Second Update Re: DCS

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 08/01/2009 - 12:36

We have not received the promised document from the IoM authorities so, as promised, we have posted a document created by members of the committee. This is our understanding of how the DCS would work in practice based purely on discussions with IoM Treasury officials.

This document has been posted on our main site under 'Facts' and then 'Informal DAG Committee' on the main page menu bar.

you can also view it by following this link: http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/understanding-dcs

Should the IoM authorities get back to us with their ammendments we will post those here as well.

All further updates from the informal DAG committee will be posted here so please check back periodically.

Thanks.

0
Your rating: None

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

Diver ... a little disappointed

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Online Now
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:50

Although I have always fully supported the actions of Diver and his 'team' - and continue to do so - I am quite disappointed by this which I actually found rather more difficult to follow than the DCS itself. For me, this document raises more questions than answers! Others seem to have found it helpful, so maybe it's just me?

It does however highlight a few important questions (which I think are not yet answered) concerning in particular the funding of the scheme. I must say that up to now I had mainly concentrated on how the money would be distributed, rather than how and when it might get collected.

I have no legal training whatsoever, but have tried again to read the DCS Regulations (826/08 as amended by 844/08) and to apply a little mathematical logic (in which I am more competent) in the hope that my musings (below) might help the committee to formulate a few key questions to IoM. In what follows, Paragraphs are those in Diver's text, Regulations are from the DCS.

Paragraph 2: "If another bank were to suffer a similar fate ... the maximum payment of £350m would be shared" ?
Indeed I fear this may be so. But is it as clear as that?

All hinges on what is meant by "The Scheme", which seems curiously never to be precisely defined. In particular, it's not clear to me whether there can only ever be one scheme (which began on 9 Oct 2008) or whether there is/would be a separate scheme for every and any bank default (schemes to commence as required). Probably the former, but it doesn't seem clear. In general the procedure in the case of multiple (overlapping) bank defaults seems quite obscure.

Regulation 2(1) refers to "the scheme established by these regulations" (known as the Depositors' Compensation Scheme or "the Scheme"). It is nowhere stated when the scheme began - if it has begun?

Regulation 5(2) defines the first financial year of the scheme as the period ending 31 March following the "commencement of the scheme". Did the scheme commence on 9 Oct 2008 or has it yet to commence?

Regulation 11 (9) sets the cap on bank levies in respect of ALL defaults "throughout the currency of the scheme" at £200m, but then notes that this paragraph will cease on 9 Oct 2009. Clearly the scheme (if ever it exists!) can continue after 9 Oct 2009 (Regulation 5(2) defines financial years of the scheme). So after 9 Oct 2009, the cap on levies will be lifted? Good news?? (I fear not, but am getting more and more confused).

Paragraph 3: "It is anticipated ... could take years to be paid out..." Anticipated by whom? On what grounds? How many years? Some serious estimates would help here.
In fact, the calculation might be more complicated than you suggest. I understand that the first 20K (or 15K?) is supposed to be paid by the bank levies, with the Treasury money being used only for payments beyond that (up to £50k). Not sure how this would be implemented though.

Paragraph 4: Please can IoM confirm or otherwise the correctness of the two assumptions here - that i) no payments could be made before 6 months and ii) no payments could be made before 9 Oct 2009. It could be that people applying later and/or banks defaulting later might have to wait longer in the case of a shortfall of funds. Regulation 8 (2) seems to imply that it is up to the scheme manager to take into account claims "which maybe made" in deciding how much it is prudent to pay immediately. So I think your assumptions may be a little extreme.

Paragraph 5:
Not convinced it would work this way. In your example, I would rather expect the DCS to pay out £25K (thus achieving the full £50k) and keep £5. Any further payment from the liquidator (up to £20 in this example) would then also be retained by the DCS. Or at least, having recovered the £30 from the liquidator they would be able to make a further partial payment to the depositor.

Other concerns not addressed:
I'm still concerned about the likely size of the "compensation costs" (Regulation 4) and "costs of recovery" (Regulation 16 (5)).

Please understand I'm trying to be constructive and am not at all ungrateful for the efforts made to produce this 'Understanding'. I can however understand that IoM lawyers may have had problems trying to modify your text; a few simple direct questions might perhaps solicit a better response? But maybe I'm only muddying the waters even more!


