NO TO FUNDING THE PENSION SCHEME DEFICIT _ UPDATE AND CONTINUATION

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 19/07/2009 - 16:37

ng has rightly decided to close the previous thread. It had become the general dumping ground for the battle between HNW and DST and the original aims had become completely swamped.

So, I am opening this new thread so that our struggle to prevent our monies being used to fund the pension scheme deficit can be calmly pursued. The poll that accompanies the previous thread remains open and I urge anybody who comes new to this issue to vote in the poll.

First of all, thanks to everybody who has written to PWC on this issue. The response has been magificent and shows that if issues are clearly defined we can still be mobilised in defence of our money. Nearly 200 voters in the poll and still 100% against taking our money. I don't think we've ever had a 100% poll before and that shows our strength of feeling. But even 200 is only a relatively small part of our membership - I wonder where the rest are?

Dare I suggest that the warring factions take note that we do not need to descend into the mire that we are presently in?
That was an aside I couldn't resist and I apologise!

Secondly, I urge all of us to limit postings on this thread to comments or ideas on the pension fund issue. It will be easier to follow and more helpful to all of us. I am pursuing this because I feel so strongly about it both as an issue of principle and
because the sum of £3m and counting- literally by the actuaries - is so significant.
But I do not have a monopoly of knowledge on pension schemes and if any of you have specific points you wish to make or suggestions as to how to tackle the issue I am very open to additional ideas. Either directly here or by email message through the contact facility.

Now for an update.

As an addendum to my first posting I asked HNW and DST to define their positions on this issue. I think it is fair to expect them to do so. So far I have had no reaction - as far as I know. This issue in cash terms is 5 times as important as the fees charged by PWC for work on the SoA and we rightly spent a lot of time dealing with that.
We should expect to know how this problem fits in to the scheme of things. And I do not believe that it should be left to the first or subsequent meetings of the Committee of Inspection. PWC have already known of this issue for several months and said nothing until they tried to slip it in unnoticed via the announcement of the first 'slate' agreed between HNW and PWC. I have told Mike Simpson that I believe he was wrong to hide it from us and that he will not be able to do so again.

Since first raising the isuue on the site on July 16th - it seems much longer than 3 days ago - I have written 3 letters to Mike Simpson. Broadly speaking, I have asked him for all the relevant information concerning the scheme, including its origin, its present status, its past management and its precise current situation. So far I have no replies. I intend to phone him tomorrow to try to get some initial information.

As information becomes available I will post it in addendums on this thread.
In the meantime can I ask those who have not written to Mike Simpson to write to him making it clear that not only do we totally reject any use of our monies to fund the pension scheme defict but that we also consider membership of the pension fund representative on the Committee of Inspection to be unwarranted and premature until PWC have decided whether or not the pension fund has an admissible claim.

4.969695
Your rating: None Average: 5 (33 votes)

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

pension scheme update

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 31/07/2009 - 10:19

Have had no reply to any of my emails to Mike Simpson for 10 days now. So sent the following email today

Dear Mr Simpson

You don't seem to wish to reply to any of my recent emails? On holiday? Not indisposed with swine flu, I hope?

Well, I really would appreciate some answers to the following
1. Have you yet received an actuarial valuation of the Pension Scheme? What are its
findings?
2. Is Boal &Co - or an associated actuary- both actuary and Pension Scheme Trustee?
If so, is the valuation being prepared- or has it been prepared - by the
actuary/Trustee or by an independent actuary?
3 Have you yet decided whether to admit or reject the Pension Scheme as a
creditor?
4. If you are unwilling to answer these questions would you please tell my why?

I have also prepared my views on the arguments against admitting the Scheme as a creditor and sent a summary paper to each depositor member of the Committee.

It would be useful I think for anybody who reads this update to send a message to Mike Simpson asking similar questions.

My fear is that the Scheme will be accepted and nothing said to us.

If you have not voted in the poll launched at the beginning of this thread then I suggest you do.


PENSION SCHEME -IS ONE OF THE TRUSTEES THE ACTUARY ?

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/07/2009 - 22:02

Mike Simson has said Law Debenture London and Boal & Co IOM are the Scheme Trustees.
I understand that Boal & Co are actuaries. I have written to Mike Simspon to ask if Boal are also actuaries to the scheme. If they are he should refuse to accept any actuarial valuation done by them. Any actuarial valuation must be done independently of the Trustees whose interest it is see the valuation done as generously as possible. In fact ideally the actuarial valution should be done by an English actuary who is also asked to look into the past deficit ridden history of the scheme.


