POINTS TO ALIX PARTNERS AND THE IOM

  • Diver
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Sun, 25/01/2009 - 20:44

It would appear that information given to the informal committee under a confidentiality agreement, namely v1.3 of the IoM’s plans, has been leaked and circulated amongst a fair few depositors. Before anyone asks us to release this to all depositors (if that hasn’t already happened) – we cannot, we are still bound by our agreement.

However, what we feel we can do is release extracts from an email sent to the IoM following conversations on Friday in which we point out what we believe is the minimum we expect from Alix Partners and the IoM tomorrow (see below).

In reference to the document that has been circulated detailing the IoM’s submission to the Treasury Select Committee and especially comments within this document pertaining to the discussions between the UK and IoM regulators, depositors should be aware that a request was made in early November for the minutes of those meetings and a further request was made by Edwin & Coe to both the IoM and the FSA (under the freedom of information act) over 10 days ago. We will keep you updated as to our progress with this.

Email to IoM:

ACTIONS FOR ALIX PARTNERS

As stressed in our conversation we believe that it is important that Alix Partners (AP) step up to the plate and provide depositors some proper information on which they can base a decision as to which road to follow – DCS or SoA. To this extent we request that AP produce the following for Monday:

  1. Calculations showing how the DCS and potential SoA compare given certain assumptions. By this I mean that we know the latest calculation showing an end return of 65% is based on an assumption that x pence in the pound is recouped from London (and presumably assumptions have also been made on the recovery from the Certificates of Deposit and the loan book) so it should be possible for AP to show similar calculations with varying assumptions, e.g. x% return from London, y% return from London and z% return from London. These assumptions need to be stated clearly and fed into the SoA model as well as the DCS model so that depositors can see the difference – especially any difference in timings. These calculations should extend through years 4, 5 and 6 and not end at yr 3 with the remaining timescale being uncertain.

Before AP put up resistance to this based around the fact they don’t want to put their necks on the line regarding the numbers please point this out to them. They will be clearly stating that the numbers supplied are subject to certain important ASSUMPTIONS over which they have no control. These models are only to give depositors examples of how the two routes differ and to give an indication what % returns may be based on these assumptions.

The assumptions need to be clear and concise so that depositors can see which assumptions they feel most comfortable with and make their decision from there.

  1. A document clearly explaining why they believe, in their position as experts, the proposed SoA will benefit higher end depositors over the proposed DCS and how this benefit is likely to come about.

AP should be aware that the comparisons they provide on Monday will be passed over to our Lawyers for comment. What we will be looking for is for our lawyers to be able to say “Yes, you now have enough information on which depositors can make a decision. You have been provided with clear definitions and examples of how the SoA and DCS will work and differ now it is up to you to decide which suits you best.” Before submitting any information on Monday AP need to bear this requirement in mind – if their submissions do not satisfy this simple condition we will have nothing to put to depositors and we will all have a big problem leading up to the 29th.

  1. Worked examples of how this will all work for bondholders. If we look at page 5 of the latest submission (v1.3) that we received then a similar table showing how bond holders can expect to be treated would be very useful.

WHAT IoM WILL NEED TO SUPPLY ON MONDAY

  1. Detailed explanation of the planned early payment scheme including specific timings and size of payments to be made.

  2. Clarification on when the IoM will begin to draw down on dividends from the run-down of the bank. From a depositors’ point of view it would be seen as a massive vote of confidence in the SoA if the IOM were to agree to defer any draw downs to itself until depositors had, at worst, received, for example, 70p in the pound.

  3. Clarification of why the big insurance companies are in favour of this and why the SoA is a good idea for bond holders – I realise we discussed this but something in writing that we could produce to bond holders would be helpful.

OTHER ISSUES FOR THE IoM

  1. It is important that the £1,000 pay out to depositors that claimed be paid out ASAP as there are a lot of desperate people out there.

  2. Clarification of the exchange rate issue.

  3. Documents currently showing the % of depositors that will be paid off within 3 years show that it will be approximately 71%. Technically this is true but is also possibly a little misleading. In this instance, we believe, the bond companies are being treated a single depositor each so the true number of people caught up in this is greater than the number being used to calculate the %. To get the true % we would need to factor in the number of bond holders caught up in this, if this is impractical then we suggest that the percentage not be used.

