re: DAG posting

  • KA
  • 14/10/08 29/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 15/04/2009 - 09:39

just to clarify

Class 1 - unprotected depositor = not covered by DCS e.g wholesale
Class 2 - protected depositor whose claim is fully paid out by the DCS = retailers under 50k
Class 3 - protected depositor whose claim is in excess of the protection = retailers over 50k

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.

Thanks KA, but who does DAG legal *really* 'represent'?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 10:34

My understanding is that the IoM court 'ruled' that there be made these 3 distinctions of creditors. This was presumably on the basis that those with under 50K and those with other 50K at stake need 'separate treatment' (not necessarily my personal opinion, but the IoM court's).

If correct, who is it then that DAG legal really 'represents', as it cannot be by definition all 3 classes of creditors?

For e.g., if you read some posts by depositors with under 50K (not mine) it is considered a FACT by these depositors that SOA favours them more than the DCS when it comes to the timings for receiving payment. Their claims do not get refuted, but are left to hang in cyberspace.

So, if you believe this it is not a FACT please explain why it is not (without resorting to the use of a time machine where KSFIoM suddenly becomes liquidated six months ago).

Getting back to the point, my assumption is that in reality DAG legal 'represents' some, but not all, of Class 3 (above).

I think this should be clarified as I see many postings by members advocating DAG is given your proxy vote. The basis of this seems to be one has to actually physically stick one's voting form through an IoM letter-box and, of course, not everyone can physically get there, so best to use a proxy.

I find this a highly unlikely situation given a) EPS payments could be obtained via postal mail and b) the KSFIoM 'helpline' apparently says it is, er, not the case.

I also find it ironic that those who seem keen on 'making every vote count', even by proxy, are often the same posters who seem keen to make the point that the SOA vs. DCS voting discussions are a 'distraction' and wish to suppress debate.

No, I can't work that out either.

There are also many posting stating the DAG legal team are 'experts' and those who do not follow their advise are 'uninformed'. There are also many postings that indicate we should ALL take DAG legal's advise, but this is not qualified by the fact one should consider which class of creditor one is before doing so, for the reasons I have tried to explain above.

I am taking this opportunity to point this out to all, or to be made to stand corrected.

I would therefore suggest depositors consider the above before passing over their proxy to anyone, or blindly follow advise from the legal team.

By the way, I am not suggesting DAG legal should represent EVERYONE. As I see it, they should represent only those who are paying its costs, who I guess are those with more at stake i.e. class 3 creditors. And I'm sure we all know the old saying - "free legal advice is worth what you pay for it".


If I have understood

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 18:05

If I have understood correctly part of the reasoning for opposing the SoA is because its not a great deal and bu opposing it DAG can pressurise the IOM into changing the terms. I doubt it, Alan Bell made it clear if you'd like to check, that if the recent court hearing went against them that would be the end of the matter. If I may so the concept that a liquidation is something the IoM simply won't let happen at all costs or Armageddon will follow, is somewhat flawed to say the least. They could have done better for sure, but have a good think about why the SoA is like it is; take a good hard look at the accusations; conspiracies; insults etc that have flown towards IoM and ask yourself what sort of reception you'd expect all the insults to have. I'd get very pissed off myself.

It always interests me that Iceland the UK are greater perpetrators of our wows and yet I read precious little on this web site about it! I wonder why that is?


@expat woeful...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 13:54

Let me pose this little thought:

Can guilt, remorse, and umbrage reside simultaneously in a clear conscience?

Ice


'

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 13:57

double post error


hear hear....

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 06:47

As many go round the same old circles, we hear a wee voice of sensibility. I agree, the IoM can do little more to help than it is already doing. Yes, they have gone about kackhanded sometimes and yes they have boody angered me to the point of breaking a few pens in my hands. But get real, the IoM has 80,000 people and can hardly afford the risk 50K risj it is already taking.

The real target of our focus should be the UK Government as they caused this and have the power to resolve it; no progress to date as we are poking each other in the eyes rather working on the UK Government.


So why, why, why do IOMG not ask for help?

