SOA Helpline Sponsored by LP???

  • iced
  • 21/04/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 21/04/2009 - 22:06

Manx Radio reports that the LP has provided a helpline on the SoA. Who is paying for this? What advice is being given (we hear the LP likes the SoA)? In his role, supporting the 'best interests of ALL depositors' - hasn't Mr. Simpson entered some very questionable territory and exposed himself to charges of serious conflict of interest?

"Helplines are now available providing information on the Manx government's Scheme of Arrangement for depositors in the collapsed bank Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander.

You can contact provisional liquidator PricewaterhouseCoopers by phoning 01624 699 340 between 9am and 5pm from Monday to Friday. Alternatively, you can fax 01624 699 200.

The government estimates its scheme would fully refund more than 70% of depositors within two years."

4.357145
Your rating: None Average: 4.4 (14 votes)

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

Record the calls?

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/04/2009 - 08:18

If you use Skype to call, it's very easy to record the conversation (needs add on software, available for Mac and Windows.) Might be interesting?


I'm waiting for the "roadshow"

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 16:19

Have booked my spot next to the A6 in Spain and waiting for it to pass.

(Given the diverse locations of depositors, how is the itinerary being decided?)


Are you serious, Lancarafather?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 15:56

There's no way KSFIoM depositors should be expected to pay for this!

The cost of this 'Blair-ite" roadshow should fairly and squarely be the responsibility of the IoM and it's mandarins!

It's thinking like this that forced me to leave the UK and close all my bank accounts in the first place!

And why don't we get to vote on the itinerary?

Obviously this is what Alix and partners have been planning all along. They would do ANYTHING to expose themselves whilst on a roadshow!!!

PS - isn't it 'strange' you claim to be living in Spain? I note you refer to the 'A6". This is an "A road'! Other members of this forum have told me secretly that they can swear to have seen you crony-ing around Douglas High Street since April, and given what you have written, I for one tend to believe them!


LP website 17 Apr 09

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 16:38

"A number of roadshows will also be held in the time up to the Scheme Creditor meetings on 19 May 2009, details of which will be available on the website"

The A6 f.y.i.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii101/valdriz13/2009-02-16-00014.jpg

P.S. Never been to IOM


Stop agitating over matters with no logical hypothesis.

  • Pedro Verdad
  • 02/04/09 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/04/2009 - 15:39

Gentlemen, gentleman pleases!
Stop agitating over matters with no logical hypothesis.

It is naive to place reliance in formulas, strategies and promises made by these guys - they are gangsters who couldn’t care less about you or your money and will always do whatever suits them, not you.

The group’s strength is in numbers. Adapt strategy to exploit supremacy in a common purpose and quarantine those aligned with the enemy.

'Up, Guards and at ‘em' – Duke of Wellington at the battle of Waterloo


"A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights"

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 19:19
  • Napoleon Boneparte

Chris Watson

  • Done like a Kipper
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/04/2009 - 23:59

Sadly it seems my comments regarding your behaviour the other day were water off a duck's back. If you've nothing of value to input why say anything?

Still trolling well I see!!


Sorry for breathing

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/04/2009 - 01:18

What exactly have I done to offend you?

Sadly, for you, your admonishments have gone unheeded (when were they administered)?


Will no one save us

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/04/2009 - 00:23

Will no one save us from this turbulent troll?

These are serious matters Chris if you need to post misleading and trivial posts try Facebook or if you are too old Sagazone may suit you.


Turbulent troll?

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/04/2009 - 01:03

I've spent hours "'hurding cats". Now I have to contend with age-ism?


@CW: I putting in a request that you be banned.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/04/2009 - 01:56

You're flaming.

It's a against the rules of the site.

There are a litany of complaints about your behaviour and frankly you don't care who you have a go at.
This site isn't for here for your enjoyment, distraction, or mindless gratification.
It is here for a serious purpose.

Whilst temporary transgressions are forgiven, a continuous stream on inane baiting remarks cannot be seen as being in our interests.