Anriguat - DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 23:23

Paragraph 2

– It is true of the IoM govt contribution of £150m. This is to cover ALL defaults in the 12 months to 8th October 2009. This would be the reason the IoM govt could not release funds to the DCS for KSFIoM until 9th October 2009 at the earliest as they have to wait to see how many bank defaults they have before they can allocate funds.
– As the DCS at £50k limit is only in force for 12 months I think it is a logical understanding to say that the £200m is a cap on bank funding for any bank failures in the year to 9th Oct 2009, i.e. they will not have to pay more than £200m for ALL bank failures while this scheme is in place. So I think it does mean £200m is the maximum the banks would have to pay for ALL bank failures that happened while this legislation is in force, i.e. in the year to 9th October 2009.

Regulation 2 – No scheme is yet in place as no bank has yet gone in to liquidation (KSFIoM still being in provisional liquidation)

Regulation 5(2) – As above no scheme as yet in operation. If the Court did decide to place KSFIoM in to liquidation on 29th January then the scheme would come into operation shortly after so would be in existence before 31st March 2009. So the banks would owe a contribution for year to 31st March 2009. However this does not mean they would have to pay it by 31st March 2009.

Regulation 11(9) – New schemes can commence after 9th October 2009. But the current DCS with a £50k compensation limit is only in effect for 12 months. And that is why reference is made to a 12 month period. After 9th October I believe the exact opposite to the lifting of a cap on levies. The compensation limit reverts to £20k and I would imagine the cap on levies would also be reduced. This last point is speculation on my part, but I think a fairly sound assumption.

Paragraph 3 – Well IoM will not contribute funds until at least 9th Oct 2009 so it would be a year just for this to happen (at the earliest) The banks will only contribute £15m a year at most so if the amount that needed funding was even just £17m we are talking 2 years. If it is £35m we are into 3 years. So no fact, but look how small the figures have to be before you are waiting more than 1 year for the banks to make good their contribution and it can be seen that it is a pretty safe assumption to use “years”.

Paragraph 4 – IoM govt will not make funds available until 9th Oct 2009 at earliest as they have to wait and see how many other banks fail before that date before contributing. They could not, for example give £125m to KSFIoM today and then only £25m to any other bank that failed. They have to wait and see and use the funds equitably. Also the 6 month limit is what the scheme will wait before paying out as they have to establish claims. I know it seems ludicrous when they have had 3 months already to do that, but unfortunately that is how it is.

Paragraph 5 – Yes I think you are right the example used in the document is incorrect.

In this case I believe the example is trying to say that on day one the DCS could payout £25k. However the DCS would owe the other £25k (now how quickly this would be paid who knows). The liquidator then made an initial payment of £30k. All this £30k would go to the DCS. This would probably enable the DCS to make another payment of £5k soon after the initial payment. However the balance of £20k would be due from the DCS so the depositor would not have to wait for the liquidator to make further distributions, this £20k would be due to the depositor from the DCS.


Ally - DCS

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Online Now
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 09:05

Thanks Ally for your considered response. I think you are probably right in at least most of what you say. But I still maintain that there is considerable scope for interpretation in the DCS Regulations (I think you would agree). Has the DAG lawyer looked at this and/or assisted the committee in forming its interpretation? If not, I think this would be helpful (if we can afford it).

While fully appreciating all the work that has gone into this, I still worry a little that some members of DAG will take this interpretation as gospel when - as I'm sure you'd be the first to admit - some of it remains more or less speculative : you might well be right on all points, but it's not sure.

I have to say that my scientific rather than legal training balks at the complete absence of any definition of the "Scheme" - hence my somewhat convoluted queries above. I believe your interpretation to be probably correct, but resent the fact that we are forced to make any 'interpretation' at all due to shoddy work by the Treasury.

The business of the cap clause (Reg 12 (9)) being removed in Oct 2009 is also open to interpretation. As it stands at present, the current Regulations do not cease in October 2009; it is only the clauses so marked which will no longer apply. So in principle (but does the Treasury have any principals?) the remaining Regulations should still apply, in particular to any scheme already in place by then - and there is nothing proposed to replace 12 (9). More scope for legal trickery - and changing the rules as they go along?

I just hope that if and when any real choice becomes available to us, IoM will provide us with better information and predictions of likely time scales and costs to enable us to make informed choices (eg about whether to claim from DCS or not - particularly for people like me in a twilight zone between small and large depositors who will find it hard to know whether or not the DCS will be of any use to them, whatever the time scale).

Thanks again for all that you and the committee are doing for us. Your hard work and determination are truly appreciated. Maybe a miracle can still happen to make all this a bad dream...

