Rolling Top Ten...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 16/08/2011 - 20:56

Please find attachment tool for attempting to find value of highest top ten loan; see my discussion thread with Gordon 45 for more details. It's late here in Bahrain so I'll psit it now and perhaps explain a bit more tomorrow. The attached tool is 'unlocked' so only enter your numbers in the right place or you'll disable it!


Top Ten Loans.xls47 KB
Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (7 votes)

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

64 outstanding loans

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 17/08/2011 - 21:13

This may be simplistic but according to the JL report there were 64 loans worth £154.1m outstanding on 9 July and in my opinion the graph in para 4.2 breaks this down as follows:
>£10m: 2 nos
£5-10m: 7 nos
£1-5m: 28 nos
<£1m: 26 nos

I have made simple assumptions re the average value and have totalled this to get to the total value of £154.1m.
In my first attempt I assumed the following average values:
£5-10m: £7.5m
£1-5m: £3m
I then juggled the average values of the other ones to TRY to get to the total of £154.1m and was unsuccessful (total amount much too high!) even if I allocated the following low ave values to the other two:
>£10m: £11m
<£1m: £0.2m
I am reasonably satisfied that the assumed average value in the £1-5m group at £3m is statistically not far from correct as the quantity of 28 nos is reasonably large.
The average value of £7.5m for the £5-10m group may be way off the mark as the sample of 7 nos is fairly small. However even if the average value is much smaller at say £6m, the average value of the 2 loans exceeding £10m is still unlikely to be much more than £11m!

This is my guestimated table:
Loan range Qty Ave value Total value
>£10m 2 £11m £22m
£5-10m 7 £6m £42m
£1-5m 28 £3m £84m
<£1m 26 £226k £6.1m
Total 64 £154.1m

Please bear in mind that these are only "educated" (I hope) estimates and may be incorrect but I now believe that the largest two loans are unlikely to exceed £10m by much. In addition the average value of the 7 loans between £5m and £10m is probably close to £6m.

Hopes this is of interest to my fellow depositors.

By the way I have not yet tried Ice's spreadsheet, I did mine before I saw this post.

Hi Brabander, good try, but

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/08/2011 - 14:18

Hi Brabander, good try, but no cigar! You and Gordon 45 have done a similar thing; it's pretty easy to get the sum of £154m, but the numbers must also fit an equation that sums the top ten to £104m. Then you have to make the same numbers (less the repayments) work for 31/7/11 Like I've said to Gordon, its not so easy! However, try using my tool (save an original copy for fall-back purposes, then write your own numbers in place of mine - you can see where they need to go, but do avoid wrting elsewhere otherwise you may overwrite a needed macro or formula. I noticed when I went to re-open the version I've attached here that its looking for a link back to the master workbook from which it came, if you get this, just choose the option to severe links. There is another typo with the JL top ten but not significant to the workings. Good luck!


PS did you read my post to G45 (and others) ? I make the case there as to why the JLs put no upper limit on the top tier of the Value Table; perhaps I underestimated those guys, you have to be deviously clever to produce something supposed to inform creditors, but which may actually conceal bad tidings. But mind, I am a master cynic....

Unsolvable equations??

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/08/2011 - 19:28

I fear we have a case of too many unknowns, even using averaging, to establish what the top (>10m) outstanding loan(s) are at present

I was actually looking forward to playing with the numbers myself, but I am not convinced we have a clear starting point . The general assumption (by myself as well) seems to be that that one of the >10m loans was paid off in July. Re-reading the JLs verbiage accompanying the July Loan Table; they state that 2 loans were repaid in full and 4 loans were partially repaid. It seems probable that most if not all of the partial repayments were part of the 12.3m credited against 2012 since the 2011 credit was only 0.5m (as an aside - how the JLs get 12.4m out of 0.5 and 12.3 is beyond me). It is possible therefore that a >10m loan was not repaid or even partially repaid in July and there are still two outstanding.

This really complicates the algebra since it is no longer clear how many loans are now in each tier and may be why Ice cant get the numbers to agree. Let me know if I missed something - happy to be proven wrong.