Committee of Inspection and the Pension Scheme

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 01/08/2009 - 09:36

The liquidator - now in the form of liquidator.2 - continues to refuse to give me any meaningful information about the situation of the pension scheme, including a refusal to tell me whether the actuary and the Trustee are the same person, namely Boal. He is hiding behind the spurious excuse that all creditors' claims are confidential, but in what way is the name of the actuary "confidential"?
Their latest reply says
"All claims will be assessed and and the Committee of Inspection will oversee that the liquidation process is carried out correctly."
This is a bone the Committee should not let go of. It is crucial that they pursue the question by every means they have - I suppopse I could say 'doggedly'.
In the midst of BA's current problems it was announced yesterday that they have huge problems with their pension scheme. I felt like writing to Willy Walsh to suggest he put BA into administration, take whatever was necessary from the creditors then resurrect the company and fly off with the pension scheme problem solved.


Well done Banna

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/07/2009 - 23:32

Well done in all your investigative work so far. Should we all be writing to Mike Simpson to ask the same thing?


pension scheme actuaries

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/07/2009 - 10:06

Glen 07
we should indeed all be writing to Mike Simpson to insist on having more information not only on the actuary situation but also on the whole scheme.
But, be warned, when I tried to email him on Friday at his email address mike [dot] simpson(?)iom [dot] pwc [dot] com which was ok up to then the email was returned not delivered. I called the office and couldn't find out whether he has changed his address but was advised to use branch(?)singers [dot] co [dot] im
I.m still waiting for an answer.
Please do write and ask about the actuary situation as combining actuary and trustee is equivalent to combining the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury.


UPDATE TO PENSION SCHEME 23 JULY

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/07/2009 - 09:20

I have now looked at the company accounts for 2005 and 2006.
The only significant new information that appears is that the scheme has been in chronic deficit for as far back as 2001 and by the looks of it for much longer. It has never been in surplus until 2007.
Given that, I have told Mike Simpson that I believe the Trustees have failed in their duty of responsibilty for the whole lifetime of the scheme and that it would be a travesty of justice to now expect us to come to their rescue. I do not believe they have either a moral case or a legal case and we should tell the Trustees to seek their money through the Courts or from Kfh.
Furthermore I have asked him to consider the following questions;
- has the 1995 Pension Act ever been used in the case of a failing bank to take depositors' monies to fund a deficit?
- has the Act been used to take depositors' monies to fund a CLOSED scheme?
- in 2006 the Trustees closed the Scheme. They could have protected the positions of scheme members by crystallising each position. They chose not to. They therefore have no right to take depositors' money to correct their wrong decision
- finally I have asked him to investigate whether any case law exists concerning the ownership of future surpluses in the scheme if our money was handed over to the scheme. When that occurred in 2007 in the bank KSF took the surplus to profit.
I am also following up on information I previously asked for and have not received.


Kudos to banna and shame on THEM

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/07/2009 - 18:51

You've done phenomenal work, banna. I would much rather see you alone as our representative on the Creditors' Committee than those four, who did not utter a single word of objection at the hearing when S&F Pension Fund was not only being accepted as a creditor but also granted a seat on the committee.

Kudos to you and shame on them!


Great work Banna

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/07/2009 - 16:39

Well done. I still can't understand how a scheme with 5million assets and a surplus in 2007 lost 3million of the assets in 2008 unless they put the money with KSFIOM or madoff............ and if so why is that our problem??????


Nice work Banna I must say

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/07/2009 - 16:17

Nice work Banna I must say


Good news

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/07/2009 - 14:50

You're doing a great job Banna - thanks!


Fabulous banna

  • Julienne
  • 16/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/07/2009 - 20:13

Wow -- what great work and understanding of this stuff - I hope someone on teh CC listens to you and follows up alongside your questions - totally FAB!! To show my age!!


nice one Banna

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/07/2009 - 15:05

Hear, hear Done LA Kipper.....nice one Banna. Excellent work. Thanks.