Others have been banned.

I don't know whether there will be any action, but I consider I'm making a formal request.


@CW: I putting in a request that you be banned.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 12:46

What is this really about?

The IoMG are in grave difficulty with their SoA. It contains virtually no tangible benefits for any depositors. Additionally, it contains real disbenefits and fatal legal traps for all depositors. If the vote goes against it in any class, it will be dead.

The sub-50k depositors fall into the largest class, class 2. There is a real risk that the IOMG will lose in either class 2 or class 3 or both. Only the IOMG and the PL know how many depositors there are, and and their respective "values", in each class. DAG does not know. At the moment, the war is being fought in class 2, perhaps because the IOMG thinks that is where its greatest weakness lies, or because it thinks it has no hope of persuading class 3 depositors that the scheme could benefit them, or because it has already ensured support from the life cos in class 3, or because it is holding on to the hope that it will be able to move the goalposts in some way at the last minute. While I know there are some class 2 depositors on here with genuine reservations about DAG's rejection of the SoA, and they are easily discernible because they are arguing rationally, I cannot help feeling that the vociferous and irrational objections to DAG's position that have appeared in the last week or so from people who have never before had (anything much) to say on this forum are a little suspicious.

My proposed interim answer is this. Whether or not you agree with the DAG strategy, it has so far produced a real change in the proposed class structure for voting and revisions of the proposed scheme which are doubtless in favour of ALL depositors. It may well produce a still better scheme nearer to the vote, which will be of benefit to ALL depositors. Everything that has been proposed by DAG by way of amendments contains benefits for all classes of depositors and there has never been any suggestion by DAG of proposing any trade-off of class 2 benefits for class 3, or indeed vice-versa. DAG's push for movement in the 60p threshold, which has already caused a move from 60p to 70p (something that IoMT recently told DAG was absolutely non-negotiable), will assist both classes of depositors. I am confident that if there were a DAG2, which represented only class 2 depositors, their lawyers would be advising renegotiation of the scheme, failing which it should be rejected, for exactly the same reasons as DAG's present lawyers are doing so. If there is no further movement by the IoMT in respect of the threshold or in respect of the other terms to which DAG objects, it will very likely follow that the scheme is rejected by one or more classes, but that would only be because it really is one that does not deserve to be accepted by anyone.

What was it they said about Richard Nixon - "would you buy a used car from this man?" Well, would you buy double glazing from the IoM government? Look at the contract they are offering - it says: the Treasury will control everything; only tyeh Treasury will see the real figures, not you the depositors; we the Treasury will be able to renege on our obligations at any time without penalty; you the depositors will not be able to claim any damages from the Treasury, the operators of the scheme or anyone else concerned in it in the event that it does not work; we the Treasury can make changes whenever we want; we the Treasury will decide on the payouts and who is eligible; we the Treasury will take away all the rights you the depositors would have under a liquidation, especially the right to exercise control what happens and to be informed of all the facts. I could go on, but why do I need to?


@elgee: what's this about?

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 08:24

With respect elgee, I would venture that the increase in the 60p threshold to the proposed 70p threshold has everything to do with the UK Administrators advising that dividends should exceed 50p/£ from KSF UK and nothing to do with any 'pressure' exerted by the DAG. We have pushed the IoMT for such an increase since February without success, but within 24 hours of the UK news, the IoMT upped the limit.

On the same subject I think it should be made absolutely clear, that the IoMT does NOT claw back 100% of it's loan at that new 70p/£. This issue is explicitly addressed in the transcript of the Court Hearing of 9 Apr 09 and further addressed by the Deemster in his judgment. I have been reproved for posting this fact before the transcript became available and was told that the Treasury would take 100% back at the 'old' 60p/£ threshold, but it transpires that this erroneous interpretation was actually corrected in Court on the day in front of those representing the DAG so I am at a loss as to how this misinformation got presented to this forum. This is a significant observation, and means that up to ~£92M could be left in the 'pot' as it were. If returns were to reach say, 80% then IoMT would get 80% of their loan back, not all of it.

