Rights secure within SOA

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Sat, 28/03/2009 - 00:53

It was interesting to read David Lovett's comment in the Minutes attached to the DAG Strategy Team blog regarding recent meeting with IOM officials (Mr. Spellman, etc). He stated "depositors do not lose one jot of their rights under the SoA."

Thanks for attaching the Minutes. They make for very interesting reading and appear to clarify several important features of the SOA.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (7 votes)

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

Why so much nastyness to each other?

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 00:18

I just dont understand why fellow depositors are taking out their frustration on each other rather than harnessing the anger and aiming it at the real culprits. We are supposed to be intelligent people (although that is questionable as we banked on the Isle of Man!) and as such every single one of us with have a differing opinion. No one person is right.

As far as i am concerned, the real issue is the return of the £550 Million from the UK. Until that happens nothing of substance really can be done. That is my opinion. As far as i am concerned it is common sense. But, to someone else i may be in cloud cuckoo land to have that opinion. Fine.

There is really only one 'reality; that every single one of us has a different story and is affected to a differing degree. So come on guys, six months in lets just consider for one moment that there may be some folk who are in real trouble over this and have a little compassion.

If you want to shout at someone, do it to the real culprits not your fellow depositors.


SOA Smoke

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 21:39

The SOA does not ensure all depositors get 100% return. It has been carefully (costing Manx taxpayers over £1M) crafted to create a Schism within us despositors which the Manx Government can then use to split us apart.

Lets not fall into the spell that Messers Bell and Brown are casting. It saddens me that there are some who feel that their are depositors who WANT to trigger the DCS (SoA under another name) for some form of revenge; i have read nothing that indicates any depositor wants to use the DCS as some form of 'revenge'.

The fundamental issue remains that the UK Government has control over £550Million of KSFIoM assets and refuse to return it. They say that it is in the control of the administrators but the Dave Whelan farce has proven that to be rubbish.

Lets just put the SoA to bed, as the creators of this site did with the DCS (where IS Mark Walker when you need him!), and get on track with getting 100% of our hard-earned savings back. The IoM and UK Government have proven their incompetence (in the case of IoM) and despicable political schenanigans (in the case of UK) and that is what we should be fighting.

DJ


HIGH NET WORTH DEPOSITORS WILL CARRY ON THE FIGHT..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 05:13

Isle of man will have to live with the fact that we are not going away, Our funds have been taken away like some nazi germany and we are going to sit here and take it. Would any politician accept this, and some dave whelan gets a cheque for his savings back, is this democratic?. I am not going to be gagged about this, none of us are.In fact in my case the isle of crooks were not even certain if I had an an account as it was placed 24hrs before, they would not even return them. Is this a place for depositors to put their money in? is it safe?. We are only losers if we stop fighting...and that we will not


IOM Protest Visit

  • homeless
  • 18/10/08 01/01/16
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 16:23

Could anyone give me an indication of how many are intending to visit the IOM and participate in the 9 April protest. Those of you who are intending to go, would you please provide me with details of when you will arrive there and where you intend to stay.


April 9 Protest in the Isle of Crooks

  • brennajm
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 15:21

I am not planning on going to IOC (Isle of Crooks aka Isle of Man) on April 9th though I feel very bad about that. However, my reasons, which many may find weak, are a) I live in Saudi Arabia where luckily I still have a job but only just - am hanging on by a thread just now and b) I have had a longterm plan to attend a wedding in Abu Dhabi on that very day (April 9th). Our weekends are Thursday and Friday so I guess it would be feasible, if I had nothing else to do, to fly to UK and on to IOC for the protest.

I really hope that unlike me, hundreds if not thousands of people show up and make their presence and their feelings felt. Good luck with it those of you who go, perhaps if there aren't enough hotel or B&B rooms or affordable ones, setting up tents outside the Manx Parliament would create some publicity and cause embarrassment to the targeted crooks?

I'm looking forward to hearing about it on this forum. Thank you all for all your continued efforts on our behalf.


Direct Action

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 09:13

Homeless, we will be arriving on April 8th. Not sure where we will be staying yet. Looking up accommodation on the internet.


IOM 8/9 April

  • homeless
  • 18/10/08 01/01/16
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 13:17

Hi Peter & Louise

Please let me know where you will be staying, it would be good to meet up with someone.


Direct Action

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 19:27

Homeless, we are booked on the ferry on 8th., so as to be there early for 9th. Please write to our e-mail address for further details re. accommodation. Have not booked B/B yet. Hope to do so tomorrow.


Can someone in UK be our paid Proxy for 9 Apr?

  • Flower
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 15:45

We are in a quandry. We live overseas and can't physially make it to IOM on 9 Apr.

However, we'd like to suggest that if someone who lives on mainlaind UK and needs financial assistance to join the protest we'd be prepared to subsidise someone for £100-200 to go on our behalf. We are acutely aware that we need to get a good number of protestors in IOM and perhaps this is a suggestion for other expats to consider.

If anyone is interested pls contact us via DAG in the first instance.

Flower & 2xLoser


Good idea

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 16:25

I would also like to join in with this as we too are over seas
Does Anyone who would not other wise be able to go want to proxy for us ?
We too would be prepared to help out with the costs.


