PENSION FUND - URGENT ACTION BY ALL DEPOSITORS PLEASE

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 16/07/2009 - 08:58

TO ALL DEPOSITORS

PLEASE READ AND ACTION URGENTLY

If we do not get our act together NOW the Pension Fund will be accepted as a depositor and we shall find more than £3m of our deposits being taken to fund its deficit.

The facts are as follows.

On 22 May when announcing the results of the vote of the SoA Mike Simpson declared the presence of a Class 3 depositor with a £3m claim. This caused some mild speculation but no great concern. He knew at the time that this "depositor" was the Pension Scheme but did not say so, I suspect because he thought it might cause somebody to object. If I'm being charitable it might also be because he did not have a firm claimed amount - but that would not justify him not declaring the name of such a significant depositor.

On 17 June he announced that the Pension Scheme was nominated as a member of the Committee, but did not announce the amount of the claim nor did he mention that it was the Class 3 depositor. Draw your own conclusions. With no facts from which to draw conclusions the announcement raised no excitement.

On 25 June Mike Simpson announced the nomination of the Pension Scheme for the Committee saying " The Singer & Friedlander (IOM) Retirement Benefit Scheme is the largest non depositor creditor of the company". And went on to say that the amount of the claim was between £3m and £3.5m. It was clear that the Pension Scheme was the mysterious Class 3 "depositor" and the issue raised alarm bells with me.I have taxed him with already accepting the Scheme as a depositor. He denies it and says he is still considering the matter. In which case I do not understand what his statement quoted above means.

WE SHOULD ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MEANS AT THE MOMENT WE HAVE AN UNLIMITED CALL UPON OUR MONIES TO FUND ANY DEFICIT FOUND IN THE PENSION SCHEME.

I picked this up on 26 June and immediately raised objections with Mike Simpson by email. I also raised the issue with a few other depositors with whom I have had telephone and email conversations. I told Mike Simpson that there was considerable opposition among depositors to acceptance of the Pension Scheme as a creditor.
He has replied twice to my various emails and has said that I am the only depositor who has written to him about the issue - inferring that depsoitors are quite happy to fund the Pension Scheme.

I cannot fight this battle alone and need all of you to vote in the Poll I have set up,
and if you feel you can, email Mike Simpson to express your opposition to acceptance of the Pension Scheme as a creditor. His email address is mike [dot] simpson(?)iom [dot] pwc [dot] com

My objections are based on the assumption that I believe the Pension Scheme holds no or little money in the bank and their claim is based on an actuarial calculation of a funding deficit.

There are many "technical" points concerning the Pension Scheme but the main objections I have raised with Mike Simpson are:

  1. In current economic conditions it is inevitable that any actuarial valuation of the Scheme will throw up a considerable deficit. It is gross injustice for depositors to be called upon to fund this deficit.

2.If economic conditions were good and the Scheme was in surplus would depositors have a call upon that surplus to fund missing deposits? Clearly not. Therefore it is unjust to claim one way traffic only.

  1. The Scheme might well be in deficit because of very poor investment decisions by past investment managers. It is unjust to call upon depositors to fund such a deficit.

4.The name of the Scheme suggests it originated with Singer & Friedlander and has arrived in KSF IOM via S&F and the Derbyshire. We have no idea of its past funding history and the current £3m deficit might well have originated historically. Should we fund such a deficit? What is the ratio of deficit to total funds?

5 We have no knowledge of past actuarial valuations which may have thrown up deficits or surplus. If those valuations threw up deficits did the Trustees/employer/employees follow the recommendations or were they derelict and not follow them? Should we fund the deficit? What did past valuations indicate?

  1. Has the employer and/or employees been taking a "contribution holiday" ie not paying in to the scheme because they thought it was in surplus and in current conditions find it is in deficit so come to claim from our monies? Would that be just?

  2. Is the Scheme in deficit because of UK Government actions over the past 12 years - like so many others? Should our funds be taken to fill the gap?

8.A Pension Scheme is a responsibility agreed between an employer and its employees. Behind the employer stands the owner (shreholder) who is in the last resort responsible for the scheme's funding. Depositors' funds should not be used to substitute for shareholder/employer monies. if the bank was a going concern would you allow the bank to take your deposits to fund its pension scheme?

  1. Assumptions made by actuaries, while having a statistical base, are often not much more than guesses. For instance, a very important element in their calculation are the assumptions about future returns on investments. They take a high view of returns and the fund is in surplus, they take a low view and it is in deficit. Should we be taking the risk of funding such a deficit, even though we shall be told that actuarial valuations are definitive - and they are clearly not?

There are many other points which could be raised. I will not go on to bore you.

I ASK ALL OF YOU TO CONSIDER VERY SERIOUSLY THE POINTS I HAVE RAISED AND MAKE UP YOUR MINDS, REGISTER YOUR VOTE IN THE POLL AND WRITE TO MIKE SIMPSON IF YOU FEEL ABLE.

