Weekly Call with Mike Simpson at Price Waterhouse Coopers IOM

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 12/12/2008 - 18:07

Dear all,

Both Alex (Laserblues2) and myself made a suggestion a week or so ago at funneling all questions to PWC through a weekly conference call, where questions to be asked would be collated from the forum through the week and raised on the call rather than having a lot of people calling him up - and generally asking similar questions. The results from the call would then be written back on the forum. There were no objections at that time to go ahead with this.

The response we have had from Mike Simpson has been enthusiastic and he is happy to work with this process. He does have some limitations though on what he can reply to as you would expect.

Here is his email:

*Thank you for your email. Your proposal is very helpful and I would be very pleased to have regular calls as you suggest. However, just to be clear, there are some limits within which I have to keep as an officer of the Court:

1 I have to treat all creditors equally as far as possible in respect of the information I share,

2 These calls/meetings cannot have the status of Creditors Meetings or Committees of Inspection, as Creditors Meetings require notice to all creditors and Committees of Inspection have to be approved by the Court, having been voted in at a Creditors Meeting.

3 I cannot post information on your website, I can only do so on the bank website. Clearly you would then be able to copy documents from the bank website onto your website, however I cannot be seen by the Court to be effectively sub contracting communication to a group of creditors, regardless of the potential benefits.*

What I suggest we do is use this thread for collecting the first weeks call. We'll be discussing with him on Sunday when this will start and the logistics around a conference call. Note that the aim is to only allow one or two people to speak and ask the questions - otherwise the calls will take a very long time and likely become less useful for the majority of depositors.

I appreciate that some form of moderation on the questions will be necessary, which I hope we can carry out on this forum.

I hope this process is acceptable to most of us - and I hope also it would provide us a better flow of information over the coming weeks.

Assuming we can the call set up for the coming week, can we receive your questions!

0
Your rating: None

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

Frog/Lazer I don't know if MS

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 17/12/2008 - 11:39

Frog/Lazer
I don't know if MS can find the answer to this one, but I would like to know when the first preparations were made to organise the move of Edge accounts over to ING.
Thanks again.
Icce


QUESTION REGARDING 550M

  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 17/12/2008 - 11:09

If KSF (IoM) is liquidated can it receive back from the UK the 550M? (should such an event happen!)

What is the provsional liquidator being told about the sealed papers in the KSF UK?

Great work getting the call setup.


Questions for Mike Simpson so far....

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 23:10

1.Will Mr Simpson be publishing a KSF IOM balance sheet as at 8/9 October? When?

2.Are there still credible buyers for the bank in play and has he fixed a date for final offers to be made?

3. Has he started any legal action against the Icelandic authorities to enforce compliance of the guarantee given by Kaupthing hf or has he received a legal opinion in this matter?

4. Can he please tell us what the approximate monthly costs of the current situation ,ie liquidation provisionally, are?
5. Can you ask him for an update on getting back
the £550m from the UK. When did that transfer take place and what role did
the control authorities play in getting this huge amount placed as an
unsecured deposit?
6. Will you put the DAG website address on the site so that depositors know where to get additional support?
7. Can you or will you challenge the rules that stopped KSFIOM from being elected onto the creditors’ committee?
8. What is Mr. Spratt doing? Will you represent him in your answers?
9. does he see our lack of representation on the creditors’ committee of KSFUK impacting on our welfare?
10. Is the cash on deposit stored in interest bearing accounts while the administration is being organized?


Qustions to be asked please

  • user1123
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 19:53

and if they are not I will want to know why. All Creditors have to be represented.

  1. What are the directors of KSF doing to assist, particularly the Non Executives who should have political influence. Currently Messers Cashen and Gelling have dissappeared off the scene and are still picking up their £30K fee, for what?

  2. What are the FSC doing to rectify their "oversight". Messers Weldon and Aspden have also dissapeared off the scene. They should have influence with the UK regulator the FSA and could be usiong this. There is no evidence that they are.

Thank you.