Bellyup - IOM protest

  • Yoda
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 19:13

I am considering going to protest. My husband has just had a seven hour heart operation, brought on by stress? I have been made redundant and he has had to close our company. We have no money coming in, and two teenagers to feed and cloth.
We have 'lost' all our money, we are trying to sell our house.
I truly cant afford to go...but if someone could help with costs, maybe I could?

Have we any ideas of numbers of people that are going?????


Yoda - re proxy protest attendance in IOM

  • Flower
  • 18/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 19:34

Hello Yoda, our heart goes out for you. Sorry to hear about your husband's stress-induced health problems. This sorry saga has given us a great deal of worries. Let's keep our fingers crossed that the worst is behind you.

We have no idea of nbrs attending the protest, p'haps Peter & Louise can update us on this?

Roughly how much money do you anticipate you'll require to make it over to IOM? If you wish to give us your tel nbr / email address we'll contact you. I don't know if there is another way you can let us have your contact details without going thru' DAG. Can someone help us in this? Looking forward to help in a some way.


What a good idea - Proxy Protester

  • brennajm
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 16:18

Flower, I think that's an excellent idea. There was a posting by a person (last name Owen) in the South of England who said he couldn't go because he couldn't afford the bus fare etc. I can't find his posting now - typical. If Ms/Mr Owen would like to contact me and if they are serious about wishing to go to the IOM then I will subsidise your fare.

If he/she replies could the people behind the scenes verify him/her as a genuine depositor and give them my contact details. Thank you.


DST Meeting with IoM officials

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 05:37

The minutes show that Spellman/Alix/PL have reduced the third dividend of the SoA by 5%. This would indicate that the 2 year cumulative return has been reduced from 35% to 30% - this will have quite an effect on the HVDs'. It appears there is now an expectation of slower returns than previously expected. Perhaps the overall expectation of 65% has also been reduced, but this is not shown in these draft minutes.

People were already conditioned to think '60%' because that is the point at which the Treasury start reclaiming their outlay, nonetheless, the 3rd affidavit of Mr Lovett explaining the construction and dividends, anticipated a final return of 65%. Of course, the DST were shown an example of the SoA not the actual document itself, so there could be more 'changes' before April 2nd...

It has also been said that John Spellman will no longer put Alix's SoA Calculator on the website for depositors to work out their expected returns; we are left to ponder why Mr Spellman has gone back on his previous assurance to post the program online.

According to IoM officials, the Treasury are at risk for guaranteeing 60% because its input will be forfeit if returns from assets fail to reach 60%. That being the case, it does seem a little odd to drop the 2 year return to 30%; we can only hope that the shortfall at the 2 year point will be made up in subsequent years - but how many? Is it likely that a further revision on expected returns could further reduce the SoA dividend before it goes to the vote? Are there signs of managing expectations?


I think the reduction is linked to the currency calculation date

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 10:46

I suspect they made the 35% to 30% adjustment after they realized they had to use the same date for currency calculations as the liquidator and thus couldn’t shaft the foreign currency depositors out of 10-20% of their money


As noted elsewhere...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 14:07

....the +50k sterling depositors will be "shafted" instead by the changing of the FX date probably, as it is unlikely the currency situation was hedged as at Oct08


How so? Everyone (over £50K)

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 14:28

How so?

Everyone (over £50K) will get back a equal % - can't see how the sterling depositors will be shafted other than getting the same rate of return as the FX people.


@SoA reduction

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 11:10

Could be. There has also been no public confirmation that the banks are on board with the SoA as far as I know.


@undone: What is clarified?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/03/2009 - 04:58

Bell made a statement in the house of keys that the "inquiry" into the incompetence/negligence of the directors/ FSC would not be made public.

None of the MHK's seemed to complain. Now why was that?

We seem to be looking at a corrupt offshore regime. Let's be honest about this. They drag vast sums to their own current accounts on the presupposed basis that they are competent in overseeing the financial situation and protecting their charges, when the reality is that that they have failed so miserably that the embarrassment is such that neither the directors, the FSC, the IoMG desire to make any clarifications of the situation.

Can we please try and connect with the reality. We are not in cahoots with them!. Their stupidity is simply, clearly, negligent. I don't care that the stupidity was widespread. These idiots screwed our accounts.

Let's be clear.


Mr Bell

  • homeless
  • 18/10/08 01/01/16
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 14:30

What do our legal team have to say about this? These people are responsbile for many losing their life savings. They have openly said ... they thought the monies were protected, that was the intention and they thought they were ring fenced, but of course we now know that they were not. It is absolutely disgraceful that they should now try to hide their guilt whilst at the same time continuing to promote their image as a finance centre.

How do we flush them out ?


IOM crooks

  • conned
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 15:32

It is not negligence, it is corruption. You are up against the big boys.


IOM Crooks...HMG Proverbial Ostrich!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 17:13

These IOM Crooks Need to be EXPOSED the DAG need to continue down the LEGAL ROUTE ...

Trouble is IOM Bods have US between" a Rock and Hard Place" with this SOA and DCS What else is there???

INCOMPETENCE or Political Cunning Deciet?????

There must be a way that this can Solved amicabley with a Refund of 100% even over a ACCEPTABLE TIME FRAME.