I should pass comment on the £92M required to underwrite the Top-Up funding as it seems perfectly clear to me after reading the Court transcript that the Treasury will provide as much money as required to fulfill the compensation requirement from £20K up to a maximum of £50K per individual - limited to the amount of their account - for as many depositors that are affected irrespective of the size or account base of the failed bank(s). The maximum level of funding offered by the Treasury to cover this eventuality is £150M. Estimates put the sum of money required to achieve this aim for KSFIoM at between £70M and £92M. My own (conservative - erring on the large side) calculations produced a sum of a less than £92.5M so I tend to agree with the official estimate. I am afraid that our Mr Chambers appears to have wrong-footed his own interpretation - no matter how eloquently he presented the data - it was not based on sound, or up to date, information. To his credit though, he did achieve three classes of voter.

Now I know you will be thinking that these are all 'quantitative' matters and that is true; as I said before, I do think it important to get the objective facts and details right before arguing subjective issues - I believe you are much better equipped in the latter than I am. Pragmatically, I would just point out that our largest asset was in the UK under the control of people over whom we had no say; we weren't even on the creditors committee despite the size of our asset. These UK people have determined that we should receive little better than 50p/£ and we are in no position to barter for better (other than by pressing for a political solution). It seems that Mr D Whelan received £60M back, yet 11,400 IoM savers will be obliged to share the first tranche of our return amounting to just £36.9M...

The IoM Treasury has agreed to fund the SoA to the tune of up to ~£92M specifically to provide a quicker payout for 'smaller' depositors (you have already been compensated under EPS I believe). Now, as it is putting up this huge sum of money, perhaps the Treasury believes it quite proper in representing the interests of IoM taxpayers to have appropriate control in this money's distribution? I also believe that the figures you refer to can be requested in writing from the IoMT, and would seriously question whether the Treasury really would renege on its obligations under the deal - well, that is a subjective assessment and I am trying to present an objective evaluation of facts. If the Scheme does not work then... the bank gets liquidated anyway. The SoA is only a variation on the DCS with extra money thrown in the pot and taken out again further down the line. The biggest change in our fortunes has come from the Administrators of KSF UK - and we should hope for more of our money back from this source - or UK compensation in kind.

Again, I am not pressing for or against the Scheme, but I am trying to get more of the truth and facts out from recognised documented evidence and looking at the situation from the head and not from the heart.
Ice


@elgee: what's this about?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 10:53

Icecrusher: Perjaps you are not aware, but as soon as the E&Y figures for likely recovery from KSFUK were published a week or so ago, DAG's solicitors e-mailed the IoMT/PL solicitors and demanded that the Scheme threshold be moved upwards from 60p. I think that e-mail has been circulated - if not I will ask that it is. I do not think that the Scheme threshold would have been moved at IoMT's own instigation.

Can I address the other matters when I have more time, please?


And perhaps you're not aware

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 13:36

And perhaps you're not aware that I wrote to IoM about the SoA level of recovery about a week before the E&Y figures were released wanting the threshold raised. So if you think any of us had an influence on it you're dreaming! It was moved because the E&Y figures were better than had been thought, nothing more and nothing less.


And perhaps you're not aware

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 13:45

Expat: I am perfectly willing to concede that your letter to "IoM" treasury had no influence.


And perhaps you're not aware

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 13:43

Expat: They were not "better than had been thought". They were exactly as had been thought (the figure of 50p reached me from IoM about 2 months ago) and they were exactly as had been known by IoMT.


@elgee: what's this about reply

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 11:17

I was not privy to that email elgee, otherwise I would have made mention of it - and I am pleased to hear that this action was taken - nonetheless, it would not have happened without the UK money becoming available either. Seems the IoMT instigated its own original 60p limit without assistance (more's the pity!)