Lastly I’d like to confirm a very important item that came through in discussions:

We agreed that any SoA proposed should include clauses specifically giving depositors all the legal rights they would have had under a liquidation including all the rights a liquidator would have had (e.g. to pursue 3rd parties on behalf of the company and seeking other legal remedies on behalf of the company).

regards etc....

3.766665
Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (30 votes)

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

Not Good Enough IOM

  • Mrs Not Too Happy
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 13:04

The first comment to be made it that it seems that the difference between SoA and DCS seems to be really quite marginal to say the least.

How many of us can say wow that's fantastic - that's what we've been asking for all along ? Probably none of us because it's not what we want. It's something of an IOM kop out - just sweep us under the carpet with 65% or 71% or whatever the final figure ends up at but certainly less than 100%.

Come to think of it Alix Partners were brought in to do a job. How many of us can sit back and think wow that's brilliant - a SoA. Who would have thought of it ? I for one expected much much more from then. Let's be honest, any Tom, Dick or Harry could have come up with what they've come up with.

Are the continual calls on this site for 100% return being met with deaf ears ? Is the possibility of refloating the bank with some sort of loan dead in the water ? Are we all happy to take the view that whatever we get is a bonus and 100% is just a dream.

I for one have worked hard all my life for my savings and have no intention of giving up any percentage without a fight. I think we all need to get that message over to Mr Bell and the gang before it's too late.


Affidavits posted

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 21:58

The affidavits of Allan Bell and David Lovett can now be found here: http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/affidavits-allan-bell-and-da... on the Public site under FACTS/COURT DOCUMENTS.

David Lovett's includes the SOA proposal. The figures STILL show as "Confidential" but they are now with the court and in the public domain.


latest affidavits (26 Jan 2009)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 08:45

Has everybody accessed and studied these ??

Ther seems to be a total absence of 'overnight' comment.


latest affidavits (26 Jan 2009)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 09:34

Maybe the truth is beginning to sink in. It had to happen eventually.

May I quote from a song in The Mikado?

And I expect you'll all agree
That he was right to so decree.
And I am right,
And you are right,
And all is right as right can be!

Chorus.
And you are right.
And we are right,
And all is right, is right as right can be!

Pish-Tush & Chorus.
And all is right as right can be,
Right as right can be!


Affidavits posted

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 01:17

Revommend reading them very carefully. The devil is in the detail, although there is not that much detail provided and nowhere near sufficient for creditors to make an informed decision at this stage.

Note in particular who stands to gain most from the SoA - the large insurance companies and other large creditors. The proposed £10,000 EPS is of course a sop to smaller depositors, but obviously not unwelcome. What does that 10-fold increase tell you about just how much the IOMG needs to avoid the DCS being activated?


DCS surrender

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 01:03

A poster on the sub-50k group (which I know is not visible to most of those on this forum) asked if others were being advised aganst surrendering their rights under the DCS, as required by the proposed SoA. I replied as follows:

The advice I am getting, some from lawyers and some from myself, is to be very cautious indeed about doing so. The surrender of DCS rights is not even a necessary condition for the SoA to be brought into force - it is there purely for the benefit of the IOMG and they are not giving anything (much) in return. In other words the proposed SoA, in all its many-splendored aspects including faster payment, could still be put into effect, while at the same time preserving depositors' rights (all depositors, not just sub 50k) under the DCS if it should need to be called upon.

I assume that the "team" have been similarly advised. In fact, I seem to recall Diver saying something about it in a recent posting.


Eliot

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 22:21

No I am not Eliot.

Lovett's affidavit contains some interesting detail, sounds familiar! For all you doubters see Nixi's link above, I can categorically say I told you so and the other bits of information presented earlier will be seen to have foundation if Diver follows through. Somehow I don't think he will, shame, you will all feel so let down.


is diver's gang controlling the site ?