PENSION SCHEME -INFORMATION FROM THE ACCOUNTS UPDATE

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 21:17

Thanks to others' efforts in sending me the accounts I've now been able to have an ititial look see and answer some of the important questions.

  1. The bank has 2 pension schemes
    a. a defined contribution scheme - what most of us would call a personal
    pension plan approach. Normally the only obligation for the bank would be
    to pay an agreed sum per month as long as the employee is in service. The
    obligation ends when the employment contract ends. The accounts mention
    no future obligation so I think we can forget that scheme, at least unless/until
    some new and unexpected information comes to light.
    b. a defined benefit scheme which is the one that concerns us. This is the
    traditional UK company pension plan: you work for n years and the pension
    fund pays you a pension of x% of your salary when you retire.
  2. The pension scheme history goes back beyond the date of acquisition of Singer &
    Friedlander so it must have arrived in Kaupthing from S&F.
  3. The accounts show the scheme had a small deficit in 2003 but very large deficits
    in 2004-5-6 varying from £549k to £1006k.
  4. The scheme was closed in mid 2006 and no new members were
    accepted. Presumably a decision taken by Kaupthing.
  5. An actuarial valuation was carried out end 2007 showing the scheme had a
    surplus of £568k at 31 December 2007.This had changed from a deficit of £549k
    at December 2006. Present value of funded obligations was £4593k and the
    value of assets was £5161k .
  6. The accounts say this asset ie the surplus is carried in the balance sheet. I assume
    that means the bank's balance sheet. I'm not sure why it should be there - is there
    some accountant reading this who can explain that to me?
  7. The company paid £428k into the scheme in 2007 and promised to pay a further
    £320k in 2008. We don't know whether this was paid before Oct 8th or not.
  8. The scheme's assets of £5161k were in
    equities - £2568k
    bonds - £2184k
    cash - £490k
    I'm therefore very doubtful if any its assets were held in the bank
  9. The accounts mention no committment by the company to fund the scheme
    beyond 2008. There might be a committment included in the sale/purchase
    agreement for S&F or in some private agreement between KSF and the pension
    scheme but if so I would question the accounts as presented : a known
    obligation/liability should have been in the notes and should have figured in the
    balance sheet.
  10. Given that there was no explicit committment to fund the scheme beyond the
    2008 contribution I continue to contest the right of the pension scheme to
    claim money from us over and above the £320k agreed for 2008.
  11. Furthermore, given the surplus announced in December 2007 I see no
    justification for a future deficit other than temporary loss of value of assets, and
    I see no reason at all for us to fund such a loss.

The story is certainly not yet finished. We have no idea what decision Simpson will take nor whether he will go to court to get some moral backing.

The Directors' Statement of Affairs and the Liquidator's Report which should have been published last week and are still not with us might throw further light on the issue.
Like you, I have received virtually no information from Simpson on the grounds of Data protection. I believe the Act applies only to individuals and not the sort of information we need on the pension scheme so I'm going into battle on that front.

If anybody out there draws other conclusions from this information please post them.


Pension Scheme Accounts Update

  • Grouville1
  • 26/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/07/2009 - 08:18

Banna -Thanks for the summary above.
I have had a look at the 2007 accounts .I am an accountant and not an actuary, but my reading of the situation is as follows.
Indeed the defined benefits scheme was closed in 2006, but what the company did was to have an actuarial valuation based on a number of assumptions, most of which are shown in the accounts, the most significant being that they assumed the return on plan assets to be 6.23% compound.
On this basis there was a current surplus of £651k which the directors recognised in the banks accounts. They also recognised and noted that again based on the actuary's assumptions that the bank would need to make £748k additional contributions over a 2 year period.
Enter the Credit Crunch and the actuary's assumptions of growth are blown out of the water, and the valuation of £5161k would have been significantly reduced.(I am sure readers will have seen staments from their pension schemes for 2008-2009 showing how much their careful investments have lost over this period!)
I assume this is why they now want an updated actuarial valuation, which will not only take into account lower asset values but no doubt a different growth assumption. You can see where thats leading - a huge defecit - presumably thats Mike Simpsons £3+m
My limited experience of closing final salary schemes in the past has been that the company calculate the sum to provide the accrued benefit at that point and buy individual policies for the members. In that way they have crystalised the company's liability and no longer need to be concerned.
The bank's directors appear not to have chosen such a route, but decided to continue to monitor the liability year by year, adding further contributions as and when required. In doing so they would seem to have left the bank open to potentially huge liabilities arising from events such as the Credit Crunch.
Not good news.


