Gauge how other DAG Members believe we are perceived by ourselves and outsiders.

I know from the emails I receive and comments made by other members that there is some concern that we may no longer be viewed as a hard-done-by group of individuals seriously trying to get our lost life-savings back, but rather a sad bunch of individuals who have nothing better to do than read 'jokes' all day. I personally find it extremely frustrating to post a serious comment with implications/consequences for us all to find it pushed down the comments-list by a deluge of jokes and other trivia. I cannot fathom why - when the biggest news to hit the site for months has been posted by the CoI - there is a half-page dedicated instead to WD40. WD40? Are you kidding me?! Everyone appreciates a good joke and at the beginning of this financial fiasco the odd quip was welcome light relief, but now the jokes have taken over I feel. If you want a good titter, then post the jokes on Twitter.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (15 votes)
    Login to post comments
Thanks to Gordon And Ice

I must repeat what others have said and thank those who are still keeping others informed with what seems expert auditing acuracy, i for one do not comment but look in every day, so i am one of the silent majority that still appreciates what you do

All the best

Posted by shafted on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 06:46
hi ice

Hi Ice
Well I Did wade through your figures and explanations, as I do those of Gordon 45. Without them I would feel completely in the dark and although I dont post much, its simply because my own observations are fairly limited in comparison to yours and Gordons. Sometimes it leaves me in awe the amount of depth you both go into.
But never ever doubt there are lots of people on this site, like myself, who do appreciate
all the analysis and information that keep us living in hope.

Posted by tsunamivictim on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 02:15
Gordon and Ice

Just to reiterate the comments of tsunamivictim - I read through it all, don't understand a lot, post rarely as I have nothing to add, but would be lost without it. Thank you both for your much appreciated time and effort. Please keep it coming ....

Posted by caledonia on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 08:50
Coping mechanisms

I must first apologize to Ice and Gordon45 and many of the other stalwarts of this site who have continued shouting into what, all too often, has been an empty room. I too am guilty of staying silent these days, having had so much to say in the early days. On that note, where's Expat?

In those early days, I welcomed Cottesmore's light relief because, you have to admit, his jokes are excellent but, lately, I too have been frustrated that each day brings forth just a round of jokes and no news that the cavalry is coming to save us!

However, on reflection, what we are dealing with here is the various coping mechanisms people use to deal with the aftermath of having had our lifesavings looted. For Ice and Gordon45 it involves careful analysis and strategizing, and Cottesmore copes by creating laughter. For me.....I have thrown myself into working like a demon, trying to carve out a new profession for myself at the ripe old age of 56 - in the toughest economy we have faced since the Great Depression. Added to that, I invested a huge chunk of money into a house in Florida, which is now coping with the aftermath of the oil spill. In a nutshell: oil company polluting, bankers looting!

I propose that we now create a forum of "impact statements". If each member takes the time and makes the effort to describe the impact on their lives of being looted by KSFIOM, it will make for some pretty powerful reading and may just prove to be an effective tool. At the very least, it will fill up the big, empty space that will be left here now that Cottesmore has gone off on his hols!

Posted by Wanda on Sun, 25/07/2010 - 13:40
Serious posts

Well! I think I and many others are completely bamboozled by the financial conundrums and have to leave it to those trained in economics and accountancy. I don't feel qualified to express opinions on these snakes and ladders numbers. I have faith in those who do understand and hope they will explain to me in simple terms. What I do understand is, I and the rest of you have been well and truly stuffed and it is still going on. When those in high places plead they need their house, can I plead, I need my money.

Posted by conned on Sun, 25/07/2010 - 09:43
Well and Truly Stuffed

Yes, conned,
We have all been well and truly stuffed, and Ice has every right to feel that all his and Gordon's hard work goes unappreciated by the rest of us. Through May and June, just about the only serious stuff posted on here came from Ice and Gordon. The rest was Cottesmore's jokes. Almost single-handedly Cottesmore kept the show going.

What is equally galling to me is that May and June should NOT have been quiet months. We have had a change of government, and with it the best chance we'll ever have of getting this bloody mess sorted out once and for all, yet only 132 people have contributed to the DST fighting fund.

No doubt, many people think that we 132 are being gullible in the extreme by blindly following the DST. So what is the alternative - to sit back and bleat that we have been stuffed? (I'm not getting at you, conned. I know how much you too have done for the cause)

I, for one, am sick to death of being at the mercy of our gormless liquidators (Ice's words). I am not prepared to sit back and wait for the next umpteen years for OUR money to trickle down to us at the whim of impson and pratt.

