LATEST POLL RESULTS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 16/02/2009 - 07:56

Although the latest poll results shows 95% not in favour of "I am prepared to settle for compensation through either a SoA or the CPS", this is based on a mere 146 votes with no verification that these are genuine depositors. In anticipation of a further affidavit to the court on 19th Feb. this poll result CANNOT and MAY NOT be used in support of a possible arguement that DAG members are against the SoA.

3.764705
Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (17 votes)

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

POLL IS AMBIGUOUS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 09:08

The <50k depositors will get 100% money back through the SoA within 2 years (probably longer in a DCS scenario). They, like everyone else, want their money back 100% (yes to question 1) but these depositors will get 100% back anyway via the SoA or DCS (yes to question 2).


scottr

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 15:06

May I ask ,are you a depositor if not what is your interest?


I am a depositor!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 15:19

Hi bellyup
I am a >100k depositor (joint Sterling account) and hope to get 100% back within 2 years under the SoA, or maybe will have to wait 10 years under the DCS, so I am rather nervous! Read: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_...


Scottr

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 15:32

Sorry Scott
As your hadnt stated it I wondered.


@scottr: technically no. But can you say....

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 14:42

Of course there is a practical and technical problem with the sample size and composition.
But on the other hand as an expression of the typical emotion of depositors it's probably correct.
I take it you are being 'realistic' and for you the SoA is the most attractive solution, am I correct?
You have the chance to vote.

Perhaps you'd like to say what your position is and why you chose to put the point so dogmatically?


POLL

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 15:39

Hi follow_the_tao
I guess like many <50k depositors I can truthfully answer yes to both questions. Of course I want my money back 100% and of course if I can achieve this via a SoA in the shortest time, why not? Clearly this is not the case for the big depositors. Also, the SoA and DCS are not just compensation - they both include distributions of "money back" (likely <100%).


Scottr, How can you be both a <50K and a >100K depositor?

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 07:39

Scottr,
I don't quite understand how you in one email (further above) can decribe yourself as a >100K depositor and in the above email decribe yourself as a <50K depositor


Joint account

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 08:48

klauseriken - Very observant of you - I have a joint account with members of my family named as joint account holders. Joint account holders each qualify for 50k. So each of us are <50k depositors but the account is >100k.


Taking into a/c

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 15:55

That the IOMG
.......has not exactly been upfront and honest with us the depositors nor made as yet in 4 months the slightest bit of progress towards getting us back our money I would be inclined - until I can see more details as to how this the SOA might work to OUR advantage to take it with enough salt to keep all the motorways free of snow for a week.

Trust is a delicate thing once lost you never really recapture it.


The Poll is statistically significant

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 12:59

There are now 173 votes (95%) supporting "I do not want to be paid compensation, I want all my money back".

Why should anyone who is NOT a depositor want to vote for either option in the Poll?

Of course it would be ideal if all depositor members were to come on line & vote but that is not going to happen because the majority have given up on the Forum.

The Poll shows a TREND and that is a trend which is clearly reflected in 2 previous polls supporting the DAG's Mission.

If the Poll voting were split 50/50 between the two options it would be another matter.

Is anyone here going to seriously complain when the DAG solicitor stands in court and says "my clients do not want COMPENSATION -- they want ALL their money back" ?

Don't forget our Strategy & Tactics. It ain't going to be all over on 19 February!


<50k

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 04:51

But for <50k ex-depositors, compensation = getting all our money back. Liquidation and, therefore, activation of the DCS will return our money. It is possible liquidation will allow the scheme to repay in full up to 50k, quickly, without IoM gov chipping in.

Perhaps you should have split your poll into <50, >50 because our situations are so different.

Under DCS the banks in the scheme have to contribute to the scheme. This is not the case under SoA. Who plugs the shortfall?

For those of you who do not wish to receive your 50k under the DCS, the scheme manager is not going to force the money on you: an application to the manager is required.


A bird (SoA) in the hand .....

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 14:49

Before we all get carried away with "I reject the SoA because I want 100% of my money back" please read the following sobering account of a previous IOM bank that went into liquidation:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_...


