• Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 18/02/2009 - 10:12

It is becoming increasing obvious to me that the DAG is trying to influence depositors against the IOMG and the proposed SOA. Why?

Misinformation either way, for example that depositors will not have legal rights under the SoA while the IOMG has clearly stated the opposite, does not help depositors to decide for themselves based on the truth, rather than on heresay and misinterpretations.

I am beginning to wonder if the voices behind DAG are mainly those of high-end depositors with much more to loose compared to the smaller depositors who of course also want 100% of their money back a.s.a.p. - which they will from the SOA compared to waiting maybe 10 years in the case of liquidation and the DCS. Then there is the possibility that the DAG launches a prolonged legal battle that will just about bankrupt everyone except the lawyers.

As a smaller depositor I will probably vote for the SOA if required to do so - unless the DAG can come up with much more convincing arguements based on factual information that may change my mind(please no poll results as these are based on dubious depositor perceptions). I also don't believe the IOMG will renege on its SOA payment schedule - again this is pure speculation.

Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (13 votes)

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

The Isle of Man. A wonderful place for your money!

  • Premier
  • 10/02/09 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/02/2009 - 13:41

At long last a safe place for “depositors” to deposit their money!
Where? The Isle of Man of course!

See the claptrap published today in the Daily Telegraph by Mr.M.Goodman. He obviously knows a whole lot more on this subject than all the members of the KSFIOM Action Group put together

Visit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4681344/Isle-of-Man-well-placed-to-ride...

Write or telephone the Telegraph and thank them for supporting Messrs Bell/Brown/Aspden. Now!

Isle of Man well-placed to ride financial storm.
The Isle of Man's low-tax regime and business culture make it an attractive option By Mike Goodman . Daily Telegraph - 17 Feb 2009

Safe haven: amid stormy financial times the Isle of Man retains its AAA rating from global credit rating agencies and has low taxes. Many British expatriates must be wondering whether there are any safe havens left for their savings and investments.

Familiar high street banking names have needed government bail-outs. Bank shares have collapsed in value, former blue chip companies struggle. Interest rates paid to savers have fallen while the value of sterling has plummeted against major currencies.

The Isle of Man has not escaped the global financial turmoil.
Last October the once fast growing Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (Isle of Man) bank (KSIOM) fell victim to the Icelandic bank crisis. The Manx authorities reacted by raising the maximum payable under the island's bank deposit compensation scheme to £50,000 for each individual. Savers with KSIOM are eligible for the payout but will have to wait until the outcome of moves to rescue the bank.
The Manx Treasury has offered interim "hardship" payments in the meantime. A key reason for the failure of KSIOM was that support from the parent Icelandic bank was not forthcoming when the Icelandic financial system virtually collapsed.

The Isle of Man government, by contrast, enjoys a strong financial rating as it ran comfortable budget surpluses during the boom years, and built up reserves against bad times. Significantly, the AAA rating on its government debt was recently reaffirmed by rating agencies Standard and Poor's and Moody's.
In particular Moody's noted that the £150 million earmarked by the Manx Treasury for bank compensation schemes "is clearly manageable against free reserves and projected capital spending."

Allan Bell, the Manx Treasury minister, said: "I welcome the fact that Moody's and Standard and Poors have reviewed our ratings and concluded the Isle of Man is well-placed to ride out recent storms and to withstand any future economic downturn."
However, Manx economic growth which reached 7.7 per cent in 2007 is almost certain to slow sharply this year.

The island's low tax regime is a key reason for its past success.
There is no corporation tax for most businesses, a top rate of income tax of 18 per cent, with a £100,000 "cap", no tax on capital gains or inheritance taxes, and indirect taxes such as value added tax account for most of the local tax "take".
However, the present Manx system could be under threat and not just because of the recession. In his pre-Budget report last October Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, announced an "Independent Review" of the UK's offshore financial centres, including the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar and Bermuda.

The review, headed by the former financier Michael Foot, will not try to undermine present constitutional arrangements and the right of these centres to set their own taxation, according to the UK Treasury. But it will investigate how the financial industries of these UK offshore centres can weather the current financial turmoil.
One of the remits is to consider "financial stability and competitiveness".
Mr Foot is to submit an interim report in time for the next British Budget but no date has been set for a final report.

Should the report conclude that UK offshore centres need stronger government backing for investor protection and for keeping financial firms solvent, the cost might fall on local taxpayers.
The need to raise more money to support financial services might threaten the low-tax regimes of some offshore centre. For the time being, the Isle of Man can afford to keep low direct taxation and remains one of the safer offshore havens for savers.

The island's offshore life assurance business remains resilient. Indeed the prospect of higher tax and national insurance rates on the better off in the UK may even encourage new business. Customers of insurance companies registered on the island are protected by a compensation scheme in case the insurance company fails.
More bla bla bla …….

Thoughts on the SOA - as a "High End" Depositor

  • Hoping and coping
  • 16/10/08 31/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/02/2009 - 12:49

As I understand the Affidavits posted last week – the SOA provides for us to receive an assured sum of £50,000 each, and (but?) also provides the figure of a 60% return of our deposits. Is this a guaranteed figure, or is it also a “speculative” one, as per the previous Affidavit? This is not made clear.