Ramsey

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 20:42

Let me be clear here - the weekly calls do not reduce any rights of contact that you have with PWC. You can still contact PWC directly yourself if you are unhappy with any aspect of this process. This is not meant to favour any group of depositors over others. Both Nick and I are doing this with our own time to try to move things forward.

The questions that were asked were the ones put on the site when we asked for them last week. Your questions will be asked on the next call, but they have to be relevant to the activities that PWC are involved in - which has nothing to do with politics, although their work is affected by this of course.

I suggest changing the questions to:

  1. What is the role of Mr. Cashen and Mr. Gelling as we understand that they are still employed by the bank.

  2. In what way are the FSC assisting you with the process of getting the money deposited with KSFUK

If that is OK with you.


MS question

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 19:33

Can we have a definitive statement from Mike Simpson as to how many individual depositors (not accounts) are affected by the KSFIOM situation, and how many of those depositors have been informed by, him in writing, about the situation.

(Various figures have been quoted for the number of depositors, ranging from 7000 to 10,800 yet only approx 2,300 are known to us, Our poll estimates that the average depositor has 2 accounts)


Question

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 20:00

1.How many bond holders are there?
2.When do bond holders get a statement?


The second point

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 20:47

About bond hulders; I did mean to add an additional note about that when we talked about the statements.

He said that he will be providing a statement to the bond holding companies and it is up to them how they get your individual information back to you. You can sort of understand this because it is quite likely that the bonds managed through a company are held as a single account within KSFIOM and so PWC will not be able to identify the individual.

This may be a guess of mine, and if it is wrong, let me know and we'll ask him the questions.


KSFUK

  • Tank
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 17:56

Haven't seen this question raised elsewhere but does Mike Simpson know whether EY are looking/able to sell/restructure KSFUK?


E&Y and KSFUK

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 20:58

In their Statement of Administrator's Proposals (page 4) they say that they are investigating 3 options

  1. Rescue the company as a going concern
  2. Achieve a better result by winding up the company (without first being in administration)
  3. Run down the property

Now they strongly imply that the first is unlikely - this is due to the FSCS payout replacing the retail depositors - so there is now a huge hole in the balance sheet

The second and third are actively being investigated, with the 3rd option being exactly what the IOM Government suggested by an 'orderly run down'. They are already selling some parts of the UK bank.


First call with Mike Simpson of PWC

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 16:35

The first call information is contained in the following blog entry:

http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/blog-entry/pwc-call-mike-simpson


New Blog address:

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline

Thanks and well done.

  • callie53
  • 04/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 22:11

Well done and thank you for the update.


Good job

  • chb
  • 10/10/08 15/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 18:36

Gets us the info we need and gives us the opportunity to put the points we need to on a regular basis. Our group is stronger as a consequence. Well done.


Many thanks for opening this

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 18:14

Many thanks for opening this line of communication. Look forward to further updates.


Thanks!

  • restless
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 17:16

Thank you both for this excellent initiative and the report. Much appreciated!


MIKE SIMPSON

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 16:48

Thanks guys,i found that very informative and encouraging. I think it has taken some fears away,that Simpson isn't doing much.
Well done.
Mark


thanks so much frog and laserblues2

  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 16:47

Thanks so much to you both for initiating this. I feel much better knowing that there is active communication going on, and especially that there are still interested buyers out there. Excellent questions.


Frog/Lazer, Thanks very much

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 17:49

Frog/Lazer,
Thanks very much for your efforts in this regard, the answers from Mr Simpson may be a little 'weak', but much better than the absent void. Well done & please keep on it!
Ice


Good work

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 19:23

Thanks Frog and Lazerblue, please pass on to PWC that this is exactly the type of communication many of us who were critical of their silence were looking for. True some of the answer were a little weak but some were particularly insightful also.

Might suggest to PWC that details of the listen conf. call be published on the KSFIOM site so that non-DAG creditors can listen in and have a chance to submit questions.


Listening in on the call

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 20:33

Yes, that's the plan. Mike Simpson will be investigating how we can do this and we'll put the number on the site in time for people to listen in.

