158p/£. Add that to the 91.0% + the 4.9426% + the 0.8158%. that would give at least 96.7584p/£ return to us all.

So, lets just wait and see how things pan out - we are doing very well relatively speaking as regards returns from our tragedy.

Gordon 45