Grouville -pension scheme accounts

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/07/2009 - 09:41

tGrouville, thanks for your comments.
I agree with you about crystallisation of obligation at time of closure of a defined benefits scheme. Every time I have known a scheme of this type closed that has been the route chosen because it is the only way I know for the company and the Trustees to be sure of the committment they are making.
As an accountant can you comment on the following questions please:
1. I agree with the description of the position apparently adopted by the company.
That leaves them with a liability to fund the scheme for ever. Should that liablity
not be explained in the notes to the balance sheet and a provision made for it in
the accounts? What is your view of the auditor's position faced with that? And
the Directors' responsibility?
2. I assume my previous question about treating the scheme surplus and deficit as
balance sheet items - and it would appear as P/L entries - is explained by
the apparent decision they have taken on funding?
3. As you say, the potential liabilities are huge. We are absolutely at the mercy of
the assumptions made by the actuaries, assumptions which would give one result
today and a different one in 2 years' time depending upon market
conditions. My argument with Simpson since my first letter to him is that it
would be contrary to any idea of natural justice to take depositors' funds to sort
out this mess. Do you have a view?
4. I do not understand why on page 6 of the accounts the actuarial difference
is described as an actuarial gain and is added to operating profit and why on
page 40 cash flow notes the same figure is called an actuarial loss. Can you
explain?
5. Surely the potential liabilities of the policy adopted are sufficiently large for the
Directors' Report to include special mention of it?
6. Could it be argued that - as the notes to the accounts only quantify an
obligation for 2008 and neither the accounts, nor the notes to them nor the
Directors' Report mention any future committment and no financial provision for
future liability is made- in fact no future liability has been created or accepted by
the company? If so my view is that the liquidator has no grounds for accepting
any claim beyond the £320k for 2008. Do you have a view?


Pension Scheme deficit

  • Grouville1
  • 26/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/07/2009 - 08:24

Banna
I have looked further at this and the points you raise.
Firstly, like you in point 4 above I cannot see why they describe the £651k as a loss when clearly it isnt. Can only assume thats wrong in the notes but doesnt affect the main issue.

However turning to the whole treatment of the Deffered Pension Scheme, the accounting and actuarlial treatment is described ( all too briefly for readers not familiar with such matters- which includes I dare say the majority of accountants who wouldnt come accross such matters these days) in note f on page 9 and in note 9 starting on page 21.
The Directors have said that they have adopted the appropriate International Accounting Standard (IAS 19) in calculating the entries for the year, and from what I can see they did indeed follow this very complex process. It involves using actuaries to measure (on a discounted present value) the assets and liabilities of the scheme.It apparently is a well established internationally method of accounting for such schemes and therefore I can understand why the auditors were content with the figures and degree of disclosure.
There is no requirement for an organisation which is a "going concern" to do anything other than follow the Accounting Standard. One the organisation is no longer a going concern, the liabilities could change, possibly significantly.
Typically the employer essentially underwrites the fund in the event that the assets in the fund are insufficient to pay the required benefits.
I cannot see much milage in questioning the 2007 accounts, but what the exercise has done is to put us on notice about the issue and we shall expect to be able to scrutinise very carefully what M Simpson produces from the actuary.

If you want to discuss further I can let you have my phone number


ksf iom pension scheme

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/07/2009 - 11:13

Thanks again Grouville.

I am going to get the 2006 accounts as that was the year the scheme was closed and see if there is anything interesting in them.

I am sure there will be many other questions, but I'll try to get them together and send you a personal message thro' the site. Perhaps a phone call might be useful after that.

The sorts of questions that are going through my head are whether IAS 19 makes any specific mention of closed schemes, whether the 1995 Pensions Act which PCW are quoting has been used in another bank insolvency to take money from depositors' to redress a pension scheme, whether the1995 Act has ever been contested in court in a similar situation, and whether there is any jurisprudence concerning the future ownership of the money taken from depositors' monies resulting in an over funded scheme later on as markets improve. If that happened when the bank was a going concern as we see from the 2007 accounts the company took the resulting surplus to profit.
That last feature also puts my mind in something of a whirl as I wonder if cash actually flowed out of the pension fund into the bank or whether it was purely an accounting transaction.
You might like to reflect on some of these points and when I've got some more I'll contact you and we can either deal with them thro' emails or by phone.
thanks a lot for your help.
It's also clear that we are dealing with very professional Trustees in Law Debenture not with a couple of former Directors, as is sometimes the case.


