The Times misrepresenting the facts - ACTION REQUIRED

  • IanAbroad
  • 11/10/08 13/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 20/02/2009 - 13:20

"Savers with Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man (KSFIOM), the collapsed Icelandic bank, came a step closer to receiving their money back today. "
"Around £540 million of the £900 million of assets needed to repay savers are currently under the control of the administrator. "
"The Scheme will be put to the vote of savers within a month"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/savings/article5768266.ece

Please take the time to make a comment.
There seems to be a lot of incorrect press statements today.

4.916665
Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (12 votes)

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

Times online

  • AJM UAE
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 12:48

I also added a comment (yesterday) but it hasn't come up on the website. Maybe because it was over the weekend?


KSF UK bond holders - do they exist???

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 17:20

Folks, thought about this a few weeks ago and then just dropped it as nothing really to do with us, but I find it strange that no Bond Holders from KSF UK have joined / looked in at our group - nor has there been anything in print / news etc,. Did KSF UK have bonds - most banks so I can't see KSF UK being any different or are the UK Bond holders still in blissful ignorance that the 100% bail out was only for retail deposit customers or was it???

As we have noted here much to the dismay of many - Bond holders are classed as investors under the corporate customer banner as via an insurance company etc,.

Now very much tongue in cheek or wishful thinking (bit of both if honest) --- if IoM was to implement a similar 100% scheme just for depositors - wonder how much that would cost.


Times Article

  • maxsweep
  • 15/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 16:38

I have today sent an e-mail to the editor of The Times online, copy to the comments and letters sections of the Times, advising that there are many inaccuracies in the item and putting them right. I have also requested a retraction of the article together with a more balanced article, giving relevant facts. I have provided them with some background info and advised them of the 'human interest' angle. Let's see what happens.


Maxsweep

  • IanAbroad
  • 11/10/08 13/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 18:42

Good thinking! I'm still waiting for my response to be posted. There are only 10 up today, so they are obvioulsy vetting them.


Times

  • Spanishfly
  • 25/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 09:39

I see that we are up to 12 comments yipee


comment to the times

  • Spanishfly
  • 25/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 19:43

My comment has not got there yet either and it was posted many hours ago

Is there censorship


Posted mine Friday afternoon

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 18:53

Posted mine Friday afternoon (still not showing), reading the comments they have allowed including podfather's these don't actually criticise the article for inaccuracies, I know my comments did in addition to stating the actual position, perhaps it's these criticisms they are blocking.


Posted mine Friday afternoon

  • mike-r
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 22:38

Ditton - posted mine too on Friday aftenoon but no sign yet.......can't believe only 10 people have replied.....seems to be very hard filter the Times are applying.


Times Misleading Article

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 11:30

Me too. I commented on the inaccurate comments by Ms Thompson - its not posted.


Times article... could it be?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 12:33

If the loan book is an asset, and it is, and it stands at approx 400M

and there is cash in the coffers of 140M

then there are 540M of assets are under control of the liquidator.

What I'm thinking is that it isn't wilful misinterpretation, these guys were writing from a press release, and they are probably 'financial' journalists, or at least assigned there at the moment.

What is happening is the scheme is actually difficult to understand because it isn't obvious.
It's confusing.

I've had to listen to Spellman's interview numerous times to wrap my head round what he's saying, because it is tortuous and not totally accurate.

I needed to read this forum to see how people are saying 60% is guaranteed.

The problem is the presentation it's confusing people.


Times Artical

  • Spanishfly
  • 25/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 14:12

Its not the numbers I think are misleading .
Ask you self how did an artical get into the times on the very day the Hearing was and makes the statement in the 3rd para.
The court did not approve the scheme ,this has to have been written before the Deemsters judgement ! Also note the word Should

Extract from Times 19th Feb 2009

Savers with Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man (KSFIOM), the collapsed Icelandic bank, came a step closer to receiving their money back today.

Around 10,000 savers with £860 million worth of deposits feared they had lost everything when the bank went into administration on October 9.

But today an Isle of Man court approved a Scheme of Arrangement for the bank, under which all savers should receive back at least 60 per cent of the money they have lost.

