The LOAN OPTION

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 15/02/2009 - 22:32

The Loan Option

Why cant the IOMG take out a loan to cover

1) The purchase of the Loan Book - value 140 million
This is a high quality Loan Book , no toxic debts or sub primes
The IOMG could take a loan from the British Government and buy it.
They could pay us out and allow the loan book to run down to pay off the loan.

2) Take a loan for the Loan Book and the outstanding 550k in the UK.
They will get something back from E&Y and as a government will be in a better position to press information and action than us retail depositors .

So 410 loan book
+ 140 cash with Mike Simpson = 550 million

UK assets 550k or thereabouts

This would be near enough 100% for us

What is the reason for their intransigence?

How can we convince them to do this?

Has this been considered /refused already?

Am I missing something here?

4.6
Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (15 votes)

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

No loan needed

  • IoM-neveragain
  • 12/10/08 30/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 22:27

Whilst the UK has had to take out massive loans to ensure that the UK is not left as a pirah of the financial world, the IoM has no need of such a loan, It already has deposits, savings, money in the bank, whatever you wnat to call it, which are more than sufficient to repay us all.
They just don't have the honour to do so.
Short sighted
Short lived.


Loan Option - Letter to A Bell

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 08:09

Bellyup, your query has been put before the responsible minister both in person and in writing. Here follows a copy of the letter sent to Allan Bell on the 2nd February.
Ice

Mr Allan Bell MHK

Treasury Minister

Government Office

Buck's Road

Douglas

Isle of Man

British Isles

2 February 2009

Dear Allan Bell,

DAG Pre-Court Hearing Meeting 28 January 2009

I refer to our meeting held in your offices on the 28th January at 12pm in the presence of Mark Shimmin, xxxxxx, xxxxxx, xxxxxx and myself.

You were most gracious in accepting at short notice our request to meet with you after your 'State of the Nation' address that morning, and patiently heard our many queries and concerns regarding the failure of KSFIoM. I think it fair to say we shared a common concern at the upcoming Court hearing due to take place the following morning.

Although we covered a wide range of issues, my own concern (and primary reason for making the journey over from Bahrain) was to pose the question put to you that morning: "Has the Isle of Man Government approached the UK Government in request of a preferential sovereign loan to breach the gap in assets and allow a full refund of depositors monies pending liquidation of the UK Kaupthing Bank?"

As iterated that morning, although we agree with the IoMG that the reason and liability for the failure of the Isle of Man branch was due entirely to HMG action taken in the UK, the KSFIoM depositors depend and rely entirely upon the IoMG for taking the strongest, hardest and toughest line against HMG for their most careless and dismissive behaviour in bringing thousands of ordinary British savers to the point of penury.

Although the depositors in the shape of DAG have shown the way in taking the fight to HMG and have presented hundreds of letters and emails to both the UK Treasury Select Committee meeting and Justice Committee meeting members, the Isle of Man Government has been very slow off the mark in following suit. The expected appearance of the Chief Minister, Mr Tony Brown at the second TSC meeting tomorrow together with the written evidence presented by IoMG is extremely welcome – though an earlier presentation would have been preferable.

It is clearly evident that the UK Prime Minister and his Chancellor are trying to absolve themselves from the responsibility of bringing abject misery and morbid anxiety to thousands of decent hard-working savers whose only crime has been to deposit their life-savings in the Isle of Man in the belief that it was a well-regulated and prudent jurisdiction within the British Islands.

There are so many depositors who were previously with the Derbyshire Building Society for many years and had no reason to believe that their savings could possibly be at risk in the Isle of Man. They inherently trusted the Derbyshire's recommendations to continue saving their monies with KSF, and had no reason to disbelieve KSF's own enticements – including a full parental guarantee from Kaupthing h.f. Iceland. Mostly though, they implicitly believed that in the prudent, well-run and regulated jurisdiction of the Isle of Man, those responsible for attending to the licencing, monitoring, and regulation of financial entities would perform that task to the very utmost of their capabilities and would not allow thousands of depositors to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds of their hard-earned money carefully saved for many years.