Pension Scheme information

  • btandkt
  • 11/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/07/2009 - 07:37

Given the numbers quoted by Banna I can't see how there can now be a deficit of 3 million. The pension commitment was 4.6m and the bonds and cash alone were worth 2.67m. Even if the equities had fallen to zero since end 2007, the bonds would have increased due to the falling interest rates over the past year, leaving a deficit of no more than about 1.5m. This would be reduced further by the residual value which the equities must have today.

I have written to Simpson regarding the principle of the pension fund having a claim and asked him a simple question, namely "if the pension fund was in surplus at the date of liquidation, would we have the right to claim the excess as part of the assets available to pay out to depositors?" If the answer to this question is NO, then how can the reverse be true for a deficit in pension funding. I have not yet had a reply!


Banna, Has the Isle of Man

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 21:30

Banna,
Has the Isle of Man implemented its own Data Protection Act? I know the Uk one alows for applications to a court etc but as the IoM is not included in UK law they would have had to publish their own version. What law is Simpson referring to?
Presumably he would not rely upon UK law as that would be inconssitent with other issues that have arisen over the last few months where the IoM proudly state their independence.
John


sunnysouth - data protection act

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/07/2009 - 11:38

Don't know whether IOM has its own DP Act. I assume he's using the pretext of the UK Act and have replied today.
Dear Mr Simpson,
Thank you for your latest reply to my requests for information. To suggest that the Data Protection Act prevents you from giving me the information I asked for is to waste your time and mine - and as some of my money is being taken to pay for your time I am not amused.
The Data Protection Act covers any data concerning an identifiable and living individual. Aggregated information and information made anonymous by aggregation is not covered by the Act.
So, please tell me what part of the Act prevents you from giving the following information I requested.
1.How many employees were covered by the Scheme at 8th October 2008?
2. Was/is the Scheme open to all employees or to some classes of employee?
3. Was the company up to date with its contributions at October 8th 2008? ie had it paid the £320k it had promised to pay in 2008?
4. Did the Scheme hold any of its assets in the Company? If so,how much?
5. How many past employees of the scheme were pensioners at October 8th?
6. Have you yet received the actuarial report as at October 8th? What are its findings?

I should be extremely grateful to receive answers to these questions or for you to tell me which provision(s) of the Act prevent(s) you from doing so.

The other 10 questions I put to you originally I have now managed to answer from other sources.
Are you not ashamed to have refused to answer the simple question "Was the Scheme a defined benefits Scheme?" on the grounds that the Data Protection Act prevented you from doing so? No professional person jealous of his dignity or with any self-respect would have descended to that level of pettiness.


Banna, see link from manx

  • thesunnysouth
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/07/2009 - 12:41

Banna,
see link from manx person below to the IoM DPA. Like the Uk law it relates to personal information and unlikely to cover the information you seek.

John


IoM Data Protection Act

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/07/2009 - 12:22

The Isle of Man does have data protection legislation enacted - see http://www.gov.im/odps/overview.xml


go for it banna

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/07/2009 - 12:02

thats it, it is our money he is spending. It makes me sick to my stomach out of our misfortune for the next 5yrs we have to beg to see this and that, god what afterlife is this man going to.?Maybe pwc should reduce their fees so we can see our deposits nearer to the amount we placed it as, we didnt even choose them to work out the sums. This is a 5yr sentence..


iom pension scheme and the accounts

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 17:36

Thanks to all of you.
I now have the accounts.
Have had 2 replies from Simpson today. He IS hiding behind the Information legislation which seems rather silly in the light of the information available in the accounts.
Have a few hours of analysis and reflection to do and will then post my thoughts on what the accounts tell us.
Had we not raised the issue I feel it would have gone through on the nod. For the moment it is worth pursuing.