The scheme, which still has to be approved by savers, is thought to offer a better outcome for depositors than if the bank had gone into liquidation.


Times Artical

  • Spanishfly
  • 25/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 10:56

I have read it again and again .

It is totally incorect in a number of ways it is Isle of Man PR nothing else

I am making an offical complaint to the Press Complaints Council as it needs to be retracted or at least allow the other side of the story

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html


PCC - Times/Herald IOM Propoganda

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 15:50

Sorry I'm coming late to this thread but would some media savey comment on the value of a PCC complaint and whether it is likely to get more publicity and a retraction or just get The newspapers backs up?

I like the idea does anyone have a bullet point list of inaccuracies and mis-representations that we could all use for individual complaints?


The Times - paper of record ?

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 11:58

Not sure I have the correct technical term, but The Times is archived as a form of historical record.

The printed version, on page 48 (Business) reads as follows:

"Kaupthing ruling
As many as 10,000 depositors with Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander in the Isle of Man came closer to recovering their savings after a court approved a scheme of arrangement to cover the offshore division of the collapsed Icelandic bank. More than half of savers can recover their money within three months."

The judge's ruling did not approve anything. The judge's ruling is available for anyone to read.

IMHO this is a straightforward misrepresentation of facts, and is not something I expect to find in The Times.


Apparenty "The Herald" (Scots

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 10:54

Apparenty "The Herald" (Scots printed paper) came out with a similar story a coupe of days ago, I'm waiting for a copy of the article to be mailed, in this the reporter claims we are garanteed 60% minimum by IoMG, found this online printed the day before the last court hearing (18th Feb) :-
http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.2489908.0.isle_of_man_pois...


The Herald 21 Feb

  • Spanishfly
  • 25/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline

IBut today an Isle of Man court approved a Scheme of Arrangement

  • Spanishfly
  • 25/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 10:42

I have commented on this to the Times

We are no nearer get any money back and to say in your article that we will vote within the month on the Scheme is totally incorrect . It goes back to court on the 9April , then the scheme may become a reality rather than a load of promises .
Then if this scheme is allowed by the court it will be put to the vote this could be at least another month or two .
I think this statement needs to be retracted as it is incorrect and misleading.

They also say in their article

But today an Isle of Man court approved a Scheme of Arrangement for the bank, under which all savers should receive back at least 60 per cent of the money they have lost.

The scheme, which still has to be approved by savers, is thought to offer a better outcome for depositors than if the bank had gone into liquidation.


OK. Who knows about the Press Complaints Council?

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 08:48

Apart from it doesn't work well. It defends it's own.

But we're our complaint will be pretty innocuous for them, I believe, journos pumping out words fed by the press release of IoMG. We're looking at lack of due diligence. And they would expect a government press release to be kosher.

Who can track down the press releases?


I complained to the PCC last

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 09:01

I complained to the PCC last year when the Guardian printed an incorrect item about us being tax avoiders. I have sinces recieved an apology and the original article has been modified, several times:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/nov/02/icesave-tax-avoidance-savings


SOA is another IOMG Propaganda Scam

  • Mike
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 06:27

I believe the SOA is a disgrace and should be investigated for its criminal intent. Ask yourself the question, why does only 71% of the depositors receive 100% of their money and the remaining 29% do not? I’ll tell you why, they take the money from the higher depositors to pay the lower depositors so they can claim they have paid back more depositors. It also means there will be less money to pay back the higher depositors. If the bank went into liquidation, all depositors would get an equal share of the funds. However, IOMG don’t want do that, as they would have to trigger the DSC to pay up remaining money to £50,000 compensation limit, which would cost the IOMG money, which I understand they don’t have the funds to pay, the DSC is just another IOMG PR stunt!! With regards to the so called £150 million pounds the IOMG are putting in the pot, it is only a loan, which will be repaid back before all depositors actually get paid out in full. In the end IOMG pay nothing for this debacle that they were partially responsible for.
This story is yet another IOMG scam. I'm already advising all my expat colleagues never bank in IOM, not only is it not a safe, but the people in charge are totally dishonest.