If he approves, we'll also try to get a recording up onto the site for people out of the GMT timezone to listen to later.

Now we have this communication, please add your questions (or requirements for clarifications if you feel some of the answers were weak). I'll collate a list.


Actually - re-reading your

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 15/12/2008 - 02:28

Actually - re-reading your question - we didn't discuss putting the call-in number on the KSFIOM site. We'll certainly put it on this site when we get it.


Putting call details on the KSFIOM site

  • Alastair
  • 10/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 15/12/2008 - 19:47

By doing this PWC would be fulfilling their duty to treat all creditors equally - all would have a chance to listen and via this public available site (DAG) they could contribute questions. Win-win.


PWC have agreed to do this.

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 18/12/2008 - 23:28

PWC have agreed to do this. They will put the call number on the Bank's site, and will place the recording of the conversation on the Bank's site afterward. Here are the details anyway.

From their email:

Listen only Participant dial in details

I will be arranging for the general participant details to be posted on the Bank's website but the link for registration in listen only mode is;

https://cossprereg.btci.com/prereg/key.process?key=PM84Q9HYV

Participant joining details
Primary dial-in number: 0844 8004254
*Note: Some locations may be unable to access the primary dial-in number. If you are calling from one of these locations, please use 01296 317 502 to join this conference.
Passcode: 487 850#

I will also be arranging for the recording to be posted on the Bank's website so that customers will be able listen again to the call.



550

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 08:51

Point 5: Are we sure the GBP550m is an unsecured credit? I read somewhere it was a corporate loan.


This was clear in the E&Y statements

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 21:00

BUT it deserves asking whether PWC have a different view on this. It is a very key point.


phone contact with Mike simpson

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 21:24

Well done frog & lazer, and thanks.
I think we are beginning to get some useful feedback.
Can you put the question about the costs of his operation again in early jan - I am surprised no fee invoice has yet been raised but I would think he will be raising it by end dec.But the costs are not just his costs - as many KSF staff are still employed and their costs are not insignificant. Perhaps also a supplementary : the loan book will be bringing in interest payments and there will be some income from investments so it would be interesting to know whether the income generated is covering outgoings.
Please confirm to him that the book value statement he describes will be welcomed.
Perhaps just before the next court hearing in Jan it would be useful to know whether discussions with potential buyers are still ongoing. That might influence our thinking about the best approach to take at the hearing.
As you seem to have had more success with contact than our IOM lawyer did has Diver any questions he would like discussed?
Good luck with the venture.


Agreed - We'll park the costs

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 22:17

Agreed - We'll park the costs question for early Jan as unless they have submitted the costs, we'll not know until then.

The loan book interest repayments do help, but the loan itself would still be made, so each loan and interest payment will be reducing the non-liquid assets. The question though about the cash on hand was there because that also generates money - £100m even at 2.5% would generate £625K over a quarter ( or £200K per month). PWC could of course get a better rate but I doubt they would be looking to make the cash non-liquid!


KSF UK voting results

  • srcoates
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 16:47

See this link in the Timeline (on the Public Site under facts) http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=19944

Please can you ask Mike Simpson what he thinks was going on here---in particular how did Transport for London, Peterborough City Council and the Cats Protection grouping come to have roughly £3.5 billion of votes each?

Looking to the future, how does he see our lack of representation on this committee impacting on our welfare?


KSF UK voting

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 17:47

This has been much discussed elsewhere, but hard to find again! But the answer to your question now seems fairly clear:

The number of votes each creditor could cast was equal to the number of GBP they were owed. They could vote for up to 5 candidates (the number to be elected). FSCS (owed 3.4 bn GBP) had 3.4 bn votes which they gave to themselves and 4 other creditors, excluding KSFIOM. Once they did that, the die was cast as no-one else had anywhere near that number of votes (KSFIOM was the next largest with around 600m votes - which they gave to themselves). All FSCS had to do to keep us off the committee was to vote for any other 4 creditors - which they duly did.

