Update on calculations based on latest poll data and IoM DCS

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 28/10/2008 - 08:04

For an estimated 7000 depositors with a deposit distribution as indicated by the latest poll gives total deposits of over 1,400m GBP using the mid-band value as the av. deposit within the band. This cannot be correct! If the lower value of the band is used, the total is about right at 850m GBP. Of course the poll results could be skewed, but using the lower value of each band as indicative of the deposit spread, the following results are obtained for cash recoveries of 100m, 200m, 300m, 400m, 500m, 600m, 700m and 800m, based on the latest IoM DCS (150m GBP compensation paid by IoM and the balance by 30 banks each paying up to 350,000 GBP/yr):

100m: DCS total 162m, payment period 1.2 yrs; 100% up to 50,000 deposit; 50% for 100,000 deposit; 20% for 250,000 and 12% for 250,000 and above.
200m: DCS total 115m, immediate payment; 100% up to 50,000; 50% for 100,000 and 23% for 250,000 and above.
300m: DCS total 84m, immediate payment; 100% up to 50,000; 50% for 100,000; 35% for 250,000 and above.
400m: DCS total 54m, immediate payment; 100% up to 50,000; 50% for 100,000; 47% for 250,000 and above.
500m: DCS total 38m, immediate payment; 100% up to 50,000; 59% for 100,000 and above.
600m: DCS total 27m, immediate payment; 100% up to 50,000; 70% for 100,000 and above.
700m: DCS total 17m, immediate payment; 100% up to 50,000; 82% for 100,000 and above.
800m: Immediate DCS payment; 100% up to 50,000; 94% for 100,000 and above.

The above results are only valid if the poll distribution data is truly representative and deposits in the various bands are at the lower end of each band. The latter requirement is because there are about 7000 depositors with total funds of 850m GBP.

0
Your rating: None

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

100% Monies back

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 02:24

Just a quick re-itteration. It has always been, is currently, and will always be the policy of this site that we are getting 100% of our Money back. The IOM Depositor Compensation Scheme (DCS), and any other 'schemes', is irrelevant to us. If we have to rely on the DCS then we have lost and that will not happen because no-one takes our money away from us and gets away with it.

We can discuss the amounts, we can discuss the timeframe, we can even analysis the formula's. But we WILL be getting 100% of our hard earned and saved money back. Full Stop.

Mat Walker


Deposit return

  • worriedsaver
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 01:57

I had £ 960K plus interest in the bank I WANT EVERY PENNY BACK & I won't roll over and take anything less !


100% ......

  • KA
  • 14/10/08 29/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 07:05

Correct ! That is what we are working so hard to achieve . And thank you again to the originators of this site. Thank you cannot be said too often . You have created and built the life -boat on which , as we row back to shore - where 100% of our deposits are returned to us - we can keep each other energised and buoyant !


Estimated total GBP

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 01:46

Using my own calculation method, I get 1,347M GBP, assuming as you say 7000 depositors of which the 1087 who are here and have done the poll could be representative. Yes, this seems very high, perhaps because the people here who have done the poll have higher average deposits than the other 6000 (approx).


It is irrelevant talking about compensation

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 01:25

Let's not waste our energies on discussing what meat is left on the carcass after the vultures have had the lions' share! I would want to be after the vultures!

IF we were to lose the battle on 27/11 we haven't lost the war.
I believe we already have enough evidence to show the EU Court of Human Rights that we have been deprived of our property under Article 17.

We win the war when the Court orders the restoration of depositors' money and compensation for the hell they have been through and HM Government is ordered to pay the costs.


Couldn't agree more LJ...

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 06:25

Couldn't agree more LJ...


This doesn't work...

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 23:52

The trouble is that the banks, who may not ALL be putting £350k into the pot (that's the maximum - the minimum is £35k) pay the FIRST £20k of the compensation due to each person.

Only once that is paid, and the liquidation recovery taken into account, will the Manx Government pay out the remaining £30k to any investor who hasn't yet got their full deposit or £50k, whichever is smaller.

So there isn't going to be £150m in the pot from day one.


DCS trime limit

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 06:24

According to the latest DCS regulations the 150m put up by the IoM government will fall away in a year from now. How would this affect the payout?


Please read our site banner: DCS is irrelevant to us in its

  • columbgc
  • 11/10/08 14/07/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 10:44

STEP UP THE PRESSURE ON MP's!! From what we can gather, we're starting to rattle UK MPs. We MUST keep up that pressure. If you get a negative or unhelpful response from an MP, work on that MP; we need this to be the singular topic of conversation in MP circles. If an MP mentions the £50K compensation, EDUCATE that MP - the DCS is irrelevant to us in its entirety. But Please keep it up!! We WILL win this but only if we work hard at it!!! To help you focus, read THIS


How do depositors get

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 08:30

How do depositors get anything from the DCS if the liquidation pays out more than 50K? The DCS only pays to top up to 50K, the minute there is enough in the pot to pay every depositor up to a limit of 50K then the scheme goes back to sleep, which is why the IoM are so happy to contibute to it from the taxpayers coffers.