THIS ISSUE IS URGENT. I HAVE A FEELING PART OF THE DELAY IN ANNOUNCING THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE IS THAT MIKE SIMPSON MIGHT BE WAITING FOR THE ACTUARIAL VALUATION OR IS ACTIVELY DISCUSSING IT OR IS SEEKING A LEGAL OPINION ON IT.

4.962965
Your rating: None Average: 5 (54 votes)

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

This thread closed

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/07/2009 - 14:21

I am closing this thread (no further comments allowed) as most of the current discussion is completely off topic and his devolved into little more than an argument between various sub-groups. Please repost original topics appropriately if further discussion is needed. Apologies for the inconvenience.


Pension Fund Status

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 08:31

The pension fund vote on the SOA was in class 3-unsecured creditors-not sure how this was allowed and what responsibilty the bank has to fund any actuarily calculated shortfall.
In UK, there is a body similar to the FSA that supervises pensions schemes-I think it is called SFA-superannuation funds authority.
Anyway, the pension scheme vote was accepted as unsecured creditor--how can this be changed to depositor after all the SOA vote was influenced by their claimed status at the time.

The pension fund has no call on depositors money unless they have money in the bank--the trustees are a completely independant body and should look to the sponsors of the scheme for any shortfall--ie Iceland.

One wonders what other stunts the Simpson has up his sleeve to deprive depositors!

I am so glad I am not a MTFK depositor and I am saddened by the actions of the powers that be in regard to your significant deposits--I am just waiting for my DCS and then I will bid adieu and good luck--this will continue for ever and ever I fear--bon chance mes amis.


REPLY AND LETTER TEMPLATE TO SEND M SIMPSON

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 23:46

I have just sent this email to M Simpson. Please feel free to use this letter template to him.

Dear Mr Simpson,

I wanted to write to you to strongly object to any contribution, of creditors' deposits, to fund a deficit in the KSFIOM pension fund. Like all funds, its performance can be good and bad, depending on financial climates, performance standards of the fund manager and actuarial advice. All contributors' attention is drawn to this when they choose to invest in the fund. It is not for the depositors of KSFIOM to subsidise its deficit and is unconscionable as a means to rectify a deficit caused by the current financial climate. The fund was a risk based investment as obviously it was for depositors with KSFIOM. I don't deny that investors in this fund are equally as aggrieved by the collapse of the bank but we are not there to plug every hole in the "sinking ship"! We are, equally, trying to swim for our lives. There is great opposition, amongst the depositors/now creditors, as instanced by the 100% poll, taken by the Direst Action Group's members, objecting to subsidising the pension fund. I do not approve of your actions and handling of this matter as this issue was hidden from examination until the end of June 2009. Your actions should be transparent and I would ask you to reconsider this matter and maximise the return of our deposits. We are supposed to feel confident that the liquidator is fighting for maximum return for depositors. I would appreciate a reply to this email.

Yours sincerely,

XXXXXX


I gave my proxy to the HNW

  • Peasant
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 15:43

They emailed me with their nine CVs on 30th.June
Here. Which gave me sufficient confidence to support their judgement. Had I been more cynical I could have argued that since several have declared to have deposited larger amounts than I with KS&F(IoM), their judgement was worse:)

Their promise was "Where possible we work with and support the DAG Strategy Team (DST), but if required we will pursue a different route if our Committee of nine judges this to be more appropriate. For example we have actively supported the DST nomination of Stuart Roberts to the Creditors Committee (in fact we the HNW Committee proposed the idea of a resolution appointing one HNW, one DAG, one insurer and one unsecured creditor to the Committee through a single resolution)."

As far as I can see that is basically what they've done. We now need to try to row in the same direction bearing in mind as Donald Rumsfeld said:-

As we know, 

There are known knowns. 

There are things we know we know. 

We also know 

There are known unknowns. 

That is to say 

We know there are some things 

We do not know. 

But there are also unknown unknowns, 

The ones we don't know 

We don't know.


Pension Fund

  • jeffwilkins
  • 21/10/08 14/11/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 14:58

As a financial adviser with 20 years experiance I would definetly insist we vote no. Company pension funds have always been a minefield, especially if the parent company fails. In short the shortfall might as well be calculated as a piece of string. It can be as long as the representatives of the pension fund and claimants want it to be.

Finding should have been the resposibility of the company once the company fails so dows the finding, if the pension wants our help how abouot quid pro quo, they fund our shortfall we fund theirs I know who has the most to lose.

Jeff Wilkins


Some inaccuracies in the post

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 13:49

Dear Banna
I think the important thing to note is that we need to establish whether we are talking about the pension fund being funded or unfunded - ie was it just paid by the bank from trading? If so - then I suppose the Bank would be liable for the full lot.
I don't understand your point about the shareholders of KSFIOM being liable for the pensions, rather than the Bank itself. The shareholders have no liability except paying up their capital (ie share price). It is KSFIOM who promised to pay the pensions, just a it promised us to pay our bonds in 1 year plus interest.
So unless we really are talking about a "notional" shortfall on pension Fund funding (ie the Fund manager having a pot of investments, which only create a shortfall using today's share values but might not tomorrow), I doubt we have much of an argument against the pension liabilities being due from KSFIOM?


pension funding

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 15:57

Thanks for the reply Steve.
We do not know whether the scheme was jointly funded by employer and employees or solely by the employer. In funding the deficit that seems of little relevance to me.