I would not be able to live with myself if, in future years, I knew that a great opportunity to get all our money back had been missed because I was too tight to put my hand in my pocket when it mattered.

Posted by Valentine on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 01:42
Valentine -Fighting Fund

Valentine please could you explain exactly why the DST needs more money?

I personally doubt the wisdom employing professional lobbyists (which I understand is one reason.)

We have gone down that route before at least with PR people Bell Potinger and it has achieved nothing.

Lots of other people have been doing things not everyone IS sitting back and bleating .

It now looks like we will get back a considerable portion of our funds within the next two years however I can understand your frustration all too well.

We are to a certain extent at the mercy of the liquidators - we are after all in Liquidation but we have a creditors committee whom we have ourselves elected and we trust will look after our interests .They are all creditors with a lot to lose so I see no reason why they should not do their utmost for us.

I note that no one from the DST has answered my questions re the 346k claim that DAG has put into the liquidators.

In the case of the money being awarded where will it go?

Will people who have contributed towards the fighting fund have their contributions refunded to them?

Posted by bellyup on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 03:54

Thanks for your reply, bellyup. If you are doing things on your own to help in the campaign, that's great.

But why not share it with us? I would have said a year ago that such info would only have served to clog up the site. Not any more. These days any news/info might help to keep the momentum going, perhaps even to re-ignite a bit of motivation.

As for the 356k, I, like Julie, am a bit confused. Unlike the liquidators who have to be constantly shaken out of their stupor by Gordon and Ice, the DST is actually working for us. They want 100% return just as we do. So, I would have thought that, as Julie said, let's keep fighting. Let's get the 100% back first, then quibble about the 346k.

Posted by Valentine on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 01:00
@ Valentine


The amount is 346k
The liquidators are doing what they have to do.
We may not like them but we have a Creditors Committee to represent our interests with them
A committee that we elected.

I will ask again.
What does the DST want 346K for?
Where and to whom will this money go if it is awarded?
How is the DST working to get 100%?

What in fact are they doing that necessitates a 346k claim from the creditors money?

In view of the large amount of money concerned I believe that these are very reasonable questions and I trust that you or some member of the DST will give me some answers.

Posted by bellyup on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 02:22

Why have the work trying to find out who gave what? it was put there to fight! I personally think it should be used for that, save asking people for more cash.

Posted by Julie on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 19:09
Re fight

Julie 'It' was 'put there' by the contributions of the depositors.

Many people gave generously and as I understand it these contributions to the fighting fund paid for the work in the SOA , and various lawyers in the IOM and the UK. PR firms etc.

This then was no expense to the DAG- the DAG was/is an entity funded by the creditors.

If Dag carry on with this claim they will reduce the funding available to all of the creditors by 346k

Then who or what will receive this money?

THIS IS OUR MONEY we have every right to know what will happen to it in the event that it is awarded to DAG

Your response indicates that you believe that this money will be used to fund continuing legal approaches.

But to what end?
PWC is dealing with Khf and KSFUK and have their own lawyers.

What purpose is it to duplicate the work of PWC?

How can DAG - who have already been funded by contributions from the depositors then make a claim against the same depositors thereby depriving them of money rightfully due to them?

What is the 346k if received going to used for?

Who are the signatories to this entity DAG that has put in the claim ?

If at the end of 2 years there is money in the 'DAG' who will it belong too?

As a depositor and a member of DAG as are we all I would like to have some answers to these questions.

Posted by bellyup on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 20:43
re fund

Hi I am not trying to upset you or anyone else. But you state the money was put there by a few and some gave generously. Then you state it belongs to all depositors, sorry but I am confused. Surley all creditors are not part of it, otherwise it may as well be left where it is, in the Bank. If you feel so strongly and you contributed I feel sure your contribution would be refunded and the rest of us would have to pay to try and get 100% back including yours. Maybe a vote should be taken at the appropiate time, funds retuned or kept to keep fighting. My vote would be KEEP FIGHTING.

This is, as I see it. If I am wrong please correct me

Posted by Julie on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 21:39
@ Julie

First of all I did not state that 'the money ( the contributions to the fighting fund) was put there by a few and some gave generously.'

Please read my post again very carefully.

The 346k in question DOES belong to all depositors therefore all creditors are part of it and IMO it should remain in the bank and be distributed by the JL the same as the rest of the funds

It is my understanding that the DST originally put the claim against the IOMG for costs incurred fighting the SOA .