We already know what the value of deposits is (at least I think we do from one of the affidavits).

There is no way on earth you can predict a payout based upon the data you have - trust me on that.


DCS Payment

  • dclf1947
  • 10/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 09:29

As I see it if there are 8168 depositors and if our poll is representative 35% have less than 50K. Say these average 30K it would need about 86M to fully pay these people off in accordance with the scheme, the remaining 65% would get the scheme maximum figure of 50K each requiring 265M. Therefore if the liquidator can claw back 351M, which should not be too hard, the IOM government and island banks will not have to give anything. The DCS and the IOM government would say that they have achieved compensation in accordance with the scheme.
We are reliant on PWC to get the assets back, hopefully with the support of the IOM government to get the UK to return the 555M, to enable a 100% payout.


NOT SURE ABOUT THAT !!!!!!!

  • justr
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 00:49

Not sure it quite works like that. Unfortunately, if we do not recover EVERYTHING for a 100% payout then I think it would work like this.

Say 7000 Depositors
Say 850 million deposited
Say only 300 million recovered

If 35% of depositors (2450) deposited average 35k = 86 million
Therefore the other 65% (4550) deposited average 121K = 764 million

Liquidation distribution comes first
Recovery 300 million equals 35% to all depositors irrespective of amounts deposited

2450 35% of 35K = 12250 (37750 short of 50k) 92 487 500 short
4550 35% of 121K = 42350 ( 7650 short of 50k) 34 807 500 short
Total 127 295 000 short

this then will be paid out of the 150 million from IOM Promise
and no need for the banks to contribute at all. Lets hope it does not come to this, lets keep fighting.


I agree

  • cathy
  • 10/10/08 10/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 01:36

agree, the liquidators have to see what they can pay first then the compensation scheme would kick in.
i also checked this out and was told the 50,000 cap is a cap on the total of what they will pay out to any one depositer. eg. if the liquidator pays 30% a depositor with 1000000 will get 300000 his claim to the dcs is 700000 he will get 50000 from that scheme because thats the limit. Total 350000. If he had 30000 he would get 9000 and claim 21,000,this would be paid in full as the claim is less than the limit (50000) paid out.
The scheme actually pays 100% of a claim between the liquidators pay out and the amount owed with a limit of 50,000. they pay the difference owed or 50000 what ever is the lesser.
If the liquidator paid nothing every depositor with 50000 or more would get 50000 every body with less would get paid in full. perhaps if anyone disagrees they should get it checked out proffessionly like ihave.


We need to get this thinking

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 03:20

We need to get this thinking out of people's minds:-

"eg. if the liquidator pays 30% a depositor with 1000000 will get 300000 his claim to the dcs is 700000 he will get 50000 from that scheme because thats the limit."

No, he won't, he will get 300K, and not a brass farthing from the DCS. Don't keep kidding yourself this , people are becoming complacent because they wrongly believe that we will get something out of the DCS, when this is most definitely not the case. In fact, in this case the DCS won't be paying out anything - the liquidator would have to be paying out a very low percentage for the DCS to ever have to wet it's feet, that's why what the IoM is doing by subsidising the scheme is so very hollow.


iam not the one kidding myself

  • cathy
  • 10/10/08 10/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 05:50

If you feel the people who have 50000 or less will become complaicent,then i dont what to do? should i lie?
why? I have stated before if you are in doubt get professional help like i did . ie. london firm of solicitors who agreed with this and for a small charge put this to a firm of liquidators who also agreed this.
Now captain i know there is saftey in numbers, and the more of us sticking to gether the better, but some of the people here loosing 50000 or less could be in severe distress possibley more than the people with more to loose, i dont know. But if your interpretation is different of what I and the professional people have, then you should get advise as your interpretation if??? wrong ithink that would make some people very very despondant and i dont think that would be fair even if we do need the numbers.
I dont think WE NEED TO GET THIS THINKING OUT OF PEOPLES MINDS. I think we should be open and if not sure get the facts first.By the way who is WE should get this thing out of peoples minds.
Iam sorry captain if i made anyone complacent, but i have to be guided by professional help, even though this might upset your numbers.
Iam not cathy iam her husband and by the way were in for 400000 so iam still with you.


I am not suggesting for one

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 06:29

I am not suggesting for one minute that people should segregate.
What I am saying is that in the first place there are hugely differing views on this point, and even on the FSC website there are shown to be dissimilarities between examples.

