MY THOUGHTS ON THE SUB £50K ISSUE

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 06/01/2009 - 14:44

I've tried to stay out of this as much as possible because, frankly, we have enough external politics to deal with without indulging in internal politics. However, it would seem that some fellow depositors are getting more than anxious as to the intentions of the committee that is currently in discussions with the IoM authorities. As a result of this I'm laying out my own personal opinion on this matter so that there is no confusion.

I completely agree that whatever solution we come up with it must pay out as much to the sub £50k group as they would have got if the DCS scheme is activated. In my mind and, as far as I’m aware, in the mind of my fellow committee members, this is a non negotiable demand.

It is possible that going down the route of liquidation and hence engaging the DCS may be the only viable option in which case any further debate is pointless. However, it is also possible that a Scheme of Arrangement (SoA) can be put in place that offers not only a return to the sub £50k group equal to that of the DCS, but also a better return for depositors in the >£50k group.

It is here that I do not agree with certain comments I have seen that demand that the timing of payments as a result of a SoA be exactly the same as any DCS scheme - this is why:

Our stated objective from the very beginning has been the return of 100% of deposits to all depositors and I strongly believe this needs to remain the case. With this in mind let’s take two completely hypothetical situations:

Hypothetical Situation 1:

The bank is liquidated and the DCS is brought into action. The result of this liquidation is that over a period of 18 months all depositors get paid out up to a maximum of £50k. The nature of the liquidation means that the bank’s assets could not be realised at decent market values (i.e. a fire sale took place) and those with more than £50k in the bank see 20p in the pound returned to them on top of the £50k.

Hypothetical Situation 2:

The bank is NOT liquidated and a SoA is put into place. The result of this is that over a period of 18 months all depositors see a return of up to £25k and then over a further 12 months they see the return of the remainder of the £50k (where applicable). The fact that an SoA was put in place has allowed the assets of the bank to be managed and, as a result, those in the >£50 category see a return of 80p in the pound.

Take a look at both these hypothetical situations. In both cases those in the sub £50k group get their full payout but situation 2 extends their waiting time to 30 months for full recovery as opposed to 18 months. I’ll let you all decide what is the fairest route to go down should such situations arise. Which one of these comes closest to our stated goal?

Personally I am very much in the >£50k group but that doesn’t make me any less of an advocate for the repayment to the sub £50k group to be as swift as possible. What it does mean is that I expect us to find a solution that is acceptable to ALL depositors.

I have to confess to being more than slightly disappointed with the agitation that has been perpetrated by certain fellow depositors. From my point of view this has been nothing but scaremongering and in certain cases petulant attention seeking. There is no hidden agenda to prevent those in the sub £50k group from getting what they are due and it is insulting to those who have worked so hard to get us this far that such ideas are being bandied around.

We are in the process of clarifying exactly how any DCS scheme would work with the IoM authorities and we are awaiting their comments on a document that we have put together setting out our understanding of the mechanics of the DCS. Once we have this clarification we will be posting it on the main website for all to see. Those of you chomping at the bit to get the DCS enacted may wish to take a close look at what exactly you have been calling for.

4.9
Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (10 votes)

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

Why?

  • lorraine
  • 14/10/08 14/07/10
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 07/05/2009 - 13:39

This is my first post for quite a while and I have nothing to add to what has been said. A thank you as ever to Diver and the strategy team. Sensible comments from German Mike and a few others. This isn't the time to argue or dissent but just to do the best we can for all of us if that is possible.

If IOM had been sensible and honorable they would have negotiated a loan from the UK, repaid all of us quickly 100%. This would have made for several thousand happy depositors with a very positive view of the IOM; IOM taxpayers and financial institutions having a debt to repay over time but with honour intact and a future as a secure, trustworthy and proactive financial centre and HMG would be seen too as our saviour which may have helped GB to hang onto a few badly needed votes.