SOA - Illegal ?

  • merlina
  • 26/01/09 01/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 11:36

Taking money from higher depositors to pay lower depositors - surely this is illegal. I'm sure under liquidation rules this is termed illegal.


re: SOA - Illegal ?

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 12:01

merlina

The SoA does not take money from higher depositors to pay smaller depositors. Small depositors are ensured their 100% by non-repayable top-ups from IoMG


SOA IS A SCAM!

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 13:55

Mike I am 100% with you on that; SoA is a scam. Without going into their calculations, which seem to have been made purposely hazy and obscure, there is one provision in the scheme that betrays the true motivation of IoMG. The stated objectives of SoA are to provide accelerated payments to creditors and to simplify the process of distribution. Yet one of the most prominent conditions of the proposed scheme is moratorium on legal action against the bank and its directors.

There would be nothing wrong with such requirement if the stated objective was providing immunity from prosecution for the bank's owners and managers. But why is it necessary if all they want to do is speed up and simplify payoffs?

There is nothing in the purported benefits of SoA which cannot be implemented through the existing DCS. Without spending a penny on consultants, they can very easily pass an amendment to add bondholders as beneficiaries of DCS or to provide a loan identical to that proposed for SoA. If they prefer to spend millions on lawyers and consultants to achieve exactly the same, it is a clear indication that there are some ulterior motives behind that monkey business that we have been witnessing for 4 and a half months now.


You keep talking about taking

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 14:07

You keep talking about taking legal action against the bank and its directors. How exactly is that going to get any of our money back?

We have already been told that the directors did not require liability insurance so even if found liable what are we going to get back from that? Nothing!

And if the company is found liable where is any money going to come from?


I repeat, SoA is a Scam

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 14:44

If the clause demanding moratorium on legal action against the bank is so inconsequential as you have repeatedly stated, why don't they just drop it? And why do you keep defending it with such an ardour?


I am not defending it. I am

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 15:42

I am not defending it. I am saying I do not yet have all the facts with which to make a choice as to which is the best route and just saying that the SoA is a scam does not help me or anyone else in obtaining the facts.

I might also ask why you keep attacking it with such ardour?


Yes, SoA Is a Scam

  • jkk
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 17:11

I am not "just saying" that the SoA is a scam. I have demonstrated that under the pretext of providing quicker and simpler payoffs to small depositors, IoMG is trying to smuggle in a completely different agenda which has nothing to do with their stated aim, and which could prove to be criminally motivated if properly investigated.

If there were no criminal intent in their action, instead of trying to take away our rights, they would expressly preserve them in the proposed terms of SoA, as it is learnedly explained in the posting below by elgee.


preservation of rights of action

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 14:56

Quite apart from what we, the depositors, think, the IoM Treasury has claimed that the SoA does not take away our rights of action against third parties. If that is the case, there cannot possibly be any objection to those rights being expressly preserved in the SoA itself - that is as an express term of the agreement.

That is the only sensible way to resolve the matter and then there can be no further argument as to whether they are or are not preserved. If the Treasury does not agree to this, then there is no hope of its continuing to maintain its present posture that those rights are preserved.

The same applies about any other area in which there is a different interpretation. The scheme is not yet embodied in a final draft document so there is an opportunity at this stage to deal with each such interpretation issue one by one, by in each case express provision in the final draft of the agreement thereby avoiding any possible doubt as to intention of the parties or interpretation.


Exactly, lets lobby for

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 15:36

Exactly, lets lobby for changes that we see fit and see what the final proposal incorporates rather than just stamp our feet and say we should not be going down that route.


Mike, at the moment the

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 08:43

Mike, at the moment the choice is between the DCS and SoA. As 71% of depositors have less that £50,000 deposited then they should get 100% of their money back regardless of which route is chosen, the only difference is timing. Thats the way compensation schemes work. In fact for bondholders the SoA would appear to offer a bette solution.

Both the DCS and SoA also depend on contributions from the IOMG to which they have commited. Maybe not enough for everyones liking but its a start. Also the money that the UK government paid to protect depositors in KSFUK was also only a loan, HMG are expecting payment from KSFUK assets when they are recovered, if they wern't then we would not be in this position.