  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/08/2011 - 21:35

Hi expatvictim,

It's a conundrum right enough, but actually finding the sums repaid is not difficult if you've kept a running table of payments. We know where we stood last month regarding the number of debtors and sums owed, and we know where we are this month so we simply subtract one from the other and get the answer. Between the end of June and the end of July we had just one loan due for repayment in 2011 repaid for the sum of £527,623. Another loan was repaid in July that wasn't due repayment until 2012 and this was worth £12,351,030. The jLs told us that on the 9th July the top ten loans amounted to £104m whilst a total debt of £154m was outstanding on this day, so between then and the end of July the total debt reduced by £12.351+£0.528m to exactly £140,847,596 with the sundries. The top ten debt reduced by £12.35m to £104m to £91.65m which provides enough numbers to construct a solution, it just needs multiple attempts!

I don't know whether you've downloaded my attachment or not, but I present a solution to the problem that satisfies these conditions for both sets of circumstances, but it may not be the only one. It is one that generates a very high debt in the top tier of the Value Table and I wish it didn't, so my challenge to fellow creditors is to have a go yourselves and find an answer that will give the lowest value of this high tier loan.. Everyone is looking at averages - but averages are like statistics, they tell lies. A debt of £10m is the average value of £2m and £18m - if you get my point.

Being a dreadful cynic, I think the JLs have presented the top ten table to average some big loans downwards and I'll leave it at that...Come on people, someone has to come up with something that will fit - even if you fnd the same answer as me! Download the attachment and write your numbers in; you might even find it interesting!


Hi Ice, and a belated Ramadan

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/08/2011 - 19:06

Hi Ice, and a belated Ramadan Kareem from the peninsular next door.

I agree it is easy to find a solution with the assumptions made; your spreadsheet is excellent by the way. However, unless I'm missing something, my point is that we do not know that the loans repaid in July had values of £12.351m and 0.528m respectively. These amounts covered repayments related to 6 loans and not to two as you are assuming. Per the liquidators accompanying text:

During July 2011, two facilities were redeemed in full and four in part realising £12.4 million overall.

The partial repaymentys would have shown up in the loan table as well as the full repayements

As I said previously I do not understand how they arrived at a sum of £12.4 - has me worried if they cant do basic addition.

As a bit of fun (and to pass a Ramadan weekend while my family is away for the summer). Using your limits/reductions and assumptions the following all appear to be potential solutions..

1) T1s= 64.1, T2s= 38.1, T3s = 44.8 and T4 s = 7.0
and T1i=51.7, T3i=1.8 ,T3ii= 1.7
2) T1s= 64.3, T2s= 38.1, T3s = 43.6 and T4s = 8.0
and T1i=51.9, T3i=1.56, T3ii= 1.56
3) T1s= 42.4, T2s=57.6, T3s = 43.6 and T4s = 10.4
and T1i=30.0, T3i=4.0 , T3ii= 2.0
4) T1s= 30.4.4, T2s=69.6, T3s = 43.6 and T4s = 10.4
and T1i=18.0, T3i=4.0 ,T3ii= 4.0
5) T1s= 30.4.4, T2s=69.6, T3s = 33.6 and T4s = 20.4
and T1i=18.0, T3i=4.0,T3ii= 1.3

(hopefully manually transcribed ok - apologies for then syntax)

where TXs is the sum in a given tier on July 9 T1 > or = 10m etc
T1i is the outstanding Tier1 loan (includes 12.4)
T3i is the value of the largest loan in Tier3
T3ii is the value of the second largest loan in Tier3
Tot1 = T1s + T2s +T3i (Initial Top 10) = 104
Tot2 = T3s - T3i +T4s = 50
Tot3 = T1i+T2s+T3s+T4s-0.75 =140.85

Note that except in line 2, I am not using the average of tier 3 for my values of T3i and T3ii as you have done (I did not use your spreadsheet to work the solutions)

There are many more within the following constraints:

T3s cannot be less than 28
Practically T3s is unlikely to be more than 47.3 if assumed average T4 value > 0.1
T3i > or = T3ii
T3i and T3ii are greater than or equal to the average of T3s
T2s is in the range 38.1 to 67.9 given one of the seven in that tier is known to be 8.1

Since T1i + T2s is a constant for a given set of other parameters that provide a solution, T1i can be that constant less any value of T2s in the range above, provided T1i> 10.

