Questions for Mike Simpson for call on 24th April 2009

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 21/04/2009 - 10:16

Dear all,

Time again for more questions to Mike Simpson the LP of Kaupthing IOM for the call on Friday.

Please post them here.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (6 votes)

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

estimated first dividend under liquidation?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/04/2009 - 08:41

Not sure if this question is included below, but I think not. It is a simple one:

In the case of liquidation (SOA voted down), what is the LP's current best estimate of
- a) the minimum initial percent dividend and
- b) the most probable initial percent dividend
and when would he expect these dividends to be paid?

Can he confirm that this dividend part of the first distribution (ie before any top-up) would be the same under the proposed SOA ? If not, please explain ...


Error on pg. 44 of Explanatory Statement re SOA vote

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/04/2009 - 01:30

Probably not the right place to post this but I thought you may want to bring the following to Mike Simpson's attention.

On page 44 of the Explanatory Statement, Part F, section 33.12.2 it states the individuals with £50,000 or less will be repaid within two years of the scheme becoming effective. This should read within one year as is indicated elsewhere throughout the document. Oversight no doubt.


nationalisation of KSF IOM

  • mr lynton
  • 27/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 13:07

Has the LP put it to IOMG that it may be worth them purchasing the bank rather than wasting its taxpayers cash on the SOA. For the relatively modest sum(approx 100 million) it could rescue its banking industry ( circa 70 BILLION) and probably make money on the deal with the returns from KSF UK likely to be more than 50%. The IOM depositors would probably remain loyal to the new bank and lots of bond holders are locked in to long term bonds so a run on the bank is unlikely. Existing depositors may even be willing to support such a scheme and leave their money in for a period of time.
This idea was suggested ages ago i know but it still seems the common sense approach to me.They may try and hide behind the lame excuses offered in the past but surely this option is not insurmountable as other governments have done it .


Answering e-mail queries

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 09:30

When replying to e-mail queries wouldn't it be more efficient, and less expensive in administration costs, to reply by e-mail?

Are there legal restraints preventing you from using this method?

Rather than sending what appears to be an irrelevant generic two page letter as an answer to queries, wouldn't it be simpler to say "I don't know" or "I do know the answer to your queries, but am not allowed to tell you at this time"?


Cost of distribution

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/04/2009 - 21:06

Mike Simpson's answer to Q14 6 April included the statement "the costs of a distribution can be significant, so a balance between the amounts of payments and the frequency needs to be made".

To what degree is the cost of a distribution related to the number of creditors receiving the distribution?
How much money has been "saved" by removing 2000 creditors from distributions ( assuming that 2000 creditors have received payment in full via the EPS)


The point was more that the

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/04/2009 - 23:36

The point was more that the more money distributed in less releases was cheaper than less money more often although the creditors would like the money faster, and the decision would be taken in discussion with the Creditors' Committee as to the times of the distributions.

If all payments are sent to a UK bank (BACS) and 2,000 are taken out by EPS from the 7,000-odd depositors, I think you can have a good guess on what the savings will be - but no-one knows the distribution dates and amounts yet.


Prompted by a question from

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 18:11

Prompted by a question from Nick, we may have enough info to work out the distribution of the depositors in a rough form.

We know this:

...........No. of Customers.........No. of Accounts.....Amount (£)

Individuals ..............5,248................ 6,538...........303,391,801
Joint........................3,114.................3,937...........174,397,037
Company...................797..................1,242...........108,515,768
Trust .........................229.....................372.............17,664,124
Insurance Cos.........1,970................ 1,970........... 289,876,074
TOTAL.................11,358................14,059............893,844,804
Source: Bank Records

And we also know that 7297 accounts have balances of less than £50K and worth £109M, with 3200 accounts having greater than £50K worth £770M (Conf call with LP on 12th Jan) and that 2,000 depositors will be fully paid out with EPS2 (the £10K payment)

This means that there are 5297 accounts with less than £50K and 3200 accounts with more for which company accounts and life accounts must be in there - so the Insurance companies have 6 votes but £300M of the class 3 position, while individuals would have 1200 votes and over £300M of the value. This really contradicts the generally perceived position that the Insurance Companies have the bulk of the cash but not the votes....

Q for Mike Simpson, is - is this correct, or if not, could he provide the true vote distribution for all 3 classes.


@ frog

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 20:44

Don't forget also that all the EPS payments will be deducted from the size of your deposit before you cast your vote.