  • Eliot Ness
  • 26/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 20:05

[ng: removed - duplicate of posting made earlier today here: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/points-alix-partners-and-iom#comment-25379]


Diver - You're A Disgrace

  • Eliot Ness
  • 26/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 20:01

[ng: removed - duplicate of posting made earlier today here: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/points-alix-partners-and-iom#comment-25379]


Over the top

  • gazfuk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 20:07

The above post is ridiculous.

Any of us might be unhappy with the figures presented in the leaked document, but just stick to the facts. None of us are happy with less than 100%, so can vote against the proposals if and when they get the chance. There is no need for personal attacks.


Diver - You're A Disgrace

  • Eliot Ness
  • 26/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 19:58

[ng: removed - duplicate of posting made earlier today here: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/points-alix-partners-and-iom#comment-25379]


Much ado

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 18:25

New affidavits (late evidence by consent of the parties) from Treasury and Alix are in. The much-discussed "confidential" document is exhibited. Proposed scheme is unchanged. I won't spoil it for you by telling you what else is in them, because they will presumably shortly appear on the website.


Diver - say it aint so

  • Eliot Ness
  • 26/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 20:10

[ng: removed - duplicate of posting made earlier today here: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/points-alix-partners-and-iom#comment-25379]


Diver - You're A Disgrace

  • Eliot Ness
  • 26/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 14:55

[ng: My additions where marked, no original text has been removed nor changed.]

Your more and more erratic attempts at damage control are not going to hide the fact that you have sold out. Why did you remove that thread yesterday about the document which has been the base of your secret negotiations with the I.O.M. government for the past few weeks ?

[ng: Diver did not remove the thread, it was done by a moderator (not me) to avoid potential legal action against those members of the DAG responsible for running and administering this web-site]

Who authorized you to negotiate in our name a payoff of 50.0% in 3 years plus 15.0% in some as yet unspecified future ? Or was it only a version that you were supposed to sell to us - the unsuspecting masses - while a completely different deal for Diver & Co. was being quietly negotiated in the background ?

[ng: Surely DAG recent press release indicates that Diver is no happier with the offer than you are.]

Diver - the genie is out of the bottle. You're a traitor. I demand that you remove yourself from any representation of the DAG. You do not represent anybody but yourself and maybe some of your henchmen.

[ng: There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim, you are making assumptions, wrongly, in my opinion.]

All members of this group who wish to see what kind of Scheme Of Arrangement Diver has been quietly negotiating with the I.O.M. government please see the topic Confidential for DAG where I have uploaded that shameful document. If it is censored once again we may have to ask the persons who contribute to the costs of this site to expel the self anointed censors.

[ng: Have you missed my emails to you? If not why are you (apparently) ignoring them]

Scheme Of Arrangement - what an apt name LOL !


Someone we already know

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 16:18

My guess is that this Eliott Ness is someone with whom we are very familiar.. the style of writing and venting is something that we've heard before.

We do not need this crap at this point, and I just hope that this one person is not going to discourage those who are really working for the best outcome for all.


That wouldnt be Ramsey Peel

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 16:49

That wouldnt be Ramsey Peel would it?

As you say the style of writing and unfounded accusations do sound a tad familiar.


Expatfrance1

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 17:15

Been directed to the site by one of my contacts, not wasting my time stimulating people like you, pointless, you have nothing to offer. For your information, I have no interest in DCS, only 100% RETURN FOR ALL and JUSTICE.
I have and will loose a hell of a lot more than you. I also have a lot more to contribute than you and have done. Diver and crew are now taking some positive action, which I was proposing weeks ago, hope its not too late.

What precisely have you contributed?

Yes I will be gone after this as I am using my time effectively to assist.

Any further insults send me a mail and we will talk. Enjoy your new found pass time!


It's the mark of a coward

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 16:58

Signs up and then posts a reply which would appear to show that they have been following events for a long time.

Someone has a hidden agenda to propogate mistrust amongst our group and the only persons likely to gain by this would be those wanting to activate the DCS and liquidation.

This is all the more reason for people to rally behind Diver and the others.