The costs were given NOT against the IOMG but were awarded to the DAG to be paid from the proceeds of liquidation.

Therefore we have the bizarre situation where the DEPOSITORS are paying the DAG costs.

This money belongs to ALL the depositors

This is not an us and them situation and as a person who has contributed generously from the very first it is inappropriate to say that you or anyone else would have to pay for me.

This is the depositors money and its not a small amount its a claim for 346k
This claim should be IMO be withdrawn.

Perhaps you will explain to me why the DST needs 346k?
In what way are 'you' or 'the rest of us' fighting to get back 100%?

Whilst I do not wish to diminish all the work that everyone - not just the DST - has done in this catastrophe the fact remains...

We have not got anything back to date that would not have come back to us anyway with liquidation

Posted by bellyup on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 02:33
Hi bellyup

I may be confused. Are you saying than the money to fight IOM treasury came from KSF bank or individuals if it came from individuals why should it be left in the bank for everone to share, surely it does belong to people that contributed to the court case and not people that don't wish to contribute to 100% return. Was it not the Judge that awarded cost against the bank so the contributors could get their money back in full and not a percentage years later? Stupid arrangement. How he can make the bank pay when DAG won against the treasury is a mystrey to me.
To someone like me who hasn't had the education like some have on this site, it looks like two people in court. One wins, gets costs awarded and the Judge makes the next door neighbour pay the cost.
Just trying to get my head round it all and not get at you. I am very surprised that only you and I are talking on this subject.

Posted by Julie on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 16:10
Hi Julie

a) The money i.e. contributions that went towards the 'fighting fund' came from individual depositors who sent the money at first to a member of the London Team 'Diver' and then to an account set up by the then Dag team .*

b) This money was used to employ lawyers and PR people.
There was the legal counsel in the Isle of Man Mr John Wright and the London lawyers Edwin Coe.
Also the PR firm Bell Potinger
I do not know if there are other legal expenses involved.

c) The DST made a claim against the IOMG for costs incurred in defending the SOA .
This was allowed by the Deemster in the IOM
BUT the costs were to come NOT from the IOMG but from the proceeds of Liquidation.
ie from KSFIOM in Liquidation.
KSFIOM in liquidation is Us the DEPOSITORS.

In effect this means that those who have already contributed by individual donations will now have to pay again as the money to pay the DST claim ( if awarded) will come from the depositors thereby reducing the amount that is to be distributed to the depositors.

As noted in the Liquidators/ CoI report this claim is for 346k

I don't understand why this claim has not been dropped as it obviously makes no sense to make a claim against ourselves.

The DST has just put up an explanation re this in the Blog section

'Claim for DAG lawyers SoA legal costs'

Posted by bellyup on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 18:15
legal bill

My guess would be that this amount is already owed to the lawyers and will be sucked up by them leaving nowt but a long itemised bill detailing every penny spent. They are very good at that!

Posted by Codpeace on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 21:18
@ codpeace

Its not my experience that lawyers work for free .
I would assume they will have been already paid out of the money contributed to the fighting fund.
If we under the name of DAG have debts with lawyers i would like to know how much .

Posted by bellyup on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 01:51

If the legal costs were that high I find it tough to believe that amount was raised in the fighting fund. - I may be absolutely wrong and maybe there were many very generous donations.

Posted by Codpeace on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 20:02
All contributions keeps the matter alive!

Hi to all DAG members,

I believe that all contributions to this website are relevant in that it shows continued belief in the website, the DAG's cause and the ultimate goal. Whether quieter times are punctuated with humour, I do believe that we are able to percieve and differentiate the more serious, factual postings and the latest news of the 49 million GBPs is excellent. However, I guess there's a part, in many of us, which feel loathe to "celebrate" instantly as there's been so much bad news out there in the past and you don't want to get your hopes up to have them dashed. Thanks to Icecrusher and Gordon 45 who have so deftly tabled the 'guesstimates' and financials and made them understandable to those of us with less statistical and financial acumen. Thanks to Cottesmore for keeping daily, humourous touch with the website. That people raise the above issues and instigate postings is good news by my reckoning. It shows we're still out there and we still care!!!!! Good to hear from some of you again.