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 17:27

If the concensus is that HMG has the power to resolve then why will IOMG not even ask for help? The TSC recommends them working together to find a solution but The IOMG seems to be reticent to ask for help.

The IOMG is therefore not trying to find a solution for the depositors but to save their own backsides. It is this that leads me to the conclusion that they are not trustworthy and that the SOA is also not worthy of trust.

Ergo Liquidation is the correct way forward.

Now Simpson has been coerced into supporting the IOMG it seems we have an even bigger battle to regain our deposits and see justice prevail. This can only be done by Liquidation and action against those who were responsible.


One giant leap too many for me Codpeace

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 17:50

I find it risible that because the IoM are involved in a political game of protecting their financial independence (by not going cap in hand to HMG for a loan, deplorable that that may be) that "Ergo" Liquidation/DCS is the way forward!

I mean, who do you think is going to finance the DCS, and if the answer is the IoM/bank levies, why trust the IoM Govt down this route and not the SOA? Are the IoM courts not going to be involved in the Liquidation process? Is it not generally assumed around these parts that the IoM government and judiciary are possibly 'joind-at-the-hip' (if not the womb, in some instances?)

I just don't understand all this knee-jerk reaction.

And Simpson is risking his job and multi-national company's reputation by 'siding' with the IoM because of coercion? Have you considered the implications he and his company faces if he does this on a 'whim' or an alleged 'backhander'? What are you basing this on, other than hearsay, anyway? Is it just because you don't like his decision? Are you not seeing 'enemies' everywhere here?

I agree, if you think IoM Govt are responsible, SOA is not the best route if you want to sue them (and I am not saying SOA is the best route, just amazed at your rationales against it), but what are they legally, repeat legally responsible for here that they are not fulfilling?


@Chris Watson

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 18:31

I thought I made it clear - I no longer trust the IOMG to do the right thing. Pure and simple.

Liquidation has established rules and SOA doesn't.

As I am hopeful that the 60% is realisable those with more than 84,000 will not be relying on the DCS. (although I appreciate the timing will be impacted)

I also think it will be good for the rest of IOM depositors to see how the DCS will function. Is it not in IOMG's interest to avoid another fiasco?


@codpeace

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 19:54

Codpeace, strongly suggest you and other depositors readthe latest blog from the DAG strategy and legal teams

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/blog-entry/legal-position-scheme-arrang...

rather than waste time arguing on website


DST on the ball

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 21:35

Read it and agree wholeheartedly. Well done DST, thanks for all your hard work. A well reasoned and researched conclusion.

Keep up the excellent work.

Very worrying that Simpson is giving bad infromation on the KSF website. What is Simpson up to??? Should he not be impartial???


@elgee re. DAG strategy and legal teams

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 20:44

I have looked on this chatline and on the public site for a current list of exactly how many depositors comprise these strategy and legal teams, unfortunately without success.......

Can you point me to a list of them (eg by user name - so those of us "not in the know" can recognise their postings etc, and eg by size of deposit, so we can be reassured that they accurately represent the interests of ALL sizes / classes of depositor and investor) please.

Incidentally, are they self-appointed or was there a recent election which I've missed ?

Many Thanks


Fair enough Codpeace

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 19:55

I assume you're aware that Liquidation on the IoM does not follow the 'rules of the mainlands' in quite the way others may expect, and that it will be heavily dependent on the IoM judiciary, who are of course, quite closely 'associated' to the IoM govt you so despise!

I also salute your honesty with regards to underlining that HNW depositors are not really dependent on DCS for their repayment, even though they want it to 'happen'. Others on here would not be so forthright, and instead state that DCS was 'best from everyone' or that the SOA was 'a distraction' or 'irrelevant', perhaps in an attempt to blind those with under 50K at stake that SOA, in theory, could be their better option, if not theirs. Perhaps not. Who knows?

I'm not too impressed though with those under 50K being perceived by you as guinea pigs to see how the "DCS will function". Some from this 'class' of depositor will inevitably be paid out much slower under DCS, if at all (by that I loop back to my first paragraph in this post).

Anyway, good luck!