Instead, no matter what happens now all the depositors will go to their graves with a very negative opinion of the IOM (and HMG for that matter). There are at least 10000 people + all their friends, relatives and colleagues who will never ever trust IOM with a penny. Furthermore, I can't imagine any of us are likely to swell their tourist coffers either.

So IOM, you've spent a fortune on an SOA which could have serviced a loan which would have bought you invaluable great publicity.

HMG came out of the Icesave/N.Rock etc. disasters honourably and I believe would have supported IOM to do the same. IOM could have used the vast sums spent on Alix and the SOA on servicing the loan and gained invaluable good publicity for being the good guys. Instead.......

Manx Citizens ....... Get rid of your government and senior servants - they are not serving you well.


DCS being challenged by large depositor?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 15:11

I tried to post in RAM's "Truth or fiction" thread, but the comments box seems to be disabled.

In it, he reports the Manx Herald is (today) about to run a story perhaps about the "viability of the DCS", and whether this is just scaremongering by IoM Govt etc.

Does anyone remember this thread below? Makes interesting reading in hindsight.

Some depositors below definitely hint they or the banks may challenge DCS on the basis that the '75% of up to 20K to a maximum of 15K' Protection was changed to 50K, post-event.


Yet they are still toting their DCS

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 15:47

Well they are still toting their DCS and IFA are as well are still proclaiming it as one of the safest place for your money.

They cannot let it be seen as instilling a false sense of security.

See this article that was posted in the Phukat Gazette and is aimed at Expats

http://www.global-portfolios.com/Articles/fc39b3e4-6b23-4c0b-80fe-0d34d3...


I don't know, belly up

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 16:06

Yet I'm sure IFA's would be able to smile away any query regarding the (potential) KSFIoM non-DCS activation, especially if it's activation was contested by the depositors themselves on the grounds that the Protection was raised post-event.

Now that the Protection is at 50K, in line with the UK, and likely to stay that way after October 2009, I'm sure they can go on promoting it in the way you suggest in the link you have posted, with little fear of future depositors being warned off.


If they renege

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 16:31

If they renege on their DCS they can kiss goodbye to any other large depositors putting their money into the IOM.

They will have also earned the lasting ill will of many KSFIOM depositors who cannot be expected to remain silent on this subject.


Whilst you may have a point,

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 16:46

Whilst you may have a point, you should realise that retail banking usually only makes up a fraction of the total financial industry in any jurisdiction. For example, in Guernsey I believe that over 90% of the finance industry is made up of corporate and institutional banking which, according to the Guernsey authorities, continue to increase deposits in the Island despite the Landsbanki issues.

I am not sure if the make up of the IOM banking system is comparable but if it is, it may be that the IOM would be quite prepared to call the bluff.


They too

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 17:19

I guess that the Corporate and Institutional banking will be a bit shy too after this seeing as there at least nine large insurance companies involved.


Which is the 'strange thing', bellyup

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 17:34

I am not involved with any of the "nine large insurance companies involved", but my understanding is they are currently in support of the SOA (as read on this forum).

It may be these entities cannot 'force' through the SOA, because of their tiny voting allowance, but it does not necessarily follow they will accept the DCS and not challenge it (along with other depositors and the banks).

Whether they will challenge the DCS, we have no idea, but it seems to me that there are reasonable arguments being put forward by individual depositors against the SOA, but currently little discourse on the benefits of the DCS (see thread below).

Neither recourse seem acceptable as they stand, but my belief is the SOA has more chance of being acceptable to both 'sides', if amended, than the DCS (which would require alteration approval by the IoM Parliament). This is why I cannot bring myself to vote 'No" to SOA, although I am still considering a 'Yes' or DAG 'proxy vote'.


Again, I don't know bellyup

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 16:45

It's not going to be easy for them, but if the DCS is challenged by the depositors themselves because of the Protection guaranteed being raised post-event, I'm sure there's some story they can spin.