I've had the distinct feeling for some time now that some people in the sub 50k group would like to 'teach' the depositors who have significantly higher amounts a lesson. This is not only childish and reprehensible but completely idiotic. Personal feelings should not be entering into this. We said at the outset that we wanted the best outcome for all and that should be what we are aiming for.

Just for the record. The deposit that I have an interest in is sub 15k.

SG


It's the mark of a coward

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 18:08

If the posting to which you refer ("Elliot Ness") comes from who I think it does, then I believe that he is not a sub-50k depositor. Nor, according to his postings, is "Ramsey Peel" a sub-50k depositor.

I do not know of anyone in the sub-50k group who would like to "teach [the larger depositors]a lesson". I think it is a pity that you have so misjudged peoples' motives.


Who is it then? Don't piss

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:23

Who is it then?
Don't piss about, who is it?
(and do me a favour, let me know what was in it)


expatfrance

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 16:52

A mon avis, c'est lui!


Who is the traitor?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 15:49

I find this post extremely offensive. The personal allegations and insinuations it contains appear totally unfounded. Fortunately, I think the writer will find few supporters here.

Posting a document which Diver and co have agreed to keep confidential (a condition imposed on them by IoMG/Alix) is at best irresponsible - and at worst a deliberate act of sabotage.

I trust that before the hearing on 29th January Eliot Ness will be providing us all with full details of his plan to get 100% back for everyone - enough to persuade the court not to liquidate the bank (which will not get us 100% back).

EDIT: This post was made in reply to a post which I see has now thankfully been removed. It was NOT in reply to Diver's post above!


Re Eliot Ness remark on Diver

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 15:23

Am I missing the point here? My understanding is that Diver is not "negotiating in our name", rather that he is attempting to clarify/quantify exactly what would be on offer in a SOA. As I understood it, we would have to vote on this (but how could we vote if the terms were not clear and available for us to analyse & discuss). I don't think any of us are going to vote for something which obviously doesn't work for us as individuals, and I for one would be trying hard to choose the option which gets the best for all. Of course, I would really like 100% of my money back. Whether that is realistic, I have no idea, but we should be fighting for it.

I find this posting from Eliot Ness extremely offensive, unless I am totally missing the point. I suppose I now expose myself to offensive replies, which is exactly why I usually refrain from posting.


Why Vote at all

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 16:26

Why do you think you have to vote on either one of the two options. We all want 100% of our money back so there is no need to vote.
This reminds me of directing a 2year old when he doesn't want to do what you ask - give him two options and invariably he'll forget he doesnt want either and choose one of the two.


Re Eliot Ness remark on Diver

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 15:43

Rest assured you are not missing the point, this is the most offensive post I have read on this forum to date, so much so that it must have been specifically calculated to be divisive.

It is hardly Diver's fault that the SoA is so weak, they had to get something on the table before moving forward. My only criticism is that the committee have perhaps been too focussed on the SoA, believing that it would improve matters for depositors, rather than inputting into other activities.

From my understanding of the situation, the only way an SoA could really improve the situation for depositors if is a) it avoids a significant loss from dumping the IoM loan book onto the market or b) it contains clear plans for another party covering the depositors' shortfall to some extent.

As neither appears to be the case, depositors are effectively being asked to vote for one of 2 options neither of which is remotely satisfactory.

I speak as a <50k depositor, so do not want to speak out of turn (and I guess even a 1% improvement on a 500k deposit is a significant amount), but is the best strategy to deliver a clear message via the committee that unless there is some benefit demonstrated in the SoA, depositors will press for liquidation and the activation of the DCS.

Then those lobbying/PR activities need to be more forcefully back on the agenda again.


I cannot agree, DonaldC

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 17:27

I cannot agree, DonaldC. Diver betrayed us all. He was telling us all along that he was fighting for 100% return of our deposits while secretly negociating the number of years in which IoMG would pay us the pre-assumed maximum of 65%.

My reaction to Ramsey Peel's allegations about Diver was at first identical to yours expressed above. I thought he was offensive and ridiculous. But if you read Diver's postings of the recent weeks and confront them with the unbelievably bleak proposal he discussed with the IoMG in the same period, it is impossible to not notice the dissonance between the two. Remember what German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said about truth:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.

