Update from IOM Advocate 17/12/08

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 18/12/2008 - 16:12

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

Is there a qualified lawyer in the Forum ?

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 20:44

May I repeat my earlier comment because we STILL do not have the legal gobbledegook concerning the frozen £535million translated into plain English! Surely there must be a qualified legal member who can help us understand this vital element of the whole saga ?

quote:
I made a comment in the Forum previously inviting John Wright (Notary) to explain the legal gobbledegook to us in good old English as to why the £535million of our KSFIOM assets (depositors' money) has not/is not being returned to KSFIOM.
Sadly we have a rehash of the same gobbledegook.

If Notary Wright can not do this, Is there another qualified lawyer in the Forum who can translate this VITAL information so that we can understand what it means?


Lucky Jim

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 20:50

Im not a qualified lawyer but, as I understand it...

KFSUK is in administration. Any payments to creditors will need to be made pari passu (i.e. like a dividend) ; so any assets recovered will be paid as a dividend in proportion to the interests of the creditors.

EY's have not yet finished calculating the creditors so they are not able to distribute yet.

I addition any distribution to KSFIOM will need the consent of the Treasury per s27 of the order.


One interesting point was the

  • expatfrance1
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 08:32

One interesting point was the mention of over 14000 account holders. I thought originall we were talking of 8000.


account holder numbers

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 16:20

Exactly...Figures quoted, at various times, for number of account holders range from 7,000 to 14,000+ and this has been bugging me for weeks because until we know the actual number we can't estimate how much the DCS, when and if triggered, would have to pay out. I have asked for this question to be asked again during the next conference call with MS. The missing schedule of accounts may throw some light on this question if & when we get to see it. Based on the number registered on this site it's hard to imagine more than 3,000 or 4,000 depositors.


Direct link to schedule of accounts:

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline

Numbers....

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 17:01

Add to this the DAG poll indication that 35 - 40 % of 'savers' are <£50k, whilst the IoM gov (this week) suggest 76% are <£50k.

Makes you wonder exactly what progress (at least re numbers) re supply of basic info has been made in the last ten weeks (or is that 10 months ? - feels like it).


acct holder numbers

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 16:49

The schedule is attached if you go to the update and then under 6.1 Please see the schedule attached HERE, click on the 'here'


6.1 Schedule of customers/accounts?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/12/2008 - 20:13

Supposedly attached - where?


6.1 Schedule of accounts missing

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/12/2008 - 23:18

I too would like to know where the "attached" schedule is...(pdf files don't contain links)


6.1 schedule of customers/accounts click

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/12/2008 - 20:18

when you reach the page click on the word "here"


No - don't click on "here"!

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 08:30

For me at least - the attachments (pdf files) are listed below and you just click on the one you want. Clicking on "here" goes nowhere. But maybe it depends on your browser?

Hope you've found them by now anyway. And good luck in making any sense of it!


missing schedule of accounts

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 16:12

Yes the 2 pdf files are there but not the attached schedule of accounts referred to in those pdf files section 6.1.
Can someone who is in touch with John Wright ask him to post the missing schedule ?


The links are there...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 16:49

...if you open the original pdf on the website rather than downloading it, or so I found

Also there appears to be a typo in the original:

"This shows 14,449 accounts held by 14,447 customers."

whereas the schedule states:

"14,449 accounts and 10,447 customers"

Lawyers -tut!


link to schedule of accounts

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 18:08

lancara thanks for unlocking the secret to accessing the schedule..yes I previously just downloaded the pdfs. As you say 14,449 and 10,447 are the correct numbers for total of ALL accounts including Insurance Cos. other Cos. etc. Their's a fair bit of detail there so I'll study it a bit more.

For anybody interested here's a direct link to that schedule:

http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/sites/www.ksfiomdepositors.org/files/200...


Mike in France

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 18:39

Thanks for the link.

Just had a quick flick at the figures.

Three columns; one for <£1,000 , one for >£1,000, and one for the sum of those two !!

What an odd way of doing things, or am I missing something ?


So 1,323 drop out...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 20:07

...after the GBP1,000 (or less) payment?


schedule of accounts inconsistencies

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 21:52

I too wondered why the under £1K and over £1K are shown separately, unless this was prepared with a mind to the £1K payout.
It shows that 1,323 customers would receive their 100% .It's interesting to note that our poll shows that nobody registered on the site has £1K or less.
Comparing totals by customer, and totals by account, this schedule seems to say that 1,323 CUSTOMERS have £1K or less in 2,604 ACCOUNTS and that the amount contained in these accounts is either £ 314,157 or £ 506,587 . Can anyone explain this ?


My Milkman

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 08:31

Whose schedule ?

Presumably the figures are recently extracted (perhaps at time 'Xmas bonus' £1,000 was CONceived) from something much more comprehensive ?

Why isn't something more comprehensive available, showing a more detailed 'by amount deposited' breakdown eg with reference to DCS levels before and after the DCS increase ?

How please can the IoM gov, from these figures, deduce eg that 76% of savers have <£50k ?

My milkman kept more detailed records than these !!