IOM Liquidation

  • Daughter
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 01:30

Just read the details of the previous IOM Bank that went into liquidation. A saying I strongly believe is:

"Past behavior is indicative of future behaviors"

Should we be paying close attention to this article in the Times as posted by scottr??????


@daughter: It's a discussion, we don't know....

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 03:21

Hopefully not, and there are a lot of people hoping not.
It depends on what, I assume, your parents position is.
Thanks to the IoMG, you exact circumstances seem to matter.
But basically what is happening is that 50K is protected and the debate, given a critical lack of information courtesy of the British and IoM goverments, is about the timing of payment of the 50K and the optimisation of recovery of any amounts above this cutoff.
On the 19th there is hearing before the dempster. After this things may be a lot clearer or not.
Read the press announcements here and London team comments. Peruse and ask whatever questions you want.
I hope that helps.


scottr

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:44

........nor that 95% of DAG registered users are able to or want to, at this stage, take legal action !

Given all depositors obviously would like 100% return and nobody likes the "compensation" word the name Hobson came to mind.


95% is a pretty good indicator

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 10:57

This may be the case but it is a pretty strong indication since the result is 95% against. I personally as a FOREX depositor who was previously for the SOA am not going to accept it now without a fight since the exchange rate calculation date is not the same as in the DCS. As a consequence all FOREX depositors are at a severe disadvantage in the SOA and it is certain that smaller FOREX depositors with less than 50K£ equivalent in the pot will receive LESS from the SOA than they would from the DCS. Thus the main principle for the SOA that EVERYONE should receive THE SAME OR MORE has been violated. If SOA is indeed implemented I intend to challenge it legally.


SoA 60% is in some cases less then DCS!

  • columbgc
  • 11/10/08 14/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:43

You are correct. I have calculated both scenarios for EUR, USD, CAD and JPY and it clearly shows that for deposits of:

<= 100K EUR SoA 60% is less then DCS
<= 125K USD SoA 60% is less then DCS
<= 150K CAD SoA 60% is less then DCS
<= 12.5M JPY SoA 60% is less the DCS

FX dates used are 9-OCT-08 and 16-FEB-09. Should the current FX trends hold these would be right come 19 FEB 09.

If I knew how to upload an attachment I could share this with everybody.


Legal advice for FOREX depositors

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:48

There are a few of us that are trying to organize enough people to spread the cost of legal advice on this. Please write to me via the forum if you are interested in joining


Legal Advice for Forex depositors

  • run668
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 06:46

Klaus,

Just sent you my contacts. I have the same feeling.

Let's sit tight a little bit and see what happens today and in the next few days. But it may be worth setting up specific legal advice for Forex depositors as evenements unfold.

Run668.


FX LEGAL ADVICE

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 12:28

I agree with you and will be happy to join any action regarding FX problem . Consider me as part of your group .


FX legal advice, good to have you on board

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 12:47

Good to have you on board.
We are planning to sit tight for a little while longer an only incur this cost if the SOA looks to be implemented. In the latter case we need to move very quickly though to stop the SOA before it starts paying out. To this end could you please send me an email through this site so I get your address and can email you all as a group if/when the time comes?


SoA v DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:16

Hi klauseriksen. I agree about the exchange rate problem but I don't see any reason for the IoM G not wanting to change the SoA to be the same as the DSC on this point. Perhaps it was an oversight and the IoM G will oblige if this matter is brought to their attention. After all the SoA is not yet cast in stone and one would hope that meaningful changes can be made so that it is more acceptable to depositors. The Deemster may even request such changes if the matter is brought to his attention.


I think the 8 of Oct has been chosen intentionally

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:44

Perhaps this will be the case. However I think the FOREX depositors make up a substantial part of the pot and I am also inclined to think that the 8 Oct date probably was chosen to make the SOA look more attractive in terms of strait UK£ pay back percentages to the average £ depositor.
What I don’t understand is how they can even propose a scheme that will clearly pay sub 50K£ equivalent FOREX depositors less than the DCS, is this even legal when these depositors now have a legal right to full compensation using a future exchange rate calculation date with a DCS that would give them 20-25% more?