A small additional point of fact: Regulation 14 (1) states that the Scheme Manager can fix not only the amount (within the limit) of any bank levies to fund the scheme, but also the date at which payment is required (enforceable at law). So it is not true, as some seem to have implied, that they (the banks) could avoid paying up before the end of the financial year. Equally, a default before 31 March 2009 could lead to a levy needing to be paid before say mid-2009 (whatever the manager decides).


Ally.. a question

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 03:18

Ally... referring to your 1st. paragraph: If, as is suggested,the £150M is intended to cover all possible bank defaults occurring before 9th. Oct. 2009 then would this not automatically mean that this same £150M could not therefore be available for any possible restructuring of the bank as has been suggested in the past ?
You also say that the IoM govt could not release funds to the DCS for KSFIoM until 9th October 2009 but what about the banks' contributions for year ending 31st Mar 09 and 31st Mar 2010 which could be paid into the DCS fund in the event of a liquidation before 31st Mar 09 ?


mikeinfrance - DCS question

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 10:27

Mike

The £150m could be used for compensation over and above what is legally required for the DCS but to commit any more than this until after 9th Oct 2009 I think would be impossible (very difficult at least). If the IoM govt decided on nationalisation (which personally I don't think is a road they are going down) they could use other funds they have in reserve.

With regards to the banks and the contributions. The contributions, as Anriguat points out, can be set to specific dates by the scheme manager and are legally enforceable. So in theory the banks could be forced to pay a contribution in March 09 and then again within 2 or 3 months. This would be speculation on my part, no fact to back it up, but that just wouldn't happen. The banks would not pay 2 years contributions within a few months of each other.


Anrigaut

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 18:09

Imagine this - a bank contributes to the scheme of "our" failed bank, and then goes down the pipe itself, you you imagine the field day the creditors would have with that?


Diver... question

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 15:11

Diver..thanks for posting this committee document. One question I have immediately is regarding the following: quote "the estimated current liability under the DCS to KSFIOM depositors standing at £208m".
Should we assume that this is the total amount which the DCS would have to pay out in the event that KSFIOM had no assets to distribute ?


208 million figure

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:22

Hi Mike,
No, the 208 million is a very rough estimate based on some numbers we had from the IoM.. I estimate, by another route and just as roughly that the total the DCS would have to pay out is 420 million.. Until we have concrete figures from the LP about numbers and levels of deposits, it's almost impossible to work it out.. and for some reason he seems reluctant to part with them.


Nixi yr reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:43

Thanks for your reply. I've requested this figure in a question be asked during the next conference call and also asked for an account breakdown showing <> £50K accounts but, from what you say, it seems that this information may not be forthcoming. Aren't we entitled to be given such information, which could help us better understand whatever options might soon be presented to the committee as being the way forward ?


420 million?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:38

Surely that can't possibly be right. We know that there are 3,000 savers with small deposits who would cost the DCS about 10 million. Even if the remainder had the full 50,000 it would come to about 260 million in total. I think the 208 million is much nearer the mark.

I'm not arguing the case for the DCS mind you.


The DCS numbers

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:59

Let's hope we get the real numbers soon.. in the mean time my reading of the DCS document says that the Scheme can levy a max of 350k from each bank per annum.. so 10.5m.. the IoM gove will put in what's required to make up the difference for depositors between 20k and 50k UPTO max 150m

So it isn't enough is it! Very dependent on return of assets for a speedy result...


Nixi DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 18:19

Nixi... Your understanding of the banks' contributions agrees with mine and I also understand that the £150M is intended to fund the increased compensation from 75% of 20K to £50K. Clearly the actual DCS payout would be entirely dependent on the amount distributed by the bank which is yet another unknown. Clearly if the bank could eventually return 100% of deposits, at the end of the day the DCS would have paid out nothing.

On the question of the banks contributions; am I correct in believing that the DCS year is fom March to March and that in the event that the DCS were to be triggered before March then contributions would be collected for the year ending March 09 and next year's contributions could be collected after March 09 ? I recall that such a comment was made by someone on IOM possibly the treasury minister, some time ago.


Bank contributions or levy

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 18:28

"On the question of the banks contributions; am I correct in believing that the DCS year is fom March to March and that in the event that the DCS were to be triggered before March then contributions would be collected for the year ending March 09 and next year's contributions could be collected after March 09 ?"

Hi Mike,
My understanding is yes.. but I wouldn't be all that surprised if the banks were unhappy about it given there's be only 2 months of the year left..
One of the main troubles with the scheme is that so much has yet to be tested.. can't help but see years in court instead of money being paid out sadly.. The whole role of the scheme manager seems centered on equitable distribution, sound accounting and legal safety rather than speed!