Why is HMG not STEPPING in to Help us? UK Citizens have been ABANDONED!! Its Criminal!

DEMONTRATIONS are all that is Left for a Democratic Country But will they LISTEN????

Good Luck Everyone who can Make it to the IOM on the 9TH APRIL!

I would like to show my SOLIDARITY but alas cannot stretch the Budget..

All for ONE and ONE for All !

AURORA


icecrusher what next?

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 08:11

Okay, what do we do, do we sit here and take it, can we get the massive losses back legally? whats the point of us sitting here playing victims forever after, ., keep analysing how negligent they have been .We know that, we have known that since october the thing is how do we go about getting our losses back.


@hippychick robbed

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 03:56

I don't think that I've ever responded to you. But your presence has been obvious.
To respond to your question to which Icecrusher has already given a response.
We use more of the same.

There are certain amongst us that have suffered a much greater proportional wound than the norm.
In the normal flow of things we are the victims of note.

(All along the watchtower princess kept the view........ )

We simply continue. Nobody as far as I am aware has suggested that the group as a whole gather round and protect the greatest victims. The noise on the site was from those agitating for remediation of their lesser loss.
You will notice that they have gone quiet, shame on them!

Justice is a funny concept. It is very,very complex. But in this situation the norms has been very clearly ruptured.
Those that understand, and respect, justice recognise this.
They are the minority, and 'personajes como Señor Bell, elllos que no tienen verguenza, ' even pay lip service to the minority. But they don't act, this is what it is to be a competent politician.
Nobody wants to pay! Isn't it always the case.
Their own disaster, their own interest naturally rises above the rest.

We learn! You and me we learn a bit more about the world, and with this knowledge we engage them, each time with a deeper understanding, and hence more power.

"But in the long run we're all dead." Keynes.

"Patience is the secret of genius."

Y


Why the nastyness?

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 00:34

I just dont understand how attacking fellow depositors helps. Of course those with 'lesser loss' will quieten down if the SOA means they will get all their deposits back. How does saying things like 'shame on them!' help? The real shame is the people who put us in this situation in the first place.

If i had £50K at stake then i would be battling for a quick SOA fix. Be daft not to. As it is i have a bit more at stake, not a fortune but my families total life savings, and a 60% return would crush us.

So come on guys, before saying things like 'shame on them' to other depositors maybe a little thought is needed. There are a lot of public forums (iPM, theyworkforyou, moneysupermarket) that could be used to have pops at the real culprits and which may actually help our common cause, even take your frustration out by sending a nasty email to Darling, Brown, Pearson, Sants etc... Attacking each other does nothing more than play into the hands of the IoM and UK Governments.


ONLY THE START OF DIRECT ACTION

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 05:27

Hello dj, the march on the 9th april is just the start of direct action, none was really taken until now.I will be in london in late may anyone have any ideas for anything in london. I will never accept these massive losses and I am willing to speak our distress in trafalgar square if need be. NO POLITICIAN WOULD ACCEPT THIS TO HAPPEN TO ANY OF THEM THIS, ITS DISGUSTING.


Direct Action

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 07:03

Before undertaking any Direct Action, the ultimate aim should be clarified first. Otherwise it will just be a waste of time. In my view (and happy to be shot to bits here as i am thinking on my feet) the aim of Direct Action should be to create publicity for our cause and as much political embarresment as possble. But must not undermine the legitimate efforts of the DAG team or anyone else who is on our side.

As such, the Direct Action taken should be photo/tv-friendly with a 'fun' story but also be able to have enough links to lead journalists and feature writers into writing background stories of our plight. If any laws are broken during the Direct Action they should be minor 'disobedience' type infringments and nothing that could be used against us. Also, if any laws are broken then the core teams must be seen to distance themselves from the direct actions and seen to publicly and privately condem such actions.

So, type of things i was thinking was:- Naked sitdown outside Parliament, super-gluing selves to parliament railings (maybe this should be checked with a Dr to ensure no long-term harm or scaring would occure), sending of shoes, by mail, to MP's (mirroring the shoe throwing against Bush incident), public burning of monopoly money in sensitive places, using weed killer to quietly etch our message on state lawns etc etc.... Main points being that no person should be put in danger while causing as much reportable state embarresment as possible.

I have never been an advocate of Direct Action, always considering dialog and peaceful negotiation to be the proper way forward. However, after six long months of UK Government inaction, and personal nightmares, I am quickly (as can be seen) changing my mind and see Direct Action as the only things left to try. The time for talking is starting to be over, it has failed. It was right and proper to try, but that time is now starting to be in the past; we now need to start getting publicly and visibly angry (before we start beating each other to a pulp!).

DJ


DJ the burning of monoploy money where?

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 14:37

Shall we burn the monopoly money outside the bank of england, thats a cool idea, if it gets journalists out. to cover our story. This is what is left for us to do..


Great Ideas dj

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 10:07

I would like to throw shoes at Darling and Brown unfortunately if we posted all these shoes would they get to no 10 and 11?


Shoes to IOM

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 10:39

What if all those going to the IOM left some old shoes outside the House of Keys representing all of us who cant go.

You might need quite a lot.