The sense of loss of one's life-savings is matched only by the sense of foolishness for believing in a system lauded by the Government of the Isle of Man – a system that has fallen far short of saver's expectations in protecting their monies in the first instance, and which is lamentably lacking in support and reparation in its response to this financial calamity. As pointed out during our meeting on the 28th, other countries not nearly so well recognised for their financial expertise have stepped up to the plate to ensure that their depositors have not been left floundering in fiscal deprivation. The Isle of Man is trying everything it can to make the medicine sweeter for KSF depositors – except for returning the monies so cruelly stolen from them.

The UK Government owes a moral and constitutional debt to the Isle of Man for the severe damage that it has inflicted upon the Island's financial services, but more so for the dreadful circumstances it has spitefully inflicted upon British persons quite legally and properly depositing their savings in the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man constitutionally deserves protection from the UK, but has been dreadfully impositioned by a Labour Government determined to delay or refuse its constitutional obligations to the Island upon which it complicitly brought this fiscal failure. Nonetheless, it remains the duty of the IoMG to present this case to the Labour Government in the strongest way possible; to demand that HMG provide a loan to support full repayment of the depositors in KSFIoM in the shortest term possible. UK savers were alleviated of their concerns within days of HMG action and the majority recompensed within weeks. By comparison, KSFIoM savers have been under the dread of Damocles for nearly four months, with only a 'best guess' of 65p/£ spread over many years and no guarantee whatsoever. Even worse, there is a condition that once 60p/£ has been achieved, any further returns from the sale of assets would be repaid to the scheme before further monies become available to the savers – this is a deplorable petty-minded and miserable burden to inflict upon people who are already suffering consequential loss and have done nothing to deserve any of this.

During the process of liquidating the UK bank, HMG can recover payments of the loan from these proceeds. Any further debt that may remain should be recovered by HMG from the Icelandics as part of the constitutional international representation for which HMG is responsible – recovering monies under the guarantees. HMT took care of its own business in this regard at the start of this sorry affair whilst conveniently leaving the needs of the Isle of Man out of those early discussions, so it will be up to HMG/HMT/MoJ to recover the monies for their own benefit in repaying this loan to themselves. If HMG fails to recover further monies from the Icelandics then that failure – together with the outstanding debt – will be owned by the UK Government. Fair justice perhaps.

The ball is in your court Allan, I can advise you that of those depositors represented on the DAG site who have expressed an opinion, then by far the majority expect the Isle of Man Government to commit to repay them 100% and expect you to borrow the money from HMG to do so. Whether you pay it back to those responsible for putting you in this position is another matter altogether…

Thank you kindly for your time and consideration. I wish you all the best in your efforts and hope that a conclusion can be reached with HMG in the very near future.

Yours faithfully,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Loan Option - Letter to A Bell

  • JayJay
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 13:29

It is stated in the letter to Mr Bell: "... although we agree with the IOMG that the reason and liability for the failure of the Isle of Man branch was due entirely to HMG action taken in the UK ..."

I disagree. The action of HMG was consequential and would not have been possible if the Financial Supervision Commission (FSC) had not authorized and agreed to the transfer of over half a billion pounds' worth of KSF(IOM)'s assets to KSF(UK) shortly before both banks were closed. This incredible decision to transfer these assets into another jurisdiction (UK) was made at a time of great contention between UK and Iceland, and the fact that the funds were deposited in London - UNSECURED - is mind boggling.

The FSC is an IOMG appointed body and ultimately the government is responsible for its actions. Irrespective of how reprehensible the behaviour of HMG has been in freezing these assets, the inescapable fact is that the unsecured funds should not have been there in the first place.

I believe the IOMG has two objectives: the first is to divert all attention from the FSC's blunders which render it instrumental in what happened and thereby liable; the second is to pay out as little as possible. As things stand the IOMG is succeeding on both counts.

In my opinion the only meaningful way to exert pressure on the IOMG to accept its responsibility is through the Isle of Man electorate and members of the House of Keys. If it can be shown that to save its own image the IOMG is gambling with the Island's future, then it might be possible to effect a change. Once the electorate has been made aware (via the media, advertisements, letters etc.,) that the IOMG, through its FSC, does bear responsibility, then the choices facing the government can be emphasized, namely:

  • it could admit that the action of its FSC was instrumental in the debacle and raise the funds to pay all depositors in full within a reasonable time (months, not years); or,

  • continue to try and divert all attention away from itself and its FSC, despite the irrefutable facts regarding the transferred funds.