I would have thought they've accepted by now that they have our ill-will. Even if they paid us back 100% plus Interest tomorrow, I'm sure most of us, me included, are not going to exactly give them a 'glowing report'.


double entry post

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 04/05/2009 - 15:05

double entry post


DIVER"S THOUGHTS ON THE SUB 50K ISSUE

  • stornaway
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 16:56

Thank you Diver for your very reasonable and clear exposition of the 2 hypothetical courses you have dealt with. Bearing in mind that the earliest date for payment of any tranche from the triggering of the DCS by final liquidation would be October this year, and that remaining tranches could take quite a bit longer to materialise from the DCS, we can only agree with Diver that it is paramount that the full ramifications of the DCS if triggered are clearly understood by all depositors, in a process of clarification with the IOMG.
Thank you too Diver for having the interests of ALL depositors so clearly at heart, irrespective of size - all your efforts are greatly appreciated.


DIVER"S THOUGHTS ON THE SUB 50K ISSUE

  • stornaway
  • 28/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 16:54

Thank you Diver for your very reasonable and clear exposition of the 2 hypothetical courses you have dealt with. Bearing in mind that the earliest date for payment of any tranche from the triggering of the DCS by final liquidation would be October this year, and that remaining tranches could take quite a bit longer to materialise from the DCS, we can only agree with Diver that it is paramount that the full ramifications of the DCS if triggered are clearly understood by all depositors, in a process of clarification with the IOMG.
Thank you too Diver for having the interests of ALL depositors so clearly at heart, irrespective of size - all your efforts are greatly appreciated.


<50>50K

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 18:13

I can not make my personal comments , but will stay with majority. In my openion the selected commettee have to find a good solution which benefits to all of us . samaller or larger deposit. Any good proposal should be fit for Maxamising return with in shortest possible time. If thing hang on for very long time may it will frustating situation.


Diver, I'm very glad to have

  • VeryWorried
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:15

Diver, I'm very glad to have you and the rest of the committee representing us. Once we get our money back i believe this whole community should pay for a holiday for the committee!

Excellent informative posting, as always.


and a party

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:36

wouldnt we just love a party... I beleive it it is beleivable for our money to come back over time, thats what my tarot reader said time and patience its better than not getting it all wouldnt we all agree


Thoughts on the sub-50k issue.

  • German Mike
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 15:55

I am most reluctant to post anything further on this issue, as it seems to precipitate bouquets for Diver and the team, and a load of verbals for anyone in the sub 50k category not wholly convinced of what is going on. But I am genuinely concerned about the current situation, especially so if I am in any way the cause of it, so I must comment again. It will be the last time.

Six weeks ago I resolved to deregister from DAG; the reasons for that were not simple, and recounting them here will not make things any better. I was persuaded to stay in by a long standing and respected member, and urged to join the sub-50k group and discuss matters there. I did not expect to become a pariah for doing so, nor classified as a moner, whinger or winder-up for raising issues which to me are important.

The real problem is not the sub 50k depositors versus any other body, but the total lack of respect shown by many writers on all sides to people whose views differ from theirs. Instead of seeking common ground, ultimately to mutual benefit, creating polarity has become a DAG sport, and those who have thought long and hard before expressing themselves, however inadequately, are kicked into touch by a load of contrary verbals, often, it seems, for the hell of it. What a bloody tragedy!

I have made my position clear more than once; at the same time I have made it clear also that I am flexible on time to some degree, in the belief that if there is a solution to cover all depositors better than the DCS, it won't be quick. I have even gone so far as to make provision - with some difficulty - to cover this year without access to our 40k, and yesterday transfered those funds at the (wonderful!) rate of 1.09 to Germany. Hardly obstructive, or inflexible, or one sided is it?

So many pages have been filled with often vicious argument, and countless comments to and fro' as to fill a book, but no one has sought from me, and as far as I know none of the other rank and file sub 50k members, how far the staging of repayments and/or the time scale of full repayment might be stretched in order to benefit the group as a whole. Yes I know some contributors have profered this information, as I have, in correspondence, but I believe this should have been done by the committee, or someone on their behalf, so that both sides of the divide might establish a common point, and move forward together. Wouldn't that have been more useful than bashing the hell out of individuals?