If I wanted to play devils advocate I could say that why should smaller depositors, who only deposited upto the DCS limit, whether it was the old or new DCS limit, subsidise large depositors who put all their eggs in one basket.

What we want is all depositors to get all their money back, neither the DCS or SoA prevent that, as more assets are hopefully recovered then more money can be paid out. I am afraid this is going to be a long war that must be fought on many fronts to which your original rant contributes little.


forfeit 50k cover

  • justr
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 10:40

It is my understanding that if the SOA is apporoved then we forfeit the 50K DCS compensation cover which only clicks in upon liquidation.

With SOA, that is final and liquidation will never occur. You are assuming that a SOA will return at least 50k to all entitled.

Are we to be that confident that nothing can 'go wrong' and that there will definately be the funds to return at least up to 50K. If not, we could be a lot worse off than DCS


forfeit 50k cover

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 11:59

justr: Correction - what you say is not quite correct because the IOM Treasury and its advisors have stated very clearly to the court in past affidavits that the SoA will guarantee that those depositors who would have been paid out under the DCS will still be paid the same amount under the SoA.

Whether the IOM changes its position on that remains to be seen (because I understand it was somehat equivocal about this issue at the last hearing), but if it does so then many depositors will presumably and rightly object very loudly.


forfeit 50k cover

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 11:54

Justr: What you say is correct. However, applying some lateral thinking (or whatever Edward de Bono used to call it), I think that there is no good reason why you cannot have a formal liquidation together with a SoA, with the DCS not triggered (at least at the outset) because the DCS has been agreed by all parties to be suspended unless and until the SoA defaults in some way. That way you get the creditors' control over the liquidation and the liquidator and you also have the so-called guarantees of the SoA but the activation of the DCS proceeds only if the SoA fails.


forfeit 50K cover

  • justr
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 22:46

elgee,  I would have hoped that what you say is correct. However, I was informed that if SOA is instigated then it will not then be possible for liquidation and the trigger of DCS afterwards in the event that SOA is unable through unforseen circumstances to deliver up to 50K .  Apparantly nobody had asked this question before. Maybe I was misinformed.  It is a very important point and maybe you could investigate and report back.


expatfrance1

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 22:23

This is not a choice of DCS v SOA. The two possible procedures are liquidation (winding up) v SOA. In the case of liquidation, the DCS manager will activate the scheme. Participation is voluntary - in the same way as for the EPS. The DCS does not require contribution from the IoM government.


What nonsense I have to put up with

  • Mike
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 11:40

Look Expatfrance 1, I maybe I’m stupid here, but at the end of the day there will only be so much funds available for distribution, whether IOMG offer a loan or not, at the end of the day it is the same pot. So why are they not being fair and honest and distributing an equal percentage to all depositors? Why should some depositors be discriminated against and others receive 100% if there is insufficient funds to pay all parties. If IOMG have a so-called DSC, they should pay everyone with the same percentage and the ones who receive less than the DCS limit of £50,000, it should be topped up with additional funds from the IOMG, not money from the higher depositors. The SOA is stealing from Peter to pay Paul.
With regards to statement the HMG provided a loan, but there was difference that they paid all the retail depositors back 100%. At least they had the decency not to take funds from some depositors to give to others.
I’ll try to make it simple for you, say there are only two depositors in this debacle and say you have £50,000 on deposit and I have £150,000, and the payout is 60p in the pound. With an equal payout, you would receive £30,000 and I would receive £90,000, obviously I lose more for my mistake of putting my money in this bank, but at least a fair payout. According to liquidation, the IOMG would be required to top up your amount to make up the full £50,000 out of their own funds. However, under the SOA, you will receive the full £50,000, but I only receive what is left in the pot, which is (200,000 * 60%) – 50,000 = £70,000, so I lose even more money.
This is not rant it is fact of life, suggest you buy some more batteries for your calculator. I would really like hear your argument that you think small depositors are subsidizing the larger depositors. With that sort of logic, I can only assume you work for the IOMG.
I rarely make comment to this website, due nonsense I have read sometimes. At the begining we were all working together, now it seems everyone for their selves. No wonder the IOMG are walking all over us.
My view for all depositors, no matter how big or how small their deposit; we should all be treated in the same and fair way. The SOA does not do this.