If it chooses the first, then the reputation of the Island will be largely saved and its infrastructure should remain sound. However, if it chooses the second the scenario will be very different. There are depositors whose lives have already been irretrievably shattered who have made it plain that if no full payment is made very quickly they will spend the rest of their lives ensuring that no one else makes the mistake of placing their savings in the Isle of Man.
It is no idle threat; chains of ever increasing numbers of E-mails will start globally, the media in various countries will contain letters and articles on the subject, as will investment and insurance advisory bodies. Under this onslought, and in the present circumstances, the Island's economy could suffer a blow from which it might never recover. Banks, insurance companies and financial institutions would close; health and educational services would suffer and there would be much unemployment.

To save face It appears that the IOMG is currently prepared to take the risk and continue with the second option. Once informed of the stark facts I do not believe the electorate would allow it to do so.


Loan Option Bell

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 11:11

You might consider that my letter written above was sent two weeks ago, prior to the Court Hearing; prior to the TSC meeting; and before Aspden's comments became known from the State of the Nation event. My intention was to provide the idea of seeking a loan from HMG; to foster that intention, I curried favour with Allan Bell of course. The name of the (bigger) game is not necessarily to be right, but to get our money back.

The blunders of the FSC are more widely known now than at any time, and the position of Mr Aspden has been made clear by none other than himself. The IoMG are hardly going to revel in this news or advertise it, that is for us to keep in the public eye.

It is entirely possible that given the statements of our two DAG reps (IoM & Guernsey) at the TSC making representation for UK banks to allow any British passport holder a UK bank account irrespective of his country of residence, will bring a gradual demise to this element of the Island's finance industry anyway. Whether the IoM wish to spend inordinate sums of money saving their 'good name' in a lost cause is worthy of consideration. I am not quite sure what the IoMG are doing to 'divert' attention; because reading the Manx Herald, there is ongoing discussions over this very issue every day. We can only help this situation by returning to the blog comments and making our views known - there are the same old names that appear on these comments, but very few new ones...

In terms of incredible decisions, I would venture that more than a few of us are quite incredulous of our own decisions to have money in this bank in the first place, and perhaps even more surprised at our own gullibility for leaving it there during this period of 'great contention'? However, the FSC is a professional body and its operatives should be much better informed than the general public and it must be held responsible (culpable) for its negligence. Whether money can be extracted from it in the short, or even long term is another matter, which takes me back to where there is money - with the UK Treasury in the form of a loan.


JayJay

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 10:07

I agree. 100%
Time for another letter to Allen.
Tara


sadly I think the gist of

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 14:05

sadly I think the gist of this is right
The UK government shouldn't have put this 6 month ING bit in but beyond that its hard to see what else they could do in all the circumstances
The fundamental errors occurred in IOM. The bank should have been shut down at the time the Iceland issues arose. At the very least they shold have ensured the parental guarantee was not used as a marketing tool.
That was false marketing : FSC had already concluded the Iceland bank was dodgy.


Jay Jay

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 13:37

I agree lets all inform the electorate and the IOMG ASAP TODAY

heres some email addresses for anyone who hasnt already got them

steve beevers
steven [dot] Beevers(?)isleofmanfinance [dot] com

bightideas
brightideas(?)gov [dot] im

nick boon
Nick [dot] Boon(?)isleofmanfinance [dot] com
phil braidwood
phil [dot] braidwood(?)gov [dot] im

tony brown
chief [dot] minister(?)cso [dot] gov [dot] im

david callister
david [dot] callister(?)gov [dot] im
david cannan
david [dot] cannan(?)parliament [dot] org [dot] im

brenda cannell
brenda_cannellmhk(?)manx [dot] net

steve carse
steve [dot] carse(?)gov [dot] im
clare christian
clare [dot] christian(?)gov [dot] im

geoff corkish
geoff [dot] corkish(?)gov [dot] im

anne crane
anne [dot] crane(?)gov [dot] im
graham cregreen
graham [dot] cregreen(?)gov [dot] im