So you accept that we should not be asked to put money in to the pension fund for loss of asset value due to current stockmarket/money market conditions? Good.

Assume now that the pension fund investment manager has done a terrible job and has not/is not producing the investment returns needed to fund future pensions. Do you think we should fund that deficit? The Trustees apppoint the fund investment manager. If they have chosen a bad one what would happen if the bank had not folded? They would sack him, get a new one and attempt to repair the damage by better investing or by asking employer or employees to pay more. They might even ask for a temporary loan from the employer - or an advance of contributions. Now do you think they should have the right to take our money rather than sack the investment manager and seek a loan elsewhere? If so, why?

Unfortunately, all calculations of pension fund situations are what you call "notional".
The actuary attempts to calculate FUTURE income streams by estimating the inflow of contributions and the returns on investments and attempts to calculate FUTURE outflows in pension payments based on employee age structure and likely death rates. The result is either a fund in surplus, or in deficit or in balance. How subjective and uncertain do you reckon that is?? How the hell do you cope with the sort of economic swing we see now?

Every few years (3 years in the UK) the Trustees have to get an actuarial valuation of the fund.The Trustees are then supposed to follow the actuaries' recommendations.
Now, what if the Trustees haven't bothered to get a valuation 'cos it costs money, and the scheme has run out of control? Now suddenly the bank is in administration, they are forced to get a valuation and bravo they find it's in deficit. But it's not a problem, we'll get the depositor/creditors to pay for our past failure How do you feel about paying up for their past failure? If the bank was still alive what would they do? I guess try and 'flannel' their pension fund members and fall on their swords.

And what if past actuaries have made bad mistakes resulting in employers/employees never having put in enough to fund the scheme. Should we pay for that?

What if the fund had significant monies invested in Lehmann funds - or some other bank that's gone bust - they are lost, so the scheme is now underfunded. You think we should pay for that?

Steve, the possible reasons for the scheme being in deficit are almost endless. They are always related to extreme market conditions or somebody's past failure in managing the scheme. I cannot accept that we should pay for any of that particularly when the deficit is always a deficit in an uncertain future.

Why do I think the Trustees should fall back upon the owners/shareholders? Remember that in this case the owner is Kaupthing Hf.
A pension fund is an agreement between an employer and its employees. The employer is represented by its Directors. The Directors are appointed by the shareholders. Therefore any agreement entered into by the Directors is in the last resort sanctioned by the shareholders. The shareholders own the accumulated profits - which have no doubt been 'upstreamed' to KHf - and it is from those profits that the Trustees should seek funding. If the bank was still in life that is what would happen in the last resort. Can you imagine that you or I would allow the pension fund to come and pillage our deposits when the bank was still active?


I think at the end of the day

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 16:29

I think at the end of the day it all depends on the contractual relationship between the Pension Fund/pensioners and KSFIOM.
If it says KSFIOM has to pay then KSFIOM has to pay.
If KSFIOM has already paid to the Trustees such funds as KSFIOM was obliged by contract to pay - then KSFIOM shouldn't have to pay any more.
But sadly for us if - for instance - KSFIOM has promised to pay the pensions and failed to provide any money - or enough money - then presumably KSFIOM is contractually liable to pay the shortfall and there's nothing we can do about that.
With regard to your anlaysis of why/how Kaupthing hf should fund any shortfall - once the profits have been lawfully distributed by a proper dividend you can't get them back. So we're stuck with the point you make that a pension fund is a contract between employer (KSFIOM) and employees. Hence the pensions - if that is what the pension/ employment contract says - have to come out of our KSFIOM pot.
It needs to be remembered that the "KSFIOM pot" does not belong to us any more than the pension fund - its just what KSFIOM has to honour all the broken promises it has made.


Enough is enough

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 10:45

I think our lawyers must find the way to initiate criminal proceedings against Simpson, Spellman, Bell, both Corletts and the rest of the island gang who have been jerking us around for over 9 months now.

And while they are at it, they may try to find out what was the motivation of liebenk, HOPPER and other MTFKers when they did everything possible to eliminate the DST from the play and guarantee the S&F Pension Fund a seat on the Creditors Committee.


Creditors Committee

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 13:36

JKK - a offer from the HNW and Insurance Co's to the DST for a 2 seats each on the CC which would have given us retail depositos a majority of 4 members was rejected by the DST.


@BC

  • Tank
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 14:26

Since the Life Companies wanted 2 places themselves, one for a Manx Resident and one for the Pension Fund, how does that work? Did HNW also persuade PWC and the Deemster to agree to an 8 seat committee??? And what put HNW in a position to make such an offer?


@Tank

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 14:57

Anyone with money at risk from this liquidation has a the right to make a offer - what is wrong with that?

Since the proxy's of the HNW were of a similar value to DST would you not agree that 2 seats each was reasonable?