Posted by glen07 on Sat, 24/07/2010 - 09:59

In case you have forgotten,i have been posting the daily distraction for god knows how long.We all have varying things to offer in this bloody fiasco.That does not mean i dont give a shit,because i do.I cannot do any more than what i have done.I have been in contact and met my MP and got him to sign the EDM.I have written to god knows how many people.I have spoken to both Allan Bell (several times) and John Spellman.I am not on the DAG 'board'. I have contributed substantially to all requests for funds.I am on the site pretty much every day.What the *uck more do you want from me.I've been here from day one.I support the best way i know how.Please get of your high horse and do what YOU do best.That is,making us 'laymen,' understand the bullshit jargon, that comes from the liquidators et all.Between you and Gordon the numbers are more easily understood.I will continue doing what i do until this shit is over.It's my way of dealing with the loss of £400,000 (now £200,000 plus interest)If you can't stand it,post something to keep us all gripped! If there isnt anything to report then try and chill out as best as you can.But please remember it keeps people looking at the site for any news,even if its about WD40!!!

Posted by cottesmore on Thu, 22/07/2010 - 22:01
To cottesmore, Icecrusher & all members

Hi There,

I do realise that the funnies posted on the site will certainly be a comfort and a light distraction to many of us from our horrendous situation and that is why I keep my thoughts to myself.

I do what I do to try and help in my way as does Icecrusher, Glen07, Expat, Anrigaut etc and we all have a part to play on this site. I am sure some of you get fed up with what I and Icecrusher do and don't always understand what we are trying to put across, my stuff anyway. But we do it for all of us and cottesmore (Mark) is no diferent in his way and we should appreciate anyone who tries to do their bit in the best way they can.

Icecrusher has always fought hard on this missing £21-£47m from the UK Bank and I did we wee piece on what would be required a few months ago to offset not getting the 100% on this cash - can't find it now, but Icecrusher is right this £49m at 65% will virtually make up that difference and it is very important for all of us.

I have made no comment on the COI minutes, or the parts of them released to us by the JLs/COI committee. And that is because I await the'fuller' data then I will come back to you all with my thoughts and my Table 9 then.

I would perhaps just mention my new concerns re these 10 loans which account for 61% of what is due back. Because 61% of £313m is £190m. and if only 2 or 3 othese defaulted badly it means a loss of up to £38m or £57m and that to us is either 4.18p/£ or 6.27p/£ to us in 'dividends quite substantial. So when our JLs say £2.5m back or £1.5m back from loans totally paid off it is small beer. And I do wonder whether the £23.6m in loans pushed back from 2009 to 2010 is now due to one of the big loans and/or is the £17m we are down in the first half of 2010 also down to the same thing - who knows?

Anyway I will get back with my thoughts once we here from the JLs on the fuller figures and also on the release from E&Y re their 4th dividend back to our JLs next week As it should inform us on the base amount they are returning the 5%, is it on £205m or £254.3m or inbetween, it would be nice to know as it could affect our next dividend or not from our JLs which I still think will be in Dec this year or Jan next year.

So lets all still be patient with each other, appreciate we all do what we can in our own way and not bicker because we have now passed the 50% stage, with lots more to come hopefully and lets not perhaps please some of our high numbers of visitors with internal problems. If we want to let someone know that we are not happy then why not do it via the DAG internal system that we can all use.

Hopefully not offending anyone with my thoughts.

Take care,

Gordon 45

Posted by Gordon 45 on Fri, 23/07/2010 - 10:53
Internal discord

Totally agree with your comments Gordon. Everybody deals with the problems caused by this debacle in their own way.
We should remain constructive and focused without becoming negative.

Posted by Brabander on Sat, 24/07/2010 - 21:49

I can see you are upset. Perhaps your jokes and other sundries do keep people coming back for more, but if the 'distraction' is more attractive than the main course where doe that leave us - and what does it say about us?

Do you not find it odd (understatement!) that some £49,000,000 will now (rightfully) be added to our 'pot' in the UK (which means that our previous dividends have been underpaid by about 24%) without raising a murmur from the few people left that visit these pages? The other DAG site is even worse - the usual number of replies posted to a comment is 0 (zero).

If I could offer offer a request: just hold off on the 'distractions' when something big hits this site, then perhaps a glimmer of interest may be kindled before the big news gets sunk. Thanks.

PS My comments are directed at the issue, not the personality; have a great holiday!

Posted by IceCrusher on Fri, 23/07/2010 - 04:50

We have all been in this for a very long time. i am in this because my mother lost her entire savings and at 79 is not in a position to start again. She too has attended meetings wherever she can (two knee replacements does not help) handed in petitions on behalf of everyone to downing street and the Icelandic embassy etc. However lately I have taken a more pragmatic view in that I look and listen from the intelligent postings on here but do not presume to comment on matters that others understand better than I. Some members are involved in distraction and others getting to the core of what is happening.