tim crook
tim [dot] crookall(?)gov [dot] im

ray davies
ray [dot] davies(?)isleofmanfinance [dot] com
Paul DeWeerd
Paul [dot] DeWeerd(?)fsc [dot] gov [dot] im

brian donegan
Brian [dot] Donegan(?)isleofmanfinance [dot] com

alex downie
alex [dot] downie(?)gov [dot] im
john aspden fsc
john [dot] aspden(?)fsc [dot] gov [dot] im

fsc IOM
fsc(?)gov [dot] im

phil gawe
phil [dot] gawne(?)gov [dot] im
quintin gill
quintin [dot] gill(?)parliament [dot] org [dot] im

bill henderson
bill [dot] henderson(?)parliament [dot] org [dot] im

the editor manx herald
heraldeditor(?)manx [dot] net
tracy maddrell (manx news)
Tracy [dot] Maddrell(?)newsiom [dot] co [dot] im

manx radio
newsroom(?)manxradio [dot] com

HM Representative
government [dot] house(?)gov [dot] im


Do this - one last push!!

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 16:25

Thanks BellyUp. I have just wriiten to David Cannan (see posts below for email address) thanking him for his efforts to save the Island's finance industry and explaining that if the IOMG does not grasp the nettle and get a loan so that it can temporarily nationalise KSFIOM whilst its assets are realised and deposits unfrozen then all 31 financial institutions face a run on the bank.(Northern Rock on the mainland took six days to go from 'sound' to 'bankrupt' following loss of depositor confidence.) Pointed out that if a high value of depositors lost 40% then the resulting negative publicity in the media and from the inevitable litigation would lead to the end. Has to get action beore 19th Feb.
Copied it to the entire list above - and I feel better for doing something!!!


John Spellman

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 16:37

Heres another to email

John Spellman Director of IOM Finance

john [dot] spellman(?)gov [dot] im


Re Loan option yea or nay

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 10:52

Thank you Icecrusher

When you put this question

"Has the Isle of Man Government approached the UK Government in request of a preferential sovereign loan to breach the gap in assets and allow a full refund of depositors monies pending liquidation of the UK Kaupthing Bank?"

Did he answer yea or nay?

In view of Tony Brown determination for the IOMG to act alone according to his statements at the TSC meeting the next day he ( Tony Brown) obviously hasnt taken this solution on board or understands that it is the best for all parties including the IOM.

I intend to contact everyone on the IOM again reminding them of this option and would suggest that everyone do the same.


Contact IoM politicians...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:12

Try Mr Cannan, I have written to him today in advance of his appearance in the Tynwald tomorrow where he is pushing another agenda on depositors behalf.

david [dot] cannan(?)parliament [dot] org [dot] im


Yea or Yea?

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:14

Being an accomplished politician Bell evaded the answer on each of the four occasions that I put it to him. The only saving grace was that on staying behind for a couple of minutes on the way out of his office (after Kiwi38 had reminded him once again) I said "don't forget Allan, we want you to get that loan from the UK and we don't care if you don't pay it back!" To which he replied, "....that's what we want too".
Ice


Allan's busy

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 10:47

I wrote to Allan on 20 Jan, received a reply 14 Feb from a Christine Clucas, with a warning of not to copy her email and a final flourish:

Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish


What you cannot see on the

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:03

What you cannot see on the bottom of my letter is ISLE OF MAN - Freedom to Perish


Very well put

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

Sums it up entirely. I really can't see what the problem is.

Also, if the IMF think the IOM are so great, can't they bend the rules a little and offer them a loan. Beings as they are such a responsible and brilliant jurisdiction and all that....


More letters to IoM...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 11:28

Dear David Cannan,

I am a depositor with KSFIoM and an active member of the DAG. It has not gone unnoticed of course just how many times you have raised issues regarding KSFIoM in the Tynwald. I have listened to you many times on Manx Radio and read all the reports in the press issued from that establishment. It seems to many of us that the only member of the Isle of Man parliament consistently looking out for the plight of the KSFIoM depositors is in fact yourself! You are raising pertinent questions again on the 17th February and I certainly look forward to hearing these discussions and the response from Mr Allan Bell.