DCS

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 20:09

I would think that the IOMG will have to find a way of making the DCS work for the under 50k to be able to continue to use it in their propaganda.


codpeace

  • giveus backourfunds
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 20:46

remind me again but are the under £50K not the majority here ?, so why is the DCS going to help. If the DCS would be better then I would agree but i have yet to see how this would better and even some of the over £50K seem to agree the SOA is the way ahead. Seeems to me a few are trying to upset / persuade / the many but of it's merits when you are not even convinced of them yourself.


I'm sure they would, codpeace

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 20:48

It just might take a few decades for the DCS to pay out.

Not much good for some!


The FSC

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 18:03

The FSC is supposed to monitor banking procedures.

Over 50% of the banks assets were sent to the UK this is bad banking procedure.

They must accept some responsibility for this.

They are after all supposed to be a financial centre.


OK bellyup

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 18:11

so what are you suggesting should happen/we should do?


80000 people

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 11:03

The IOM has 80000 people

They cant afford to put the result of their governments negligence .

So let the poor saps of Depositors take the rap

The over 50k people can lose their lives savings

There must be all of 3000 of them.

So that alright then.

Many have only banked on OUR island for years

OK we made a few botch ups but they should have been 'more educated' that they were and have known we were a bunch of incompetents

Let their lives be destroyed but let our smug little island carry on business as usual.


If I have understood

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 19:09

expat: "It always interests me that Iceland the UK are greater perpetrators of our wows and yet I read precious little on this web site about it! I wonder why that is?"

There has been much criticism of both of them, including from me. However, neither of those two governments has focussed virtually all its efforts and masses of money on trying to fob us off with a scheme which gives them precisely what they want and the depositors nothing more than if the IOMG had not interferred in the process on 9 Oct (actually less at this stage). If the scheme is voted in, I can promise you that, in the words of a lawyer I spoke to today, the IoM will immediately wash its hands of the whole matter, claiming that the depositors have been satisfied. And that, without a shadow of doubt, will be the exact legal position - if the scheme is voted in then the depositors will have no further claim on the bank or the DCS and the scheme itself will be the entirety of the banks' and the IOMG's obligations.


Well said Elgee

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 11:06

There has been much criticism of both of them, including from me. However, neither of those two governments has focussed virtually all its efforts and masses of money on trying to fob us off with a scheme which gives them precisely what they want and the depositors nothing more than if the IOMG had not interferred in the process on 9 Oct (actually less at this stage). If the scheme is voted in, I can promise you that, in the words of a lawyer I spoke to today, the IoM will immediately wash its hands of the whole matter, claiming that the depositors have been satisfied. And that, without a shadow of doubt, will be the exact legal position - if the scheme is voted in then the depositors will have no further claim on the bank or the DCS and the scheme itself will be the entirety of the banks' and the IOMG's obligations.

I believe that at this moment if the SOA goes ahead that is exactly what the IOM will do.
I'm afraid nothing they have said or done has convinced me otherwise.


elgee - shut up

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 06:52

Mate, if you have not got anything constructive to say, then be adult, take a deep breath and think before posting. All you see to do is criticise, whinge about others, disagree with everything that is not your idea and do bugger all else.

So, I break with my personal rule of not attacking a fellow occupant of this boat and ask you to shut up and stop trying to sow more damn discord within the depositors than the SoA every could do. One question; exactly what have you done so far that has been constructive Laurance?


dj shutup

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 11:17

Do not flame other members. If you disagree with their opinions, rebut them or ignore them. I object to your post.

elgee spends time on analysis and offers us the results; some of which is useful to some of us.


@dj: Perhaps your posting tells us why your letters don't work.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 07:13

Elgee is simply offering an analysis.
From the information I see it looks more than plausible.
What is your problem with reasonable analysis? You don't like the conclusions?
So you shoot the messenger.

I've watched your posting re the SOA/Liquidation debate. You have dithered repeatedly, sometimes for, sometimes against. With what logic I ask myself, and others may like to ask the same question.

You write reams, they are now appearing to be just the windmills of your mind.

As for you "shut-up" posting...
'one finger pointing forward, three fingers pointing back'.