@Mike - SoA

  • Ally
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 13:35

Mike

I am posting neither for nor against the SoA however I try to post to clarify issues and here I believe you have got something wrong.

Under the SoA the guarantee to top up under £50k’s is not met from the pool of funds of larger depositors it is met from contributions from the IoM govt and the banks.

I believe it was in David Lovett’s third affidavit that you can clearly see this. Where they have used examples they say they estimate a return of 65% however they also estimate that 72% of total liabilities will be paid. Therefore someone is making up that 7% extra and not taking it back.

Hopefully I will try and work through a quick example below to clarify.

The bank has total creditors of £1,150,000 made up of just 3 depositors

A - Has £50k on deposit
B - Has £100k on deposit
C -Has £1,000,000 on deposit

Under the SoA if the IoMG are saying they estimate a 60% return and aiming to make 3 payments of 12.5% or £20,000, 7.5% or £15,000 and 15% or £15,000 within 24 months.

My understanding of how the SoA would work is as follows

1st Payment

Assets recovery is 15% so £172,500 is available for distribution.

A – Gets £20k, being 12.5% (6,250) topped up by £13,750
B – Gets £20k being 12.5% (£12,500) topped up by £7,500
C – Gets £125,000 and no top up as thier 12.5% return is greater than £20k

As distributions amount to £165,000 there is no need for IoMG to contribute to this payment.

2nd Payment

In total 25% of assets are available for distribution so the following payments are made

A – Gets £15,000 being a further 7.5% (£3,750) topped up by £11,250
B – Gets £15,000 being a further 7.5% (£7,500) topped up by £7,500
C- Gets £75,000 and no top up as their 7.5% return is greater than £15,000

Again no funds from IoMG are needed as recoveries enable minimum payouts.

3rd Payment

In total 30% of assets have been recovered

A – Gets £15,000 being 15% (£7,500) and topped up by £7,500 to bring him up to £50,000
B – Gets £15,000 being 15% and bring them in total up to £50,000
C – Gets £150,000 being 15%

In total 30% of assets have been recovered but 34.78% of total deposits have been paid out

A has got £50,000
B has got £50,000
C has got £300,000

This was possible as to enable the 3rd payment to take place IoMG has funded the SoA with £55,000 (being £400,000 paid out less £345,000 recovered (£1,150,000 at 30%)

In future years after the 3rd assured payment if asset recoveries were only to be 60% then B would receive another £10,000 and C would receive another £300,000 to bring their recoveries up to 60%. At this point The IoMG would recover funds it had put in. In my very simplified example it has put £55,000 in. However of this £20,000 was to top up depositor A to a minimum of £50,000 as they would be entitled to this under the DCS (A would have otherwise recovered only £30,000 (£50,000 at 60%). So IoMG would only recover £35,000 of the £55,000 it put in to SoA.

At the end of the SoA

A - has received £50,000 (a 100% return)
B – has received £60,000 (a 60% return)
C- has received £600,000 (a 60% return)

A total of £810,000 has been paid to depositors (a 70.34% return on total deposits even though only 60% of assets have been recovered) and everyone has had a minimum of 60%. The under £50,000 have not been topped up by using funds of larger depositors but by using funds provided by IoMG and the banks.

My example is a very very simplified example and I have not tried to work any details after the 3rd assured payment. If I have misread how the SoA works then I apologise and I will take on board any comments anyone has to say.


sorry - check your 50k comment

  • justr
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 11:17

Sorry, but as stated in my previous entry, if SOA is applied then liquidation as such can never happen, and therefor the DCS can then never be triggered.

Under SOA there is no longer the 50K guarantee, paid for by IOM or banks or anybody else. We are having to hope that there will be at least enough money left to cover that which would have been paid by DCS.