I have written to Mr Bell on several occasions and flew from Bahrain especially to meet him in the Isle of Man and discuss the matter of the IoM Governance taking a loan from the UK Treasury to cover the shortfall caused by the £550M being locked under Administration in the UK pending liquidation of that bank. It appeared to me that Mr Bell and Mr Shimmin had not given any thought to this matter and have still not answered my follow-up letter in this respect. My argument is that such monies could be made available by the UK Treasury and the IoM Govt. would then stand in place of KSFIoM as creditor to the UK sister branch. This would allow the liquidator to do his job and make reparation to all depositors, some of whom are in desperate situations through absolutely no fault of their own, save trusting to bank their monies in a regular deposit-taking institution located in the so-called properly regulated British jurisdiction of the Isle of Man.

Governments can borrow money for extremely long periods, (even since WWII) but not so the depositors in the KSFIoM bank. The greater majority of these folk are either pre-retirees or indeed retired and (were) living off the interest of their life-long savings. They do not have the luxury of time on their side and need to be reunited with their money as quickly as possible. We are not talking here of 'compensation' we are talking about the return of monies owed. It has not disappeared, some of it has been recovered and is in the hands of the liquidator; a huge sum of some £417M is in the loan book which is being run down without hitch and should be complete within 6 years. The largest sum is in the UK bank - foolishly placed there by the directors of the bank under advice of the FSC. Much, if not all of these monies will eventually return, but it is for the IoM Government to bear this cross, not the ordinary decent savers banking in this jurisdiction who do not have the time, nor should they be expected, to wait years for this to happen. Even if there is a shortfall in the return from the UK bank, and all other assets have been recovered, then the Icelandic Guarantee can then be pursued (their own moratorium should be over by such time) - it is the UK Governments constitutional duty to undertake this task and if they provided a loan to the IOM, they would certainly be more positively disposed towards seeing it returned to the KSFIoM liquidator for repayment to the IoM Govt in order for it to repay the loan to HMT. This would give the IoM great leverage in this regard, as a debtor instead of a creditor.

My recent offering to Allan Bell is copied below following the unbelievable statements of Mr John Aspden at the CI meeting and other results in from the UK TSC meetings etc. Perhaps you might find some of my comments useful in your arguments come the 17th February, and I would also like to hear from you if that's possible.

Thanks again for all you efforts against this unbelievable injustice.

Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxx

Address
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx

Dear Allan Bell,

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FINANCIAL SUPERVISION COMMISSION

According to the Financial Supervision Commission, its main functions and responsibilities are to:

Protect investors', depositors' and fiduciary clients' interests.
Promote the financial stability of financial institutions.
Promote the highest standards of competence and professional qualification.
Protect the integrity of the financial community.
Protect the reputation of the Isle of Man.

The first ideal indicates acknowledgment of there being both investors and depositors – a distinction allegedly unrecognised by the Chief Executive of the FSC, Mr John Aspden. Mr Aspden also has the peculiar notion that customers had not 'moved away' from the idea of 100% security of their deposits despite being educated to accept more risk. Define 'more risk' and explain why on earth would they? When and where did this so-called 'education' take place; I have been overseas for sixteen years and it has never come to my attention. I have received pages and pages of applications from dozens of deposit-takers explaining at length why I must sign my very life away before they would even consider allowing me the privilege of saving my monies with them – but nothing telling me that I should sign up for a course in 'Aspdenomics' so that I may find it acceptable to put my life-savings at risk in a regular boring bank. What preposterous baloney is this! No persons holding a regular bank account have need of reeducation, they know exactly what to expect from a bank: the same old boring, but safe place to put one's money until it's time to withdraw it – just as John McFall quoted from the Oxford English Dictionary at the Treasury Select Committee meeting on the 10th February.