I would certainly agree that
"2) If in the previous example you also had £25,000 in a sole account, the total balances apportioned to you under the DCS would be your share of the joint account (ie £40,000), plus the £25,000 of your own, giving a total of £65,000. As this exceeds the maximum covered by the DCS the scheme provides for you to receive the maximum payment of £50,000. If there are sufficient funds on liquidation of the failed bank, the remaining £15,000 may be paid from the liquidation proceeds. "

Now tends to back up what you say, and whilst I am only "in" for slightly under half of what you are in for, I will have no issue for taking money on top of what any liquidation proceeds raise.

The "level of distress" is not tangible, we are all entitled to get the same compensation - actually, it's not something that the DCS does with fairness, I am of the opinion that if one is going to lose, then we all should. Why should someone with under 50K only lose 2K assuming no dividend, when someone with 200K gets to lose 150K? surely the percentages should remain equal?

Anyhow, with all that aside, my basic principal is that we should NOT be having ro rely on the DCS (which of course requires insolvency), and we should be doing are best to see that we can recover as close to 100% by whatever means we have. Should I be grateful at the moment that I may get back £75K because of the DCS and a supposed 12.5p in the pound divided based upon cash in hand at IoM? yes, it's better than nothing, but I don't recall doing anything wrong.
If you do have a definitive reply from a professional source, why not post it , "without prejudice and liability" etc?


And there it is.... The

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 06:50

And there it is.... The scheme manager does have the discretion to modify the level of compensation:-

"(6) The Scheme Manager may reduce the amount payable by way of compensation to the
extent that payment of the full amount would provide benefits to the investor which are disproportionate
to the benefits which might reasonably have been payable."

Now let's have a look at this little snippet:-

"(2) Where a participant is a body corporate incorporated in the Island, it may be determined to
be in default -
(a) on the making of a winding-up order against it; or
(b) on the passing of a resolution for a voluntary winding-up in a case in which no
statutory declaration has been made under section 218 of the Companies Act 1931;
or
(c) on the holding of a creditors' meeting summoned under section 226 of that Act; or
(d) on the appointment of a receiver (whether or not by the Court); or
(e) on the making of any voluntary arrangements with its creditors,
and a body corporate incorporated elsewhere may be determined to be in default on the occurrence of an
event which appears to the Scheme Manager to correspond as nearly as may be to any of those mentioned
above."

Now we can see why PWC have only been refered to as "provisional" liquidators - section (e) would come into force otherwise.
But, looking at (b), this has been done by KSF IoM - a "218" notice is now a statutory demand by a creditor, and no statutory demand has been made, but the company has passed a resolution for voluntary winding up - is this why there is a joint (and illegal) petitioner, the FSC? If this is the case, the someone knows that the FSC if struck from the petition, could cause the DCS to be sparked into life.


thats what ive been trying to say

  • cathy
  • 10/10/08 10/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 07:32

this section 6 means the manager can reduce the compensation that payment of full amount (50000) would give abenefit to the depositor which are disproportionate. that means he willreduce the full amount of compensation if his deposit was smaller than the 50000, as he will be getting more than he invested if he was to get the full compensation. If he had 60000 and had been paid 30% 18000 and was to claim for 60000 the claim would reduced by 18000, and the amount of claim to aportionate would be 60000 less 18000 already paid which is42000 and that is what the scheme will pay. (according to my solicitors)


They have even more leeway

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 07:47

They have even more leeway than that, they can use the scheme to pay out a sliding scale of compensation, so that even those with 50K exactly invested only get the same proportional payout as other investors - this in theory could mean that some depositors get very little from the scheme (those at the very bottom of the amounts invested), while those at the top could get the full 48K allocation.
That's what it looks like, but again, there is no precident, and the Act is short on detail and worked examples.


I agree

  • cathy
  • 10/10/08 10/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 01:36

agree, the liquidators have to see what they can pay first then the compensation scheme would kick in.
i also checked this out and was told the 50,000 cap is a cap on the total of what they will pay out to any one depositer. eg. if the liquidator pays 30% a depositor with 1000000 will get 300000 his claim to the dcs is 700000 he will get 50000 from that scheme because thats the limit. Total 350000. If he had 30000 he would get 9000 and claim 21,000,this would be paid in full as the claim is less than the limit (50000) paid out.
The scheme actually pays 100% of a claim between the liquidators pay out and the amount owed with a limit of 50,000. they pay the difference owed or 50000 what ever is the lesser.
If the liquidator paid nothing every depositor with 50000 or more would get 50000 every body with less would get paid in full. perhaps if anyone disagrees they should get it checked out proffessionly like ihave.


DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 06:47

I think you are incorrect. The liquidation payment is taken into consideration first, and then the DCS tops it up to a maximum of 50,000 in total (liquidation plus DCS). So for a claim of 1,000,000 and a 30% liquidation payout, the depositor will only get 300,000 as this is over the 50,000 limit and no top-up payment from the DCS fund will be made in this case. For a claim of 40,000 a 30% liquidation payout will be 12,000 and the DCS will contribute 28,000 so the depositor gets 100% back. For a claim of 50,000 a 30% liquidation payout will be 15,000 and the DCS will pay 35,000, thus also 100% back. For a claim of 60,000, however a 30% liquidation payout equals 18,000 and the DCS will only now pay 50,000 less 18,000 = 32,000. So in this case the depositor gets back only 83% (50,000 of the 60,000) of the claim.


NOT SURE I AM CORRECT EITHER LAUGH !!!!

  • justr
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 01:01

Just realized on my calculations, I have allowed for ALL the 2450 people to be covered up to 50k not just the 35k suggested, so less may be needed, just a shame that anything over would not be used to top up the people that may loose large sums.


DCS is 50k per depositor

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 09:50

I called the IOM FCS last week. My understanding from them was that the DCS covered lost funds up to 50k. That means 'ON TOP' of whatever the liquidator recovers, but will only cover up to 50k per person. Taht's just from memory though.


good memory bustedflat

  • cathy
  • 10/10/08 10/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 05:56

yes good memory busted you are absolutly right!


The DCS is NOT on top of the

  • cold-dose
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 23:46

The DCS is NOT on top of the funds recovered by the liquidator.

If you had £100k deposited, and the liquidator recovered £51k, then you get ZERO from the DCS.


DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 09:01

I included the liquidators cash in the DCS payments. The DCS fund only provides the top-up. You are correct that it is very difficult to predict a payout based on the scanty data we have at the moment - I trust you on that!


Oh I think I see what you

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 09:06

Oh I think I see what you have done - I'm pretty sure you can't just add it all up just like that.


Thanks for the calcs.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 08:27

But I want my money back.
I want my deposit + interest.
I do not expect 1p more than this, but neither do I want 1p less.
[Sorry......... after the lull, the anger !]


Interest frozen

  • steve
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 09:48

Hi According to Kaupthings staff, all accounts were frozen as of 8th Oct 2008, so whatever we had at that date is our balance. It does not need spelling out that our losses will compound the longer this sorry debacle goes on


7000 depositors ?

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 08:13

I thought there were 8168 depositors including businesses, no ?


Don't know - If there are

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 08:33

Don't know - If there are 8168 depositors the total funds would be 1000m (based on the assumptions made regarding the poll data) which is quite a bit more than the 850m . The main result of all of this is that the DCS payments should occur over a much shorter period than most people think will happen, if the bank defaults. But we don't really have enough detail on the distribution of the deposits - the poll bands are far too broad.


I'm missing something here,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 08:43

I'm missing something here, because the DCS won't pay out if the liquidation can fund up to 50K per depositor.

How on earth the DCS is going to work mixed up with liquidation, I don't know, in theory if what you says goes, those with less invested will see more return than those with more, who may get nothing from the scheme.


i'm missing something here

  • Ramsey resident
  • 22/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 09:09

The scheme works the same way in the UK, compensation only tops up any recovery from the failed institution

The idea of all compensation schemes is to protect the small depositor first


Missing something

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 09:04

I think you are correct!


And....? I'm still missing

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 09:20

And....? I'm still missing the point of your calculations. It's impossible to draw any conclusion, save for the fact that if the liquidation raises 400M (or possibly a good deal less depending on distribution) then the scheme may never have to pay out a cent.

You have also no idea of business depositors who will get liquidation proceeds but not DCS. Try as I may, I can't see how it helps me.

In anycase, I'm not greedy, I just want back what is mine - and I don't want to be seen discussing DCS ets purely because I don't consider it to be an option.


some people might, you know

  • cathy
  • 10/10/08 10/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 06:03

some people might, you know those people with less then 50000!


DCS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 28/10/2008 - 09:40

Lets hope you're right.


Less than 50K

  • patt62
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 06:24

Just to reassure you that even though Im only in for 60k and could argue the case just to take the money, I agree that compensation is A) the wrong word as it infers that we are receiveing just recompense for somenting lost and the suffering caused, and B) The wrong thought to be even discussing. The money is important for me granted but the sense of injustice is a stronger motivator and the idea of being walked over by people who think their boots are big enough to shut me up is a bigger motivator still. I dont like being cheated for a million or being short changed by a penny. Its the principle that is at issue and thats that. If I was offered all my money back and interes, I still want the answers and someone to admit accountability so nobody has to go threough this again.


patt62

  • cathy
  • 10/10/08 10/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 06:51

You are so right if i get back everything i think things should be asked ect, and hopfully this wont happen to anybody.


cathy - seems you might well

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 06:54

cathy - seems you might well be right, take a look at my follow up. Do you think that the DCS ahould have actually started by now? I think someone knows that the FCS's involvement in the petition may well be to prevent the scheme kicking in.