@elgee: what's this about reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 12:04

Ice: Here is a copy of the text of the e-mail dated 22 April 2009 from DAG solicitors to Treasury and LP's solicitors (and others):

Dear Sirs

Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Ltd

Emails of 14 and 17 April

We refer to our emails of 14 and 17 April. We have not had a response. We repeat the points made therein. In the absence of a satisfactory response we are instructed to seek appropriate redress from the Court.

We note that the announcement on the website has been slightly amended. It remains however inaccurate. It says at one point;
“If the Scheme is given approval by the creditors, the Scheme will be sanctioned by the Courts on 27 May 2009 and at that point become effective. This will be the effective date of the Scheme.”

That is simply not accurate. The Scheme may be sanctioned on 27 May. That is dependent upon what representations are made at the sanction hearing. Further 27 May is not the effective date of the Scheme. The Scheme becomes effective on the later of either the sanction hearing or of effective approval by the Courts in London.

As we set out below it is absolutely vital in the circulation of a scheme of arrangement that creditors have accurate information so that they can decide the issues based on that information.

Further we repeat that it was accepted by your counsel that the graphs presented to the Court at the last hearing were inaccurate. Fresh graphs were going to be produced showing the correct position. In addition, further graphs to reflect the new classes of depositors are required. These were to be provided to us. Can you please forward them by return.

Dividend from Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Limited (in Administration)

We now have the progress report from the Administrator of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Limited (in Administration) for the six month period from 8 October 2008 to 7 April 2009. This reports at page 17 that the current intention of the Administrator is to pay a first distribution in June/July 2009 of 10p in the £. The Administrator reports further that it is his intention to pay further distributions at regular intervals thereafter. He estimates that “on the basis of current forecast recoveries from the banking book, prudent estimates at realisations from other assets, and based on the maximum estimates as unsecured claims, and current market conditions not deteriorating, the administrators currently estimate that total distribution should be a minimum of 50p in the £.”

It is right as the Administrator says that this is an estimate at this stage. It is clear however that the Administrator is taking a conservative view in reporting that the payment will be a minimum of 50p in the £. This suggests strongly that it will be in excess of this figure. Further the payment of the first dividend into KSF (IoM) alters the cash flow presumptions for payments either under the Scheme or a liquidation.

This announcement has a significant impact on the presentation to the Court in relation to the Scheme of Arrangement. The transcript of the last hearing records that there was a debate, between Counsel on behalf of the depositors and Counsel on behalf of the Treasury and the Bank, as to the likely return of monies to depositors within the Scheme of Arrangement or liquidation. In particular Mr Hacker on behalf of the Treasury and the Bank made it clear that if the distribution to creditors of the Bank were less than 60p there were advantages to creditors through the Scheme. This formed the basis of his presentation. Mr Chambers said to the Court, without demur, that if dividend to creditors of the bank were to be in excess of 60p there were positive disadvantages to the Scheme of Arrangement to creditors and certainly those falling into the third class of creditors, being those with deposits in excess of £50,000. Mr Hacker questioned what evidence existed that there would be a dividend in excess of 60p.

It is now clear that based on Mr Simpson’s submissions and indeed the presentations made to the Action Group by Mr Spellman and AlixPartners together with the most recent announcement from the Administrator of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in Administration) that the dividend will exceed 60p in the £. Accordingly the position has altered significantly since the hearing and it is now clear that the foundations of the presentation of Mr Hacker to the Deemster have no continuing application.

In our submission this is a matter that should be referred back to the Court immediately since the position has changed so significantly.
In the absence of reference back then it is clear that reference must be made in the Scheme documentation and the Explanatory to the Administrator’s announcement and its effect on the Scheme of Arrangement and the Explanatory Memorandum in what is now circulated to creditors.