The lack of comments are probably not lack of interest but more just the need for information which in my case i can then relay by phone or in the case of the COI report printing off and taking to my mother for her to read and hopefully talk her through what it means for her.

Everyone keep going and do not get frustrated with each other, more focus that frustration on what you all do best.

Thanks and best wishes.


Posted by thesunnysouth on Fri, 23/07/2010 - 12:08
I think the reason why there

I think the reason why there is not a lot of comment about the £49m, excellent news that it is, is perhaps because many of us do not fully appreciate its importance and other info in the last minutes of the CofI. We have become dependent on the excellent analysis that you and Gordon produce. And we are awaiting your next updates before we demonstrate too much excitement about the prospect of returns going over 90% and most of it coming by the end of 2012/3. Am I being too optimistic?

This is the main course, but I do like to smile as well and have a shared gratitude to Cottesmore as well.

Best wishes and thanks to both.

Posted by dodot on Fri, 23/07/2010 - 10:56
See my comment below...

Just to labour the point; I tried to provide a simplified explanation (in the comment box below) on the why and how this extra £49m could be accounted for - and which hopefully will soon be swelling our UK pot. Guess what, not a single response to date!

So I shall tell a story:

'Dungood' lost £100 on deposit in KSF UK, but he'd borrowed £1m to buy a 'cheap' pad in London. Under the rules of insolvency, dungood could set-off of his deposit against his loan. So what you say? Well dungood gets his loan reduced by a whole £100, but his mate 'dunover' -- who had £100k deposited in the bank (but significantly, no loan) can only expect to get dividends on his deposit, not the whole 100% back.

Well, big deal you say; dungood got 100% of £100 set-off, so what? Let us say a year has passed since the company declared its intention to declare a dividend, so under UK insolvency rules (since 2005) a statutory discount rate is applied to both sides of the 'account' (what dungood owes the Company and what the Company owes dungood). A simple formula is employed that basically discounts the monies by 5% per year over the number of years before the loan is payable. (The assumption/reason being that money depreciates over time.) Note: The company has to make good to dungood as soon as possible, but dungood has only to repay the loan when it becomes due.

Dungood owed the Company a £1million with a repayment date 10 years hence and he has a deposit of £100 to set-off. A year has passed since the Company announced its intention to declare a dividend (the accounting start-point) so his £100 is reduced by 5% to £95 and he gets that 'set-off'. His £1m is not due to be repaid for another 9 years now so it gets reduced by 5% per year to £644,609. That sounds like a good deal for dungood does it not!

The KSF UK Administrators thought this was a deal too good to be true for a few creditors and disadvantaged the many, so took this judgement to Appeal. The Appeal Court agreed with the adminstrators and the appeal was upheld. [Sir Terence Michael Elkan Barnet Etherton, the leading judge at the Appeal Court said: it was "extraordinarily beneficial to the creditor in question and highly detrimental to the general body of creditors."] This result must have really upset those depositor/borrowers who owed nearly £1b to KSF UK between them. The Appeal Court essentially said that our friend dungood could get his £95 set-off, but that it could only be set-off against its future worth - and the balance was a future debt payable in full with interest.

So, by manipulating the discount rate formula we need to find the sum in 9 years time that will produce £95 today. That works out to be about £155. So, dungood can set-off his £100 today against £155 of the future (discounted to today's 'value' - Ice: stay with me!) These two cancel each other out in real terms (£95=£155), so leaving £1000,000 minus £155 as the balance (£999,845 to be repaid in 9 years time, in full, with contractual interest to add.

The above is an extremely simplified explanation of what has happened in the Appeal; it can be seen that with the UK Adminstrators firstly seeking direction on Insolvency Rules then getting 'hit' with a ruling that was clearly and practically 'wrong' that much time has passed before the appeal was heard and found in their favour. Now that this has been accepted, the UK Administrators and the IoM Liquidators can presumably work to find a common solution to their long-standing issue of 'set-off' in the sub-participation of loans.

PS I am not an accountant or a financial expert - I just read the facts over and over and reformulate them into something more readily understood (I think/hope!) If anyone wants to see the 'maths' I have an interactive spreadsheet that shows exactly how this all works. Email me if you want a copy.

Posted by IceCrusher on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 11:25
Ice, Thanks for supplying


Thanks for supplying such a clear explanation.