We all tend to see DAG as the be-all and end-all of the situation, but there are close to six thousand depositors outside DAG expecting matters to be resolved on the 29th., and if our committee get the proposition wrong, there will be a tidal wave of predominantly no votes which would negate everything DAG has sought to achieve. The problems, questions, worries expressed by the smaller depositors are no doubt the same as those felt by many of the outside depositors. I am sure the committee are well aware of this, so why then the reluctance to consult - sub 50k representatives please note - and why not explain the parameters they will use to determine what is good and bad for us? The less consultation, the less openess, and the less tolerance shown is what causes divisions and unilateral actions, not any arbitrary amount of money. And no bout of demeaning comment will correct that.

I think it's wake up time, don't you?

As always, with best wishes,

Mike.


Diver, Thanks for clarifying

  • moneypenny
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 13:35

Diver, Thanks for clarifying the situation. I am in the under 50K group. I would be more than happy to wait a little longer for my money if it means others will get a better deal. I have suffered by this horrible bank fiasco, but not nearly as much as some of the others in the over 50K group. Therefore to help others I would willingly wait and hope we can all show a united front. Thank you for all the hard work.


Some Light Reading for all

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline

Diver and the Core Team

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 12:07

Heartfelt thanks to you for your determination and effort on behalf of us all. We are 100 per cent behind you. These early January days are truly very difficult for all of us and it is hard sometimes to quell that awful feeling of panic that such a situation causes us. We are trying to remain positve and continue to pressure our MP Norman Lamb. We also have continued dialogue with Henry Bellingham who we believe is doing his part in putting pressure on the government.

Thank you - your tireless efforts are very much appreciated.


Think Positively

  • steelwood
  • 24/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 17:00

My message to all those are making too many comments which will not solve any probelem.

Think positively.
Trust the core members of the selected committee , they are working hard for the best interest of all depositors smaller or larger.They have already promised to safeguard interest of everyone
Spliting the DAG in to small group will not solve any thing and not beneficiary to any one.
Thanks for all and keep united.


Diver, you have my total support

  • ianw
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 09:54

We are extremely fortunate to have Diver and his colleagues leading the DAG and all your efforts are highly appreciated. To some extent, given there are few hard facts and that people understandably are highly stressed, I can understand the outpouring of frustration. However, we are fotunate in IOM hiring Alix and Simpson is legally obliged to maximse our returns. Realisticallly, there is not a lot that most of us can do at the moment, except wait until the options are defined. I have complete faith in Diver and the team to represent all of our interests and I'm very heartened by them having direct access to the process.

Frankly, I think the best use of our time is to continue lobbying our MPs - try to persuade them to submit aural and written questions in the House - this is the best use for our energy and PLEASE give Diver and his colleagues our support and gratitude.

Ian


We are in the process of

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 09:05

We are in the process of clarifying exactly how any DCS scheme would work with the IoM authorities and we are awaiting their comments on a document that we have put together setting out our understanding of the mechanics of the DCS. Once we have this clarification we will be posting it on the main website for all to see.

This is exactly what is needed and if the demand has already been made why oh why hasn't there been a posting on the subject it might of limited the endless, pointless, boring and divisive speculation we see here.

A reply from the IoM Treasury as to exactly the the effect of triggering DSC would be could be nothing but useful. It should included scenarios for the sub 50K (time scale) and also for the the 50K plus group with a hypothetical PcW recovery rate of say 40p in the £. The actual reply should be published.


Working together...

  • Hoping and coping
  • 16/10/08 31/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 08:23

From a (much!) longer comment ("Thank you, hippychickrobbed") just posted on http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/what-about-poll-nationalisa...