I believe all the insurance companies have claimed EPS on behalf of their bondholders, as have I would assume a reasonable amount of the class 3 depositors.

With 1907 accounts held by the insurance companies they could have lost almost £20 million
from the size of their deposits for voting purposes.


Quite - my numbers are very

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 21:59

Quite - my numbers are very rough - I hope to get clarity on the call next Friday as to the constitution and size of the classes of voters.


next telecon with MS

  • two time loser
  • 10/10/08 21/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 17:49

please can you ask MS who is paying for the costs of the SOA and particularly MS's time spent in developing it so far. Clearly he has been dealing with Alix & Partners, preparing affidavits etc., that are not in the ordinary course of the Liquidation so these should not be paid by the bank whether the SOA proceeds or not. We have been told that IOM Govt will pay for the SOA but nowhere is this in evidence as far as I can see.


@two time loser

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/04/2009 - 02:57

If you look further down the thread you will see that I have already posed some questions re this for the next telecon.


Loan book management...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 08:45
  1. If the SoA fails and the bank goes into liquidation, who runs down the loan book over the next five years to ensure we get maximum returns from the interest and capital of this £400M asset - or is it sold off at the 'best price' possible?

  2. If the loan book is not run-down, by how much will our returns be diminished?

Thanks frog.


@Icecrusher

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 09:03

The liquidator will run down the loan book over the next 6 years IF it isn't sold. BTW, it possibly won't last 6 years because the distribution is close to a bell-curve, so the costs of administering will be probably greater than recovery in the final months, so would be sold off very cheaply.


@frog loan book

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 11:47

Thanks frog. When I spoke to JS a couple of days back he said bank staff (incl director) were needed to assist LP to manage loan book - just so we know who's being employed on the back-end of all this. Yes, I gathered it could be effectively wound up in less than 6 years. Thanks for all your time and effort in this ongoing initiative.


Comparison

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 05:41

Can MS please provide a simple spreadsheet to allow depositors to make a proper comparison (of the estimated timing and amount of each payout) between the SoA and DCS Liquidation routes?

Brabander's recent attempt was a good effort but was unfortunately based on a misunderstanding of the SoA's provisions.


SoA

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 08:33

I have not misunderstood the SoA. All this lengthy document does is "guarantee" certain payments on certain dates. In addition it states that further funds may be distributed Pari Passu. Unfortunately under the conditions of the SoA the person who decides those Pari Passu distributions is effectively under control of the IOMT. There is therefore no guarantee of any Pari Passu distributions.
I realise that is unlikely to be the case but it is also unlikely that there would be no payments under the DCS once it is triggered.
If the bank is put into liquidation the Liquidator is under control of the creditors and is legally obliged to look after the interests of the creditors. THIS IS NOT THE CASE UNDER THE SOA.
My spreadsheet attempted to show what the guaranteed payments might be under those two different conditions.
I only prepared this spreadsheet because the sponsors of the SoA failed to provide such a document despite a number of promises!
Unfortunately the spreadsheet reflects the fact that we have been given extremely little information by the LP in contrast with the IOMG which has much more information than us poor creditors. If the bank had been liquidated we would have had a legal right to this information.


Recovery of Funds

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 05:31

Please ask Mike Simpson the following hypothetical ( but straightforward ) question:

If the recovery rate is say 70% and a depositors has funds of 500,000 with KSFIOM then presumably he recovers 350,000. But this leaves an under-recovery of 150,000. Will the DCS ( under liquidation ) then kick in and pay the depositor a further 50,000 ( if a sole account holder ) thus giving the depositor a total recovery of 400,000 ? Also if husband and wife are joint account holders would the DCS pay out 100,000 ? And would there be any difference under the SOA as regards the Total recovery and the timing of the Final staged payment ?

Thanks.


@D RAM

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 09:07

No, I'm afraid not - the DCS (and the protected depositor part of the SoA) only pays out for the first £50,000. Your protection would have been exhausted in the £350,000 already paid out.

With regard to your second point, we don't have a timetable for either SoA or liquidation yet. I will be asking for one.


Thanks to Frog

  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 15:39

Thanks you have cleared up my misunderstanding, it is greatly appreciated.


Given the FX answer from the last QA session.....

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/04/2009 - 07:55

If I understand the answers to my last question in the previous session about FX hedging correctly then FX holders could actually be paid out in the currency of their original deposit, at least for the first payment.

Would this be possible? And if not why not? I have the feeling that there would be a universal consensus of agreement to this action, and it would not prejudice unfairly any GBP holders.