Regards, TonyC

Posted by tonycBrisbaneOz on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 08:16

Icecrusher, without the postings you and G45 make on this site, those of us out here who do not have your patience, dedication and acumen for this marathon would be lost in space. I for one read each and every posting you both make and am extremely grateful for them. Thanks a million (or maybe 250+ of them!)

Posted by Stunned Mullet on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 13:20
IceCrusher -You 'dungood" with your story

Good explanation. Good result. Good on you.

Posted by glen07 on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 12:25
I think the reason is...

I think that G45 and I have cut back on our analyses; the truth is that there are so few depositors left visiting the site that it is hardly worth the hours of study and effort put into producing the reports. I think that five people bothered to tick the box for my last comprehensive output (Simple Sums2) which included three complex attachments. I wouldn't even divulge how many hours and days it takes to put such things together, yet no one asks a single question.

What I think is that we will get back at least my guestimated 86% over the next few years, perhaps we might even get more now -- the £49m will definitely help a lot.

To put things into context, E&Y had 'allowed' KSFIoM a claim of £205m pending discussions. This just stalled for time until their appeal went to Court. They basically changed their approach in the appeal, but got the practical result they were seeking with regard to insolvency set-off. Seems it works in their favour (and the majority of unsecured creditors) but less so for creditors claiming set-off against loans payable in the future.

The CoI concentrated in telling us in their report about the odd million here, and the odd £600k there, but skirted around the issue of telling us how the extra £49m will be come by, save only to mention valuation of set-off against sub-participations without giving the numbers.

However, the worst-case claim is now apparently up from £205m to £254.3m. E&Y have paid 35% of dividends on £205 that should have been on £254.3m - so we are owed money it would seem. Not only that, but if KSFIoM's eventual returns reach the 78% already mentioned, then our UK dividend will be 78% of £254.3m and not the 65% of £205m that we've been expecting to date. See? It adds up to a lot more loot from the UK. We just have to hope that the KSFIoM loan book holds up and repayments are made on time or even earlier if the mortgagees can find alternative lower-cost loans to pay off their debts to KSFIoM.

Posted by IceCrusher on Fri, 23/07/2010 - 20:36
Ice and Gordon,

I always look forward to your updates and want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the effort you and Gordon put in. I often write a short note of thanks for your updates, I dont think you realise how much help it is to our family. My mum can not navigate around the site and so she relies on me to keep her updated, I tell her about you guys and she is always so grateful that you are working on the figures, I really can not work the figures out so your updates are so helpful.
I do not ask questions but just try to understand what is going on as best as I can. If for any reason you do not want to continue then I would understand however I really hope this is not the case. I will continue to look out for your updates.
I am not as active on this site as I once was, I still do what I can but if you need assistance with anything then please message me and either my mum or I will do as much as we can to help.

Posted by jenren on Mon, 26/07/2010 - 10:24
Thank you!

I would like to reiterate the comments made by jenren and others. I always look out for your posts and rely on them to try and make sense of everything, so I can pass on the info to my mother.

Unfortunately I am not at all mathematically inclined and sometimes struggle to understand the charts, numbers and percentages and therefore don't comment on the site when you make such postings, but I do my best to figure them out, so I can give my mother the lastest updates.

I'm always grateful for the summaries you often post and these help me understand what's going on.

So .... thank you!


Posted by formymum on Tue, 27/07/2010 - 11:14
reason for few comments


I am extremely appreciative of your contributions on the site especially this recent posting regarding the change in the worst case claim. I don't usually comment as I do not understand a lot of the analysis that you post. This may be the case with other depositors who do not have a financial background and feel inhibited about exposing their lack of knowledge - and wasting your time asking for explanations. Nonetheless, your posts, and those of Gordon 45, are the only guides we have to the way we can shape our lives so please keep them coming.

Posted by jmf on Sat, 24/07/2010 - 16:08

Could not have said it better.

Posted by Julie on Sun, 25/07/2010 - 00:51

I agree completely with Julie and JMF.
I believe many people are appreciative of the work you and Gordon have devoted to analysing the figures produced by the JL's.
The fact that few people actually react and show their appreciation is NOT indicative of the ingratitude of many depositors.
I, for one, understand the amount of time you and Gordon must have devoted to this task.
I believe that the fact that the last report of the CoI was much more informative than the previous report is to no small extent due to the pressure you and Gordon have put on the JL's to provide better information to the creditors.
I also believe that further improvements could be made by the JL's in terms of proper cash flow numbers as at present it is still virtually impossible to reconcile the flows of funds despite the valiant attempts by you and Gordon.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by Brabander on Sun, 25/07/2010 - 22:31