Thank you, Diver

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 13:17

Thank you, Diver and the rest of the Committee, for writing and posting the document "Understanding the DCS". Bad news though it is, at least we now know what we're talking about. Why oh why can't any of the government offices produce something so admirably clear, succinct and to the point?
Carry on with the good work.


Understanding the DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 13:46

I note that the committee's published understanding of the DCS (obtained from discussions with IOM gov officials) is a notably unflattering exposition of the scheme which appears well removed from a proper construction of its statutory codification.

If that is the model against which the committee intends to test alternative schemes to see if they improve on the DCS, then I think the committee would be misdirecting itself.


Understanding the DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 15:18

The scheme manager as a "quasi-trustee" would have certain responsibilities which perhaps is what the draft paper is referring to.

I would imagine that in them (The FSC) exercising their powers as scheme manager they would err on the said of prudence and seek direction from the courts where necessary.

If there is a default event then the scheme will be triggered. If for whatever reason the scheme isn't triggered then there will be an alternative method (perhaps an SoA for paying out depositors)

If there is a SoA then no doubt there will be creditor approval required of some sort by the court.

Given the relative weight of the Insurance Company and IOMG depositors you would imagine that the small depositor would have less influence in this matter and could be outvoted.

We live in interesting times.........


small depositors out voted

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:26

"Given the relative weight of the Insurance Company and IOMG depositors you would imagine that the small depositor would have less influence in this matter and could be outvoted."

Hi Manx P
My understanding so far is that the required vote will need a majority of depositors as well as a majority of value of deposits.. We are all in this together!


Knowing the way that some of

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:16

Knowing the way that some of the deposits are grouped - I think you will find that it may well be impossible to achieve both value of deposits and number of depositors in order to "win" a vote.

I also doubt that the voting would be able to deviate much from standard liquidation voting procedure.


Voting/Grouping

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:26

I thought that the "standard arrangement" was that it would need to be approved by 50% of those deciding to vote and 75% of the creditors in total by value, with approval by the Court (at least under UK law)

if there will be such a proposal I don't think there will be many weeks to wait to see what it is


I should add "in the event of

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:43

I should add "in the event of a split vote around the sub 50K divide" - then the figure get interesting.


I should add "in the event of

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:43

I should add "in the event of a split vote around the sub 50K divide" - then the figure get interesting.


small depositors

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:36

To clarify - I am not a depositor, so I am not saying that this is what my view is as to the voting

Its just if there was a SoA then its a case of knowing how it would be voted upon. You should consider that the insolvency legislation in the IoM is very outdated and I would imagine there would be much discretion for the Court.

This is all hypothetical at the moment though, The Treasury should be sending their submission to the Court next week and I guess then all/any interested parties will have a chance to make their submissions, if they so choose.


Wow, "statutory

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 14:13

Wow, "statutory codification". So much for 3 weeks on a Readers Digest DIY law course.
For those who are interested, "codification" is organizing or reorganizing and existing statute into a logical order and possibly removing old and outdated clauses to steamline/modernize the statute. What on God's earth "proper construction of it's statutory codification" is remains to be seen.

Take it you now understand it then? and see just how useless it is?

Add to the fact that any who signs up may well find that they pay for interest and other administration costs, I expect many depositors will be happier to wait for the Liquidator to pay out.

Be careful what you wish for Happy Depositors when you request that the DCS is triggered forthwith.


deja vu

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 14:04

In what ways (please provide constructive detail) on why you think "it is a notably unflattering exposition of the scheme which appears well removed from a proper construction of its statutory codification". Please also remember not all of us have had your legal training, so non legal English would be appreciated


Client Data & Payment Details

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:48

I ask Tricky Dicky if he knows if anyone else has received one of the above forms. It asks how much you have on deposit and which bank you would like any monies to go to. Has everyone got one - I am a bit suspicious as no-one has mentioned this on our site. I know I am on the wrong site but TD is my Manager.


Client data etc.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:25

Hi, Merlin.

I can confirm my wife and I have received such a form, filled it in, and returned it.

In essence it did not contain anything KSF don't have already, and I saw nothing untoward in it.


Client Data etc

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 18:07

Thanks German Mike - I will return mine also.
To Desperata - This is not the early payment scheme form. That form we received and have decided not to reply.


