Multi-Account 3-Way Realisation SoA.DCS Calc

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 04/05/2009 - 18:07

I attach the latest version of the SoA.DCS Calculator with the ability to choose your remaining balance between £50K up to x£M with a choice of three asset realisations: Low: LAR, Medium: MAR. and High: HAR. Just click on one of the three choices given at the bottom of the sheet (three shades of blue).

As before, please read the notes, comments and disclaimers! This tool has been produced using the concept gained from David Lovett's 3rd affidavit and the latest numbers from the recent SoA Explanation documentation. Please realise that 'Alix' have used some complicated calculations requiring 3 decimal places to achieve their answers - but they have only posted to the nearest whole percent in their document. This can result in small differences in comparison to the chart data due to the 'rounding' effect but it isn't significant enough to have any real impact, and as it affects both sides (SoA and DCS) comparison function is largely unaffected. The final payment in all cases is within a few pounds.

I caution users to bear in mind that the SoA and DCS may not pay out on the same time-line (though I hear the latest from MS that they will) nevertheless, it is alway something to consider that we are indeed comparing like for like in terms of the time frame to achieve returns.

If you think that the SoA is paying out more than just topping up the compensation levels, then this is so; but you need to read all the documentation and DL's affidavit to comprehend why this is so - I'm not going to try doing that here, it's not easy...

Please report anything you might consider anomalous for further appraisal. Forgive me for not producing a < £50K Calc, but I think, it is largely unnecessary as those with £30K or less will get paid in full on the first divi-up and those with up to £50K will get the second divi-up within a year of the start date. If a signifcant number of <£50K depsoitors would like a Calc I will provide one.
Ice

AttachmentSize
SoA.DCS V10c.xls139 KB
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (11 votes)

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

Thanks for going to the

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 05/05/2009 - 13:32

Brabander: Thanks for going to the trouble of repeating the warnings already presented within each page of the Calculator; the information concerning the source data is also there and the advice to read the associated documents of Mr Lovett's 3rd affidavit and the recent SoA Explanation documentation. Reservations are a matter of each person's personal concern.
Ice

PS: I RECOMMEND THAT NO PERSON BASES HIS VOTE PURELY UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE RESULTS FROM THE CALCULATOR.


Icecrusher's SoA analysis

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 05/05/2009 - 11:10

Thank you for your valiant effort. I realise that doing this must have taken a lot of time. I know because I have tried to achieve a similar aim to yours but had to give up as the INPUT DATA was so poor as to make my efforts not worthwhile.
The problem is that you can design all sorts of fancy spreadsheets which can be made to look very "official" but if the data on which they are based are is unreliable or inadequate they are just numbers without any meaning.
Therefore, Icecrusher, unless you have been privy to confidential data which mere mortals such as the undersigned have not been privy to I can only treat your spreadsheets as guess work without any fundamental validity which can be guaranteed!
The problem for me is that is that none of your figures are guaranteed by the LP or the IOMT. They only thing the SoA guarantees are top up payments at certain dates. These top up payments are unlikely to benefit depositors with >£80k.
All the other benefits are based on assumptions regarding the additional distributions the LP could possibly make as the top up payments would release additional assets for distribution. The basic problem is that it is impossible to define these numbers unless you have access to the information which the LP has but is unable/unwilling to share with the depositors, but has assumedly shared with IOMT.
If these spreadsheets had been produced by the IOMG (as promised by them!) we could have had some sort of guarantee that payments of a guaranteed magnitude would be made in accordance with a defined schedule.
In the circumstances your spreadsheets are based on a lot of unsubstantiated guesses. You may be full of goodwill or not, as the case may be, but I can not afford to take your word for this.
I RECOMMEND THAT ALL DEPOSITORS WITH MORE THAN £50K AT STAKE CONSIDER THESE POINTS VERY CAREFULLY PRIOR TO BASING YOUR VOTE ON THESE PREADSHEETS.


As politely mentioned by

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 05/05/2009 - 07:34

As politely mentioned by Swiss, the dates shown on the Calculator appear incorrect and I said I would look into it today.

Fact is, I put in the 3 months from the start date as 3 months from the first date which should have been 9 months. This is clearly wrong and I should have noticed it before posting; I can only apologise for this oversight. It is a simple remedy and I will send a corrected one to ng and ask him to swop them over. I will also leave these cells 'unlocked' so that dates other than the first date can be changed by users.