This said, I'm a bit confused about the Cats charity. On another forum topic, restless - who was present at the meeting - reported that "Save our Savings" was elected (along with London Transport, KSF pension fund and Peterborough Council). He didn't mention any cats! I think "Save our Savings" must be the group of 25 charities who were earlier reported to have grouped together for this fight (probably including the cat's charity, but also including Naomi House - a children's charity - who are not on the list of candidates but who have actually said they are represented on the committee by this grouping). Maybe the group was represented at the meeting by someone from the Cats charity, which has caused some confusion?

Not that this helps us, but - if true - makes it more difficult to protest about favouring cats over people.


Anrigaut, just to avoid any

  • restless
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 18:54

Anrigaut, just to avoid any further confusion: it is the group Save are Savings that secured a place on the creditors' meeting They did attend the meeting on 1 dec, but were not on the list of possible candidates (maybe because they were too late to notify E&Y and lists were already printed?). However, during the meeting, before voting obviously, they publicly requested to act as a group of charities under the name of Cats Protection, since they were already on the list (the Chief Executive of Cats Protection is a spokesperson of Save our Savings and was there as well). E&Y agreed and subsequently Save our Savings asked the attendees to vote for Cats Protection if they wanted to vote for the charities.

It is probably because Cats Protection was the official candidate on the list, that E&Y still mentions them as being on the creditors' committee. I just received the update from E&Y myself (same one as from Mike Simpson) and indeed no sign of Save our Savings. During the meeting on 1 dec however, after voting took place, E&Y mentioned Save our Savings as one of the members of the creditors' meeting.

http://www.charityfinance.co.uk/home/content.php?id=2422&pg=15&cat=58
http://www.naomihouse.org.uk/news/art198.aspx
-> Professor Khalid Aziz, Chairman of Naomi House will be acting as spokesperson for the group, together with Peter Hepburn, the Chief Executive of Cats Protection. Khalid Aziz said, "Naomi House has been campaigning for the safe return of our funds since October, and we are not giving up until they are returned in full. The £5.7million we have at risk has been donated by our supporters in the local communities we serve. We owe it to them and the families who use Naomi House to keep up the pressure on the administrators and the Government to ensure that this is done as soon as possible.’ "The team at Naomi House has been working with Cats Protection to secure a place on the Creditors Committee; success will give the hospice a voice during the administration process. Forming the action group, Save Our Savings, will help to achieve this, and by working together, we increase our chances of representation."

Hope this helps,
Restless


Thanks restless for your

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 19:27

Thanks restless for your clarification, which confirms what I had somehow managed to deduce.

Incredible that E&Y couldn't get it right on their official meeting report - doesn't exactly inspire confidence!


Weekly call to Mike Simpson

  • btandkt
  • 11/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 14:48

I agree that it is much better to have him answering questions once, to a single spokesperson, who can then disseminate the information, rather than wasting time answering dozens of calls from individuals at our expense. My questions would be:

  1. Why did we not get representation on the KSF UK creditors committee when we are the biggest creditor after the Govt? Is there a record of how the voting went? Did HMG vote against us?
  2. Is the Derbyshire liable for 2 or 3 year bonds still in place, which were opened before it sold out to KSF, since it gave the depositors no chance to cash in at the time of takeover? My reasoning here is that a contract existed between the depositor and Derbyshire which I do not believe could be changed at the whim of only one party. If KSF returns the money at the end of the bond's fixed period, then Derbyshire are in the clear. However, if KSF does not return the money the original contract prevails and Derbyshire must step in to fulfill its obligations. There may be a few million in this category which the LP could chase from Derbyshire, if he has not done so already!