I have felt perturbed and saddened by some of the comments that have been posted recently, especially the arguments between “smaller” and “larger” depositors. The reality is that we all have money tied up in KSFIOM and it is not for anyone to draw inferences about anyone else’s needs. This debacle should not have happened and we are all entitled to have our money, for whatever we need it for – and we shouldn’t have to be going through this at all.

But we are having to go through it, and the question of different scenarios and time frames is clearly fraught, and puts people in very difficult situations (though so far it is all hypothetical…), but I would hope that, if/when the time comes, we will be able to find a way to act as a group, and find a solution/solutions that will work for everyone – smaller depositors, larger depositors, direct savers, those with investment “wrappers”, etc.

Yes, there are a lot of innocent victims in this. Yes, we are lucky to have our IOM team working for us, and heeding the concerns and fears of us all. This is a particularly difficult time, as we move closer to January 29th, and beyond, and feelings will inevitably be running high. Hopefully though we can continue to work together, as things do unfold, and, yes, as we make them unfold, and hopefully we can continue to support one another.


Compensation Scheme or Not

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 07:46

I think this discussion is a bit hypothetical. The IOM is clearly trying not to activate the compensation scheme. That being the case I cannot see them putting forward a proposal that substantially put the Sub 50K depositors in a worse situation with regards to the timing of the payout than the compensation scheme would have done as it may be voted down by those depositors. If nothing else then I am pretty sure their final implementation plan of the compensation scheme will reflect this i.e. if there is a cash shortage in the bank causing a delay in their preferred scheme then the final interpretation of the compensation plan will not show quicker payout time.
Personally I am an >50K depositor but I can see both sides of the argument here and I hope all groups are willing to show some flexibility


The sub 50K issue.

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 07:22

Once again you have hit the nail(s) on the head Diver.
I don't know you and probably will never meet you but my confidence in your judgement is confirmed by your learned comments.
I had less than 50k in my accounts and am grateful that the IOM increased the DCS level when they did(surely a huge point in their favour and a show of good faith).
Like many others though this money represents the majority of my cash for living until I get my state pension in 2 years time.
I am fortunate compared with some as I have enough to live a quiet life--as long as I don't get sick! No NHS here--they want to see the colour of your money before admittance and treatment--then they won't let you out until paid in full!
I chose to live here as it is cheaper--my choice--but I always had my cashcard to fall back on if I suddenly needed £2,000 or more.
I digress.
I guess if I had millions in the bank, I would have a different perspective and that brings me to the point that has been nagging me.
What are the Big 5 investors doing?
I cannot believe that Peterborough City Council will kiss goodbye to their millions and transport for London--sounds like a Quango to me.
Surely these groups have got more clout than the rest put together--they got voted on the committee when even the bank did not!
I would support the hypothesis which returns my cash over 30 months as that would be enough and it would stop me spending it all at once!
In eager anticipation of 29th.
Thanks a bunch for your hard work!
I just checked Wikipaedia and find that Transport for London is local goverment and the management are appointed by the Mayor--lovely Boris Johnson--I bet he would kick up some s**t if he knew about this!


bobwin KSFUK not KSFIOM

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 15:10

bobwin..Just to address your possible confusion regarding Peterborough City Council etc...their money is in KSFUK not KSFIOM. They are unsecured creditors of KSFUK as is KSFIOM (in respect of our £600M)


bobwin

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 09:27

Where do you live, please ?

My wife and I need to find somewhere that's cheaper to live.
We are too old (not yet 60) and / or have insufficient capital (and income) for eg NZ, Australia, US.