I checked this out the other day, the question had never been raised before.


re - sorry - check your 50k comment

  • skintagainnow
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 24/02/2009 - 11:32

Under SOA there is no longer the 50K guarantee paid from a DCS source - then your statement is correct, under the SOA sub £50K direct depositors will receive 100% of their deposit - guaranteed by IoMG.


Ally your example is correct but your assumptions may be wrong

  • klauseriksen
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 07:32

Ally your example is correct but you main assumption may be wrong. You assume a maximum liquidation recovery of 60% in your examples and it is correct that the SOA would look ok if this was indeed the case. The numbers I have seen floating around here have suggested that the liquidation recovery may be somewhat higher though at 65-70% and thus high net worth depositors would lose 5-10% in recovery if that is the case.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF ANY SOA MUST BE THAT IT GUARENTEES THE SAME OR HIGHER RECOVERY WITHIN THE SAME OR A SHORTER TIMEFRAME FOR ALL DEPOSITORS.
This fundamental principle has clearly been violated in the current SOA proposal if the recovery reaches above 60%. We can’t say for sure what approximately recovery liquidation eventually would reach and I suspect that will be the case for some time to come. Certainly we will not have this number ready at the time of a potential vote for/against an SOA. An SOA therefore needs to have a safety built in that allows for this uncertainty i.e. that the IOM will not try and recover their money before ALL depositors have received at least the SAME as they would in a liquidation. The current SOA does not have this as it effectively caps the recovery for larger depositors at 60%.
I personally have no big problem with the IOM trying to please its own depositor/voter base of which the majority is likely to be made up of <50K Sterling depositors. This however should be paid for purely by the IOM and not by larger depositors and smaller/larger foreign currency depositors as it is in the current proposal.


SOA is IOMG Scam - Please wake up >80K

  • Mike
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 02:44

Not wanting to disagree with your statement:

“Under the SOA the guarantee to top up under £50k’s is not met from the pool of funds of larger depositors it is met from contributions from the IoM govt and the banks."

But I would like to see this from a different view, please realise the SOA has been planned for a period of 2 years, which the banks I understand will only need to put into the pot for the two year period. Although I understand the banks have only agreed this proposal in principle. After two years all depositors entitled to compensation will be paid in full, so no further need for any more payments. Under liquidation the banks would have to pay into the pot for approximately 20 years, now it take much of a genius to work out where the lack of 18 years worth of payments is coming from?

Please also consider the scenario the KSF (IOM) is also run down over this period to maximise returns over this period. Now after the 2 year period, all depositors entitled to compensation has been paid and therefore IOMG obligation is complete. The remaining loan book then goes for a fire sale to pay off the IOMG loan and therefore no funds left for the higher depositors.

If we went for liquation and loan book was wound down, according to Mike Simpson this would take six years, so those depositors with more than 80K will see a greater return of their deposits over six years. If compared with the SOA, returns on deposits will stop after two years. In other words, according to IOMG for a two year period the amounts will be the same, which is good PR for the IOMG but not all the truth. As what is missing, under liquidation higher depositors will continue to receive more money for a further 4 years resulting in an overall greater return, assuming all depositors are given an equal percentage share.

So here is the downside, and why IOMG is trying to avoid this, under liquidation those entitled to compensation would have to wait for 20 years to get all their money back, that is assuming the banks in the IOM are willing to commit for 20 years, which I understand is highly unlikely, so the IOMG would have to foot the remaining funds themselves and thus would have serious implications on their credibility. It is obvious the IOMG is trying to avoid this situation and limit the period of two year, which all eligible depositors are compensated and they can then walk away from the remaining mess and say they’ve done a great job!!

Oh and here is another sting in the tail, just when you thought is was not getting worse. Since it obvious that the higher depositors will at some point wake up and realise they’ve been duped in providing an interest free loan to the IOMG to fund this scam, which will never be repaid. Once it is evident the loan will not be repaid and we feel grieved enough to seek legal retribution, the IOMG want us to sign our rights away. However, I now understand they are under pressure from the courts to relinquish this requirement, but I read yesterday the IOMG are putting aside £11,000,000 ready to fight any legal claims of wrong doing.

If someone wishes to disagree with my synopsis please provide the facts, but really the facts available speak for themselves.