Client Data & Payment Details

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:12

I for one have had no correspondence from KSF since they went belly up in October. If I was unable to access Sky News or the internet, I would be blissfully unaware of any problems with KSFIOM. Is it remotely possible that there are dozens of small investors out there in the same boat? How do I obtain the forms mentioned by Merlin? Would a phone call to KSF in the IOM do the trick? Are we being advised by the team to accept the GPB1000 or are we running some risk as to the future payout if ever from the DCS?


Client data etc

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:46

Suggest you contact KSFIOM either via the web site http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/?pageid=3985, or via email branch(?)kaupthing [dot] com (mailto:branch(?)kaupthing [dot] com), or by telephone : +44 (0)1624 699222


re clent data

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 20:12

tricky dicky.I have so far have not received a statement of account from ksfiom.I e- mailed them three days ago
no resonse,not even an automated reply are they not in the office everyday? I think we should be told.its now thee
months since bank ceased trading, disgraceful.not one letter in all this time I despair.


re client data

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 20:55

Obviously I am not sure in which part of the world you live, although from your username I suspect I can hear cuckoo clocks, and smell choclolate - I could be wrong.

I have not reason to believe they are not there, every time I have phoned, ((0044) 01624 699222), they have answered. I must state that I have never emailled them on branch(?)kaupthing [dot] com so I cannot answer your query on that.

I can only suggest you ring them on Monday


merlin

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:55

everyboby should have received these from the bank to confirm your details quickly followed by Treasury early payment scheme asking for exact same information for your £1,000 claim


Data & Payment Details

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 16:52

Yes I have recd the forms and am in the process of filling them in, but I am awaiting the details of a new account I hope to open, otherwise it will be sent back to my UK bank (which I have had since I was 16, so they cant close it down, now I live abroad


Please take a look at the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 14:23

Please take a look at the scheme itself, as set out in:

COMPENSATION OF DEPOSITORS REGULATIONS 2008
Statutory Document No. 826/08

and

COMPENSATION OF DEPOSITORS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2008
Statutory Document No. 844/08

The links are:

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc/PressReleases/compensationofdepositorsreg...
(original regulations)

and

http://www.law-man.com/library/news-19.pdf
(amendments)

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc/PressReleases/compensationofdepositorsreg...
(incorporating amendments)

The regulations are not drafted that badly and, I think they are fairly clear as to how the legislators intended the DCS to work.

Please then contrast your understanding of these documents with the statments made in the committee's exposition particularly as to purpose of the scheme and expectations in terms of compensation and the time required to pay.


answer

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 14:23

I have read all those documents, my question to you was to ask for YOUR detailed explanation, especially in light of your legal background


answer

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 14:26

It would take a considerable time for me to write it out in the necessary detail, especially as you appear to want everything reduced to lay terms. Is it really necessary, because if so you will have to wait until I have enough time?


answer

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 14:33

Laymans terms to myself and probably 95% of the other members of this site would be useful as we are not of the legal profession, and would therefore make it so much easier for us all to comprehend. Or perhaps a brief synopsis of the errors in each paragraph would be a good start as to why the committee's understanding is wrong. I'm not expecting a 100 page dossier on this.


Laymans terms aren't

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 14:49

Laymans terms aren't necessary - just a brief precis is sufficient, in ENGLISH english, not 'Murken english as the legal terms are far removed from each other.

All this bearing in mind that the whole sorry document can be summarized in about 10 lines.

I for one certainly wouldn't want to see elgee being put to any inconvenience - there are electrons and either errant particles that certainly need his attentions first, but knowing him the way we do, he is bound to already have this prepared.


reply to comment

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 14:41

I am not "of the legal profession" either, and I have said several times that I am not a lawyer. I said that I have been formally trained in law, having spent a year attending a postgraduate course for training solicitors and barristers (CPE), but I am not qualified to practice law nor do I.

I will try to do as you ask, although I think we both know based upon your previous postings that you will reject everything that I say in any event, so the exercise is not really for the purpose that you state.


Reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 15:44

I understand you are not a lawyer from your previous posts, but do have experience of the legal system.
The purpose of my comments are that the committee have provided their understanding of the DCS, you commented that you didn't think this was right, however you didn't say why. I have read I think most of the documents relating to the DCS, and would like to know, where in the update produced by the committe you believe there are fundamental errors in their logic. I am sure there are other members who could then re read the documents in light of both sets of comments ie from you and the committees update and make up their own minds in a perhaps more enlightened way.