For you solution T1i+T2s = 30.6+59.4 = 90.0
For my solution 2 above which uses your 1.556 for all the T3 inputs T1i+T2s = 51.9+38.1 = 90.0

hence T1i can have a large range (~18.9 to 52.5) - very concerning as you say if it is as high as this

I note that in your spreadsheet you have decreased the tier 4 loans by £0.75m between end June and end July and not £0.53m (you may have mentioned the reason for this somewhere but I could not find it again)

If I adjust the 0.75 to 0.53 and use 12.35 instead of 12.4 and 50.7 instead of 50, I am unable to find a solution. I expect this is due to the 4 partial loans not being accounted for - and we have no idea which tier(s) they came out of.

PS I notice there has been some dialogue between you and Anrigaut while I was working on this - hopefully I m not contradicting her findings.

Ramadan Kareem indeed!Well I

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/08/2011 - 12:40

Ramadan Kareem indeed!

Well I was hoping to draw attention to the possibility that a very high loan existed in the top tier and I'm pleased to see you've had a good go at finding solutions - and thanks for your kind comment on the spreadsheet cos' it took me a few hours to get it together. Now that you've put it this way I can see the logic of your assertion re the inclusion of partial payments and I believe you are correct - thank you very much for this useful observation. I was seeing 24 loans reduce to 23 loans and x million reduce to y million and ascribed it all to one repayment, but your perspective makes logical sense. I will go over your calcs tomorrow, too tired to focus now, let alone think. Don't worry about anrigaut, she's reached a similar conclusion - that it is possible for a high value loan to exist in the top tier. Whether the inclusion of partial payments detracts greatly from the overall concept is something else. Anyway, if it gets people thinking that averages can be very deceiving and all may not be as it seems in a JL report I will have achieved something. Soon be Eid inshalla!


PS: It's now Saturday and Ive gone through your examples above, entering the data into my spreadsheet tool (surprised you didn't do this cos' it only took a fw minutes to run the lot!) Anyway, they all worked within the proviso of deducting £750k from Tier 4 for the £140.85m / £93.2m case (31/7/11). I think you could be right about the partial payments causing this £223k hiccup, but its hardly consequential in the big picture of finding the lowest reasonable value for the highest loan. I'm pleased you cottoned on to the second element of the equation - I just couldn't seem to get this point across...

I like your approach to Tier 3; but there are 28 debtors in this tier, so the gap between the highest and second highest could be too much in a couple of your examples? I really like your example No 4; the results are quite reasonble; they fit within all the criteria, i.e., value limits per tier; satisfying answers for both dates and producing a logical average for tier 4. I asked for the lowest value of the highest value loan and you've come up with £18m - which is very, very close to Gordon 45's own estimate of this debt. My concern though, is that although the numbers fit within tier limits, Tier 2 is very close to the upper limit and Tier 3 is probably a bit more than the logical average for this number? I think that example No 3 is probably my favourite except for the £2m jump between the highest and second highest values in Tier 3. Tier 2 and Tier 4 are good though. Fix Tier 3 with a bit of juggling and it would be close I think!

If I get a moment during this Ramadan I will find a way of putting your data into my spreadsheet tool for every example you've given and post it back to the site for others to see.

Thanks for participating and providing some really useful information (to me anyway).


My take, fwiw

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/08/2011 - 08:46


You won't I think be surprised to know that I don't share your enthusiasm for this as I don't see what knowing more on the size of the largest loan(s) could change for us, other than to feed (or calm) your worries! What matters surely is that the JLs, supported by the CoI, should be doing all they can to ensure the best possible return, whatever the size of the individual loans. And I think you seriously overestimate them if you really think they've deliberately presented the data they way they have in order to hide something bad from us (beyond protecting the confidentiality of the borrowers).