@expat - If I have understood

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 18:31

Personally I am opposed to the SoA because it is not a great deal, full stop. In fact, it is not a deal at all. If IOMT don't want to negotiate (as you suggest) then that is their problem, not that of the depositors who have essentially nothing to lose by not entering into the proposed scheme of arrangement, and I strongly hope that in those circumstances the vote will go against the SoA. Natural justice says it should.


I did not say they would not

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 18:50

I did not say they would not negotiate elgee, I said assuming that stopping liquidation is the pinnacle of their thinking is a poor negotiating stance, especially when you publicise it!! By all means go against it because you don't like it, but trying to use it as a negotiating weapon when DAG has ahas done a pretty good job of alienating IoM is just poor tactics! Negotiating isn't that hard if you try, its about finding common ground, not looking for conflict at every turn.

I think it would be fair comment that all the insults haven't achieved anything to date have they? Still each to their own.


@expat: And your brilliant solution is what?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 05:26

I commend your balanced, informative, combative, communications to the powers that be.

But what have they achieved?
I believe thay have achieved something. I believe that the debate over what happens has more potential now than ever, because the realities are clearer.

Therefore we obviously continue with this line. Elgee, for all the strangeness of his anger with the IoMG has been as solid as yourself, if not more, in his argument. You do yourself no favours in base attacks.

In a much more sophisticated analysis than this forum allows the issues can be laid bare. Where is this debate? As I see you are not contributing to it. Your polarised apologetic stance to the IoMG has been noted as a problem since way back. It is time that you flexed. This is politics, put your ego aside and try to assist in forming a caucus.


Thats helpful

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 06:41

Another helpful post... Why is it that a bunch of us seem to prefer attacking each other rather than doing constructive stuff? Mind boggling.. No wonder some MP's - that support us - are expressing suprise at the lack of correspondance their collegues are receiving. We are hiding in this little corner of the web chucking anger at each other. Just fantastic.


dj not helpful

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 11:20

dj, it is you is attacking people!


@dj: I refer you to your post above .......

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 07:24

You seem to be responsible for an awful lot of 'noise'.

Take a deep breathe and have another look.

If you can't persuade us, how are you going to persuade them?


EXPAT

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 02:00

What exactly has the IOM done for us depositors up to now?

ABSOLUTELY SWEET NOTHING!


Paid out 10 grand while the

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 03:46

Paid out a 10 grand EPS and canceled their own debt from KSF while the UK call you a tax dodger to start with. Evidently thats nothing. Bellyup I am not particularly enamored of the SoA or the way the IoM have handled it, but I think a little objectivity might not go amiss. We've been stitched up by a combination of Icelandic duplicity, greed and possibly corruption; and HMG using politics to crack at the 'Tax Havens and the FSAs ineptitude', not by the IoM. So what have Iceland and HMG done for you? Sweet F.A. Bellyup, sweet F.A.


@Expat

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 10:20

Yes Expat but the ESP (that is anything but early,) most benefited the IOM depositors who used the bank as their high street bank.

ie Manx residents.

It is in the interests of the IOMG to keep their own residents happy.

In return for the ESP they take some voting rights which gives them an advantage.

When I heard John Aspen tell everyone that we are 'investors' ( not depositors) and that moreover we were stupid investors to put money into a bank in the IOM ( YES WE WERE!) and that 'none core' banks should be allowed 'to fail' any trust or belief I might have had for the IOM followed my savings - right out of the window.

Since then nothing they have done has convinced me that they have the interests of the depositors at heart

I agree that Iceland is a disgrace and should be allowed to sink back into the Iceage

I agree that the British Governments role in this has been DESPICABLE and I shall NEVER think of my own country as a democracy again but as a place where MPS are silenced and hard working people are smeared as tax evaders.

They could have spoke for us to the IMF but they did not.

They could give the money back in the UK but they have not.

BUT

Why then have the IOM not DEMANDED the money back form the UK?

They are a government after all.

How can I believe in the impartiality of a Judge whose brother is the Attorney General?

Why have they NOT even asked for a loan?