@Tank

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 03:39

BC: Similar value, but less than half the number. As for membership of the two groups, there is a factor of at least 10.


@ Elgee

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 12:39

All those below 50k who have taken the DCS or EPS such as yourself do not count for the purposes of the CC. The fact is the MTFK group at the CC vote represented an equal or slightly higher amount of unsecured creditors by value and also received the support of the Life Co's.

The key in any case were the Life Co's who were so annoyed with the atitude and tatics of the DST that they did not cast a single vote for DST candidates. This shows how in touch the DST were with the other parties in this liquidation. This is inspite of the DST claimed in there setting the record straight blog that

"However, during DST’s liaison with Life Companies they expressed support for 2 DAG places and a place for one of the two Manx resident candidates."

Bottom line is there was a offer from the MTFK group which the Life Co's supported for 4 (four) retail depositors guaranteed on the CC. The DST threw this chance away.


@Tank

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/07/2009 - 14:34

Wrong facts I'm afraid. Life cos agreed to the 2/2/2/1 deal. I know, I negotiated the deal. One life co wanted a manx person, the other 7 who voted did not prioritize this. The life cos voted individually, not as a block. When DST rejected the 2/2/2/1 proposal, the other life cos decided to vote with the one life co who wanted the island candidate, Michael Lees. These are the facts.


@Hopper - "deal" ?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 08:43

"Life cos agreed to the 2/2/2/1 deal. I know, I negotiated the deal."

As I understand it, you and the life cos negotiated a deal and then proposed it to DST on a take it or leave it basis?
Is that your idea of "negotiation"?


Why not it was a good deal!

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 15:01

Why not it was a good deal and would have guaranteed two places for both the DST and the MTFK.

There are many ways to skin a cat and the idea that its our way or no way is counter productive..


anrigaut

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 11:48

what you fail to realise is that both dst and hwn both approached the life cos separately, without involving the other party

i understand sleeplessnight did this on behalf of the DST and I believe asked for a 3/1/2/1 committte, but i was not part of these discussions, so i cannot be sure. but i am 100% sure she approached them

i did this on behalf of the HNW and i did not involve dst intially, ie not until i understood if they would support the proposal.

what you need to appreciate is that, for the 2/2/2/1 structure i did not need to convine the life cos to support Peter Wakeham and myself from the HNW. I had to convince them it would be a good idea to support the two DST candidates, Simon Bessant and Stuart Roberts. They had met Stuart before and liked him as an individual, but they did not know Simon. Peter and I both personally vouched for SImon, and explained his background.

This is the irony of this whole debate here. We worked hard to convince the insurers to support the 2/2/2/1 structure. The "2" they were concerned about were the two DST ones. Can I be any clearer ? Peter Wakeham and I worked extremely hard to convince the insurers to support the two DST candidates on the 2/2/2/1 ticket. We stuck our necks out to vouch for Stuart and Simon. And then DST rejected this !

You need to appreciate that the insurers are very concerned about what they see as the "extremist" nature of DAG DST. They see DST as having accused them of being part of the "incestous" IOM business community etc etc....

Think about this please before replying


Thoughtful reply to Hopper

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 13:47

Gavin/Hopper,

I am trying to think clearly about this, as you ask. I may have jumped the gun a little in my previous post in response to your's, so let's try again.

You: "Life cos agreed to the 2/2/2/1 deal. I know, I negotiated the deal."
Me: "As I understand it, you and the life cos negotiated a deal and then proposed it to DST on a take it or leave it basis?"

In fact, what I meant by this was essentially the original 1/1/1/1 'deal', subsequently presented as a resolution. I cannot speak for DST, but from what they have said it appears that the main reason for their rejection of it was HNW's insistenceon having its 'own' seats and in equal number, despite their minority support within DAG. The presence of the pension fund on this assured ticket may also have been cause for concern (certainly, in the event, DAG/DST did not vote for them).

I do understand that both parties approached the life companies separately - though I don't know whether DST did so before or after their rejection of the 1/1/1/1 deal. Like many of us in DAG, I greatly regret that you were not able to present a united front in these discussions, but assume that the reasons suggested above were in large part responsible.

As for the 2/2/2/1 proposal, I am surprised that you now say this was a 'deal' at all. In your 11th hour email to elgee (posted here somewhere), you yourself said "I believe the insurers can be persuaded to take part". Hardly a done deal. It seems that DST, from their own discussions with the insurance cos, did not feel they could trust this undertaking (who in fact was to be the "1" in this plan - the pension fund or the IoM resident - or were they in fact 2?).

Be all that as it may, all your proposals stuck obstinately to the idea of an equal number of seats for HNW and DST. Could you not see how difficult that would be for DAG/DST to accept given their superior power base? Maybe 3:1 would have been too extreme in the other direction (and 2.5:1.5 was hardly a possible option!). However, a little more flexibility on your part could perhaps have allowed for, say, a common 2/2/1 ticket (2 for the life cos, 2 for DAG/DST, 1 for HNW), leaving all parties free to use their remaining 2 votes as they thought best, with the chance of another seat for HNW.