Oh if want to see the facts about the 2 year period, this information has already been posted on this website by an inside person within the IOM about 3 weeks ago, I'm sure copies are still avilable.


@Mike, I realy do not see why

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 07:31

@Mike,

I realy do not see why you are saying that under liquidation and DCS it would take 20 years for those eligible for compensation to be paid. You have based this just on contributions from the Banks. The IOMG have already stated that they will contribute upto £150 million to the DCS if it is invoked and the Scheme Manager can borrow to top up the fund if necessary to provide a quicker payout.

It now sounds like I am defending the DCS! As I have said before I am not proposing that one is better than the other. All I ask is that we get the facts and then make an informed decision. Just because so called 'facts' are posted on this forum by so called 'insiders' does not make them true. There are all sorts of people posting on this forum for all sorts of purposes, not all of them good. Yesterday you said I must be working for the IOM authorities. That does not make it true.

With regards the SoA, nowhere does it say that payments will be stopped after 2 years, that is just your assumption, not a fact.

At the moment the only 'facts' we have are the scheme rules for the DCS and the affidavits presented to court regarding the SoA. That may not give all the information that we need but thats all we have at the moment, anything else is just assumption and rumour.


DCS 150 Million

  • bobwin
  • 23/12/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 08:46

Can you tell me where the IOMG agreed to provide this money to DCS?

I only read it was for SOA!

Regards


No wonder people are getting

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 10:14

No wonder people are getting confused. This was announced when the DCS was upgraded from its original maximum of £20,000 to £50,000 back in October last year. The only problem is that if any other banks go under between now and October 2009 it will have to be shared between depositors in that institution as well.

The difference between that and any money that will be contributed by IOM to the SoA is that that money will be dedicated solely to KSF depositors regardless of what happens elsewhere.

Now do you see why a lot of comment that is posted on this forum is based on incorrect information. I am not suggesting that the SoA is better than the DCS, just that any decisions should be based on fact and not rumour.


Revised DCS 23/10/08

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 11:04

Available for consultation on Public Site. Go to All content then Facts then IoM.

Even better link from Tricky Dicky, sorry having a few gremlins this morning so didn't see TD's post before I sent mine twice!!!


Revised DCS

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 11:28

Please remember that the present DCS is OPERABLE for 12 months from the 8th Oct 2008, and finishes on 8th October 2009. Itwas amemded on 23rd Oct 2008,, but its operational dates were NOT revised


Revised DCS 23/10/08

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 11:00

Sorry, dble post again!!


SoA longer than 2 years

  • cypheath
  • 01/11/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 08:13

According to the SoA illustration attached to Lovett's 3rd affidavit there will only be 35% recovery after 2 years and any further recoveries come after 2 years (non specific). This is why I have questioned twice in the past how it can be said that the 65% recovery cannot possibly be the case in 2 years?
Am I reading something different to everyone else? Or am I being a bit slow and missed something, somewhere?


cypheath, re SOA, you are correct......

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 23/02/2009 - 16:29

if you say that the SOA illustrations published in January reflect a 35% payout within 2 years for depositors in total. However, as the illustration shows, a depositor with under £50,000 in their account(s) will have recovered 100% within that time frame. The illustration goes on to show the percent of recovery within 2 years for other levels as follows-

£ 85,000 creditor 59% recovery
£130,000 creditor 38% recovery
£200,000 creditor 35% recovery


SoA distribution

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 22/02/2009 - 14:25

Ally,
I have not (yet) analysed your figures in great detail but I have no reason to doubt that they are correct. However the problem is that with a recovery rate of 65% the larger depositors in your example will not get a penny more as any recovery beyond 60% will go back to the IOMG to re-pay their loan.
It therefore follows that if you believe the eventual recovery will be better than 60% the larger depositors will be disadvantaged under the current SoA! It may be possible that the SoA may results in faster payouts to smaller depositors (unproven!) but to the detriment of a lower eventual payout to the larger depositors without any compensating benefits for them. It is, however, still possible to make the SoA more fair to all depositors. I will no doubt hear from you re this and look forward to this!
Mike