Languages spoken (between us); English, French

Return to UK would be last resort, but might have to.......


the squabbling

  • davemeredithlondon
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 06:10

Wow! I haven't got to the site for a while and I'm shocked and amazed to read the squabbling that is going on between a small group- it seems mainly from a tiny bunch of people who want to get their own money back and s-d the rest. I thought we all entered into this group with the objective of getting 100% of our money back for EVERYONE!
Frankly if there are a few folks out there who now want to get their money back and stuff the others then its better for them to go off and form a little selfish group of their own as they no longer subscribe to the objective we set the group up with. I'm confident that the majority of people whether they have large or small amounts will stick together. This sort of petty squabbling has to stop. So make your decision - either you subscribe to the aims of the group or you don't - and if you don't get off our web site and go do your own selfish thing somewhere else.


everyone should get their money back in some way....

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 07:15

Hello, nice to hear someone else comment,I agree with you .I remember when i heard my bond had been opened and my funds were in there for one day without any accounts being propery opened i wrote to cottesmore. He very nicely said your out of it you will get your money back, I replied to him as i was awaiting decision on simpsons view and i said to him we want everyone to get their money back because its the correct thing, but then I have a heart.


Infighting

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 06:35

I have stayed out of the 'debate' on the <50 v 50> but have read all the posts. It strikes me that the DAG is beginning to tear itself apart which could inevitably cause the DAG to implode.

I have to agree with davemeredithlondon as I believe there are now only two options left:

a) We all pull together for the aims of the DAG - the return of 100% of our money
b) The <50 and 50> split into two distinct and separate groups

It is your choice but the constant bickering is getting us nowhere.


inflighting

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 13:34

I have proposed (supra) a joint solution which does not require separating and does require cooperation.


Maybe the answer is

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 07:25

If the the bank does not go into liquidation and perhaps is "nationalised" if that is possible the answer to thee <50K and >50K could be easily sorted. The first monies that are available that would meet similar payments to those of the DCS scheme should be handed out. In this way the <50K would be satisfied and the >50K would have 50K in their bank balance. If the handling and guarantee of the bank is sound some (hopefully many) of the <50K maybe still willing to leave the money in the bank which would help gather momentum for return of the remainde of the deposits.
I have around 100K invested but feel that the <50K must not lose anything on my behalf. Th real difficult question is what method will be quickest for them to receive their full 50K. The the 1000 pound handout is costing 11M , in that case the 150M that the IOM is putting in the pot would only give less than14K per depositor, OK this will increase a bit because of very low deposits but it certainly won't give anywhere near the magic 50K. The way the scheme works will make that goal many years away.
I believe that liquidation is not the way forward for anybody but whichever way it goes the <50K seem to have the right to expect 100% of their money they have to look very carefully at time scales to achieve this.
In my opinion the main problem now is that this has been dragging on now for nearly 4 months and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Many people now, including myself, are in dire need of cash to pay our bills, educate our kids etc. and peoples lifes, marriages and relationships are being strained soley due to the IOMs handling of the situation.


No need to split the groups

  • gerry paul johnson
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 07:25

Elgee has for some time now been trying to gather support for "independant" action. The best outcome is to let him ( and whoever he gets to follow his lead) to do their own thing.
My wife and I are in the <50K group, and neither share his general pessimism, nor desire to "split" from the DAG, so please, no more talk of splitting.
Secondly, if people find some postings offensive, they can flag them so, and eventually, the moderators would need to review that person's continued membership. Perhaps we should all consider this as I too, like many others, are heart sick of the whingeing, moaning, and winding-up created by a small minority, (and is'nt that always the case).


Agree!!!! Keep the DAG together

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 16:36

Like most of the group, we are tired of all the infighting, are in favour of keeping this group together and are in full support of the Core team. We have more than £50,000 at risk but fortunately my wife and I added our 2 adult daughters to our account to avoid potential probate fees, should something unforeseen happen to us old folk, so we are fully covered under the DCS. Despite this and the fact that we are now in need of these funds we would be prepared to wait for a portion of it in order to help those individual depositors above £50,000.

Hats off to the core team.

Cheers


undone

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 18:59

Well said sir.
Bless you,
Mark


Asking a lawyer if what you want to do is "right"?