BTW did you have the chance to read that infamous document? If not, I think you should. It may open your eyes.


I like the quote

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 13:00

"Arthur Schopenhauer said about truth:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Avoiding the context altogether, I must say that I like the quote very much. May I suggest a small amendment at the end?
"and no-one who opposed it can recall ever having done so"


Arthur Schopenhauer

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 14:25

Easy for him to say, he wasn't a depositor so far as I am aware.


Mud sticks JKK

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 21:32

You say "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident."

I'd say you are adopting the principle that "mud sticks" and merrily chucking it about.


Mud sticks? Curiouser and curiouser

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 22:58

I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to say but I am positive that you did not understand that quotation from Schopenhauer.

Would you care to elaborate what you meant?


Reply to JKK

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 17:48

I very much hope you are wrong. Looking at it rationally - do you seriously expect us to believe that the IoMG would offer inducements to Diver and the committee to accept their dubious propsals, thinking the other depositors would simply go along with it?

If so, it was bound to fail in any case. And if Diver is trying to sell it to the DAG, then he is a pretty poor salesman.

I am not trying to say the committee's actions are above criticism, but people can't just go and make accusations like they have been without a shred of evidence.

If the infamous document you are referring to is the draft SoA, then yes I did read it.

If however you are referring to the complete works of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, I have to confess I haven't yet got round to it.


Eliot Ness - new member

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 16:40

It appears that Eliot became a member earlier today so I find it interesting that he came upon this draft proposal put forth by the IOM so quickly. If I let my imagination run wild I could almost believe he is someone who was / is already a member under another name.

As pointed out many times before, any SoA must be acceptable to the majority; both the under and over £50,000 groups. Although I am one of the over £50,000, I firmly believe that any proposed SoA must ensure, if it is to succeed, that the under £50,000 group are FULLY reimbursed as guaranteed under the DCS. Why would the under £50,000 group accept only a 65% payout as the so-called proposal has been stated to reflect?

Diver explained his reason for not releasing the draft SoA illustration and that was good enough for me. Let's all stick together and let those who have ulterior motives undermine our objective to maximize returns for all.

Cheers


Eliot Ness - new member

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 16:53

The "so-called proposal" does give 100% return to all those whose deposits would otherwise be fully covered by the DCS, not 65%. The 65% figure (described as illustrative) is the overall return.

As I have pointed out before, as things stand 100% return for all depositors is not realistic under the proposed scheme (or the DCS + liquidation). It could only be achieved if considerable additional funding (say £300m, on the basis of the illustration used by Treasury) comes from another source.


Unseen proposal

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 19:41

I have only infrequently contributed to the various discussions but I appreciate the lively debate under this thread except where they contain unneccessary personal insults. Therefore keep it cool please!
My personal view as a pensioner with over £250k at stake is that unless any proposed scheme is predicated on a totally non discriminatory distribution giving every depositor an equal percentage share of any available funds I will most certainly vote against it. However, the 100% compensation guarantee for depositors for up to £50k must be honoured with any shortfall being made up under the DCS and not by taking the shortfall out of the general "pot" of funds.
After all if the bank were liquidated the available funds would be distributed on an equal basis with the final percentage dividend being idential for all depositors.
It goes without saying that we all want this to be 100% but I am, if anything, realistic and will reluctantly accept a delution. How much delution I am not sure of. I suspect we are currently being softened up to accept around 65% by via "leaked" documents. By the way I am most certainly not accusing Diver and the others on the committee of anything underhand. As far as I can see they are doing their best and they are certainly doing a lot more then the undersigned who has made minimal efforts on behalf of the group. I have written a few letter to local politicians and "my" MP without much success. Unfortunately not being British does not give me much leverage over my MP who I know but who also knows that he will never get my vote!
Brabander


Elgee - agree with you on

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 18:02

Elgee - agree with you on this one. It has been the most likely case for some time that to achieve 100% for all (i.e. for those >50k, myself included) , significant additional monies would need to be found over and above those recovered via liquidation or SOA in any shape or form.

