One very clear point - to all members - different view alert!

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 02/05/2009 - 10:07

"When every depositor deposited their money into KSFIOM the DCS was in operation, and that was accepted by every depositor. At the time we all deposited the MAXIMUM level of compensation afforded to ALL depositors under DCS was £15,000. So anyone who deposited MORE than £15,000 was putting their money AT RISK. The limit for the DCS was not raised to £50,000 until AFTER your deposit was frozen. I am posting this in the hope that to some extent the arguments that persist, the ping pong of replies on this subject will desist to some extent." Lucky Jim blog.

It is absolutely fact that the MAXIMUM level accepted by every (Protected) depositor as a guarantee at the time of their deposit was 15K and that this has been raised to 50K. I deposited over 15K and under 50K and was relieved that the IoM raised the level of Protection to 50K, in line with the UK, as it ensured my entire deposit was fully Protected.

I therefore cannot condemn any fellow creditor for exceeding the initial Protection level, although the level to which it was exceeded might, by some (e.g. the UK press), be put into question. I am also sadly aware that there are many, many 'good' reasons as to why the limit may have been exceeded. I'm personally not 'blaming' any creditor who exceeded the limit.

My point has been that there was and still is a Protection limit (was 15K, is 50K), it's there for a purpose (to protect the 'little guys', regardless of whether it was increased or not) and it should be at the forefront of all negotiations and not ignored. Depositors such as myself are not smarter but more fortunate, but one cannot argue with the reality that has unravelled. I just find it astonishing that other creditors do not post along the lines of "good for you, please support our campaign and we will ensure that the up-to-50K gets paid back to you pronto (and to ourselves) through an SOA acceptable to us all", rather than "we should revert back to the 15K so you can be in the same boat as us". This latter argument is simply ridiculous and spiteful.

Each to their own, I have no truck with posts either that say "I want my 50K back, and screw the rest of you" and have never posted any. I do maintain though that DAG strategy team could have reached out to the sub-50K class and got us 'on message', rather than leave the impression, intentional or not, that DAG strategy don't really care about the 'little guys', without consultation are prepared to gamble a structured repayment mechanism proposed by IoM through an SOA for Protected funds in return for an unstructured DCS, claim splitting the classes into Protected and partially Protected is to benefit of sub-50K or a victory to all (when apparently such division is 'normal' in these circumstances, and the split benefits the over-50K class more), blame the IoM Government for creating a split with the Protection level (as stated by Lucky JIm, the Protection was not 100% nor 0% and was already there before the bank failed, there was no 'level playing field' in the first place), request legal fees without consultation, all of which ensures posters are blamed by other posters for being 'selfish' if sub-50K forum members dare to make any of the points above public.

Such arguments that took place in the forums prompted Lucky Jim to write his blog, but the ping-pong in forums may be because DAG did not make their stance with the sub-50K group clear enough. At least not to me. Not everything is the IoM's fault.

I'm sure I'll get the normal rants back from those who don't actually read what I write and for putting this version into a Forum thread, but I believe what I have posted above is a reasonable point to make, and I know I'm not the only one to think like this.

I also believe a new SOA will be acceptable to DAG strategy team now proper negotiations seem to be underway as I do not think liquidation will be a victory for either side, and both will eventually do their best to avoid it. My question is, what happens to those who have already sent back their "No" vote on the basis of DAG's current stance, end up finding DAG eventually urge a "Yes" vote to an improved SOA? What happens then, as a DAG-supported "No" vote would already have been cast, or is this just not statistically important?

2.923075
Your rating: None Average: 2.9 (13 votes)

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

Chris

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 10:19

Hi Chris,
Just a point of clarity - it is my blog not LJ's that you are referring to.

I wanted to point out a fact ie that some members under £50k that keep saying those over £50K were putting their money at risk be depositing with KSFIOM. In fact anyone until 9th Oct 2008 depositing money in excess of £15k was putting their money at risk.

I have apportioned no blame or critcised anyone - just stating what is fact.


Incorrect

  • Mekong
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 10:37

The old Limit was 15K "PER ACCOUNT HOLDER" therefore if one had 4 assigned account holder signaturies per account the DCS covered such account up to 60K, the revised and still unsubstansiated DCS now raises that limit to 200K for each such account.

SOA v DCS should not be a bone of contention and the basis of argument between fellow BM's each has its own merits and disadvantages dependent of individual circumstances. As long as facts are available for each of us to make our own decision based upon our own unique set of circumstances so be it, no one is right and no one is wrong since the pro's and con's differ for each individual.

Pro or Anti SOA is each and every individuals decision, weigh up the facts and decide what is best for you, either financialy or moraly, in fighting on this forum has been going on for far to long (I admit I am just as guilty as others for posting inflamitory comments) don't be swayed by lobbyists from either side of the arguement, just weigh up the facts and make a decision that is best for you and your families.


Mekong, agree with you on this

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 12:13

I happen to be one of 4 joint depositors attached to one account so now £200,000 of the account is covered by the guarantee no matter which scheme is approved.

I also support you when you say that each individual should be making up their own minds after reading all documents available to them. Unfortunately, many on the site have simply become followers and are depending on others to decide their stance. There is nothing wrong with an honest exchange of opinions but far too many depositors become hostile when they see a posting which may highlight a plus for the scheme they oppose. Whichever scheme is approved we will all have to pull together to ensure we achieve the maximum return. Good luck with your vote.


Thanks Undone

  • Mekong
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 15:03

Undone,

Thank You for offering a reasuring voice of reason, even though I have never indicated which way I will vote (I have relatives on IoM who I will utilise as my Proxy) certain BM's acuse me of being selfish / taking care of my own intrests etc.

As you correctly identified there is nothing wrong with an exchange of opinions to allow undecided depositors to decide for themselve what is the best for each individual, we each have our own requirments and needs and are not so stupid that we need to be told how to vote based on the opinions of the outspoken few from either side of the decision. I will never lose focus of the fact that 100% Return for 100% of Depositors is our ONLY objective but how to get to 70-75% ASAP in my own situation will make my fight easier.

Best of Luck with your choice. Its your life and your family, use it to serve you well!


Wasn't it 75% protected up to 20k?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 10:29

Therefore 25% of your money was at risk with any size of deposit


75% up to a maximum of £15k

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 10:43

Lancara

You are right it was 75% that was protected up to a maximum payout of £15k (being 75% of £20k). So even if you only had £10k on deposit you were not fully covered, you would have received £7.5k


Thanks for clarification Ally

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 10:58

Even at this stage we're getting things wrong!

So, if one were to say have 35K deposited, a creditor under the old DCS would get 15K.

75% of 35K is 26,250 = 15K maximum limit exceeded.

Thanks for clearing this up.


Tricky Dicky

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 02/05/2009 - 10:28

I apologise for crediting your blog to Lucky Jim. It was an unintentional error!

However, I do not believe I have claimed the author of the blog has blamed or critcised anyone, and was not simply "stating what is fact". I was agreeing with the 'fact' and explaining why I think divisions have come about in this forum i.e. DAG strategy team could have done a better job of getting the fully Protected class 'on side'.

I understand there are sub-50K representatives on the DAG strategy team, and I am surprised that it was not foreseen that this debate would happen if the sub-50K class as a whole were not better consulted.