That said, I took a quick look. Forgive me if I'm missing some information (as I say, I haven't been following all the detail), but it seems to me that the problem is both simple and indeterminate. This is my take on it:

As of 9 July, there were 64 loans outstanding: 27 under £1m, 28 of £1-5m, 7 of £5-10m and 2 over £10m. Total value £154m; value of top 10: £104m

The top 10 consist of 2 over £10m (minimium total value £20m), 7 of £5-10m (total value £35m - £70m) and one of £1-5m.

The value of the top 2 (as of 9 July) must therefore be between £29m (104 minus 75) and £68m (104 minus 36).

Assuming one loan of £12.5m was repaid in July, the remaining largest loan must be for between £16.5m and £55.5m. The min and max figures would correspond to all 7 loans in group 3 being of £10m and £5m respectively; the truth must be somewhere in-between (so indeed quite large). But without further information there's nothing more can be said. There is no unique solution, but a multitude of solutions (all values between 16.5m and 55.5m being possible). QED!? Or have I missed something?

The individual values of the loans in groups 1 and 2 are irrelevant to the problem: they just need to add up (as of 9 July) to £50m (which clearly they can, in many ways).

One more point: you are wrong when you say that in July “the top ten debt reduced by £12.35m to £104m to £91.65m” - you need to add to that the value of the new loan from group 2 (£1-5m) which now enters the top 10, replacing the one repaid. But in any case this doesn't affect the calculation.

Hi Anrigaut, You don't have

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/08/2011 - 09:35

Hi Anrigaut,

You don't have to share my 'enthusiasm', it's your choice same as it is mine to mention my concerns. You have contradicted yourself by 'having a go' though - and actually proved what I've been saying about the largest loan - it could be up to £55m in your estimation! Your calculations are logical of course ( you are the mathematician) but I don't think you even bothered to download my spreadsheet otherwise you would have seen my answers satisfied all that you've indicated.above and more. There is possibly no unique solution in looking at the problem in isolation, but it must also fit the values established on the 31/7/11 which probably reduces the number of solutions markedly. You would also see that contrary to your assertion above that I was 'wrong' about the debt following the deduction of the £12.35m, my interactive spreadsheet does include the loan moved up from the lower tier. I stated that the Top 10 reduced by £12.35m to £91.65m - and for that particular Top 10 that was indeed so. Perhaps my written explanation was imperfect, but the spreadsheet tool takes care of the detail - thanks for being so forthright though.


Hi Ice, Don't get me wrong -

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/08/2011 - 10:32

Hi Ice,

Don't get me wrong - I have no absolutely problem with you mentioning your concerns - or indeed playing with the numbers. I just wanted to say I didn't wish to get involved in further speculation, which is why I hesitated to post but finally failed to resist temptation!

I don't see where I've contradicted myself. I had no preconceived idea about the size of the largest loan and was not at all trying to show it was smaller than you suggest; indeed in my second post I agreed it looked to be likely to pretty large. I did download your spreadsheet and agree that your 'answers' satisfy the requirements. But it remains one of many possibilities - and you did invite alternative solutions (which I tried to provide - just trying to be helpful!).

I don't see what more is added by the 31 July data (already used to subtract the £12.5m from the total of the 2 largest loans) which could reduce the number of solutions. But as I said, I may have missed some other useful data?

Just to reiterate my conclusions:
The largest loan has to be between £16.5m and £55.5m (this is a straightforward calculation, not an estimate). I would be reluctant to make an estimate of where it actually lies in that range, though it does seem unlikely to be less than £26m or more than £42m. Which makes it a pretty large loan. Your suggested £31m (rounded) lies in that range and is clearly quite plausible. Sorry if I didn't say that, but I never meant or intended to suggest otherwise - just to confirm that there are other possibilities (both bigger and smaller). Nothing more, nothing less;


Anrigaut,I have been trying

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/08/2011 - 07:35


I have been trying very hard to get people interested in the distribution of debt, because unlike you I consider it fundamantal to our returns. There is no point in blathering on about a 97% final return when debts are wrapped up in planes and yachts and there is a serious recession going on (and worse). Allowing tarts like Craine to get away with such pontification is outrageous. The JLs are feathering her nest with their assertions whilst privately at least, Spratt is much more concerned.