Bottom line is IOMG needs to come up with a plan to fund any short-fall out of their pocket (loan or otherwise). If they had any backbone they would plan to replace us as creditors and get the money back from KSf via the parental guarantee that they considered acceptable to be touted to KSF customers/depositors. Better still, HMG/IMF loans them the money, IOMG get Bono and Geldoff onboard and HMG writes it off. Oops - must be fantasizing (on both counts).


expatvictim's reply to elgee.

  • German Mike
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 18:35

I cannot help it if at my age I take a simplistic view, but it seems to me the only statute determining what the IoMG does is that of the DCS as ratified in Tynwald. Anything else is pure supposition. And unless the Court - if it has the authority - imposes something else on the IoMG, that's as far as their liability will stretch.

However you massage the figures, there isn't likely to be enough in the pot to ensure high level depositors get back 100%, nor does there seem any practical way to force the IoMG to put materially more into the pot than they have 'promised' already. The HMG want the IoM to fail, so they can finish it off and keep their end up with the EU.

It sems to me with either an SoA or the DCS that over time - pehaps a long time - dividends will improve matters for the higher depositors, but I cannot seen any short term hope of getting 100% back for everyone.

What we have received so far by way of an indication is universally felt to be rubbish, without substance, and without serious intent. Blame Diver, blame the 'committee', blame the Treasury, blame Him Upstairs, it doesn't change the fact that the IoMG have us by the short ones, and protest all we like, they have all the cards.

Repeatedly on this site are pages of people writing it has to be 100% - the DAG aim - or else. Be very careful you don't end up with 'or else'! I believe that a series of delays - such as the inevitable one coming on Thursday - will ensure the matter fades away in the public perception, that the issue will be replaced in the news by other matters, and any 'power', if that is the right term, will move more and more to the IoMG, at least until HMG decides to finish it.

It seems to me, bewildered geriatric that I am, that the sooner we forget 100% in the short term - not for ever necessarily - and agree a deal the better. I for one can't pay the bills with dreams.


German Mike's comments

  • SBS
  • 28/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 09:05

Dear German Mike,
I agree with your comments in their entirety. I cannot wait forever to pay bills etc as I have done for the last 4 months.

I very much doubt that 100% recovery is possible in the short or medium term, no matter what face is put on the various negotiations.

I think what we ALL need to know is a realistic time scale...................no more "you will all know in 60 days" etc, etc.

SBS


what does any further delay achieve ?

  • rbirch
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 09:41

.... only further hardship

it was made abundantly clear several weeks ago on this site that there was a choice of the DCS or SOA and both had a similar pot available .... clearly more money may be recovered over the longer term and any DCS or SOA should not stop that being added to the pot as it is recovered.

then the question remains, DCS or SOA, which has long been debated here. the legal advice i have been given in this respect is that the rights one has under the DCS are not sufficiently compensated by the SOA timing. has anyone else been given that advice ?


Surely under an SoA ther is a

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 10:47

Surely under an SoA ther is a commitment to a payment schedule so that we know how much and when each payment will be made. Under a DCS there is no such commitment, payments will be made as and when the liquidator sees fit.

What rights under the DCS would you be opting out of if the SoA was implemented. I am not trying to be argumentative I am trying to understand the situation.


DCS rights

  • rbirch
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 13:27

the legal people love this stuff, the lack of clarity, the detail etc etc but in essence it comes down to the fact that the IoM govt are on the hook to "deliver" the requirements of the DCS.

from what we have seen of the SoA, and lets be clear, that we haven't yet seen the final definitive version yet, should the SoA fail to deliver .... then it appears to be "nobody's" fault.

of course the SoA can be "tightened" or the final version may include such guarantees but until we see this we need to be careful.

hope that helps ....


The only other benefit I can

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 15:09

The only other benefit I can see with the SoA is that any contribution from IOMG, whatever that may be, is guaranteed! Whereas the 150m contribution to the DCS is dependant on no other bank colapsing before October.

As you say there is still a long way to go yet.


Surely under an SoA ther is a

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 11:56

The right to full compensation for all depositors up to the relevant DCS limits if the SoA did not (for whatever reason) fulfill that obligation.