The DCS document as far as I can see is the only model or reference we can work to or from as it is the scheme that will/would be implemented by the IOM in case of a default. It is a starting point to refer all/any other schemes to. So in that it is important for all members to have as good an understanding of it (good or bad) as possible - this is my purpose in this excerise


reply - elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 15:53

Okay. I had forgotten that you were on the committee.
But I need some time to write it all out.


reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 15:57

For everyones information I am NOT on the committee in any way shape or form


"Legal Training" ? well he

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 14:12

"Legal Training" ? well he certainly has plenty of experience of litigation - I'll say that.

It's not English legal terminology, it's 'Merkin - that's why no bugger understands it.

Bound to get banned for this one.


Bound to get banned for this

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 15:13


Bound to get banned for this one.

Is that supposed to be funny? I am not laughing. Mainwaring, if you would like your account here to be terminated, just send me a message to that effect - all part of the service. There's no need for you to continue to self-harm your own reputation at the expense of others.

All the evidence indicates that it is you who have the hidden agenda here. We are all very fed up of reading this kind of crap, and I'm fed up of having to deal with it. Don't you have anything better to do?


Funny, I'll tell you what is

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 17:04

Funny, I'll tell you what is funny, that you know we are being given the run around, yet you still tolerate it. At least I only self harm my own reputation - I am not trying to harm the chances of us getting a half decent result out of this shambles - know what I mean Harry?

Actually, if beating down anyone who diminishes my chances of seeing 200K plus back, then no, I don't have anything better to do. You want to get stroppy, then I suggest you direct that stroppiness elsewhere, but I reckon that you and the core team are frightened to death of being subject to legal action.

My hidden agenda? bugger me, if I was to post a link to an article in Wiki, you would delete it- yet it is honest and truthful, so why? Who has made the snide little suggestion to you? let me guess.

My agenda, is quite simple - I want as much money back as possible, and all I see are one and a half people continually trying to hinder that.

You want to ban me for making sure I don't get back-scuttled from a different direction, then that is your choice - I shan't be sending some message behind the scenes, what I have to say, I have said here.


Thats the problem you say too

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 18:00

Thats the problem you say too much and I don't see hats good it has done anyone, especially you or the cause of this group, except to stir. For that reason I have avoided this site for a month, I have not missed much and slept better for it. I come back to get some updates from some hardworking contributors and from Diver but .... also find this some stiring happening again and again, in almost every active popular topic, which in most cases can be traced back you none other than...."Captain Mainwaring" Please can you give it a break!


Suggest you read what has

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 18:14

Suggest you read what has being going on - with the core team being undermined by a couple of protestors.

There was a post made by one, where Diver was accused of either not existing, or taking a back hander for promoting the IoM scheme - that post has gone now.

Was it me doing that? no it bloody wasn't.

You have a read, then you can make your apologies.


Thanks Diver. Great work. So

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 13:07

Thanks Diver. Great work.

So that 150m in the scheme would be payed out by october 9, as long as other factors remain constant, and the remaining liabilities could take much longer?

It appears the favoured by larger investors is to avoid going down the DCS route. Are there any time estimates of how long a liquidation could take?

Are you suggesting they should avoid triggering the DCS?

If investors are not compensated through liquidation as much as they could retrieve through the DCS, this would be unfair no?


One Comment

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 08/01/2009 - 13:35

I'll just make one posting about this as any more just appears to give oxygen to the naysayers.

This is just our understanding of the DCS, we are still waiting for official confirmation.

Whatever route depositors choose to go down will be the one that maximises returns for ALL without discriminating against anyone. I cannot envisage a situation where depositors agree to a SoA that doesn't pay out as much as the DCS...that would simply be unacceptable and foolish.

We are curretly also waiting for worked examples of both the DCS and various SoAs from the IoM treasury that will give us an indication of timings of payments and how long the various processes may take as well as very rough estimates of potential recoveries. We are working with a number of unknowns here (realisable value of the loan book and the recoverable amount from KSFUK to name but two) so accurate predictions will be hard...we will endeavour to provide as much clear information as possible when we get it.

Quite simply we hope to have a situation where we can say to depositors 'this is what would happen via the DCS and this is how long it would take' and 'This is what would happen via the SoA (or various SoAs) and this is how long it (or they) would take'.


DCS etc.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 09/01/2009 - 11:05

It is very complicated I know but I would like to know when and how much of my <50k I will get back so I can plan the rest of my life and live out my retirement--the blogs and comments are extensive and interesting, BUT Iwould like to have some factual information as opposed to views and speculation--when do you think this will be available Driver

Thanks for your continued dilligence

Bob Windley--no alias