How you can say that you cannot see what knowing the value of the largest loan will do for us beggars belief. If you believe that then what the hell are we all doing here making a song and dance about? If you don't consider a loan that could be £40m to be worthy of notice - when the total debt is now down to £141m - then what is worth sitting-up for, a PG worth tuppence? The nonsense of pursuing such PG from a company that is flat, stony broke is ludicrous - it serves only the JLs and their lawyers to milk more loot from creditors like me who are still in the money-game with a lot to lose. Those who received their monies back long ago are clearly in a different position with a different perspective and another agenda.

The JLs have insidiously raised their costs as a function of increasing/expected returns - and what extra work has brought this about? Liquidation being strung out for years longer than first anticipated? No. Huge number of defaulters taking long expensive legal battles? No. So how did the £15m get hoisted so much other than by pursuing pie in the sky? This is a cash cow for PwC and any excuse to prolong the process you can bet they'll take it - especially when confronted with little to no resistance. All the time the JLs think they've got the creditors believing they're doing a wonderful job, they'll milk it for all its worth - and we'll be the mugs lapping it up.

I have serious concerns and I am personally full of worry - I don't want it and I've tried hard enough to deal with it, but there it is, sitting on my shoulder day after day. How do I get my colleagues to stop assuming that the debts are coming down and the averages are getting smaller when I believe that to be fundamentally untrue? Do I keep stumb, or raise concern? The bottom line is I can't stand liers, cheats and charlatans and there are more of these in the boardroom than out on the streets. These crooks clean us out because they act smart and believe the rest of us are stupid - maybe they are right because the ba, ba brigade is universally rampant.

Your comments have hardly been helpful; you tried to belittle me a tadge, you've undermined my thrust to elevate awareness and brought all my efforts to nothing. I spent hours producing a tool that fellow creditors could use for a bit of fun with a serious side but you've so trashed my forum (3.4) that its over. And out of this what did you do other than claim the problem was simple but indeterminate? If it was simple there would be an answer, and if it is simple to determine a number of solutions then why have you not managed even one that fulfills the criteria and makes common sense? There is no QED without proof, so do this last favour for me and provide just one sensible solution. Thank you.


Ice, There is so much I could

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/08/2011 - 13:05


There is so much I could say in reply that I'm not sure where to start. Anyway, here goes.

I am truly sorry if I have seriously undermined your efforts to take the JLs to task. Such was not my intention, nor do I see it as being the case; I would have thought those reading this thread capable of coming to their own conclusions (though it has to be said there are few of us left fighting – most having faded away). I now regret having intervened. I didn't really want to get involved in this, not because I think the JLs are doing a wonderful job (they are at most doing the job they are well paid for) but because my (quite extensive) efforts have been and are directed elsewhere – and there's a limit to what one person can do. But finally I felt I could add something useful to the purely technical question (what, if anything, can be deduced about the size of the large loan(s) from the available data?), leaving you and others to do whatever you can with the results to try to improve our outcome. As I have tried to say – though you seem determined not to believe me – I was merely trying to answer your request for other solutions, which I did effectively provide (though you say not). But I can't provide a unique solution because clearly there isn't one (which was of course what I meant by QED). If you found that unhelpful, I'm sorry. However, I do believe resistance is best if evidence-based (which is what I've tried to do, admittdly with little success, when resisting the likes of Anne Craine, John Aspden and the Tynwald Select Committee) – and I honestly thought you were searching for facts to use. I am perhaps wrong, but fighting lies and deception by the truth is the only way I can go – fighting spin with counter-spin is not my game (no doubt due to my scientific training).