To agree to this SOA in its present form is to put power into the hands of people who have already shown their colours towards us.

It costs them little and it gains us nothing .


I did not say they would not

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 19:00

On the contrary, IOMG has done a pretty good job of alienating the depositors.


elgee, you did alright by the IOMG

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 12:04

If I'm not mistaken you have already recovered all your money.


@undone: What is your problem? Elgee is sound!

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 05:12

I suggest you go to "members", then "track" Elgee's comments.
Then when you are suitably contrite then you make a retraction.

What is your situation?


Classic follow_the_tao-ism

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 08:52

follow_the_tao writes to undone:

"I suggest you go to "members", then "track" Elgee's comments. Then when you are suitably contrite then you make a retraction. What is your situation".

If you practiced what you preached, you need only have scrolled down a couple of postings (no need to bother with "members" and "track" sections), to see this (below), previously posted by undone:

"I know we all would have liked to have had our money back months ago but during my past career I was involved with many liquidations and, I can assure you, almost all took years to resolve and in the end none to my knowledge resulted in 100% return. Like many depositors, I've had many sleepless nights. Not only with this mess but with the downturn in the market as well. I'm in my mid-seventies and stand little chance of recovering what I'd hoped would be a supplemental pension for my wife when I'm gone. I just want to get on with the recovery of this lot and quit bickering over who said what."

Now, perhaps you can add this to the reasons why to some depositors (not necessarily myself) the SOA may seem more appealing than DCS?


Thank you Chris

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 12:48

I certainly do not want to contribute to the hostility that frequently pops up on this site but it does upset me when I continuously read only one-sided comments putting down the SOA. For the most part I have found elgee's postings well researched and informative but I would like to have him, and others, point out some of the failings regarding the DCS. In other words if those that "appear" to be in the know were to analyse and truthfully set down the pros and cons of both schemes as they see them then I believe all depositors would have a much better understanding which way to vote. As it stands now, we have groups of individuals trying to convince us to vote their way.


elgee, you did alright by the IOMG

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 12:20

Not yet, but obviously I will do shortly. That does not mean I feel any better about seeing an injustice done to others, however.


Its not a gift

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 12:09

The EPS is not a gift and will be recovered by the IOMG whatever scheme goes through so they are in a win win situation.


Didn't say it was a gift

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 18/04/2009 - 12:34

I simply wanted to point out to elgee that the IOMG has not upset all depositors. He for one should be very pleased the IOMG advanced the £10,000. They certainly didn't have to.

I know we all would have liked to have had our money back months ago but during my past career I was involved with many liquidations and, I can assure you, almost all took years to resolve and in the end none to my knowledge resulted in 100% return. Like many depositors, I've had many sleepless nights. Not only with this mess but with the downturn in the market as well. I'm in my mid-seventies and stand little chance of recovering what I'd hoped would be a supplemental pension for my wife when I'm gone. I just want to get on with the recovery of this lot and quit bickering over who said what.


EPS

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 19/04/2009 - 21:01

Undone, if the LP had paid depositors a dividend of only half of the cash he has had available for 4 months I would have had a lot more money than the IOM EPS of £10k. By the way this dividend payment would have had no strings attached unlike the EPS which comes with a rope attached!
The only reason we have still not had any dividend payments after 6 months (unlike most Icelandic banks in Europe) is the delays created by the IOMG with their desperate schemes designed to avoid liquidation.
The smaller, principally local, depositors have possibly benefited from this and I can understand and appreciate that they are happy (I would be as well in their shoes).
The larger depositors, who are owed the bulk of the money, have however suffered from this and nobody can deny that they have been treated extremely unfairly.
The LP should not only work exclusively for the bank's creditors but should be seen to do so. I am afraid that that this is at present not obvious.


Natural justice?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 18:49

Try telling that to the gazelle in the jaws of the lion


Jeremy Bentham and "nonsense

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 18:52

Jeremy Bentham and "nonsense on stilts" comes to mind!