On a separate issue, if you are having any discussions with FSC reps on IOM, what is their position on the repeated statements from HMG depts that no advice was given by the FSA re the transfer of the 550M? It seems they are being hung out to dry by FSA. Scared that the parent bank might fail, you move most of your money to a subsidiary, which then fails, rather than into a separate establishment (or several of them) such as HSBC, Santander etc! Not good planning was it!
Regards
BT


Thanks,

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 15:09

I think Q1 has been well explained in the statement of the 12th - we were clearly outvoted and there is nothing we can do about it except for questioning the rules associated with the voting. I'll change your question to ask if PWC will be doing that if you don't mind.

With regard to the second, PWC will not be able to chase money from Derbyshire as it is the agreement between yourself and Derbyshire that is your key point. I can't see on what basis KSFIOM would be able to chase Derbyshire for a failing of their own bank. I would think your best option is to ask the Derbyshire what they are going to do about your funds if there is a shortfall from the KSFIOM payout.


What you are doing is great,

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 00:42

What you are doing is great, but by virtue of the fact that Mr Mike never seems to actually do anything in anycase, this just gives him the opportunity not to do anything en masse.

One of my first questions would be:-

1) Why the hell isn't the website open as he promised weeks ago so that we can download our own statements?

2) Why are there still some of us who haven't received statements?

Sorry to sound a bit negative - your idea is great, however from experience Simpson will just ignore the questions.

Care to prove me wrong Mr Simpson?


Go easy on LP - we need him

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 10:21

Captain - I think you're being a bit too hard on Mr Simpson. I too have been frustrated by the infrequency of his updates, but I feel he is now trying to do better, both with the official updates and now in apparently welcoming the present initiative.

While I agree he could have done (a lot!) better in terms of public relations, I don't believe we can assume Mr Simpson has not been doing anything. It has become increasingly evident to me that the whole situation is pretty complex and that his hands are pretty much tied. But, frustrating as it may be for us, I have no reason to believe he is not doing his job.

Your two questions above were both addressed in his latest update - though I can understand you may not find his explanations helpful. More than a lack of statements for some types of account (those not normally receiving statements at this time), it is the fact that not all depositors have yet been officially informed that the bank is in provisional liquidation which shocks me most. Surely this letter at least (sent out with statements to those who have received them) could and should have been sent out to ALL depositors whether or not their statements were ready?

I don't think that attacking Mr Simpson, with a risk of antagonising him unneccessarily, can do much good to our cause. We need him on our side. Please let's try to be constructive- and give this latest initiative a chance.


I'd have to disagree about

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 02:51

I'd have to disagree about hard words to Mr Simpson - he is spent, now (not that he actually achieved much in the first place). the IoM government clearly believe the same or they wouldn't have brought in a restructuring expert which is, after all, all that a liquidator/administrator is.

I'm afraid that I don't consider my questions to be answered in the updates - the updates tell me nothing

You yourself mention the fact that some depositors haven't been contacted which is not only unacceptable, it is unprofessional . Simpson's hands aren't tied - we all had swallow the old waffle about secrecy regarding possible sales of the bank, but he has had pretty much a full staff working behind the scenes to achieve the day to day requirements of the bank, informing all the banks customers about the current situation and getting statements out, and I see no excuse for this lack of application on his part. As for his "updates", well I suppose that there are some about who may fall for it, but I don't - he is charging a fortune for his "work" and to date the results are pretty woeful.


simpson woeful

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 08:59

Mainwaring, do you think Mr Simpson may be making achievements but simply not informing us? Does he have a duty to inform us? His duty is to the company - which indirectly benefits creditors and depositors of the company. But, my logic is running out - who should contact us concerning our accounts? Who should have informed us that the bank is in liquidation? I imagine many savers were surprised to receive a statement up to end October with the name of KSF replaced by Simpson's pricey outfit, eh?

Why is Mr Simpson still the liquidator provisional, rather than the liquidator?


No, actually I don't think he

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 15/12/2008 - 00:09

No, actually I don't think he is achieving anything, if he was, why would the IoM pay for a restructuring consultant? isn't that what a liquidator/administrator is for?

Actually his duty is to the Court as an appointed officer albeit temporary for the moment - I think a few still fail to see that if he is properly appointed, then he is bomb-proof, he has only statutory duties and reporting to perform and it is almost impossible to complain about his actions.