Pension scheme clarrification

  • Grouville1
  • 26/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 13:13

I emailed Mike Simpson in order to get a better understanding of the issue.
This was his reply
"Thank you for your email, the contents of which are noted. Unfortunately the Data Protection Act prevents me from sharing the details of the Pension Fund claim. I can confirm that the Pension Fund claim will have to be proved like that of any other creditor, and rejected in part or in full if it is not considered valid. However, if the Pension Fund claim is valid, then it will have to be accepted. I realise that this may turn out to be a contentious matter, but I can only apply the law.

I can assure you that the suffering of creditors is at the forefront of my mind, and I have acted at all times in the best interests of creditors. "

Which doesnt help much


The Simpson

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/07/2009 - 07:02

IMHO this man is a brown nosed hypochrite.

He claims to be acting in the best interests of depositors which is his legal obligation, but everything he actually does is contradictory to this statement and requirement--well fcuk you simpson--if you were here you would meet an untimely end because you are not only a hypochrite but a liar and a thief so up yours --I hope you are reading this simpson cos I mean all that I say and the actions you have and have not taken prove it so dont even think about libel or slander! The prooof is in the actions and in actions--you are protecting your and your company's interest --not the depositors!

Shame on you and your cohorts--I hope you sleep well---conceit is a good way


Its a done deal

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 21:06

Almost nine months of listening to Mike Simpson and his obvious connection with IOM I thinks his sentence starting "However if the Pension Fund claim is valid, then it will have to be accepted" tells me its a done deal.

By the way, there are 65 guests on line, who ARE these people ?


Hogwash!

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 22:49

Is this the same Mike Simpson?

"I can assure you that the suffering of creditors is at the forefront of my mind, and I have acted at all times in the best interests of creditors"

That's not what the evidence of the last nine months says.....

I noted that on his documents he sometimes signs off 'Michael' and other times 'Mike' - are these alter egos?? with different agendas???


I got the same

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 13:46

I got the same reply


same me too

  • Julienne
  • 16/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 18:42

Me too - I got the same reply - sent him another question though!!


Pension scheme

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 13:27

Being Devil's Advocate I think this response does help as it clarifies Simpson is aware of the issue's sensitivity, that the validity of the Pension Fund claim will be subject to IOM law in due course and there appears no advantage in spending extra monies and increasing creditor stress investigating the validity of the claim separately.

It would help if you were kind enough to post your original mail to Simpson to see if he is or is not hiding behind the Data Protection Act.


Pension Scheme

  • Grouville1
  • 26/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 15:28

Chris

re your email today - this is my email to MS

"Dear Mr Simpson
As a depositor and creditor of the bank I was surprised to hear that you are proposing adding the Bank’s pension scheme to the list of creditors. I am told by the DAG that there has been a figure mentioned of between £3m and £3.5m.
Can you please clarify exactly what this is, was it;-
1. Cash that the scheme had on deposit with the bank
2. Contributions due from the employer
3. a scheme deficit
4. other

I would also like to know whether the scheme is purely one of KSF(IOM) or a wider KSF group scheme.

I trust that you have this information readily available, otherwise I am sure you would not have been able to recognise such a “claim” on the remaining assets of the bank. "


Pension Scheme

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/07/2009 - 07:56

Like I said before, they voted as unsecured creditors and NOW they want depositor status--well they can f*** off--they are last in the line IMHO.


What do the last accounts

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 02:54

What do the last accounts filed say about this? I would have thought the accounts would disclose some details about the scheme and its nature (i.e. defined benefit etc, and any funding shortfall there may have been at that time)


KSF IOM accounts

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 07:57

I don't know manx person.
I am going to ring the FSC today and try to get the accounts for 2006/'7.
Will probably have to try to locate accounts for Derbyshire too.
But I don't think we should have to do all this digging. Our liquidator should feel that the information is available to all of us who are interested and provide it.
What the hell is there to hide? And if the issue is being hidden shouldn't that make us more wary?


KSF IOM accounts

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 10:30

in the FYE 2007 the defined benefit obligation was listed as at 31/12/07 as being £4.5593,000 and the plan assets were £5,161,000 giving a surplus of £568K.

I have a copy of the accounts, they are a matter of public record on the Companies file - if I knew how to attach them to this post I would do.


manx-person - ksf iom accounts

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 13:41

Thank you manx-person.
Can you repeat the figures please.
As shown you say the obligation is £45.593m and the assets are £5.161m. Which god forbid.
Can you confirm obligations are £4.559m and assets £5.161m?
If so that would be very reassuring, but somewhat difficult to see how they could have created a £3m deficit in the following 10 months. That would require a 70% decrease in asset values which even in these conditions is difficult to imagine. Unless of course they had entrusted all or most of their funds to Madoff or Lehmann! Which is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
There may of course be more than one pension fund.
I am sending you my email address asking you to send the relevant pages.
Thanks again - collaboration does work!