If the SoA was implememted,

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 12:08

If the SoA was implememted, would that not be a legally binding document with the right to full compensation for all depositors up to the relevant DCS limits built into it?


If the SoA was implememted

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 12:58

The rights you refer to are contractual rights against the parties (whoever they may be - it is not yet clear). Having contractual rights and enforcing them are two very different things.

The rights under the DCS are statutory and they are rights against the IOM government.


If the SOA was implemented

  • DonaldC
  • 25/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 13:18

From my reading of AP's affidavit, the schedule of payments would be guaranteed by the Treasury, which seems to me tantamount to having statutory rights. And therefore I cannot see any downside for <50k depositors in choosing the proposed SoA.

It seems to me that the decision here is far more whether it is acceptable to the >50k depositors or not.

They seem to get the benefit of Treasury underwriting any losses >40% and agreeing a schedule for payment of the guaranteed 60%, but suffer the potential disbenefits of losing certain rights by signing up and the fact that the IoMG will presumably be saying "that's your lot and you've signed up to it" and washing their hands of the matter.


Would all bondholders not be totally stuffed under DCS?

  • id2cgs
  • 23/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/01/2009 - 12:33

Forgive me if I am wrong but my limited understanding is that once the DCS if/is triggered, the bond holders, people with apparently over 20% of the total owed to us all, would in essence not even get the price of a "Starbuck's".
Consequently any voting by smaller retail depositors in conjunction with IOMG votes could effectively wipe out everyone in that group.

What has happened to the 100% back for everyone now?


Not in the public perception

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 18:58

Dear German Mike,
I think if we are objective we will know that we are not in the 'public perception'. I doubt if any not connected with our plight ever give it a thought. Howver, it is about the perception of big financial players (insurance companies, local authority depositors) and the IOMG as to whether they want to see the IoM sink as a financial centre. This is not a vote winner in UK but there will be financial big players and those in government whose purposes it will serve not to let the bank fail. That may include Tynwald members who are themselves depositors, the insurance companies who face legal action by bondholders, the charities and local authority depositors.
DAG represents a useful irritant that keeps Tynwald and the insurance companies focussed.
At the momnet the IOMG seem to be operating at a level on a par with a parish council. The perception of Manx men of their government when they realise that the industry that earns 36% of their GDP is being sold down the river may create enough stir to give the IOMG the proactive approach they need to find a way of financing a bail out.
Even parish councils can make big decisions when they realise they have to.
Do not lose heart. We may be pleasantly surprised by the hidden pressures of faceless men in pin-stripe suits who we neve hear about but who will weild the majority of power come any vote.
Fingers crossed!!!!


No, I feel the same Anxious Mum

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 15:37

I'm not sure if I was missing something too. I read last week in Diver's post that he had to agree to keep the details of the discussions confidential. Therefore I felt that it was understandable on his part. Nevertheless the document has leaked out, but I'm not sure what Diver has supposedly done wrong.

I was shocked to see that post earlier, because I'm not sure how he has betrayed, or if he has at all. It seems to imply that Diver is getting some sort of preferential deal over the rest of the group. I find that rather doubtful.


Diver - You're A Disgrace

  • Eliot Ness
  • 26/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 14:27

[ng: removed - duplicate of posting made earlier today here: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/points-alix-partners-and-iom#comment-25379]


Points to Alix and IOM

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/01/2009 - 09:03

Having just now received some written advice from a lawyer friend, I make the following further comments on the contents of Diver's posting above in addition to my earlier comments at:

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/points-alix-partners-and-io...

Two things that are particularly painfully evident:
(a) this is a good demonstration of the principle that a representative should never receive information on the basis that he must keep it confidential from the persons he purports to represent; and
(b) nothing really meaningful can be said until we have the true terms of the scheme and anything which fails to reveal the true terms of the scheme is likely to act as an unhelpful diversion. One difficulty is that, until the true terms of the proposed scheme of arrangement have been seen, it is not possible to know whether an unwilling creditor will be bound so as to lose statutory compensation rights without his own freely given consent.