If Mr Aspden thinks the financial industry has engaged itself in a plot to turn the average depositor's thinking around to make the impressionable believe it tolerable to lose their whole life-savings in a non-core bank, then he is sorely mistaken. He expressed concern that as depositors do not want to go along with this bizarre thinking (surprise!) it upsets the balance of letting some banks fail! No wonder that the FSC advised the Directors of KSFIoM to move 60% of the bank's assets to another Icelandic subsidiary when headed by a nincompoop like John Aspden. He approved this measure even though Icelandic banks were under scrutiny from fellow prudential regulators - which just goes to show that intelligence is no protection against stupidity. Mr Aspden should realise that 'investing' one's career in high office may well bring earthly rewards, but carries the 'risk' of a great fall when you get it wrong.

John Aspden and the directors of the bank demonstrated lack of due diligence in their approach to accumulating a massive asset in an Icelandic subsidiary bank not located in their own jurisdiction at a time when those in the banking and regulatory institutions were acutely aware of weaknesses in the Icelandic banking system. These same persons then failed to monitor the ongoing situation and allowed these assets to go unprotected and left without preferential creditor status up until the assets became subject to a moratorium when the UK KSF bank was placed under Administration. These agents are collectively responsible for putting thousands of ordinary decent savers into financial purgatory - and then John Aspden had the audacity to try and blame the victims for placing their trust in what they were led to believe was a well regulated British jurisdiction with an authentic compensation scheme. No one can honestly believe Aspden's comments that people would actually place their trust and their money in this place had they heard such nonsense being espoused by the head of the FSC. We have heard similar drivel coming from the city bankers sitting in front of the TSC in London, but good judgment and common sense have exposed these fraudsters for what they truly are. The times they are a'changing; virtue and truth are holding sway and those who stand before them do so at their peril.

When commercial banking interests clash with the need to provide proper protection for regular retail depositors – and the regulator cannot determine compromise – then it works until it fails, at which time the man responsible fails with it. Sorry Aspden, but for £225,000 per year, IoM customers and taxpayers expect a lot more from you than going with the flow, and now its time for you to go. Don't leave the country though...

Yours sincerely
xxxxxxxxxxxx

ISLE OF MAN - FEEL FREE TO PERISH


Letters to Mr Bell and Mr Cannan

  • homeless
  • 18/10/08 01/01/16
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 16:28

Excellent letters Icecrusher, you have given them plenty to think about (and focus on).

Re Mr Cannan's comment that we need to have people sitting in the public gallery, this is probably a major hurdle for many of us, do we know if we will have representation and any indication of numbers ? I am highlighting difficulties in letters myself but might it be worth doing a joint statement listing our names (mabe including our geographical location) and stating that lack of physical presence is NO reflection of the strength of feeling within our group. Work commitments, distances and LACK OF CASH are what preclude a lot of people attending. After everything that has gone on they surely can't doubt our interest ?

Thanks again for your excellent work.


Loan Option Letters...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/02/2009 - 05:57

David Cannan,

First let me thank you for your most timely reply - including the dates of the debates to be held in the Tynwald. I also note your advice for KSF depositors to make themselves evident in the public gallery for these debates; this information has been posted to the DAG Forum, but you will appreciate that although some 22% of depositors are supposedly resident in the Isle of Man, they are likely to be persons who used KSFIoM for their daily banking needs and may not be high value savers. This type of depositor should receive reparation of their monies whichever course of action is taken. The high value depositors are likely to be displaced around the globe, and although the outcome of the Tynwald's decisions may have greater impact upon them, making an attendance is most unlikely for the majority who are severely financially handicapped now.

I would suggest that you have not really addressed the thrust of my letters, but have chosen instead to focus upon the outcome of the High Court hearing on the 19th February. This is a highly charged issue, and even given an extra fourteen days by the Deputy Deemster at the previous hearing to answer a number of queries regarding the SoA, the IoMG have still not completely fulfilled their obligation in this regard - and this despite late presentation of their Affidavits. The retention of creditors rights to pursue litigation against the failure of persons and entities to act in accordance with the responsibility of their station must be upheld at all costs.

There are serious misgivings concerning the SoA, especially regarding just who is supposed to realize any true benefit from the scheme compared to liquidation. It would appear that the Life Companies could be seen as the greatest beneficiaries. This is cause for just concern and demands greater investigation. I have personally written to the Life Companies and asked why they still retain Mr Donald Gelling as Chairman of the IPA given his responsibilities and involvement with the transfer of massive assets to the UK bank - including an alleged £300 million of Life Co monies - at a time when this was a most imprudent, if not reckless decision to make. Of the two companies to have provided replies so far, both have side-stepped the question. This of course is most intriguing - and will be even more intriguing should all or most Life Companies reply in a similar fashion.