Shoes!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 11:00

Well I think you have perhaps forgotten One Small Point "NO MONEY" !!! with

holes in my shoes and that the only good thing about that Bellyup would be the Smell!

Sorry couldn't resist!

Aurora


A Nice Stale Hard Haggis would be my Choice!

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 10:37

Don't Know About Shoes?

How about a BIG HARD Stale HAGGIS for THE Scotsman.... hit 'UM with a bit of Offal!

You have to lighten up Guys we have to keep ON 'til the End of THIS LONG & HARD Road!

Aurora


IT WILL BE A LONG HARD ROAD ,WE KNOW, IT JUST THE START....

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 14:20

Its just the start, because all of this is one word UNACCEPTABLE, there will be another demo in may, there will be many direct actions until we get what we put in a godamn bank back in our accounts. Is it some thrd reich here we are dealing and I dont know, they would never ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN TO THEM, .As time goes on I get so angry when I cant get this and that all because of some power crazy duo and an fsc asleep on the job. All of them out to save themselves, no way NO MORE. The army is out...


Get in touch with Billy Connolly

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 07:47

He's a great one for NAKEDNESS and the Streak!! and a good Voice at driving the Message HOME!


@HCR what next?

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 14:23

HCR
If we knew the answer to that we'd have got our money back in January...

I cannot wave a magic wand and make it happen, I can only explain to the best of my knowledge what I think the score is. As far as I'm concerend IoMG have moved the goal posts - but they are at liberty to do so because what are we going to do about it? They offer the SoA and then change the percentage return at the 2 year point, so what can we threaten in return? We could vote down the SoA and thereby turn down the expected quicker return of 65% (but even that is not guaranteed). If we then elect to sign over our accounts to the liquidator, we accept what will come from the DCS and the recovery of bank assets, although DCS is only a time factor for depositors with more than about £77K. Trouble is, these payments are not guaranteed inside a time frame, and if another bank were to fail then the IoMG's input to DCS get's shared between all retail depositors of both banks. Can you see the barrel we're being stretched over?

The IoM Govt. have made it pretty clear that they have no intention of putting any more money into the pot (and will take out what they can if at all possible at 60%). IoMG have seen the result of what's happened in Guernsey and figure they can't do any worse than that. They are betting on the majority favouring the SoA and once that's accepted, it's game over; a done deal over the defeated depositors...

HMG have washed their hands of us and unless the TSC result so damns their behaviour that they are shamefacedly obliged to cough up, there'll be nothing from that quarter IMO. We are being herded slowly into a corner of acceptance, baa, baa, baa. Take the SoA and hope for 60% over the next several years, sell out to the liquidator, or hang on for asset recovery with the hope that it will bring us more. No one cares about the UK 'deserters' who deposited their dinero in the Dependencies; and as we stand witness, there is neither sympathy nor stomach to fight our cause.

If we stood 10,000 strong in Douglas high street and brought the place to a standstill for as long as it took, then maybe something would give, but when I last went there, less than a dozen pitched up from outside the island. I wouldn't expect to see one hundred depositors turn up let alone one thousand - never mind ten thousand. It looks a bit bleak really, but we must hope for the best whilst preparing for the worst. Again, just my take on things as they stand at the moment.


getting to the island..

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 15:20

Icecrusher, am grateful for what you have done. As for showing up on the island well they left us with very little money to get , never mind staying in a hotel, everyone I speak to is flat broke, .I think at the Tsc meeting not enough was said about the human suffering of all of this, people placing like myself house sales, pensions lost. I would have gone into depth,about it, though I have to say the guernsey rep did quite well. I think they have to be reminded that there will be a permanent campaign against Isle of man offshore banking till every depositor is paid out. Everyone I speak to after this wouldnt go near the island to bank.We have to look at our rights after this and take it from there. I cant accept these massive losses, we really have to fight on no matter how it looks. Does anyone know how many will be at the protest on the 9th april?some people are going through alot of trouble over this we need to keep at it


tao, re: Reality

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/03/2009 - 14:29

What is real to me is a great many depositors have been caught up in this Kaupthing mess for far too long. It is also very real that the Depositors' Compensation Scheme (DCS), which you and several others seem bent on activating, is not funded, has no defined payout schedule, does not provide a better return than the SOA for depositors and may be subject to legal entanglements as it has not been tested in its present form.

While the SOA may not be a perfect scheme, it appears to me, based on what I have read, that it will provide all that is covered by the DCS (including our rights and timing of FX conversions) but will provide payouts in a quicker and more defined manner. As the DAG Strategy Committee have indicated in their recent Blog, we all await the printed version.

Like all depositors, I would like to see a 100% return guarantee built into both the DCS and SOA but realistically it isn't going to happen. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't pursue that goal, but you making a post stating "Let us simply blow the SOA out of the water" isn't going to help us to achieve 100% return nor will it guarantee a quicker return of our monies. That is reality.

I don't know if this has clarified my earlier posting but perhaps the following and more eloquent post by Chris Watson will answer your query more clearly.


Well said undone

  • giveus backourfunds
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/03/2009 - 18:02

Well said undone and the point I have made for ages, follow-_the_tao will not like it though and most likely e-mail the following to you that he e-mailed me

I'm pissed off with you.
I'm glad to see you are here outside of office hours.
The invitation still stands, an¡y debate, any debate without walls, and I'm in.