I note podather's rather schoolmasterly comment below, and look forward to seeing his list of 'errors'. The Calc only follows what 'Alix' have put in their charts so perhaps that's the first place to look. We have waited for IoMG/Alix/Spellman to provide a calculator, and the DAG have had time enough to come up with one themselves. So although it might be easier to comment on someone else's honest efforts, perhaps one of the stone-casters should put their own attempt on the forum.

Can I just say that I am not doing this with any bias towards IoMG; I have been on this site pressing all and sundry with letters and pleas to do the right thing for us, nothing has really come of all our combined efforts - and really this is because they don't have to - that's my honest opinion. I have heard the qualitative arguments which are absolutely spot-on, but as my wife said: how far do qualitative arguments stretch if the IoM were to up the quantity? Now there's a thing; if the IoMT were to offer 85% before 'clawback' how many of you would hang on to your qualitative issues, and how many would 'go for the money'?

It's something perhaps to consider, we all want our money back 100% - and we all want it now. Signing up for the SoA is a contract with the Government which can then no longer be improved - that means we'd have to seek more from elsewhere. Litigation, pursuing the Guarantee etc - who's going to have the stomach for that after another 6 years? I venture we'd rather put this agony behind us if even if it means cutting some of our losses. But not for just 70% eh?

I am showing in the Calculators just how much those with larger deposits can lose, not how much 70% could get you back! I personally stand to lose £120,000 - even if we were to get back 70% - and look at the years we have to wait for it... I have every sympathy and understanding for those with less than £50K wanting to get their money back soon - we'd all want the same, and I started out with £13,000 in the IoM 16 years ago, so I know how it feels. But now it's been taken from us, years of dedicated saving, maturing life policies, house sales etc, all gone with too many years to wait whilst the thieves keep 30% or more of our life's work. It's not just; it's cruel and vindictive on the part of HMG and IoMG that they won't sort it out between them. They are beyond contempt.

DAG want your discretionary vote; this means they could hold the power of change within their hand, to say to the IoMG we can give you the vote for SoA, or deny it. But the SoA needs 'improving' - that is, it needs a few things sorting out and 'quantity' would help, wouldn't it? Guarantee us that the top-up funding stays in the pot - period. IoM make a commitment to properly help the depositors, not 'pretend and borrow' falsehoods. In the eyes of the IoM, we are worth risking 70% if the returns look good, but less if the returns look bad, so we are of variable 'quality' - our worth is not fixed, but varies with quantity, now that's not very nice is it? These are not very nice people, they are conniving, cheapskate weaslebags who would do anything to deprive us of our dues - they would rather pay a million to Alix than go seek assistance from the UK!

I've had my say, each to their own, but the Calculator is there to show people the big picture, whichever way you wish to interpret it. I have provided this to be as accurate as I know how, and to follow a concept provided by 'Alix' if I've missed something, then 'sorry' please... someone else feel free to try.
Ice


MANY THANKS ICE

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 05/05/2009 - 20:05

Dear Ice,

Great job, thanks for all your hard work, and appreciate your comments above.

Kind regards,

Mike .


@Icecrusher

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 05/05/2009 - 10:32

First of all many thanks for all the work you have put into this.

Also, I read your posting above and feel it really explains very well how depositors feel, and nicely sums up the IOM Gov´t.


Don't get too carried away with it just yet.....it's wrong.

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 21:28

The above SOA v DCS calculator contains a number of inaccuracies which do not portray the correct differentations between the schemes.

These include the dates the payments will be made and the acceleratory effect of the funding in the SOA up to the 70p/£ threshold.

I will be contacting Icecrusher to rectify these faults in the hope that an "approved" and correct calculator can be posted shortly.


Approved by whom - and on

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 05/05/2009 - 12:21

Approved by whom - and on what criteria?

Given all the uncertainites, how to you define "correct"? (see below)


Inaccuracies ?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 05/05/2009 - 08:54

I hope you and IceCrusher can sort this out soon. I have tried to help a little, and - apart from the problem with the dates (which I think has no effect on the values in the tables as it is just typed in afterwards and not used in any calculations) - I find it hard to see how you can say it is inaccurate as WHAT IT PURPORTS TO BE.