Secondly: Assuming that the depositors are clear thinking enough to scotch the SoA then we have a situation where the date of record for the date of 'conversion' is once again uncertain. Would you confirm that the date of record will be the .?. the date of the announcement of the vote, the next date before the courts, or 'what' (to use the vernacular).
Given the precarious position of the GBP this might well be advantageous for fx holders, but as we now know that will be without any negative impact for the rest of the depositors.

Finally, there are two provisional liquidators ( I commend the readers to go to this site :
http://www.law-man.com/library/news-28.pdf
http://www.law-man.com/library/news-24.pdf
))
why cannot perhaps we talk with the other?

I have some experience of negotiations with "the consultancies" ( the hightlight of my career was having a senior partner of PA (brought in at the time to assist Coopers Lybrand ) threatening publicly to "blow my kneecaps off if I revealed '..the substance of the meeting publicly' ". I was somewhat taken aback at the time, until I grasped it was just theatre, but nevertheless our request that the CEO be fired was actioned within three days). I will reserve other stories for the moment but the thrust of my comment is that you/we need to be aware that we are dealing with the 'hit men' of the corporate world, and we need to act appropriately.
A QA session with a consultant is equivalent to court exchange, and I have defended myself against a senior barrister. We are within 'hostile witness' territory.

Meanwhile let's 'keep truckin'. Best of luck frog.


@follow_the_tao

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 09:14

You are probably right regarding the first payment, as there is likely to be enough Dollars (although Euros may be in question) , and we have discussed this previously - the response from the LP was that things will happen in only one currency. In effect, you'll just have to convert back to the foreign currency when you get the payment.

I also have asked about the second LP and Mike Simpson said that they are working together and he speaks for him. The second LP was to focus on UK side events (like working with E&Y)

With regard to the record date, IF the SoA gets voted out, the current record date of 9th April will also go - and IF another SoA is proposed then the record date is likely to be chosen to be near the proposal date again. The liquidation date is the date of conversion if the liquidation route is followed.

Understand totally what you are saying about consultants.


Questions to MS

  • Helvetica Bold
  • 09/02/09 24/07/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 16:56

On another tack, would you please ask MS the following questions :-

I refer to para 57 of the TSC report into the banking crisis and quote:-

1)the Chancellor stated the £555m '' did not belong to the UK Government''

2) Lord Turner, Chair of the FSA stated that '' KSF IOM was in the same position as any other creditor''

3) Hector Sants, CEO of the FSA later stated '' both were wrong given the special powers taken by the Treasury in relation to any payments to be made to the Isle of Man''

Questions:-

a) has MS asked HS to confirm if his statement is correct

b) has MS challenged the Chancellor as to the truth of HS statement and if not will he do so

c) has MS requested the Chancellor to use his special powers to unfreeze and return the assets of KSF IOM and if not why not and will he do so as a matter of urgency

the £555m may not actually belong to the UK Government but it appears the Chancellor has the power to direct who gets what e.g. Mr Wheelan

I assume as part of his duties to recover assets for the creditors these are avenues he has authority to explore/pursue

Thanks to everyone for all you are doing


The money is clearly an

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 18:50

The money is clearly an unsecured amount that will be distributed along with other assets from KSFUK. The amount paid to Wheelen was paid by the FSCS - not KSFUK.


The call has been delayed a

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 15:04

The call has been delayed a week to allow PWC to get more figures from the UK - so next call will be at 4pm on the 1st May.

Regards to all.


SoA documents

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 17:18

Frog does this mean that the SoA has been delayed by a week as well? The new UK figures will impact the SoA as well.
By the way I am DEFINITELY not avocating another delay. In my opinion the Deemster should not permit further delays, the IOMG has already had over 6 months!


No - nothing sinister here -

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 18:52

No - nothing sinister here - in fact I asked for the delay as a set of questions I sent was responded to with the comment that 'more will be known in a few days' so rather than have an indeterminate response, I felt it was worth waiting a week for something more definitive.

Agree with what you say about no delay!


latest assets valaution

  • amar
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 14:12
  1. what is the latest estimate of the assets given the 50p recovery from KSFUK (APPROX £197K)
  2. What is the total liability of the business assuming set off of the KSFUK (AS NETTED ABOVE) ie total depositors + other parties

This should give us our net recovery


@amar

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 14:24

This info is in MS 2nd Affidavit public forum


Thanks

  • amar
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 14:44

but i think they conflict with previous statements. Whether this is caused by net off's or revaluations I want to understand where we are now so we can get a reflective idea of the realisation


Questins for MS

  • ianw
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 10:31
  1. Please confirm that the basis on which capital is repaid will be the aggretate sum of the amount deposited plus interest accumulated on a daily basis up to the date that the bank ceased to trade. This is the position with Landsbanki Guernsey, so if the same process does not apply to KSF IOM, please explain why.