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 13:13

It is saddening to see this problem between 50k depositors and others. I am a large depositor; at least in the financial sense, I should clarify ;-)

I would not wish any £50k depositor to be disadvantaged by me. I have my life savings at stake but still would not want to cause anyone else in this group a financial problem.

It has made me think about some years ago when I possessed around £50k in savings - not a property sale or legacy, but just hard work and being careful. At that time I would have been very distraught at the prospect of losing that sum, as it had taken me a long time to save for my future.

Now I stand to lose much more, and the effect this has had on me, is that the £50k is now less significant to me. But I have not forgotten that the £50k, some years ago, would have been my life savings too.

I think essentially that anyone in the £50k group has a right to act entirely for their own benefit. But also, everyone in this group, irrespective the amount of their deposit, has been wronged by the various parties involved and therefore we all share our misfortune together. Far better, I see it, to pull together and help as a group. After all, this group has provided support to many people here and therefore this could be considered a group benefit that all have enjoyed – the £50k and all.

Someone told me many years ago that with company liquidations, it is often the creditors with the tiny balances who go to the creditor meetings and make the most fuss, whilst the larger ones sometimes do not bother to attend. I thought of this conversation after reading some of the comments on this forum, because that is exactly what I have seen here.

But I think everyone will agree that the £50k depositors should be protected. How they act individually though, whether they are prepared to consider other families and individuals with very large amounts at stake that will change their lives forever, is really a matter for their conscience, and may depend also on how they view the importance of natural justice; not really to do with any legal advice they've taken about being disadvantaged by other creditors.

"if you need to ask a lawyer whether what you do is "right" or not, you are morally corrupt." - Linus Torvalds


I'll second that. Let him do

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 07:57

I'll second that. Let him do as he wishes, if he wishes to take alternate action for a group of depositors who he thinks he is representing (even though he didn't understand the DCS), then let him.

He should of course remember that if he does this, he will be voted down by brute force voting in accordance with the Insolvency Act, and that he may well consider taking out indemnity insurance just in case he gets sued for leading people up the garden path.

I have braced myself for an outcome that would bring tears to a glass eye, but I am tired of reading such negativity.

So to elgee - everyone else is mindful that any solution is required to treat all depositors fairly, it was always that way from the start, each group is reliant upon each other from strength in numbers - but you seem only interested in yourself (not the money though is it?) - if you really feel that you are being treated unfairly then it would seem prudent for you to form your own representitive group elsewhere.


agree...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 08:18

This was a group founded out of a crisis very quickly by a group in my view very clever guys.we are sure lucky they founded this group because we would have all been down the tubes in oct ,all of us,They have a considerable influence in the IOM and we seem to be getting sympathy over in the commons., Like my father said it will take time to recover full funds for larger depositors, the iom time frames , we all have to compromise on the proposals plus political routes of iceland honouring their guarantee or uk returning funds to us all. This has to be kept by keeping our story in the media, and lobbying mps ,. . Even politicians know that they have to eventually do the correct thing in the end but that is up to us. Instead of wasting time bickering i shall be emailing once more to our sympathiser mps and a nice email to private eye. So come on everyone this isnt worth it we are all in this together thats what happened when we placed funds in this bank, there wasnt one section that said bank here it will be better for you.,.


hippychick a very good

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 08:28

hippychick a very good response if I may say so, if the bickering doesn't stop it is going to reflect on a result I suspect. If those that think they are are not being catered for move on, so be it. In the end this Forum probably represents less that 20% of depositors. The big 4 institutions in this represent about 300m pounds, so a sense of perspective might be worth it as well. Believe me if the early instigators of action had not done something I doubt that you'd have anything other to discuss than the compensation.