I don't see that as sitting on the fence. I have spent thousands of hours and written thousands of words over the last two years trying to fight our corner and resist the IOM spin. I believe I can safely say I have done more than most to denounce the outrageous pontification of Anne Craine at every opportunity and plead non-guilty to “allowing [her] to get away with it” - even though to date she has, which angers and disgusts me totally. No doubt I could have done better. But at least I tried, as the letters uploaded on the other site testify (before you take offence, I am not saying you didn't try – you certainly did and are still doing – but there have been far too few of us willing to actively take up the cudgels, as opposed to simply ranting on this site). As regards the JLs, indeed I am more 'fence-sitting' than you, at least since the start of the liquidation, and have preferred to leave that aspect to our elected CoI reps (who have access to more information and in whom I clearly have more confidence than you do) and to others like yourself and G45 who do a good job of following the figures. That doesn't mean I am uncritical or think they should go unchallenged – for which all power to your elbow. I do believe Simpson – no doubt compromised by IOMT pressure – acted against creditors' best interests in defending ('on balance') the useless SOA at our expense and then refusing to claim costs from Treasury, and effectively said so to the SC (with Simpson sitting just behind me). But as ever it's like water off a duck's back.

Returning to the question of the large loans. I don't consider a loan that could be £40m to be not worthy of notice and I do understand and share your concerns over a possible default, especially as the recession deepens (though it looks to me as though any loan of that size can only be in London property, with hopefully good security?, and certainly not in yachts or aircraft which account for a total of £32m – 3 yachts & 2 aircraft). What I wonder is what you feel we can do about it. Which seems - to me at least - to be the most relevant question.

It seems the problem has slightly changed as we are not sure whether or not one of them was repaid in July. So it seems best to concentrate on the July 9 data, with 2 outstanding large loans with a combined value of between £29m and £68m. Having just studied the pie-charts in the July Report, I note also in passing that the value of the largest single loan cannot exceed the value of the largest category which is £53.52m for (all) London property (so a single loan of £55m is now excluded!). Within that range, all is theoretically possible (with suitable values in tier 2 and top of tier 3), though the extreme values are clearly unlikely as they would imply an unrealistically extreme distribution of values in tier 2 (7 loans). You ask for “just one sensible solution”. I'm not sure what counts as sensible (!), but if we take something fairly central and also assume the largest loan in the third tier to be £5m (the upper limit – likely to be approached by at least one of the 28 loans in this group), one possible non-extreme solution would be:

As of 9 July:
Tier 1 (2 loans): £50m, of which the largest single loan at least £25m and at most £40m
Tier 2 (7 loans): £49m
Tier 3 - largest loan: £5m
Sub-total (10 largest loans): £104m
Tier 3 – 27 other loans and Tier 4 (27 loans): £50m
Total: £154m

But again, this is only one possible – and not I think implausible – solution. Keeping the same value of the largest tier 3 loan (which I guess can't be far out), you can construct as many as you wish provided the sum of tier 1 and tier 2 is £99m (and tier 1 is between £29m and 68m). I see no real point in assigning possible values to the lower tiers (which have no effect on the 'solutions' for the upper tiers). But just for the sake of completeness, one such would be tier 3 (minus one): £44m (average loan: £1.63m); tier 4: £6m (average loan: £0.22m). It seems in any case that each of these groups must include a majority of lower-end loans.

The real question to which I return is what can you usefully do with this? It's all very well raising awareness, but then what? Can it lead to action which might improve our prospects? If not, it will merely succeed in making more people more worried. That was the reason for my scepticism about the whole exercise. You say my not seeing what this knowledge will do for us “beggars belief”. Well, I'm sorry about that, but I still honestly can't see what we can do about it. Obviously you must have some ideas though, so maybe you could share them with us. I'm not being facetious – just trying to understand. Maybe you need to write to the JLs – either directly or through the COI – to express your concerns and ask if we can know the value of the largest loan and when it is due to be repaid (maybe you or G45 have already tried and failed to get this info?). Also, are there still 2 loans of over £10m outstanding or was one repaid in July? You could perhaps say that – on the basis of the figures in the July Report – we suspect there is a very large loan of perhaps £25m to £40m out there, that this is worrying - and ask for their comments? I don't know. Just trying to be more positive!

Maybe I am indeed too reasonable for this game – and I do tend to prefer to believe people are innocent until proved guilty – but I don't think anyone can seriously accuse me of not resisting or of rolling over, or indeed of giving undue credit. And I am very aware there's a lot of ugly truth out there. Maybe I just need a rest.