Asset value

There have been various presentations over time as to the book value of assets held within the KSF IoM. This ranges from the presentation made to the Depositors' Action Group indicating assets of £993 million to Mr Simpson’s early evidence of assets amounting to £906 million to the figure included in the draft Explanatory Memorandum at appendix 1 of £720 million. We must say we do not understand that last figure and it does not equate with either the figures appearing above it in that appendix or indeed the general presentation as to the asset position. We ask that this figure be explained or amended. Depositors have repeatedly requested that the value of the company's assets be properly disclosed. As stated above, this may well affect the way in which they vote. To the extent that the company refuses to provide this information, the scheme will be open to challenge whether of not it is approved.

Revision of Scheme

When discussions took place both at the Court and previously on the proposals by which the Isle of Man Treasury is entitled to recover its debt when other creditors have received 60p in the £, there was no indication of the likely level of distribution from the Administrator of the UK company. Now that we have that information from the Administrator, the 60p limit appears wholly out of kilter with the ultimate dividend. In our belief if the Scheme of Arrangement is to go ahead (we have made our position clear on that) this figure should be revised substantially. Our clients are prepared to discuss this issue with representatives from the Treasury and the Bank at your convenience. We would hope that such discussions will avoid any disputes in relation to the creditors meeting and the subsequent sanction hearing. In the absence of agreement the Group remains opposed to the Scheme as currently structured and will recommend that its members oppose it at the meeting.

Yours faithfully
David Greene
Partner
For Edwin Coe LLP


@elgee email

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 13:50

Thanks for this copy elgee, some very interesting points raised. I see that the matter of the increase was indeed directed at IoMT, but this knowledge was known before now only by a few in-house it seems. I do think reference to Mr Hacker's presentation having no foundation is a little OTT; with the threshold increased to 70p/£ the concept remains the same, just the limit has changed, so the 'foundation' has moved, but not collapsed!
Ice


@elgee email

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 13:58

Ice: isn't it somewhat academic, because we know that in both cases (the old 60p and the new 70p) the threshold has been set deliberately below the expected recovery, so Hacker's argument reads as follows: "the Scheme is only advantageous if the recovery falls below the threshold", and we know that the IoMT has set the threshold so that that is not going to happen. It follows that the Scheme will not be advantageous.


@elgee email reply

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 16:15

If dividends remain above 70%, that will be an advantage for everyone - whether SoA or liquidation+DCS- but if the dividends were to fall below 70% (and never ever say never) then the ~£92M loaned to the Scheme becomes a permanent donation. That wouldn't neccessarily get us back to the 70p/£ level, but it would stop the returns from being £90 odd million less than they would otherwise be. This amounts to about 25% of the London asset, so not to be sneered at. (I think the EPS payments would already be accounted for, but I need to do sums.)

If this were to happen in the liquidation+DCS scenario then we would be £90M adrift if my understanding is correct. What we have here is the IoMT wagering that everything is going to come right over the next 5 years or so to provide better than 70%: that a £400M loan book will be run down with very little bad debt; that the CD's will come good; that the shares will hold up; that the economy at large will not falter further than it has; and that the London returns will turn out a few years away from now as good as the current prediction. Even though my savings amount to a few hundred thousand and not 90 million quid, that is a bet that I personally would not take.

I have no idea whether the IoM set this threshold to avoid 'donating' the loan, but without incontravertible proof, then supposition is all we have - unless you have it in writing? Given the imponderable variables involved, I think it's a brave man who can state categorically that the scheme "...will not be advantageous", because I dont know whether it will or not, and I don't really think anyone else can truly 'know' either.

We do need to pursue the difference, see my other comment on this!
Ice


@ Icecrusher - reply

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 19:43

If dividends remain above 70% then both schemes pay out the same amount as a total.
Should dividends fail to reach 70p/£ then the funding committed to the SOA (inc EPS) remains in the pot and is not recovered by the treasury.
This figure was approx £150 million but will be reduced significantly because of increased dividends from the liquidator against the original projection (30p over first 3 dividends) unless they increase the frequency and size of the assured payments
The fact this money may be left would increase the overall % return to depositors should returns fall below 70p/£

Under DCS the funding from the Treasury is £92 million to cover the liability for over £20,000.
The bank contribute the remainder with dividends from the liquidator and some treasury loans.
They do not recover all this funding as you assume, but they do begin to recover it before the 70p/£ threshold is reached.
They begin to recover the funding when your payout inc DCS support in in excess of the pari passu distribution to non claiming creditors once all DCS claims have been settled.
These dividends you can't take because you are ahead of the pack so the DCS recovers them.