  2. Please explain the legal basis upon which a date is chosen for converting all non Sterling account to GBP.

  3. Regarding the future appointment of a Liquidator or Administrator, please confirm the basis upon which the firm will be appointed. In particular, will the appointment be determined by a "beauty parade" to determine which firm offers the best value to creditors considering both fees and experience.

Frog, I appreciate the excellent job you are doing with these Q&A sessions.


In answer to Q1, The balance

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 23:15

In answer to Q1, The balance (including interest up to 8th Oct) will be used as the basis of the creditors' claim on the bank. The SoA talks about payments of interest for this sum FROM the 8th Oct until being repaid.

Q2, The date of conversion will either be the liquidation date (that is how liquidadtions work this) or the 9th April (the SoA is an agreement, so it could be any date agreed by the parties).

Q3, I don't know and hasn't been discussed before, so I'll ask - but for the SoA, the administrator has been set as PwC - and the choice of liquidator would follow the usual IOM rules. My thoughts are that it would be both expensive and difficult to displace PWC now as the new guys would have to pick up an awful lot of knowledge and the double cost of the handover between PWC and the new guys would also be painful.


Questions to MS

  • britsick
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 08:23

Without going through the questions already submitted to Mike Simpson for the call tomorrow, I/we would like to know if the recent Ernst & Young report has made it more likely that some or all the money deposited by KSFIOM in KSFUK will be returned. Also, is he now able to have a dialogue with Ernst & Young about the return of the money, establish the amount that is likely to be returned and when?

Thanks


@britsick

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 09:16

Are you happy I pass on this question now events have evolved somewhat?


Parental Guarantee

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 01:28

The statement below was in the IOM News yesterday. Please could you ask Mike Simpson if by not placing the deposits with the parent bank the FSC caused the parental guarantee to be void.

"Defensive measures taken by the FSC after problems emerged with the Icelandic banking system earlier that year ensured Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (IoM) deposits were placed with the sister bank in London and not the parent bank in Reykjavik."


Parental Guarantee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 01:50

The guarantee, a very simple document, contains no requirement that customers' deposits be deposited with the parent. It would be very odd if it did, because it would amount to the parent giving a guarantee to meet obligations to creditors that could not be fulfilled by the subsidiary, which would only arise if the parent itself failed to meet its own obligations to the subsidiary. Presumably there would be no realistic expectation of the guarantee being usable in such circumstances.

If that is not clear, suppose your father acted as the guarantee for your mortgage, on condition that you lent him a certain sum of money. Suppose that at some time in the future, your father was no longer able to meet the loan repayments to you and as a result you defaulted on your mortgage payments. The mortgagee would then look to your father for payment under the guarantee, but of course since he does not have the money to repay your loan to him then he will not be able to pay the mortgagee either.


Loan book value

  • amar
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 22:44

Frog

Please could you ask if the loan book value depicted in the balance sheet as an asset is the actual monies handed over to the mortgagee and that interest accruing and being received is deferred ie the interest due over the period of the loan is additional income and cash for the next 6 years.


The vast majority of the

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 15:08

The vast majority of the loans were interest-only, so the capital will be repaid on the termination of the loan. The interest accrued is being added to the cash balance of the bank. There is a breakdown of the loan amounts per year already available. The loan amount is the actual loan provided - not a projection of the total value of the transaction.


"•The various Scheme Documents....

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 21:11

.....are required to be issued to creditors within 10 days of the Court Hearing" = 19 Apr 09

Have you issued them?

If not, why not?

Does this delay the proposed timetable for voting?


Information not on website either

  • brianbrasil1
  • 17/11/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 12:07

23/4/09 - No e-mails received, no information on KSF website either


RE: Various Scheme documents

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 22:02

lancara, Mike Simpson's voting timetable on his April 9th posting on the Bank site goes on to say

"A Scheme Meeting will be held 28 days post the initial 10 day period."

Therefore, if the meeting is slated to be May 19th as his text goes on to say, one can subtract 28 days from May 19th and come up with April 22nd so, as you say, where are the Scheme Documents?