Remember, we ARE on the same side! And, without giving any undue credit, let's not forget in all this that we will soon have 80% back and, I believe, almost certainly 90% by the end of next year whatever happens. The JLs may or may not be for something in that; the IOM govt certainly isn't and my anger with Anne Craine and her cronies is unbounded.

Moving to the realms of

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/08/2011 - 09:05

Moving to the realms of probability ...

The extreme values above are of course both unlikely. The 'solution' depends heavily on the distribution of loan values in group 3 (£5-10m) and, since there are only 7 of these, that could be quite skewed. However, removing the more extreme possibilities for this group (assuming a total value probably between say £45m and £60m), and assuming the largest loan in group 2 is close to £5m, would suggest the largest loan is likely to be in the range £26m to £42m.

So indeed it looks like a pretty large loan, as far as we can tell (which isn't very far!).

Whether that would be good news or bad for us depends on whether and when it gets repaid in full or not. And there's nowt we can do about that. Que sera sera!

Nice to see the engagement:

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/08/2011 - 04:34

No Anrigaut, Icecrusher is right.
What does it take for you to get the drift?
The Lp's play the figures. They are the IoMG....
Icecrusher is trying to interpolate to keep us aware of the games.
And Anrigaut you must have worked it out by now that these bastards are playing (lying).
These bastards would sell their mother into whoredom if it paid for their crombie, or G&S indulgence.
How about a bit of empathy?

Que sera sera!? No Anrigaut! What have you been doing? Trying to influence "Que sera sera."
And what lying bastards they've turned out to be? No? You could almost kill them, couldn't you?

It would have have been better, but probably have made no difference, if this had been universally understood from the outset.

We're still dealing with creeps.

Hi ftt, I'm not quite as

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/08/2011 - 16:54

Hi ftt,

I'm not quite as adrift as you seem to think (at least I like to think so). And, FYI, I agree with much of what you've said in your recent transient posts which have a habit of disappearing before I can respond to any of them (!), though I feel ill-equipped to do anything to address the wider problems of this sick society.

So IOMG use the upper limit of the JLs' estimated outcome to proclaim with pride how well they (IOMG) have done (as if they had anything to do with it) and how grateful we greedy b*** should be. We complain vigorously and publicly - the true estimates are between x and y, are uncertain and will not be realised for several years etc. When questioned (“did you tell IOMT this?”), the JL's equally vigorously deny that they ever gave any figures to IOMG other than the official published ones. Maybe they are lying, but I don't know - and tend to think not. What more can one do?

In more recent times (for reasons which should be obvious) we have been less inclined to contest their spin on the figures - a little playing on our part you could say. To no effect also - against this lot, heads you lose, tails you lose.

Indeed I have been trying very hard - though with little success - to influence “que sera sera” wherever it seemed possible and will continue to do so. My doubt in this specific instance was whether there was anything that could realistically be done that is not already being done by the JLs and CoI to optimise the return on the loan book. The loans were not granted by the JLs; they are what they are, whether we know their exact size or not. Creeps or not, what interest would the JLs have in not fighting our corner on this? Even if they are still in connivance with IOMG, surely the IOM PR machine is better served by a high recovery and the higher the better? So are not our interests concurrent in this?

I guess I'm missing something ... If the game is to deliberately over-estimate our return for as long as possible for the benefit of IOM PR, how would that be facilitated by concealing the size of the large loans? And if they are and it is, the question remains: what can we do about it? Not much I suspect. If already we get nowhere by counteracting IOMG's demonstrable manipulation of the official figures, what possible chance of asserting an unprovable claim that those estimates are not made in good faith?

@follow_the_tao, Just to

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/08/2011 - 07:49


Just to thanks for the support f_t_t; I'm afraid that 'givers' are the poor majority so steeped in Western indoctrination that it is impossible to break these bonds and get out of the box to see the horrible, ugly truth that 'takers' win when resistance is absent. Reasonability; giving undue credit; and sitting on the fence; are all symptomatic of this awful affliction that will subordinate us all if we roll over...