If Deputy Deemster Andrew Cortlett considers the SoA to be sufficiently complete in providing enough information for creditors to make an informed choice between it and the DCS, then it will be put to their vote. Having attended the last hearing, I have my doubts as to whether the Deputy Deemster will find the SoA any more acceptable now than he did then, but we shall see. Going from opinion on the Action Group forum, of those who have elected to make known their intention, more than 90% now favour DCS over SoA. This is a very small group compared to the whole, and their opinions may change, but it does provide some indication of the current mood. There is great mistrust of the IoMG now, and this has increased since the Chief Minister's (lack of) performance at the TSC meeting on 3rd February and the comments made by the Chief Executive of the FSC at the Compliance Institute (State of the Nation) event on the 28th January. I attended the TSC meeting and was aghast at the great step backwards that Mr Brown has taken since stating unequivocally in previous TV and radio broadcasts that he held HMG entirely to blame for the failure of KSFIoM. He was even offered 'free advice' but chose instead to evade the issue.

I appreciate that you would wish to see the result from the High Court and the outcome from the upcoming debates in the Tynwald. Perhaps we can continue our exchange in a few days time?

Sincerely,


The Loan Option

  • grobbers
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 12:16

Icecrusher,

Brilliant - thanks.


IoM Depositors turn up in Tynwald please!

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 13:27

REPLY FROM DAVID CANNAN ~ (already!)

xxxxxxxxxx

I have carefully studied and given consideration to the content of your e-mail dated today. (16/2/09)

The first issue to be determined is the decision of the High Court on Thursday whether there should be

a) a Scheme of Arrangement or
b) KSF (IOM) Ltd is placed in liquidation and the Compensation of Depositors regulations take effect

It is my understanding that if the High Court decision is for a Scheme of Arrangement all depositors will receive payment of £10,000 as an advance payment if their deposit is greater than £10,000 or alternatively full payment if their deposit is less than £10,000. Tynwald is to make provision of £94 million for this purpose and payment should be received no later than September. The balance owing to £50,000 should be paid by the end of the year. Balance monies will then be determined by the realisation of KSF (IOM) assets.

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful but is only after the decision of the High Court on Thursday that there will be a better assessment of the whole problem.

You will be aware that KSF (IOM) issues are being debate and determined in Tynwald on Tuesday (evening) 17th, Wednesday 18th and may be Thursday 19th February. The issues are

a) Supplementary agenda voting for the £94 million (Tuesday evening or first item Wednesday morning)
b) Question Time - immediately following (a). There are several KSF Questions.
c) Motion for a Committee of Inquiry; Wednesday afternoon.

I strongly recommend there are KSF depositors in the public gallery for these items, otherwise the impression will be given that there is lack of interest by the depositors. Guidance on timing of the debates can be obtained from the Clerk of Tynwald’s office 685515.

Sincerely

David Cannan


£10,000 early payment tied to SOA acceptance?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 13:47

From the response you received from David Cannan (IOM government) it would appear that the proposed £10,000 Early Payment Scheme, which is to be put to Tynwald for approval in the next day or so, will be tied to the acceptance of the Scheme of Arrangement (SoA). Can this be clarified?

Cheers


£10,000 early payment tied to SOA acceptance?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 15:49

Having checked the affidavit of Bell in which the £10,000 new EPS was first mentioned publicly, it is not expressed as being conditional either on the SoA being (i) approved by the court subject to a vote and (ii) voted in. So if that was indeed the intention, then I think it was not apparent and the court might well have understood otherwise.


£10,000 early payment tied to SOA acceptance?

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 16:00

I agree with what Elgee has said on this, although the AG appeared to be confused on this point during his (very long winded) delivery in Court - I remember this specifically because username Ally was next to me in the Court and we both picked up on this point at the time.