But perhaps that is where the problem lies - and which maybe Ice has not sufficiently stressed? If I understand well, all he has (valiantly) tried to do is to reproduce the figures provided (for a few selected credit balances) in Alix's tables under the graphs in the Explanatory Note in a calculator which can then be used to interpolate between these tables for any (intermediate) balance supplied by the user.

We know - and Ice knows (though he has perhaps not stated it strongly enough) - that Alix's figures are based on certain assumptions, all of which carry uncertainties and some of which are more disputable than others. In particular, the liquidation/DCS predictions are based on a worst case scenario for the DCS : to quote from a note by the FSC (themselves!): "the outcome ... is based on the minimum funding contribution estimated under the DSC Regulations on the assumptions for the claims profile set out by the proposed Scheme Supervisor and assumes no loan funding is available ..." . That makes it a worst case scenario on at least 3 counts. As the FSC go on to say: "The outcome does not represent a prediction of the actual claims or payment profile under the DCS Regulations in the event that it is triggered" and suggest that in that event the DCS Scheme Manager would indeed consider exercising its power to borrow.

If that is what you mean by inaccuracies which "do not portray the correct differentiations between the schemes", then I agree with you.

But as far as I can see there are no "inaccuracies" as such in what Ice has done - the figures obtained from his calculator do seem to agree (give or take a few rounding effects) with those used in the graphs (or have you found some more significant discrepancies?). And that was the, admittedly limited, objective. Beyond that, it is difficult to see how any of us can produce a more "correct" version as we do not have access to the underlying data required to do that. Or maybe you have some ideas about that? Otherwise all we can do to satisfy the apparent need for some form of calculator is to provide this tool, together with a clear WARNING as to its probable bias and limitations and let people decide for themselves. And time is short - votes are already being cast.


SoA/DCS calculator shows SoA superior for everyone

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 18:55

If I'm not mistaken, the latest SoA/DCS calculator by Icecrusher shows the SoA gives higher and quicker returns for all depositors (<10k to >1,000k) for all asset realisations (low, medium and high cases).

The time-lines for longer-term distributions for the SoA and DCS are not known so there could be differences which may be more favourable for a liquidation but could also be more favourable for the SoA - at this stage it is assumed that the time-lines are equal, which is probably not too far wrong.

Surely, if there is no mistake in the calculator, it is obvious that the SOA IS SUPERIOR TO LIQUIDATION FOR ALL DEPOSITORS AND FOR ALL ASSET REALISATIONS.

I am keen to see what arguements will be advanced against the SoA in the light of this new information.

Thank you so much, Icecrusher, for giving us a quantitative tool to use!


@IceCrusher - DCS/SOA calculator

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 19:02

deleted


@ knife edge SoA.DCS Calc

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 19:09

I'm sorry to hear this - are you using MS Excel? It was set to accept at least £10,000,000. Perhaps you are inputting the full number in the balance cell? If you 'hover' over the red triangle in the balance cell you should get my note appear saying to input 100 for 100,000 etc (it just saves putting in all those zeros' all the time). The program works on Open Office, but not so good on google docs. If you still have trouble email me and I'll send you another copy. I think it could be the balance input number with too many zeros though...
Ice


@ IceC re SOA/DCS calc

  • Knife Edge
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 20:13

Got it sorted now (thankfully - for all sorts of reasons - I had, as you identified above, just inputted too many zeroes on my deposit numbers!)

The DAG Strategy Team is keen to understand the assumptions and workings underlying this spreadsheet, which - for the avoidance of doubt - hasn't been endorsed by DST. Can you send me an unlocked version? Thank you.


payment timeline

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 19:25

Thanks for doing this Ice. But I thought that the payments for SoA were summer 2009 then not before June 2010 (according to SoA doc) and conversation I had with someone from PWC


@swiss payment 'dates'

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 19:41

This is not actually the 'time-line' I was referring to above. The time line alluded to above means that returns from the SoA may not be paid at the same time as they would under liquidation. They may occur at the same time for the first couple of payments, but over the next 5-6 years could drift apart. What you are referring to are the payment dates. The first one is coloured blue which means you can change it (all data in blue). I understood that the first payment would be made within 90 - 100 days from the start date and the second one 12 months from the start date. These things have been looked at by another but little things can pass by. I will recheck the docs tomorrow.
Ice