This SOA works the same so long as 70p/£ is reached and they play catch up and take all the dividends they failed to take earlier at this point.
From this point forward both schemes recover funding the same taking all dividends declared for pretected creditors up to 100% where they would recover all the funding committed under either scheme.


Whats the General Scheme Creditors Doc?

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 20:00

Podather, In the Forms of Proxy and Voting on the KSFIOM web site, do you know what the General Creditors Document is? There are 3 types of voting forms and this is the third one. Who is this for?


@elgee email reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 16:32

I think there is something wrong with your reasoning here. I do not think we would be £90m adrift under liquidation/DCS if the overall recovery did not reach the threshold, but I prefer to defer to podather on these quantitiative comparison issues.


@elgee email reply

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 16:58

Sure, I'm just taking the info from the transcript. If the IoMT puts in up to £92M to fund the early payout sums for lower value depositors, and then does not take it back below 70%, then there must be up to £92M left in the pot surely? They reckoned £70M - £92M in funds were required and I calculated just under £92.5M. Elgee, I'm just seeking the truth believe me, I have no axe to grind with anyone.


@elgee email reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 17:04

I agree there would be some £90m from IOMT left in the pot under the circumstances that you set out, but think that there would be a similar amount left in the pot under DCS/liquidation. Can podather expand please?


@elgee reply 20:21

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 17:20

DCS liquidation+DCS pays out pari passu I believe, there is no advance guaranteed time/payment schedule, so there is no 'advance' to the pot, so there is nothing to be returned and nothing to be left in either (as I see it).
Ice


@elgee reply 20:21

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 18:43

Ice: That is not correct. Under the DCS, the IOMT between them pay out £50k each to all depositors (or less if they have less on deposit) out of a combination of IOMT funds, funds from the contributing banks, less any sum those depositors have recovered (up to that point in time) from liquidation (and now from EPSs). As I recall, the DCS will cost the IOMT and banks around £210, but the actual cost depends on the amount recovered in the liquidation during the time that the DCS is making depsitors up to their £50k. Once the DCS has paid out, as I recall, the IOMT and the banks start to recover pari passu in the shoes of the paid-out depositors. I hope podather will confirm.


OK, I agree with that, but I

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 19:27

OK, I agree with that, but I was alluding to the time/payments schedule and there is nothing left in pot.


@elgee: what's this about reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 11:41

Ice: It would not have happened, you are right. But bear in mind that the IoMT almost certainly knew what the expected return would be from KSFUK several months before it became public knowledge, so if I am right then the original scheme's 60p threshold was fixed in the light of that knowledge and, from the IoMT perspective, there has been no extraneous change.


@elgee: what's this about reply(2)

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 12:04

Thanks elgee, yes they originally anticipated 65% with a 'claw back' at 60%, so they must envisage a 75% minimum return now in light of the London news. The main thing for us is that the numbers are getting bigger... We now need them to make those payments as quickly as possible.
Ice


put the heat on ice...

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 14:30

come on lets get this higher return in writing, than we party...


IOM must envisage a 75% minimum return

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 13:19

IceCrusher, the minimum return of which you speak is supported in a publication today by Sarah Griffiths on the ifaonline.co.uk website. I pulled the following from that site-

"The Isle of Man Government expected a lower figure and has consequently moved its estimated minimum recovery rate for the local bank from 65% to about 75%."

For additional information go to this link-
http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=ifa2006_articleimpo...


IOM must envisage a 75% minimum return

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 13:51

undone: I think that is indeed correct. The IoMT wants the SoA threshold to be kept at least 5% below the likely overall recovery so as to ensure that it gets most of its money back again. If the threshold is kept at 70% and the likely recovery is 75%, then it will get back 75% of its money. At that level, some of our depositors will lose hundreds of thousands of pounds.