No inconsistency in accounts?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 22:11

mikeinfrance - it's getting a bit late here for calculations, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that:

  • some of the customers with more than £1K in total may have more than one account, of which at least one contains less than £1K. Thus the number of accounts with less than £1K (2604) can indeed be greater than the number of customers with under £1K deposited. Similarly for the money contained in the accounts: £506,587 is the amount in 'small' accounts, whereas £314,157 is the (lesser) amount deposited by customers who have less than £1K in the bank. Does this resolve your problem?

  • I think you've got the calculation for joint accounts the wrong way round? Two customers have at least 1 account between them. So if 3048 joint account holders each have just one account between them, then the total number of accounts will be 3048/2 = 1524. Since some will have more than one joint account, the actual number of joint accounts (4076) is greater than 1524.

Does this help?


anrigaut..inconsistencies

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 23:50

anrigaut..thanks for your comments;

on point 1 I wasn't suggesting that x customers couldn't have x+y accounts, but the different amounts shown as being in those accounts. Not sure what you mean by "small" accounts as opposed to those with £1K or less ? The 2 amounts quoted are for the under £1K accounts so I don't understand how there can be 2 different amounts, but I'll keep thinking about it !

On point 2 agreed... I actually edited my post to delete that as I suddenly realised my error ! I guess you must have read that while I was editing it!


Sorry mikeinfrance - I'll try

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 09:01

Sorry mikeinfrance - I'll try again!

By 'small' accounts I meant those with under £1K (just got tired of writing that - serves me right for trying to cut corners!).

As to the different amounts, I still see no problem. The second (lesser) amount quoted is not the total amount held in under £1K accounts; it is the amount held (necessarily in such accounts) by the subset of 1323 customers with under £1K deposited (average £237 per customer, in one or more accounts).

Among the remaining 9124 customers (ie those with more than £1K deposited overall), some will have multiple accounts including at least one with less than £1K.

There are a total of 2,604 ACCOUNTS with less than £1K, and these accounts contain a total of £506,587 (average £194 per account). At least 1,323 of these accounts must belong to customers with under £1K overall and contain £314,157. The remainder (up to 1281 accounts) will belong to customers with over £1K overall and contain £506,587 - £314,157 = £192,430.

OK?


4th Update

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/12/2008 - 18:41

There seems to be a lot of content here.....Is there anything particularly new ......I must say I dont understand some of it and maybe others can simplify/discuss the main issues.


It's legal gobbledegook...

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/12/2008 - 19:08

I made a comment in the Forum previously inviting John Wright (Notary) to explain the legal gobbledegook to us in good old English as to why the £535million of our MSFIOM assets (depositors' money) has not/is not being returned to KSFIOM.
Sadly we have a rehash of the same gobbledegook.

If Notary Wright can not do this, Is there another qualified lawyer in the Forum who can translate this VITAL information so that we can understand what it means?


Gobblegook

  • chipmunk
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/12/2008 - 19:34

And I thought it was only me that can't understand that stuff..........Any Lawyers out there ?


Gobbledygook indeed! Glad to

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 08:33

Gobbledygook indeed! Glad to hear I'm in good company!


Quite......... Can any of our

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 14:50

Quite.........

Can any of our DAG legal and/or financial experts put John Wrights Q&A's into "plain speak" please??


question about J Wright update

  • dans le merde
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 19/12/2008 - 15:17

Can anybody shed any light on what he means by "5 or 6 indicative offers"is this relating to offers made on the loan book or plans on some kind of restructure?


Offers - my reading suggests

  • manksman
  • 01/11/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Sat, 20/12/2008 - 19:54

Offers - my reading suggests that this is for reconstruction.
£550 m - was just an unsecured loan - so will rank as an ordinary creditor, and payments will only be made when all creditors are paid. (but complicated because KSF UK has money in KSF IOM, and UK aare not happy about related company aspect).
Problem - certain KSF IOM assets were bought for KSF IOM by KSF UK eg Certificates of deposit. - Why? This sounds like it couild be a problem, as UK Gov and Administrators will want to try and grip them for UK.

John Wright says
"However there would have to be a large shortfall or excessive fees for there to be a shortfall long term. This I think explains the view of IOM Government that we should examine a reconstruction, amalgamation or scheme.
I have to say I am not sure why UK, IOM and Iceland are not doing that together for the group outside Iceland, after all any surplus will go back to Kaupthing hf eventually."
This sounds very hopeful, and makes sense, indeed with a fraction of the money used to pay out KSF UK retail depositors the group could probably have been saved - and in the medium/long term UK Gov would have got their money back.


John does not post the

  • john wright
  • 29/11/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 24/12/2008 - 15:20

John does not post the documenst here but the DAG committtee who edit his text before posting

The number mistake was one of editing

John does not regularly read this site so questions to him here will go unanswered

A new release will go up before new year

John assumes that the less than £1,000, over £1,000 was for the IOM Government payment

No one knows whjat the indicative offers are, a purchase of loan book or a reconstaruction, we will have to wait until 15 January


Numbers

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 24/12/2008 - 16:52

"The number mistake was one of editing"
Indeed it was.. corrected as soon as I saw it raised on the site.. apologies!