The concerns of the insurance companies over DAG/DSTs 'extreme' positions may well be justified (from their point of view). But surely our main concern is for the body of individual depositors, not the insurance companies (who are well able to look after themselves!) - and they did vote for the SOA (against the expressed wishes it would seem of many of their bondholders), which both you and DAG/DST quite rightly voted down. So maybe what you see as extreme positions (firm might be a better word) have become unavoidable. Maybe when, hopefully, everyone has calmed down, a well thought-out poll on the forum could be held to better ascertain the majority views on how firm or accomodating we as a DAG feel we should be as we go forward - is it too much to hope together?


anrigaut

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 14:10

thank you for this reponse. if i may i will structure my reply in numbered points.

  1. The 1/1/1/1 deal (or block resolution). I proposed this to PWC, not to the life cos. I have posted this elsewhere in detail, but i cannot myself find the posting. I suggested who should be on it. PWC approached DST (stuart roberts) who agreed to have his name on it. To me this inidicated DST support. PWC appraoched the life cos who agreed to have axa on the ticket. Likewise Boal. I can claim to be (one of) the people who suggested this (apparently i was not the only one), but I did not determine the exact names. Rationale for this - to ensure that at least some folks received 50/50 majorities on the day (in partiular DST, given the need to assign your claim under the DCS, which I expected to reduce DST proxies (which is what happened). You have asked me previously why I felt I could suggest such an idea. The simple answer is because I am a large depositor, it seemed like a good idea to avoid an impasse on voting day. From what I understand quite a few other ideas were put to PWC as well.

  2. Regarding my 11th hour email. I have also stated elsewhere that I spoke about this idea to Simon Besasnt (on holiday) and Alex Marsella by telephone over the weekend, and to elgee too, and at 10.00am on Monday morning I spoke to David Greene for 45 minutes about this. I was explicit with David about what the deal we had put together. Why don't you call David on Monday and confirm this ? He expressed his concern to me that the DST were so focused on the CL situation that they were not focusing enough on the possible ramifications of the CC vote. The email was my "last gasp" attempt, not an 11th hour offer. Again, why don't you call a few of the insurers to check ?

  3. You are spot on with your comment about DST and HNW disagreeing on the number of seats each should have. We can only agree to differ on this. On this occasion we had the same value proxy as DST. Our view is that we should each have 2 seats. I respect your right to have a different view. I expect this is at the heart of this problem

Gavin


anrigaut

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 17:37

Hopper wrote:

"I suggested who should be on it [the "slate"].
Why? Why not ask DST?

"Likewise Boal. I can claim to be (one of) the people who suggested this (apparently i was not the only one)"
You said above that you suggested who should be on the "slate". Now you are trying to blame Boal on others.

"Why don't you call David on Monday and confirm this?"
Yes, David has told us all about your conduct while at that meeting.

"You have asked me previously why I felt I could suggest such an idea. The simple answer is because I am a large depositor"
That is probably the heart of the problem. Large depositor = special rights. The "simple answer" is, obviously, because you are a high-value person. Do you also believe that the royals have divine rights and that non-landowners should never have been enfranchised? What are the medium and low net value depositors, then, chopped liver? (excuse the East Coast US expression)

"On this occasion we had the same value proxy as DST. Our view is that we should each have 2 seats"
Why, when it is common ground that voting power is based in equal measure on number and value?


Elgee, your emotions seem to

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/07/2009 - 09:42

Elgee, your emotions seem to be running high. Here is my response.

1."Why not ask DST". This is what PWC did. They called Stuart Roberts and asked him. If you have an internal DST communication issue, don't try and hold me responsible.

  1. The slate. Not at all, read my various posts. You have developed a habit of seeing what you want to read rather than reading what is written.

3.Call David about my 10,00am Monday 6th July conversation. Don't try and divert attention elswhere. I have challenged you to call him about this. Do it if you dare. It will prove you wrong and me right. I have notes of the conversation.

4.Large depositor = some who will be in this to the bitter end. Like all people over £50k. Small depositor = people like, for example, you, £7000, fully paid out, not a creditor, no rights. I am amazed you don't just go and get on with your life.

5.Proxy values. I know you find it hard to accept, but as my lastest blog clearly illustrates, it was the DST who made the mistakes here. You should have done your homework on how to vote at CC meetings. DST failed to have an effective strategy. As much as it must annoy you, we in the HNW did our homework.


Hopper

  • peter and louise
  • 18/10/08 01/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 17:03

We are all on the same side of the fence, i.e. the wrong side. Soon there will be few of us left here. Those with up to 50,000 will be recompensed soon. And then it is just us, you and me and a couple of thousand others. For the life of me I cannot see why there has to be this schism between the two groups. It is not necessary and there is no point. What we all want is our money back. We must fight this together. Both groups have done so much positive work. Let it continue as a combined effort with all pulling together in the same direction. Best Wishes.


Peter and Louise

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/07/2009 - 09:30

Agreed. Let's hope those like Elgee (who was a £7000 depositor and has already been fully paid out under EPS 1 and EPS 2) soon go away and leave us with larger deposits to control our our destiny.