I’m also concerned about the IPRR – as I understand this, once we have, any and all of us, received our £50,000, we have to wait for further “dividends” until other creditors have received up to the same percentage of our total deposit that we have received. This seems very fair indeed, but also suggests a very great deal of uncertainty. How long are any of us likely to have to wait between getting our £50,000 and getting anything further?

Another issue being debated – my understanding from reading the Affidavits is that we are barred from pursuing proceedings against the Company, but not against any Third Party, nor is the Company barred from pursuing Third Parties. However, the Affidavit submitted by Gabriel Moss, which provides legal details regarding Schemes of Arrangement, in its “Claims against Third Parties” section (Paragraphs 29-33), seems to suggest that the Company may bring claims for breach of duty, etc., whether or not the Liquidators Provisional remain in office; but that Third Parties may be summoned to provide information, etc., only as long as the LPs remain in office; and, crucially, that ANY CLAIMS OF FRAUDULENT TRADING can only be made (by Liquidators) if a winding-up order is made – thus, it seems to me, not if an SOA is in place.

In our own case, we are about to retire, and leave the country we are living in, and we need funds urgently. Our idea of, finally, having a home of our own, has evaporated, and we hope now only to have enough to be able to rent a roof over our heads. We will need to find jobs and continue working (this, in the current economic climate, is worrying enough). The SOA provides the security (ha!) of having assured payments over the next two and a half years, but what (as we get older) then?

The DCS + Liquidation route, however, is – to us – a completely unknown quantity, especially in terms of a time frame.

I try to accept what has happened. I try to adapt. But back comes the knowledge that we have saved hard to have (just) enough to provide ourselves with a home and an income to last us through to the end of our lives – and it would do that, even with 0% interest. The current economic climate would have hit us hard, but we would have been in the same boat as everyone else, and we would have been able to make decisions (perhaps we would have needed to continue working anyway) based on our being in control. As it is, we have been completely disempowered, and all control taken away from us – and it is this that I resent more than anything. (And we have to read newspaper articles sympathetic to the dilemma of KSFUK depositors who have to decide between different rates of interest on their deposits!)

I know that there are DAG members, and perhaps other non-DAG depositors, in far, far worse straits than ourselves: those expecting babies, those needing to pay for their children’s university education, those older than us, and so on. This situation is just so outrageous: we seem to be hittting walls whichever way we turn: where IS the humanity?

But we have John Wright and Edwin Coe – presumably they will have looked closely at all of this, and will be alert to the problems (for us all), and will advise us accordingly.

60k not guaranteed

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/02/2009 - 13:13

Please be aware that the 60% indicated in the SOA proposal is not a guaranteed amount. Whilst the timing of the payments under the SOA are perhaps more certain than under the DCS (not yet proven as we still do not have a likely timetable of payments under the DCS from Michael Simpson), the actual amounts that depositors will receive will be dependant on the recovery of the assets.


  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/02/2009 - 10:56

Dont forget it is the IOMG who have stated that their Depositors Compensation Scheme, that has been 'active' for many years has quote "served us well", then ask the question if it was/is that good, why do they now offer a SoA, which has never been empolyed in the IOM, never tested in legal courts in IOM, does not allow us to take legal action against the Directors of KSFIOM, and in my mind only seems to provide the Large Insurance Companies with any real benefit.
I would not be suprised to learn that Chief Execs of the Life Ins/Ass companies and IOMG have had a nice golfing weekend somewhere on IOM.

I think your note clearly

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/02/2009 - 10:29

I think your note clearly expresses your hope rather than conviction that you can trust the IOM Government.

The problem with the SoA is that it is a commercial agreement between parties, which can be reneged on (or altered by the IOM Government) due to 'adverse conditions not known at the time' and other tricks.

Liquidation isn't the ideal option, but it is a far clearer process and difficult to re-direct. I think that there should be a third (better) option - but the IOM Government want to be indecisive and the result is likely a worse case for all.

Your email could also be seen as another 'higher depositors are out for themselves' - where there is absolutely no proof of that - quite the opposite.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/02/2009 - 10:48

Hi frog
Thanks for your comment. Can the IOMG be trusted? Hope - yes, conviction - not entirely!

Problem is, as an ordinary depositor (not a member of any team with legal advisers) I just don't know what to think anymore. Maybe I read to many postings on this site and should just delete it from my Favorites list (not likely).

We need an unbiased comparison between the SOA and DCS, listing the pros and cons, for the different depositor groupings (<50k, >50k, bondholders, etc). Then maybe we can decide, - but lets wait and see what the court says. It'll probably be a further adjournment - that's an easy decision, hey?


  • srcoates
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/02/2009 - 11:05

Hi scottr

The opinion we are all waiting for is from our legal team, that hopefully will give us a clear indication of the pros and cons to each route.

I definitely do not trust the IoM Government---I was at the Treasury Select Committee on the 3rd Feb. where Tony Brown would not give the answer (clearly made in their written evidence) that the blame for originating this fiasco was with HMG. I spoke with him after the meeting and questioned why he evaded giving their written evidence answer and all he could say was, and I quote "I gave the answer I felt most appropriate". Draw your own conclusions as he further refused to elaborate on that. He also had the affrontary to say "hope it all works out for you".

Wait for the opinion, you can be certain every point of view will be represented.


  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/02/2009 - 10:57

I agree Scott

We do need clarity and decisiveness

The IOM has yet and after 4 months down the line have given us neither in this SOA.

Why is an 'anonymous' poster giving out this info?

Why isnt the IOMG doing it?