Chris

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 12:23

Chris,

Since early / mid November (Diver's Action and subsequent) "DAG" has primarily represented the interests of some of those those with larger amounts at stake. Legal-wise, he who pays the piper........and nothing wrong with that, but I do not think that DAG should claim to represent all depositors.

If DAG represented the interests of <£50k depositors it would not, now, be opposing the SoA -would it ?


Chris

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 17:52

There is nothing to stop DAG's legal advisers from giving advice as to what depositors should vote separately for each of the two relevant classes. If they were to do as you suggest, and advise the <50k to support SoA and >50K not to do so, and that advice was strictly followed then class 2 would be "for" and class 3 were "against", and the scheme will still have to fall (all classes, in practice, need to vote "for" otherwise there would still have to be a liquidation(. The end result, you see, would be the same.

Anyway, as far as I am aware the advice is that on average (or if you prefer - overall) the scheme is not of benefit to depositors and the only group who may benefit (in terms of time, not money) are a small group of sub 20k (not sub 50k). Podather is the expert on this matter - so he will perhaps remind us where the advantage, if any, actually lies.


Not what I wrote, elgee

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 18:48

Yep, nothing to stop DAG's legal advisers giving legal advice to depositors. Not suggesting they had to, and certainly not suggesting they tell one group to vote SOA and another to vote DCS. In fact, I have absolutely no idea where you get this from!

You mention those under 20k are a 'small group'. By what ratio is a group to be considered 'small'? What figures are you working to? Do those with under 20K at stake outnumber those with over 50K? Perhaps this can be clarified to someone who has the answer to hand (because I don't, but I think I know the answer).

Consider also that SOA provides a legal document against which ALL depositors have funds both 'compensated' and 'reimbursed'. This allows those currently in NEED of funds to borrow money from other lenders, using SOA as a guarantee. And by ALL, I actually do mean the over 50K's as well. It is my understanding the DCS does not provide such a guarantee.

Consider also that the SOA ring fences monies, meaning another bank failure does not suck money out of a DCS (un)fund we would be relying on (yes, SOA is unfunded too, but are the IoM really going to propose an alternative scheme to DCS and not fund it? I mean really?)

Consider also liquidation on IoM is not straightforward on the IoM. It is not the same as on the mainlands. Check out the horror stories already listed on this site.

So, it's not that SOA is just about 'the same' for 'ALL' depositors as the DCS, so may as well go for DCS and teach the IoM a lesson/get a better deal.

My point is, people consistently post that ALL depositors should 'follow the DAG', that ALL posters are better off listening to the DAG legal team (of which most have not paid for anyway), it's not just about timing of payments, it's not a distraction, and for this reason I will consistently post against such misrepresentation.


Not what I wrote, elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 18:56

Chris - I did not say you wrote that. It was my suggestion.

As for the rest of your posting, I am sorry but it appears that you have very little understanding of the issues. The following paragraph makes no sense to me at all:

"Consider also that SOA provides a legal document against which ALL depositors have funds both 'compensated' and 'reimbursed'. This allows those currently in NEED of funds to borrow money from other lenders, using SOA as a guarantee. And by ALL, I actually do mean the over 50K's as well. It is my understanding the DCS does not provide such a guarantee"


Please enlighten me

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 19:05

Elgee, you wrote that this is what I suggested. You did not write that it was your suggestion. Please read your posting again if you do not believe me, and while you are at it can you please enlighten me as to what is erroneous with the quote you have lifted from me (above)?


Please enlighten me

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 19:12

Certainly. It makes absolutely no sense to me.


OK, I'll try again, elgee

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 17/04/2009 - 19:22

The SOA is a contract. This contract will guarantee certain payments, up to 60% of the deposit held by a creditor in KSFIoM. ALL depositors can take this contract to a bank, and use this as collateral to borrow money against it, as it guarantees the creditor is to receive certain funds from the SOA. The SOA is protected against another bank failure on the IoM, so it would be accepted as a 'good' guarantee. That is unless the bank manager is a conspiracy theorist.

This is of most help to those who may NEED to get their hands of some funds, but have their money frozen in the 'KSFIoM debacle' but want to try and get on with their lives as best they can.

To my knowledge, the DCS does not provide this.