Questions for LP

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 19:45

I may have misinterpreted the SoA but I believe that the payments at the distribution dates are maximi.
My question is what will happen if additional funds are available for distribution on the various dates which would exceed the maximi specified in the SoA.
For example on the first distribution date, under the SoA the maximum distribution would be £20k.
The LP has already confirmed that he can make a first distribution of 20%. If my deposit was £300k my dividend under normal Pari Passu rules would be £60k. Under the SoA this appears to be capped at £20k!
This is an extremely important point for many depositors and requires urgent clarification.


joint account holders

  • insameboat
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 21:58

Please ask about the distribution to joint account holders under liquidation and SOA. Percentages were specified in Lovetts 3rd affidavit ie 12.5%, 7.5% etc. Do these % still apply as they were not specified in the latest affidavit?
In the case of joint account holders would the distribution be 12.5% of the total in the account or 12.5% of the total in the account to one account holder and 12.5% to the other account holder as well (dream on), assuming that these amounts are higher than the minimum SOA/DCS payout. If the joint account holders have , say 3 accounts, how will this affect the distribution? eg.12.5% of all 3 accounts?

If the amount available for distribution by July 2009 is higher than the %s specified in the Lovett affidavit, who will decide what and when these funds will be distributed?


Brabander, first payment under SOA

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 20:17

First payment under Soa would be 12.5% of your total deposit or £20,000 whichever is greater but not to exceed your deposit. Therefore someone with £300k on deposit their first recovery under a SOA would be £37,500 which is less than the projected payout one assumes would be realized under the DCS.


The 12.5% or £20,000 value

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 14:53

The 12.5% or £20,000 value refered to is the guaranteed payout for the first distribution of the SoA and not a cap. If someone had £300k on deposit and the LP made a distribution of 25%, my understanding is that the person would get £75,000. As this is above the 12.5% or £20,000 figure they would not need a top up from the SoA.

As far as I can make out, this would be the same under liquidation or the SoA.


@undone 1st payment

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 14:22

The compensation payment on the first assured date is the lesser of £20K or your deposit. The dividend paid on this date will be determined by the LP. If he pays 20% as stated, then depositors with £200K will get 20% X 200K = £40K and £300K should get £60K. In D Lovett's 3rd affidavit there was a limit of £175K on the first return and anyone with this deposit or less would receive the compensation payment of £20K whilst those above £175K got the % return. In the case of 12.5%, £20K was the % return on £160K so anyone between £160K and £175K were up to £1875 'behind' on the first repayment. There were only these examples in DL's 3rd affidavit to work on, but a similar principle will likely apply depending upon the % return. I am working on revising the SoA.DCS Calc to reflect this.
Ice


IceCrusher & expatfrance1, thanks...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 16:53

for setting me straight. I should have mentioned that the 12.5% or £20,000, not to exceed one's deposit, was the minimum first payment guarantee under the SOA. Methinks I'd best leave interpretations of these schemes to others as I just can't keep up with all the written changes and verbally confirmed statements. Thanks again.


@'Crusher

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 14:56

Many thanks for your helpful post(s), as usual.

Could you please put your Calcs somewhere where they can be viewed by ALL depositors. (I appreciate one can join any 'value group')

If the return proves larger than previously anticipated or indicated can you ensure that it's not just the larger depositors who gain by this but also the smaller ones too eg by increasing that first assured date's £20,000 to say £50,000 (or £40,000 net if EPS2 claimed).


@bobby shafted: small depositors gains...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 17:50

Depositors with £50K or less are being taken care of with regard to % returns reasonably well I think. Even if the LP ups the first dividend from 12.5% to 20%, a depositor with £50K will receive £20K on the first payment = 40% return and £35K on the second assured payment = 70% return; by the 3rd payment 100% is returned to such depositors, which far surpasses the dividends payable by the LP on anticipated distributions. Of course those depositors who have larger savings will receive commensurately higher returns, but that is, I would humbly suggest, 'proportionally correct' to the amount of money placed in the bank. Again, these are just the facts of the maths, no bias or favour intended.
Ice


SoA payments

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 20:36

Undone,
I have seen % distribution figures in the original SoA documents but the last one (I assume the one we vote on) does not appear to contain any percentages.
Where can I find these?


SOA payments

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 20:44

Brabander, I pulled these off the Minutes of DAG's meeting with Alix Partners, John Spellman, etc dated 24/3/09.

DAG stated that they are expected to be 12.5% within 3 months, 7.5% within 12 months and 10% within 2 years.