I totally agree

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 07:52

Some very good points.
I crisis like this always brings out the best or the worst in people. In your case it has definitely brought out the best


Diver, Those of us who have

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 21:23

Diver,
Those of us who have met you and other members of the committee know that you are striving your hardest to achieve full recompense for everyone. Those who are not in the loop will always fear that because they are out of the loop they are being disadvantaged. The committee is built on trust and I trust you. If others do not then they are clearly within their rights to get legal representation, fly to the IoM and berate whomever they wish. However I do not believe they will as it is easier to make suggestions than take positive action.
Thnks for all you are doing and I for one am looking forward to buying you and all the others who have worked so hard (including people like expat who has for his own personal reasons taken a back seat for a while) a pint and maisie thinks you are ok as well!
John


Diver

  • rbirch
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 20:46

thanks for all your (and the team's) efforts and for this posting with the 2 scenarios which was desparately needed to get the issues aired fully.

I do have a "out of the box" suggestion which I'd like to share with you personally in the first instance. To this end I would appreciate you emailing me directly via the contact facility on this forum.


Thank You Diver

  • Fred
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 19:48

Thank you Diver, for keeping your eye on the ball for all of us. I know the discussions of alternatives must be tense, tedius, and nerve racking. Believe me, I am grateful for your involvement and you have my full support.


Please Diver, Teapot We are

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 18:45

Please Diver, Teapot

We are bond holders with a R.Skandia.

Under the Hypothetical Situation 2, the bank is NOT liquidated and a SoA is put into place, can you please give us a notion of what kind of return Bond Holders can expect?

We will welcome anyone else’s comments please

Many Thanks


Bondholders Return

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 23:04

Horacio

In scenario 2 if the SoA paid back 80% that means the insurance companies will also get 80% back. So in theory the individual bonholder should also receive 80%.


Diver's thoughts on the sub-50k issue

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 17:20

Diver: It is here that I do not agree with certain comments I have seen that demand that the timing of payments as a result of a SoA be exactly the same as any DCS scheme

As far as I am aware, no-one has suggested that the timing be "exactly the same". What I suggested was that:

payments to sub-50k depositors (if staged) be no less and NO LATER in time than they would have been under the DCS.


Questions for Elgee

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 18:52

You appear to be saying that you would accept a scheme if your total payment was completed EARLIER but not if was LATER (by however much) than under the DCS. Is that correct?

If so, that seems a very tough position - to which you are entitled, but would be disappointing. Do you have an idea how many of the <50K group share this view? I presume they are all in fact <20K - otherwise, the thought "there but for the grace of god ..." might induce a rather more flexible view.

There is also the practical question of how you will be able to be sure in advance whether any alternative scheme will lead to earlier, equal or later payment (in full) than the DCS (which has no guaranteed payment date).

I understand you don't like hypothetical questions, but I'd like to know what YOU would do if (like some DAG members) you had just sold a house and were needing to put your money somewhere safe for a month or two while negotiating a new one. Would you:
a) open n accounts in n different banks and deposit the maximum amount covered by a protection scheme in each one
b) open 1 (or at most 2 or 3) account and put in more than the limit
c) put the money under the mattress
d) other -please state
Or maybe you feel no-one should have enough money to buy a house?
A bit tongue in cheek, but still worth thinking about I reckon! In considering option (a) please remember that before October 8th the compensation limit in IoM was only 20k (or was it 15K - I forget) - so "n" would be a pretty large number.


its alright for him

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 06/01/2009 - 18:59

You seeanrigaut its alright for him, people who had 15k moved to 50k what did unfortunate bondholders like us have had ,nothing, but now we have to deal with bondcharges with no funds in them,thats how bad it is for us.


Personally I now believe that

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 08:03

Personally I now believe that the DCS was unfairly modified from 15K to 50K, and think that we should look at the legality of this modification after the event as this seeks to provide a preferential remedy to some depositors over others. I signed up knowing what the DCS terms and conditions were, they should not be changed after the event.


CapMan

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 07/01/2009 - 08:53

CapMan

I do not doubt that you deposited with a better understanding than most savers of the DCS terms and conditions.

Have you got any savings in the UK for example ?

Did you object to the FSCS increasing protection from £35,000 to £50,000 ?