KSFIOM accounts @ banna

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 13:46

yes, there was an extra 5 in there sorry - Well maybe the KFSIOM pension scheme assets were looked after by KFSIOM (i.e. £3M of it) If this is the case, then that might explain why there is a £3M claim?
I have emailed ng so I can somehow post the details on the website of the accounts.


s&f pension fund

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 14:11

I have asked Simpson whether the Scheme did keep any of its money in KSF IOM. He has declined to give me a straight - or any - answer to that question. I have said to him that to the extent that the scheme did keep money in the bank then they are a creditor like any of us.So there could be no argument about them having as much right as we have to get back a deposit.

But 3 things lead me to think they did not have money in the bank or at least not much :

  1. Simpson described them as the largest NON DEPOSITOR CREDITOR in the bank

  2. In his first clear mention of the Scheme he says he is awaiting an actuarial valuation in order to post a claim.

  3. If they had money in the bank they would be a class 1 or 2 depositor like us and there would have been no need for class 3.

Why the hell is it so difficult to get clear information on such a simple thing when it is our money that is at risk??


PENSION FUND

  • flying pig
  • 16/12/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 14:51

Sounds to me as if Simpson is favouring the IOM again with this talk of an actuarial valuation!

Surely they can only claim for the cash deposited not any shortfall of cash required to meet it's obligations! If there is a shortfall it is the Pension Trustees and Management that should be sued. Can someone make sure that Simpson is advised of this as I am sure that once again he is putting depositors at the bottom of his list and here will be favouring bank staff and management in IOM who have arguable been incompetent?

Simpson constantly talks about creditors interests and it is appalling that depositors in IOM do not rank higher up than ordinary creditors.


the next 5yrs

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 15:00

i told you he has to be patrolled.. and I mean Patrolled..


I thought for one minute you

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 15:05

I thought for one minute you said parolled ;-)


I thought you meant payrolled!!!

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/07/2009 - 03:08

More likely payrolled by us all!!


yes, manx person

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 17:34

a home is in there..


Accounts

  • Mrs Not Too Happy
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 08:45

If it's any help I hold a copy of KSF(IOM) Ltd 2007 accounts but I don't know how to post them.

If anyone wants a copy either email me or someone explain how to post them !


accounts

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 14:17

Thanks Mrs not too Happy
Can you send me the relevant pages to my email address? I'm sure ng could tell you how to do that.
Sorry I cannot tell you.
I manage to send and receive emails but there are some electronic mailing features that are still beyond me The number of times I have to appeal to my children - and grandchildren - is humiliating.


KSF IOM accounts

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 07:57

I don't know manx person.
I am going to ring the FSC today and try to get the accounts for 2006/'7.
Will probably have to try to locate accounts for Derbyshire too.
But I don't think we should have to do all this digging. Our liquidator should feel that the information is available to all of us who are interested and provide it.
What the hell is there to hide? And if the issue is being hidden shouldn't that make us more wary?


Accounts - Posted attached on a new thread

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 20/07/2009 - 15:00

Ive posted these on a new thread; I have also emailed them to you.


New thread on bank pension scheme

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/07/2009 - 18:26

In case you weren't aware, you posted that in the "movers and shakers" group, which is probably a good place. Perhaps post a link to it in "All members" also, so that those who want to follow it can do so more easily.


Pension Scheme

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 21/07/2009 - 03:13

The vote from this on the Soa was no in class 3-unsecured creditor.

I may be dim but how can the 3million value be merited when it has no actuarial backing and how now does the pension scheme become a depositor?

Seems to me that the issue of the pension scheme claim is close to a scam--they say they are 3 million short so get a 3 million vote--who authorised that? and on what basis?

Now it seems they want to be considered a depositor( like Aspden calls an investor) how much of the pension scheme cash was in the bank? Were they also class1/2 voters and did they deduct this from the class 3 vote which I feel was illegitimate as no supporting evidence was given-did the DD know this?

You could not make this up!