A-G appearance

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 16:34

Thanks. Tell me, as you were present in the court, did the A-G (for the Treasury) look at all like his brother (the D. Deemster)?


A-G appearance

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 16:40

Well it was difficult to tell as I haven't seen them side by side, and they were both wearing wigs as disguises.


A-G appearance

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 09:17

I would venture that he did not; though I agree with manx-person that they were oddly disguised! Why the interest though?


A-G appearance

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 10:05

Why my interest? - Its just that I remember that there was some confusion over this point in the way that it was delivered thats all.

I think it would be a very poor show if the increase in EPS was linked to acceptance (at any level) of the SoA


the extra 9000 GBP

  • tsunamivictim
  • 11/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 15:11

I have checkd. The extra 9,000 GBP (in total 10,000 GBP) is not linked with the SOA. There will be a simplified application form and payments will be made (apparently) very quickly after receiving the completed application form.


EPS payment

  • dutchman
  • 08/12/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 13:27

It is interesting to see that the EPS payment will be made quickly. I have not had the first one thousand yet. I get the feeling that it is just a PR stunt. At the court hearing in November the judge asked IOM gov to consider a hardship payment before Christmas. They passed the proposition and got the good press straight away but two months later havn't paid out a penny.


Dutchman EPS

  • Ramsey resident
  • 22/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 13:47

Sorry you are wrong, they have paid out

I received my £1000 on 30th January and my wife received hers 3 days later

When did you send in your completed forms? I suggest you ring the Treasury helpline and they will give you status of your claim


eps

  • dutchman
  • 08/12/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 21:50

I sent the form back by return of post.( 31.12.08)
I have phoned the help desk each Friday for the past 3 weeks.
The first call confirmed that the form had arrived, the second told me that it was being processed and last Friday I was told that it had been passed for payment but that all payments had been suspended. No reason was given.


IOM Government Creditor status in KSFIOM

  • Dave1
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 15:52

OK. IOM Govt may not link payments of up to GBP 10k to depositors acceptance of the SOA. But we must remain very concious that the IOM increases it's stake as a creditor of KSFIOM through this mechanism. Is it not true that if enough depositors rush accept the 10k, the IOM Govt will then have sufficient 'vote' to force through approval of the SOA ??


Dave1

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 11:47

It is not true. Although a large percentage of depositors are under £10k they do not make up a large proportion of the funds. The vote on SOA is not based on numbers but on 75% of value. 50 people voting yes each with £2k would be outvoted by one person voting no worth £101K.


Maximum of 75% by value?

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 13:23

Anyone with a transcript of the court hearing? I'm sure the Deemster said a 'maximum of 75% by value'. The maximum I believe was a reference to more than half, i.e., 50% So skint would be right.


duplicate

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 13:25

duplicate


not quite 75% by value and 50% by numbers

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 11:59

Reading through the various gumph - the vote is on two levels 75% by value and 50% by numbers, hence even if it gets 80% by value and only 40% by numbers - it will fail.

Again that's my understanding - anyone with more ?


Skint

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 17/02/2009 - 16:08

Agree. Again its facts not speculation. Even if the IoM do buy off those with lower deposits they cannot steal the vote due to the need for 75% by value.
We are getting lots of people engaged in the debate re SOA etc but people keep quoting information that is wrong.
Same as the discussion re when does the IoM get its money back it pays into the scheme that was held on a different thread yesterday.
Thanks again for quoting the facts.
John


Loan option reminder

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 13:14

Please everyone write to the IOMG today and remind them of this option.


and while you are at it

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 16:12

Keep looking at www.manxherald.com and write in response to reports. 2 out of their 6 headlines are about KSFIOM.

There are not enough comments there.
This will get out to the electerate of the IOM.
Give them the facts they have to tell their government to take fair and just action or they will be left on their rapidly sinking island with very little future.

The IOMs name will be MUD as a banking centre.


reply from geoff corkish re this

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 16/02/2009 - 13:17

Hello xxxxx

I fully understand your concerns and anxiety’s along with many others regarding this dreadful KSF mess. I sincerely trust that the actions being taken by all concerned will be resolved amicably.

I shall ask that the latest information be sent on to you.

Best wishes and good luck for the future.

Geoff Corkish