Surley this is not acceptable way for a member to behave when all I have is a difference of opinion but when push comes to shove I have under £50K and he mosy likely has over., so we favour different schemes.


Reality! Reality! They've really got it in for me!

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 28/03/2009 - 10:48

It is clear we have been screwed, but such a thing as getting unscrewed also exists, so at the risk of you publicly questioning my intelligence as you frequently do other posters, what "reality" is it you wish us all to connect with?

I can't say I "got real" to off-shore banking until about 5 months ago, but now I appreciate tiny islands whose main industries include the financial and judicial sectors are, perhaps, going to have their fair share of nepotism and in-bred incompetence where the cream of society should be.

I "got real" that when the IoM elite faced being put under the microscope by disgruntled depositors, alleged financial scams and shams would come in and out of focus, and people in power caught with their pants down would obviously need some expensive external professionals to help pull them back up, even if a microscope would flatter their private parts.

But attacking the IoM elite is not my current concern. My current concern is getting my money back, and I'm not sure I agree that the two go hand-in-hand, at least not for the time being.

So how do I get my money back? My understanding of "reality" is there are alternative legal routes - DCS via Liquidation, and the SOA.

(There are other options, less "real", and not to be discounted, but these are, I confess, less clear than you infer them to be in your posts).

First of all, it appears the DCS will not pay out and is not really an option. Why? Because in "reality" it is unfunded and from what I understand, those who would underwrite it - the banks who operate on the IoM - have not actually guaranteed to underwrite it, but are simply morally obliged to do so..."Banks" and "morally" sit uncomfortably in the same sentence in "my reality", and to be fair, always have done.

The DCS can also be obliterated by a further bank failure on the IoM, perhaps an unthinkable consideration before I "got real", although a "real" consideration now.

To trigger the DCS would require Liquidation and well, again, I "got real" whilst wading through posts on this site, and it appears from some writers, who certainly could demonstrate a greater grasp/experience of Manx law than I ever wish to attain, that Liquidation is not necessarily the same well-trodden path in terms of procedures and results on the IoM as it is in the UK, and that, in "reality", this route is most certainly more open to alleged, how can I say it, "interpretations", than it would be on the mainlands (East or West).

Liquidation is, therefore, "really", a journey into the somewhat unknown, albeit admittedly an enviable journey accompanied by the knowledge it will do terrible, irretrievable harm to the IoM's financial reputation. However, in my world, despite my face, I have always liked my nose.

By a process of elimination, in "my reality", this leaves the SOA as the best, quickest and clearest legal option currently available. It is apparently funded, ring-fenced, quicker to pay out, has a 60p return, and although unprecedented it now - thanks in part to members of this forum - is taking shape with a "real" path and timetable towards our receiving funds. It also leaves important options open which would be legally closed through Liquidation.

Of course, like all of the above, the SOA does not unfortunately guarantee 100% return of all our deposits. This is, indeed, sadly "real". It is also "real" for Guernsey and Jersey non-residents.

So how do we "connect with reality" to get 100% of our funds back?

Of course making sure those deemed responsible know that they will be kept accountable is paramount.

A loan to the IoM, from say London, or the return of the half a billion frozen, should do it, but "my reality" is that neither of these will happen before the numeric majority of depositors would be paid back in full under the SOA (which I think would be around July), even if governments are "working behind the scenes". That is not to say, however, that neither of the these will ever happen and I understand the SOA is more beneficial to retail depositors than Liquidation is, if it does happen.

FTT, from reading your interesting posts and shouts it appears your ultimate aim is to get your money back and destroy the IoM as a financial sector whilst doing it, or at least that by threatening to do so, you will achieve your aim. Am I correct, or do you have your sights set only on certain individuals "heads on a plate"?

As a pragmatist I prefer my revenge served cold. I can take my fill of Manx head-pie at a later date.

My "reality" is that SOA is the best possible legal approach to get the majority, in number, of depositors money back in the shortest period of time.

This is not a lack of solidarity, this is democracy.

Solidarity does not require all to be affected in an identical way, at least not in "my reality".

In "reality" this means agreeing to the SOA and to do this before the whole financial sector on the island is destroyed by those making a concerted effort to do so.

I am not joking!

I do not believe for one second that depositors who do not get 100% back will rest until they do and if they do not, revenge will be served.

But if the SOA is not approved, there is a dollar to donut bet that the DSC "really" will fail. And, "really", where will we all be then?

In "my reality", the majority of those who do receive their 100% funds under SOA will continue to show solidarity to those that do not. What form this solidarity will take, I cannot possibly comment, but it is unfortunate to assume that just because they are to receive their funds before some that do not (dare I say they may have played by the rules and kept their deposit under the 15K "guarantee"),

winces in preparation of sh!t storm to land shortly on head for daring to mention this

that they will forget the treatment they have received thus far in receiving even this, and not care a jot for those with monies still marooned on one island or another?

As ever, I (genuinely) look forward to you clearing up the misconceptions you find in my "reality" and to be specific on the path you think we should take.