Hopper

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/07/2009 - 10:23

Gavin, I of course cannot speak for Elgee, but personally (and I may be voicing what others think too) I do not intend to "go away" even when I am (hopefully) paid out under the DCS (I am fully protected), for the following reasons:

  1. I intend to "stick with the fight" for moral reasons.

  2. I do not believe the fully protected are currently about to be fully paid out once the DCS is activated, as the Interest generated by fully protected deposits between Oct-May do not as yet appear to be covered under DCS. Presumably some Interest has been generated by fully protected deposits during this period and will go into the bank's assets and distributed to the partially protected by a dividend, and not to the fully protected on whose deposits some of this Interest has been generated.

I would be interested in reading your analysis of point 2 as I understand you are/were a senior exec in the financial industry and highly qualified to do so. Of course this point is of concern to the vast majority of creditors (by number) who are fully protected, as well as those partially protected, some of whom believe the remaining assets of the bank can be divied up between the partially protected only.

They may well be correct, but it has not been demonstrated on this forum as to how they are.


Chris, you raise a very good

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/07/2009 - 10:54

Chris, you raise a very good point in 2. And you quite rightly point out that it affects all depositors, but unprotected like me as well. We have all suffered from the loss of interest for that period of time pro rata to the size of our deposits. And from what I understand, the DCS is not willing to pay upfront this "lost intetest" for smaller folks (I looked into this for my wife who had an account with £20k or so and applied to the DCS). It will come down to how this claim ranks under IOM insolvency law - I would imagine it would rank after return of capital? Have you looked into this in more detail?

My gut feel would be that this would be paid out once all unsecured creditors receive back 100% of capital + interest up to 9 Oct 2008, ie. it is like a claim subordinated to this, but ranking above any payments to shareholders etc. So if there is, say, £10m left over once everyone is refunded in full, it would be distributed pro rata to the size of each of our deposits, on the assumption that we all were due the same level of interest for the period Oct-May 09.

The complicated bit of the debate here is why won't the DCS pick this up? Do you know if the FSCS did this for any of the UK banks which went under ?

I am out for the day now with my family so if you would like to chat about this live, feel free to contact me via the website adn I will send you my phone number. Gavin


Hopper

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/07/2009 - 12:12

I'm sure you and others are well aware that the DCS regulations state in clause 9.

" (1) An eligible protected deposit liability is the total liability of the participant to the depositor in respect of the principal and accrued interest on sterling and foreign currency deposits in the name of the depositor at the time of the default and made with an Isle of Man office of the participant."

so I do not understand why this liability should not be covered by DCS or, as you say, "why...the DCS (won't) pick this up"?

According to the FSCS website's FAQ:

"Interest owed to the depositor as at the date the bank is declared "in default" by FSCS will be paid as part of the compensation amount. Notice accounts will be paid as if notice had been served on the day the account was frozen and payment will be made, including interest, at the end of the notice period. Fixed term accounts will be paid at the maturity date with the interest that would have been paid by the bank at maturity date".

Presumably this is a precedent and was what actually happened when the UK banks "went under" (although they did not get liquidated as far as I am aware), yet I am not able to confirm this. Perhaps someone else on this forum knows?

As this is going off-topic from the original post, I direct those interested to this other forum:

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/dcs.


UNITE PLEASE

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/07/2009 - 05:19

peter and louise you are so right, were in this for a long time so we better get going to see how we are going to get our money back. I mean all of us, . We are on a long road here and we dont want to be a leyland liquidation we want to say you know what we ALL got out there and did something. There is still campaigning with mps, patrolling pwc, parental guarantee, isle of man, fsc etc We have to be on top of everything so all of this bickering on site is a waste of time it really is.. and its boring. Now about our first dividend can it be 20 percent?
also anyone with a twitter account follow me on www.twitter.com/SaffronAngel you can set one up just for this like I have..


2 sides to every story

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 14:51

There are always two sides to every story, and as this "enigma" evolves, it becomes quite clear that Gavin did everything in his power to negotiate with all bodies. He has always been very forthright with his discussions. He clearly did not have a hidden agenda. Why isn't the 2/2 (DST/MTFK) a suitable balance? All four candidates have an extreme amount of talent, and will be excellent advocates for us all during the next 4+ years.
Let bygones be bygones and let's just move ahead as one.


@ Anrigaut

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 14:05

Just for clarity by value Gavin held more votes than the DST proxy. By votes it was 150:250.

The Life Co's also supported the MTFK candidates and not the DST candidates.


@BC

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 15:18

Small correction: by number, it was 150:350 (approx) - not 150:250


@Anrigaut

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 15:29

Apologies and agreed. I hope you also acknowledge the higher £ value and also the support of the Life Co's who are the representatives of the bond holders.


@BC

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 15:50

Yes of course for the (slightly) higher value - never in dispute.

Not sure what you want me to acknowledge re the Life Co's - despite their having voted for the SoA, I have never suggested not supporting them for the CC (as representatives of the many bond holders) and indeed both DST and HNW voted for them. What I question is the wisdom of supporting the pension fund whose validity as a creditor has not yet been validated and seems in some doubt. Maybe simply not enough thought was given to this.


