Time to pressure the Bond Insurers

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 17/12/2009 - 08:59

With the increasing likelihood that the final recovery is going to be circa 90%,or more, which is certainly more than I anticipated this time last year. I have written to my Insurers (NU-Aviva) asking them to reinstate the maximum fund value now and deal with the sweep up on interest etc once the claim is finalised. My argument is simply that such a "loan" is far easier for a major corporation like them than it is for my wife and I.

I have a genuine fell that they are looking for an excuse to cooperate rather than the opposite but between us, we have to find a way out for them?

Clearly the more of us who use this argument the more chance of the pressure paying off?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

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

Hi Grapow - re Bond Insurers

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 17/12/2009 - 19:32

Hello there,

Being a bond holder twice over (I know very sad), as I have stated on many prevoius occasions I also think the Life Insurance Companies have an important part to play - from continuing with their many charges on these Bonds to making up the difference along with the IOM Government that we will receive from the Liquidators and the missing 5-10%.

I have and will continue to do my best to post re what we might get back from the Liquidation and have said recently that it might go as high as 92.11% excluding Parental Guarantee, legal cases etc and I also thought before the latest info from the JLs & COI that we would get more than 60% from KSFUK although I refuse to use the 75% high that KSFUK mentioned. And I am still working through a list of questions that I will post to Glen 07 for forwarding to members of the DST & PPD COI committee members in order that I can with confidence update my last Table No. 6 to show my latest thoughts.. And I will also forward them direct to the JLs.

The important part for me is that the gap could be at highest 10% and as low as 5% or even less. I said a long time ago - way back in Feb 2009 that at that time the gap appeared to perhaps be around £150m based on know facts and my guestimations. This has now come down to around £90m, might be less once we get the missing facts. So is it too hard to expect the IOMG and the Life Companies to put their hands in their pockets and put in around £90m in total to the liquidation and then if and when we get above the 100% that the Liquidators are using, they can then get back the excess until they are repaid. Then if we are lucky enough we could as you say then look at the missing interest etc.

I am not looking for the Life Companies to re-imburse Bondholders only, but to put in an agreed amount along with IOMG to help all who are unsecured creditors in this scenario. So that we all come out with the JLs agreed 100%.

Hope you and others agree Grapow, so if you right in your assumptions we should be pushing our 4 reps hard to speak with the Skandia and AXA reps on the Committee to speak up with their own companies, the other life companies and that the Life Companies should push the IOMG into doing this to help all of us and all of them, so that even at this atage they can save some face and perhaps the IOM's Financial Business Sector.

Who amongst us has direct contact to our 4 reps? If you agree what I have written in reply to Grapow please pass it on or your own thoughts,

Many thanks,

Gordon 45


>Gordan45

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 17/12/2009 - 22:06

I cannot disagree with a word you write Gordan, I do implore all of us to put appropriate pressure on these companies. Who knows, even a call to their conscience at Xmas time................or is that wishful thinking!


I have tried something similar

  • investor01
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 17/12/2009 - 12:40

Hi Grapow

I wrote to my bond company and suggested that they do something similar a few months back on the basis that sorting out my situation would be a relatively small exercise and gain them positive publicity at the same time. I received a reply from the MD saying that they could not do it as it would set a precedent; obviously I didn't expect them to do anything. Clearly from a reputational point of view it would have made sense for them to do something like this but I am not aware of any specific carrot or stick out there to make them respond now.

Have you had any specific correspondence that suggests they are looking to cooperate? I hope you are right but Clerical Medical (who I was mistakenly advised to trust) seem to be completely disinterested.

Rgds.


Insurer Bonds > Investor01

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 17/12/2009 - 17:44

Nothing specific in writing Investor1 but reading between the lines of numerous discussions with senior people in my company (Aviva) I have a view that they wold have reacted differently had they been aware of the likely end result - which now looks better than we all suspected, I feel?

I might be worth us all attacking this on the same lines. Especially in the light of the comments in the Early Day Motion, written anout elsewhere on here?


Agreed...

  • investor01
  • 13/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 17/12/2009 - 19:52

It is certainly an idea and I work on the fact that by writing such letters we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Having worked for a big company myself the thing that will concern them above anything else (other than going bust) is reputation. If we can write and focus just as much on the positive benefits of bridging this small gap then they may listen. I'm realistic, this is a very, very small chance but 14 months on I'm willing to take any small chance I can.

I'll drop Clerical Medical a line and report back if I get anything other than the standard anodyne reply.