@Chris Watson: Your reply.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 07:04

You say “… we have been screwed.” as if this was in the past.
I would say there was a catastrophic failure amongst those we expected to protect our deposits.
Reasonably we would expect them to make good the situation, your “..getting unscrewed.” And your posting suggests that the SoA is the only game in town, and that rejecting it would simply be ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face’.
You point out that for a variety of reasons, that all have their root in the same poorly functioning IoM institutions, a liquidation might well turn out to be a very uninformed choice.

Your argument comes down to ‘We have no choice’.

That is a very weak negotiation position for a party, when they are admitting their dependence on a ‘Heath Robinson’ scheme they are being offered. There is an obviously asymmetric situation.

What prompted my ‘outburst’ suggestion of last night, which as you point out isn’t exactly a sudden change of direction for me, was reading the DST blog and the posting of their notes of the meeting with Spellman et al. And prior to writing this I read Icecrusher’s posting above “DST Meeting with IoM officials". The information I picked out from these postings left me with the feeling of being manipulated, an intense discomfort, of being treated with disrespect.

You and many others currently still have some sort of hope that what I see as the fixed sum game of the IoM Treasury can be modified, and/or that other parties can be persuaded by argument to improve the situation. I of course would wish for this. However I would want to have other possibilities, otherwise I am in the totally dependent position I referred to above.

From statements IoMG has made I don’t share your point of view that the DCS would not be made to work if the SoA was rejected. They have stated that the commitment of the banks is exactly the same under both. All we are talking about is an administrative arrangement. But what will happen if the SoA goes forward will be a feeling amongst the IoMG that they have finessed the situation. And then there next task will to remove the teeth from the House of Keys enquiry, ensure the FSC internal inquiry stays internal, and try to get back to work ‘as normal’ forgetting the devastation they have wreaked in the lives of many.

Now I don’t wish this. And to this end my argument is that those that are able to possibly consider a little more short term discomfort in order to achieve something more profound do so, and that includes voting against the SoA.
Decisions such as this one depend on a whole lot of factors and personally not everything in my life come down to a financial accomodation. For me money is not quite the universal solvent it appears to be for many. And the sums provided (what sums?) by the IoMG? They do not quantify the gain, they seem constitutionally incapable of giving simple clear information or committment.

Remember where we were in December? In February? One thing that I find myself thinking more and more is how long 'these guys' are prepared to string this whole situation out in order to get what they want?
I seem to be simply following in the tradition of Diver here. It seems the more experience people have in this zone the closer they get to pretty much the same cynical view of the Isle of Man, and that includes the Manxes.

I hope I have given enough detail to convey the basics of my position. I could have course have gone into considerably more detail. Essentially I believe the IoMG has a greater degree of freedom in resolving this situation than it professes to and that what it lacks is the will and possibly the vision.

I will respond to any criticism you make.

As a postscript a few assorted points.
I have a very bad habit of often getting drunk at night. And unfortunately I can still type after too much red wine. Tonight I’m stone cold sober.
A second, which is possibly a misunderstanding that comes from not qualifying various statements sufficiently, is that except on very few occasions I am not impugning the intelligence of anyone reading any posting. I think that given what I see as the ‘style’ of the IoMG, specifically Bell & Brown, Spellman and Alix, it is very easy to ‘lose the wood for the trees’. I refer you to Icecrushers posting above again.
And neither do I believe that what I have suggested is in anyway undemocratic. I seem to remember a particular posting in the past on this. I have been clear that the situation under the SoA differentiates us into different groups, that was done by the IoMG not me, and as you can see I am counseling against the SoA, a liquidation would be more equitable. And when I put my money on account at KSFIoM I wasn’t signing up to ‘a democracy’.

Finally I am not a person that revels in revenge. I do not like seeing unnecessary suffering. My interest in pursuing this issue is to correct the situation. If metaphorically, and rather theatrically that requires the ‘head of someone on a plate’ because that is the only way to stop them continuing to misbehave please pardon me the expression.
I am fully aware that this basic principle is fully covered in law, the Court does not entertain people attempting to use it for the purpose of revenge.


Reality

  • Niko
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 00:53

Chris

You hit a nail on the head towards the end:

>(dare I say they may have played by the rules and kept their deposit under the 15K "guarantee")<

except it was 75% of £20K max, therefore £15k max compensation.

This was clearly stated by KSFIoM on their website, so anyone depositing over £20k, or £40K for a joint account was taking a known risk. The rest knew they were risking maximum £5k (or £10k joint).

So one has to agree that for that majority the SOA has to be the favoured option.


One mans reality, another's rationale...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 06:54

I have been posting on the forum about the apathetic majority, and if any others amongst you see it differently pray tell. Apparently 2 people from the HNDs' have offered/put up the requested £4K PR/legal money (2 out of 25). I think that was a week or so ago anyway, and no one else followed suit. 1/2 dozen people have responded to the plea to sign the Guernsey petition. About the same number for the plea to demonstrate in the IoM. 10,300 depositors in total, 2,500 on the forum, but perhaps 1/4 are name-changers and other non-depositor types. We all know the same names appear again and again. 20 proactive types in essence. 19 people funded ng last time around and no report on this latest contribution. About 7,000 depositors will leave the equation over the next 24 months; by far the majority of whom do not frequent this web forum now, so the notion that they will in some way assist the HVDs' in two years time is perhaps a pipedream. Some will of course, but the thrust of my comment is against the majority, most of whom are not members of DAG. Having taken care of the majority, the remaining 24% will still be waiting for their outstanding monies >£400,000,000 which may drip back over the years with the only thought to 'console' them that after waiting for perhaps 5 or 6 years, the final return will reach 60% and the IoMG will take the rest.