@Anrigaut

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 16:00

Regarding the Pension Fund. They were always in the original 4 block vote proposal. Prior to the CC meeting I saw no disent to this from anyone on this forum or indeed from the DST - who also had agreed to a member being included in this proposal.

Why are they there. They are a different class of creditor (Class 3) they also potential bring legal, financial and specific KSFIOM skills/knowledge to the CC. These are the reasons they were supported by MTFK and the Life Co's and up until the vote itself by the silence of the DST.

Whether the pension fund is a legitimate creditor is a question of fact/law and I'm more than happy to see £3m of creditor claims removed but this should be decided by the courts. If they are not a legitimate creditor they will be removed from the CC.


BC and the pension scheme You are wrong.

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 20:36

BC your comments on the pension scheme issue are wrong.

  1. The first time that any of us OTHER THAN HNW could have picked up the pension scheme problem was AFTER the 'slate' had been published by PCW because, I believe, PCW had deliberately hidden the fact from view. They have known for months who the class £3m creditor was and said nothing until you had agreed to put them on the slate. I believe you were duped.

  2. In agreeing to put the Scheme representative up for election you were playing PCW's game.That you did not realise the implications of what you were doing is perhaps understandable but you should be careful when playing with the devil.
    Long before the court decision to liquidate was taken Mike Simpson had given plenty of proof that he was a man who is playing his game not ours'. The saga of the SoA and the terrible mistake in the balance sheet should have made you very cautious.

  3. Before the vote on 7 July both HNW and DST were aware of the problem of the pension scheme because I had told them so. The only way DST could try to remove the pension fund rep was by voting against the slate. I accept that HNW were in a very difficult position in so far as the only way they could correct that error would have been to vote against themselves.

Do you yet realise that you play with fire when you try to negotiate a deal with somebody who knows the gameplan far better than you because he's played it many times before and you haven't?


@Anrigaut

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 16:09

BC: The DST did not agree to a member being included in this proposal hatched by Gavin and PWC. DST knew nothing about the so-called slate until the notice had gone out to depositors. All that happened before that, from DST's point of view, was that DST's Stuart was asked by PWC if he would agree to being proposed as a committee member and he said that he would.


elgee

  • HOPPER
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/07/2009 - 09:22

Elgee, your attempt to deny this is laughable. Of course the DST knew all about the slate ! Ask Stuart - I have spoken to him about it. If you are seriously trying to deny this, suirely you realise how idiotic you look ! Come on elgee, you are smart person, surely you can do better than this !


Elgee - Misleading

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 16:24

Elgee you are obfuscating here and it is plain for all to see. The block vote proposal was public some considerable time prior to the meeting. Your candidate Stuart agreed to have his name on the proposal. If the DST was opposed to this there was plenty of time for Stuart to withdraw his name from the proposal and also for the DST to voice its opposition to this proposal both to Gavin/PWC/Life Co's and also on this forum. This did not happen.


Elgee - Misleading

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 16:54

BC: I am not obfuscating at all. It is extraordinarily hypocritical of you to suggest it, given the masterpiece of obfuscation that is Gavin's most recent blog. But even that cannot compete in terms of hypocrisy with the criticism of the DST meted out last week by the HNW group for our not supporting their 2/2/2/1proposal, in the knowledge that they (the HNW group) had not voted for any of DST's candidates.

The existence of what you call the block vote was only known to me and, as far as I am aware, to everyone on the DST after the notice to depositors went out 3 weeks before the meeting. I am informed that Stuart, who is abroad at the moment and can't be contacted until he returns, knew only that his name was going to be proposed. DST was not consulted at all on the proposal itself. It was entirely a creature of HNW and PWC. DST had no opportunity to voice its opposition to the proposal before it was notified to depositors and once it had been notified our opportunity to do so lay in us voting against it.

Need I spell out to you that within the DST there is now a total lack of trust of the HNW group and its agenda as a direct result of what the HNW group did before during and after the creditors' meeting? This has been further exacerbated by what HNW group has since stated on this forum.


Elgee - More misleading

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 17:10

Elgee - Stuart was aware of the proposal before it was printed if as you say he didn't communicate this to the rest of the DST then this reflects poorly on your communication. We will await Stuarts return from holiday for further updates. Either way there was plenty of time for the DST to communicate via forum or various other means including in person in the IOM there opppositon to this proposal but instead choose an ambush tactic of waiting till the time of the vote. The Life Co's were also baffled by the DST decision to vote against the block proposal explaining there lack of trust in the DST and their decision to note vote for the DST candidates.

Whatever your feelings (as a non-creditor) of us creditors in the HNW-DAG we have never and would never try to censor or silence your rights to express your opinions. The HNW-DAG group grew out of a lack of communication of the strategy/actions of the London Team and their failure to use the full range of skills availbable within the DAG.


Elgee - More misleading

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 17:38

BC: how do you know what Stuart's state of awareness was at that time?