The whole admin/liquidation situation stinks in the UK, a Receiver can chase around on a fools errand for months and achieve nothing more than fattening his fee account.

Simpson will be loving this all he has to do is sit and answer a couple of questions with waffle, the same as he has provided on all his updates, and he knows you will swallow it -

Simpson is still the LP because to it's chagrin, KSFIoM is not in liquidation, and as for asking PWC about fees, they will laugh in your faces, only when a creditors committee is formed can you set the way fees are charged.


PWC

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Mon, 15/12/2008 - 07:43

Totally agree with Mainwaring's comments about the LP or PL.

My cat, armed with pencil + A4 pad, could have provided more information in 10 weeks.


steenjp - LP

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 09:18

The answer to your second question is simple : KSF is not in liquidation, it is in provisional liquidation. The hearing for liquidation is postponed to 29 Jan.

I too have wondered who is responsible in the current situation for contacting depositors. Does KSF = MJ (LP) ??


simpson

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 11:46

anrigaut, you have no need to trouble yourself so.
As the liquidator provisionally, Mr Simpson's duty is to the affairs of the company of KSF (IoM). Love him or loathe him, he will attend to this duty with due diligence.


Not quite sure what you mean,

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 19:29

Not quite sure what you mean, but I totally agree with you. It was no trouble!


simpson

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 12:02

Hear, hear steenJp. Mike Simpson is our best (only) bet. We have to hope that he is super at his job of arranging the best return for us (hopefully 100%) and is constrained by the court and by the nature of his work in sharing with us what is going on.
As hard as it is to be kept in the dark I would rather Mike Simpson said absolutely nothing if the result is that on 29th January he tells me I am getting all my money back - with interest as an extra !!!!!
Don't knock the only man who is working on our behalf just cos he doesn't give a running commentary - let him concentrate on the task in hand and support him.


If you had posted this in

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 02:59

If you had posted this in late October, you could be forgiven for your misconception.

I can only assume that you have never had the misfortune to deal with Receivers before. On paper you are quite right, but the law in the UK and the IoM means that "due dilligence" and "duty of care" are open to a great deal of tolerance.

Please don't kid yourself that PWC are in it for our interests at all, but to make a fat healthy fee. whether the bank is wound up and you lose the lot, or you get 100% back, PWC and simpson don't care for you in the slightest.


Concern over IT problems

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/12/2008 - 13:52

In both the recent PWC updates there has been mention of IT problems.

5th Dec - "The Bank is not able to complete this process in-house due to the Information Technology system restraints"

12th Dec - "It has been necessary to engage outside specialist to develop additional functionality for the computer software that supports the online functions and we hope they are able to complete this task imminently."

Given that producing statements must be one of the prime functions of a bank's IT system, these statements raise concerns regarding a lot of matters regarding the KSFIOM previous management


They are perfectly capable of

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 03:04

They are perfectly capable of doing the necessary at the bat of an eyelid. The system must be working now in anycase, it wouldn't take a moment to turn the system into "read-only".
Don't fall for this - yes, he may need an a bit of help with it but... 3 months?


Captain is absolutely correct

  • Offshore_Victim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 14/12/2008 - 16:41

Captain is absolutely correct it would not take circa 3 months to make the required system changes however there are a number of non system orientated factors which need to be taken into consideration. In my experience it is usually these which serve prohibit the swift reintroduction of any information service.


QUESTION FOR MIKE SIMPSON

  • joyce p
  • 15/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 23:38

GREAT IDEA FROG WELL DONE

MY QUESTION.HAS AN INTERIM PAYMENT BEEN WORKED OUT AND WOULD IT
BE PAID BEFORE CHRISTMAS?

GOOD LUCK WITH ALL THE ANSWERS


This isn't a question for him

  • frog
  • 10/10/08 13/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 12/12/2008 - 23:57

This isn't a question for him as it is being sorted out by the IOM Govt. - although in the latest missive he says that they should have an answer next week