IoMG will make enough noise about 74% of all depositors getting 100% return, but won't mention that most of the money has NOT been returned and that 26% go wanting for millions...

Accepting the SoA is signing up to a contract, a final contract between the depositors and IoMG for an expectation of no more than 65% (possibly less in the final document). Game over. It will be no good complaining after the event that we didn't willingly accept those terms, or that we wish to take further action, because after the main event (74% getting 100% after 2 years) people's memory's shorten and those still owed the £400M will be left wanting, discarded, and sidelined. Perhaps legal rights will remain, but acting upon them and seeing them through may no longer be a practical possibility - especially with an intransigent Government to deal with and far fewer numbers onside. Once the SoA is established and the payments start coming through, this financial fiasco will effectively be over IMO. There will much trumpeting and fanfare over what the IoMG have achieved and even if its a pack of lies it won't even matter because people look for the good news - not that from a few miserable broken naysayers.

I should say that this is all my own opinion and conjecture with no other influence upon me.
IceCrusher


FYI - Latest in as series of exchanges with Lord Bach´s P. Sec

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 18:35

Hugo,

Grateful if you could advise on this urgently.

Thousands of depositors with KSF IOM have their hard earned savings frozen with little idea as to how much they will recover and when. So far it appears that the UK Government could not care in the least, despite the fact that UK Government´s actions triggered the demise of KSF IOM and various UK (& IOM) regulatory failures have been noted by the TSC.

It is not in the least bit unreasonable to expect an official comment explaining the UK Government´s position, particularly after Gordon Brown´s statement "as a matter of policy all governments should vouchsafe the savings & deposits in the banks in their jurisdiction." The Isle of Man continues to be a crown dependency. The statement is clear, what is needed now is action, otherwise it will be obvious to all that there was no intention to ´walk the talk´.

Lord Bach, as Minister for the Crown Dependencies, will I assume be fully conversant with both the facts and the Government´s position. Perhaps you would request him to make a statement to the depositors (see: http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/ ) or to the press. As appropriate we can request press contacts to arrange interviews.

Please escalate as appropriate.

Yours sincerely,


What next?

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 17:55

What next? Don´t know, but surely we must continue to try and get HMG to step in to assist IOMG to vouchsafe deposits as per Gordon Brown´s statement (& Darling´s at last TSC meeting). IOM is after all a crown dependency -. given the PM´s comments HMG should be insisting they comply! This is what I have been concentrating on in my hounding correspondence to all and sundry. There is precious little time left until the hearing, so suggest our PR people should be all out on this, to at least get a reaction / response.

In the circumstances (assuming that HMG do not magically have a conscience attack and get involved), the SOA may represent the best available INTERIM solution for depositors to at least get some of their monies back within defined timescales. Understand that compared to liquidation / DCS, the SOA may offer more protection in the event of another bank failure and also should general melt down of IOM as a financial center get momentum. ****** BUT in any case we would continue to hound both HMG and IOMG for 100% ongoing.****** Suggest also that DAG should get the Bond Providers to join forces in the ongoing quest for 100% so they avoid inevitable damage to their reputations that will happen if they don´t .

We may not have much political clout, but if necessary I reckon our membership could very effectively spead the word (where it matters - Expats etc) regarding IOM as a financial centre, and the truth about the bond providers involved. Not in our best interest to action this yet though.


@Icecrusher: Re HNW's

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 08:42

The argument is much calmer and much clearer now.

I share completely your real concerns. They were obvious from the outset but the naievety and noise on the forum was overwhelming, people squabbling basically assisted I assume by a highly manipulative campaign orchestrated by Alix and Spellman for the IoMG.

And let us not forget that the IoMG have prior experience.

I don't know Lieben's current position but the developments over the last few weeks must surely have had the appropriate impact.

We need a very clear and absolute direction at this point.
And the only one is simply "No SoA."
It could be seen as mobilising a 'protest vote' but if carried off would have a real impact. But people would have to understand it for what it is, and I don't think this level of consciousness exists here.

To be frank I consider Chris Watson's "reality" to be nothing more than a continuation of the same noise that has led us to the situation where you have just felt compelled to make your comments. We will see his response.

I personally see no further point in posting unless it is to coordinate an anti SoA vote. Logically no other purpose exists.

I find myself thinking of Lao-Tsu, he is the author attributed to writing the 'Tao te ching' The story goes that when he was older one day he walked off into the wilderness saying that he was despairing of his fellow man.

I could 'philosphise' more but I feel right now that I being too self indulgent.

Sweet dreams.


Follow The Tao & Ice

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 17:19

Follow The Tao and IceCrusher,

Thank you both for taking the time to make your thoughtful responses and I admire your stoicism.

Just so you know, I don't usually post, but as I saw FTT offers regularly to 'debate', I thought I'd take it up.