Indeed I am and remain a creditor, albeit very small.

Do you regard your skills as being a good example of those not utilised? As for your PW's skills, we in DST did utilise them and he chose of his own accord to leave.

Finally, just what is it that HNW claim to have achieved, apart from division within DAG and cosying up to PWC?


Elgee - Even more misleading and very arrogant

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 17:51

As for my own skills and contacts I have offered and variously been taken up on them. I did provide Tracy (Teapot) from the London Team with access a senior BBC political editor/journalist friend and have contributed to a legal analysis of several of the issues we have faced. Now enough about me because Elgee unlike you I don't think this is personal I think this is about getting our money back. Not that you are included in the "our".

The skills available in DAG are numerous and to my mind only taken up if they strictly agree with the tactics/agenda of you and Sarah. Any difference of opinion is considered disunity and treacherous. The aggressive and non-communicative attitude has alienated many creditors who no longer bother with this forum and also irritated several key players who are important to DAG - now including the Life Co's.

The people who make up the HNW proxy group (150 in total) have contributed a great deal in both talent/effort/funds and your haughty arrogance in dismissing this further demonstrates why you are harmful to the DAG cause.

I understand you claim to be a creditor for the interest on your original account and if indeed it is recognised it is very very small.


BC - you pompous a-s

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 18:15

BC: Yes, I have been informed of your communications with Teapot. It was most magnanimous of you to give us access to your important friend.


Elgee - this is very cheap

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 18:24

Not sure of your point - I facilitated a face to face with one of the most senior editors in the BBC you obviously don't think this was useful.

But the title of your response speaks volumes for your character. If you wish to discuss this further please feel free to drop me an email.


BC- you pompous a-s

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 18:34

BC: How many times do you think you can accuse me of being misleading and arrogant (in the title of your postings) without eliciting a response from me that expresses my view of your character?

You untidily evade all my points. Why is it so significant to you that I no longer have any money deposited, and why do you insist on mentioning it in almost all your postings to me, when HNW's Adrienne has never had any?

And, once again, what has HNW achieved for depositors?


Elgee read my answer below

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 18:38

I have answered your questions below - I have not evaded a single question and the beauty of this forum is that all can read the exchange and come to their own conclusion.

The title "Elgee - Misleading" is/was my opinion - your title was purely school play ground but speaks volumes.


Elgee - Even more misleading and very arrogant

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 18:03

BC: "... unlike you I don't think this is personal I think this is about getting our money back"

"The skills available in DAG are numerous and to my mind only taken up if they strictly agree with the tactics/agenda of you and Sarah"

Now, is that your idea of not being personal?

BC: "I understand you claim to be a creditor for the interest on your original account and if indeed it is recognised it is very very small."

Well, since you evidently think it is important (you have refererd to my no longer having a deposit in the bank in the vast majority of your postings in reply to me), as I recall your leaderene has no deposit at all and never did have (it is her parents) and the same is true of at least one of HNW's most ardent supporters.


That's me I guess

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 18:49

Yep, Elgee I'm the one who is supporting my parents cause. I hope you would do the same if you were in my situation. They are both OAP's, therefore not very Forum savy. They do not understand proxies, CC, PWC, DST, DAG, HNW or any other acronyms that have now become such a vital part of their existence. It is my job to be the best advocate for them as possible. Just like Adrienne. I hope you would do the same for your parents.

When you see your parents working for over 50 years, 6 days per week, 12 hours per day in order to save for retirement, and then witness the whole thing disappear overnight, I think that it is my duty and noble cause to help them as much as I can.


Elgee - Even more misleading and very arrogant

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 17:57

BC: I repeat - what precisely does the HNW group claim to actually have achieved for depositors?

You're right that my interest is "very very small" and as such it evidently follows that my opinions are far less valuable than those of you and your high-value friends and my contribution to the DAG cause is also far less valuable than yours and theirs.


I'll answer the question

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/07/2009 - 18:36

Elgee you ask:

"I repeat - what precisely does the HNW group claim to actually have achieved for depositors?"

Well I'll answer that question. Your pompous and Prima Donna attitude has become unbearable, and the HNW group has given me and my parents an escape and some solace from your ridiculous hissy fits, which are undermining the talent of the your fellow DST members. Thank God you've been paid out, and we didn't risk having you on the CC.

Out of interest, I scoured through the forum postings from the fateful day in October. I had forgotten how much controversy you have added to DAG. You fell out with Expat, you fell out with Diver, and then threatened to form your own "Elgee" group. You were in and out of the Core Team, posting your CV, you ran "vote for Elgee" Polls. All extremely childish behavior. You really do have a chip on your shoulder, which is a great shame, as you are a highly intelligent person, yet you are allowing your attitude to mask your talents.

It seems as though this DAG thing has been your claim to glory. Your raison d'etre. You are out of the game. You've been paid out, so let those of us who are in for the long haul stick together. It's extremely easy for you to now advertise your altruistic behaviour, but I remember so clearly last year when you made it quite clear in a posting made to me, that you would only think about your own personal interests when we were trying to hang together as a group.