IoM 75%

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 14:47

If we could just persuade the IoMG that the increase to 75% would allow them to 'donate' what they would have otherwise 'lost' at the 60p level we would be getting closer. I am working on the sums for that...


How come Sarah Griffiths

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 17:37

who is a reporter knows about the promise of 75% return before we do ? Or is this another PR job to get us to swallow their SOA ? It seems IOMG are going to any length to stop liquidation, so I suggest we all agree to go for their SOA on the promise we get 100% return. I'm sure they will go for it.


@elgee: Few people follow the detail successfully.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 27/04/2009 - 05:34

My request for a ban had the intended purpose of making the debate tighter, not closing down discordant voices.

When people flame off without need the debate is distracted.

I take your point completely that the "SoA is in difficulty". My work/attempts have, whilst possibly being seen as crude, have simply been to try and focus in on this reality and direct people to the detailed analysis.

"Our work" if I may put thus, is to concentrate us on the arguments (cf: Brabander's criticism of my posting). Nothing else.

My hope, is that for all the apparent discord, that slowly and surely our (the depositors) view is that the IoMG's solution is a cynical manipulation of our hopes.


I know that one of issues

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 13:03

I know that one of issues that keeps croping up with the SoA is that the IOM starts reclaiming what it pays out at the 60p threshold. I thought that under the alternative DCS the IOM starts reclaiming at the first distribution from liquidation?


i Know that one of the issues - reply

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 17:36

The 60p (or maybe 70P) in the pound issue works like this:

This example is a £100,000 depositor.

The SOA and DCS pays you out your £50,000 compensation
This is made up of dividends form the liquidator and top up funding from either scheme.
likely to be 40p dividends and 10p of funding with the higher UK returns so we will use that for this explanation.

You as a depositor are now at 50p/£ whereas high value depositors will only be at 40p/£ because they dont have the additional 10p/£ of funding from either scheme.
The liquidator annouches a further 10p/£ dividend, this depositor can't have it because he is already at 50p/£ (though those at 40p/£ get it)
Under the DCS this 10p dividend would be paid back to the DCS to reimburse it the funding it provided in elevating the depositor above the pari passu distribution.
Under the SOA they would not take the funding back at this point.
This would remain in the pot to be paid out to the depositors who did not claim compensation or who are not eligible (bondholders)
This is the accelerated payments the SOA offers between the 30/40P and the 60/70p mark
and this is the benefit that appeals to the insurance companies.
The dividends declared at this stage would be larger because the funding had remained in the scheme and enlarged the pot.

The downside to it is that as soon as your recoveries reach 60p/£ returns to you stop.
The don't restart until all the money that IOMT left in the pot at the earlier payment stage is then recovered all in one go.
So in effect, they will leave £100 million in the pot to be distributed to all at an earlier stage and then halt payments to all until they recover this £100 million.

They appear to choose 60p as the figures show a confidence recoveries would be sufficient to allow them to defer the take until this point and then get their money out.
The recoveries from the UK, at £185 million minimum mean roughly an extra £20p/£ to all, so they now look likely to move this threshold up by 10p/£.

Should recoveries fail to reach this threshold the funding left in means a greater return to all non fully compensated depositors, should recoveries exceed this figure the return is no better than liquidation + DCS.

This advantage in the size of some of the earlier dividends is only of benefit to depositors who are in class 3 and Insurance companies.
There is no advantage to depositors with £50,000 or less.


@DAG STrategy Team

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/04/2009 - 07:47

Thanks for your informative reply, it is much appreciared.

If I understand correctly and in simple terms, the IOM START recieving their money back much earlier under the DCS than under the SoA. However they are likely to receive MORE of their money back under the SoA than the DCS because of the 60/70p threshold they have implemented.