You should also know that I believe the IoM govt should be answerable for what they have done, and the UK govt is no better. I accept they are all dividing and ruling as ever, and leaving people out to dry. I actually feel physically sick thinking about it sometimes.

I spent hours drafting a reply to you both, but on reflection, I don't think anything I was going to say is going to benefit you, or tell you anything you both don't already know. I'm sure the last things you guys need is more "noise" and I'm certainly not willing to run the risk of inadvertently winding either of you up, given the circumstances.

I see how we are being bought off cheaply and that the IoM Govt should pay more for their screw up, and that paying more means having the spectre of bank Liquidation gain material form.

Unfortunately though, what you are asking the majority of savers to do, by not voting for SOA and favour DCS, is to kind-of ask them to 'Invest' their money, which as we all know was not 'Invested' in the first place, in a kind-of speculative venture, that has no prospect of a financial upside as a return, when compared to the SOA. In fact, it can be argued that the DCS has a very strong risk of a downside, if half of the IoM Liquidation stories are to be believed.

By this, I mean, the majority of savers would be asked to vote against a plan that is financed, ring fenced and has an evolving timetable and vote in favour of a scheme that is unfunded, is not ring-fenced and has no timetable, and maybe expect to receive the same amount of their money back at the end, but certainly no more.

And, of course the IoM Govt know this.

If there was a way to incentivise depositors to vote in favour of DCS, I'm not sure even that would work, because I'm sure most need the funds and have their life plans on hold until they get it.

Anyway, it's not over yet.

Thanks for your time.


Chris, the only thing I would add...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 29/03/2009 - 17:19

One can still pursue legal action under the SOA, if I understand the latest statement by David Lovett correctly, as reflected in DAG's draft Minutes.

What I don't understand by those that keep advocating the DSC is what does it provide over the SOA? From my current viewpoint, the DCS is vague and doesn't offer as much as the SOA and as we all know the SOA isn't perfect.


I will not advocate anything

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 03:13

I will not advocate anything that does not pay me 100% of my deposit back. If i do not vote for the SOA it does not mean that i advocate the DCS. IOMG trying to call the shots by making us believe it is one choice or the other. Schemes are created by schemers and this is no different.

My vote is that the IOMG takes the UK to task and gets the £550Million back. Then we can start sorting out the paying back of deposits. Until then talk of DCS's and SOA's is just irrelevant chatter.

Saddest thing of all is the lack of public action by our majority. Why is the No 10 petion so lacking in signatures? Why was the last post on the iPM blog concerning the collapse of KSF IoM made months ago? Why do we still hear of MPs only just hearing of this? Why do most of us not want our money back?


dj - yes, but ...

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 19:20

Of course, we must all surely agree with your "vote" and continuing to press IOMG to do WHATEVER it takes to do the only honourable thing and get us back 100% (if necessary by requesting a loan from HMG) must be DAG's priority.

Unfortunately, however, I fear that talk of DCS vs SOA is NOT "irrelevant chatter". My understanding is that on 9 April the IOM court will rule either to allow the SOA to be proposed to creditors (who will then be asked to vote) or to put the bank into immediate liquidation, thus automatically triggering the DCS. I am also presuming that if a SOA is subsequently voted down by the creditors, then liquidation and the DCS will automatically follow. In which case, voting against an SOA effectively implies voting for liquidation and implementation of the DCS (of course you would then be free not to apply for 'help' from the DCS, but not accepting liquidation will not be an option).

So UNLESS IOMG and/or HMG can be made to see sense and act as have done all serious governments to protect retail savers, this will happen whether we want it or not and it will indeed be a case of "one choice or another".

I am not advocating either for or against an SOA - of which we do not yet have the latest version - and trust that our legal advisors will provide a clear analysis of the pros and cons should it come to a vote.


Nothing is automatic

  • dj
  • 07/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 30/03/2009 - 21:28

The whole debate around DCS and SOA presumes an automatic 'triggering'. There is no mechanical piece of machinery at work here with cogs and pulleys that will automatically do something, and that is the crux of the hypnotic spin the IOMG is spinning. It will take human beings to decide not give us our money back (as the UK Government are doing). The IOMG are trying to fool us into thinking it is one or the other and many of us are falling for it.

Come on guys, are we fighting for 100% or have we given up and will accept whatever fraction of that the IOMG will give us. We can see the blatent attempt by them to try and divide us by craftily ensuring a percentage of those with lower deposits are paid off 100% and quickly - while those with larger deposits have to pick over the bones. You have to admit it is very clever (well, it DID cost over £1Million to divise!) and to be honest if i had just £50,000 at stake then i would probably be going for it as well - thats not a 'dig', just brutal honesty. So i cannot, and do not, condemn anyone who decides to accept the SOA; every single one of us will have a different agenda and the SOA may satisfy some. Myself, I just see the SOA for what it is according to my agenda, the DCS in a very nice looking package.

The fight, at the moment, is with the UK Government. The IoM Government have proven their dishonest incompetence in not taking up the fight on our behalf, so it is up to us and has been since 8th Oct. If it DAGs priority then it is our priority too - the DAG team are just depositors like ourselves but with more organised get-up-and-go. Lets not ask what the DAG team can do for us, but what we can do for the DAG team (sorry, just HAD to get that in!).