In relation to this, I thought I read somewhere that someone from the IOM Treasury had stated that once 60/70p threshold had been reached, payments would not stop until the IOM Treasury had caught up; they would continue but IOM would start recieving a distribution at the same rate as everyone else. But I may have just imagined that.

Regarding the last sentence:-

'There is no advantage to depositors with £50,000 or less.'

I am still not sure how you come to this conclusion? Surely there still remains the advantage of a known payment on a known date which, is currently not part of liquidation + DCS. This statement also contradicts your analysis of the DCS v SoA on the public site where you state:-

'This offers a significant advantage for claims in excess of £30,000 because the first DCS payment will be greater than the first assured payment under SOA as well as being distributed at an significantly earlier date.'

and

'All those under £20,000 would be fully paid out from SOA but would still have 24% of their claim under DCS outstanding.'

On a purely personal basis, under the SoA I should receive full repayment in July/August 2009, whilst under liquidation I should receive full payment over a year later in December 2010.


@expatfrance 1

  • podather
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/04/2009 - 12:08

The no advantage to depositors under £50,000 is in relation to the 60p/£ issue and whether this offers and advantage or not if i am reading it correctly and not a comparison between the SOA and the DCS.


@expatfrance 1

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 26/04/2009 - 08:33

I don't know who posts as DAG strategy team but it looks very much like podather or nixi ??

I wish they would focus their attentions on those who CAN help rather than telling "fully-protecteds" whats best for them


@elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 12:53

Everybody seems to be making all this as complicated as possible rather than as simple as possible.

Would not the best way forward be to pay all depositors within say 6 months the balance of their protected deposit and to pay bondholders similarly, leaving just two Classes (the remaining depositors and the remaining bondholders) so that fully protected depositors who have no interest in "fighting the war" (as you put it) are out of the equation and cannot influence the outcome ??

I, as a non-expert depositor, wonder if DAGetc should view IoMT as the people who can solve the debacle rather than as the enemy etc.


why is it so complicated?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 15:17

Those of the most active people in DAG strategy team all read the forum comments and agonise over them.

Why are the issues so complicated? It's a little like the Emperor's complaint to Mozart that his music had too many notes. It is only as complicated as it is, no more and no less. Would you prefer that the DAG treated its members like most governments have for years treated their electorate? Give them something nice and easy to grab hold of and whatever you do don't confuse them with facts, because I know that the DAG has had its share of people who hold that view?


@elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 13:06

I can see no real objection to your proposal, since it amounts to a fast version of the DCS followed by a choice between liquidation or a different scheme for those not fully satisfied by the fast DCS stage. However, it is not on the table, and the IoMT has always said: either take our scheme on offer or go for liquidation+DCS. Do you really think it would be feasible to ask them to design a whole new scheme now, when they have taken 6 months to come up with the present one? Do you think they would agree?

We can only work within the constraints of what is on offer.


@ elgee

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 13:18

Understood, thanks.

But surely the door is never closed ?

Is nobody attempting to negotiate ?

If everybody finds the SoA so imperfect they will find all other routes and offers imperfect too ?

[[ Today's Bargain : 5 years subscription to DAG 'morris-dancing' line for the price of one. Take it ! ]]


@bobby

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 14:27

There are some behind-the-scenes efforts to try to interest the IoMG in other solutions. As far as I know, DAG supports all of them that appear to provide for 100% return or something closer to it.

IoMG has not shown any interest as far as I know in any of them - it perhaps wants to show that it can manage this matter on its own, but I fear that by "manage" it means "limit" and what it is really trying to limit is the adverse fall-out for itself and its members and employees and not the adverse effects on depositors, including its own. I include in that the scandals that might perhaps be uncovered by a liquidation.


Elgee, or anyone: If the current SOA is so 'flawed'

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/04/2009 - 13:16

Do you have any idea/suggestions as to why the Life Companies, are apparently, supporting it?


banning chris watson

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/04/2009 - 11:39

chris watson is spoiling this site. I support the move to ban chris watson.
How can I help you? How do we get this troll out of here?