Sebrof Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 It is surprising if none of the more 'sophisticated' depositors asked the question - presumably some did. There don't seem to have been too many sophisticated investors. Possibly the proportion of Derbyshire bond-holders who were locked in was fairly small. Nonetheless, DAG's silence on this issue does surprise me. Bellyache hasn't complained about not being notified (as far as I recall), so I imagine they did in fact find out - shortly after the deal was done. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 It is surprising if none of the more 'sophisticated' depositors asked the question - presumably some did. There don't seem to have been too many sophisticated investors. Possibly the proportion of Derbyshire bond-holders who were locked in was fairly small. Nonetheless, DAG's silence on this issue does surprise me. Bellyache hasn't complained about not being notified (as far as I recall), so I imagine they did in fact find out - shortly after the deal was done. S No there werent many sophisticated investors because they were DEPOSITORS not investors. That is to use John Aspden speak - he who was so sophisticated he allowed 50% of the Banks assets to sail of to the UK to another Icelandic bank Un protected. Depositors mainly elderly people who didnt want to take risks with their money who put it in the SAFE and SECURE hands of a Bank ( the Derbyshire building society IOM - how safe does that sound ) where many had banked for years. Being 'unsophisticated' and trusting people maybe naive but it is not a crime. Mocking innocent people for trusting in the IOM is uncalled for . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 It is surprising if none of the more 'sophisticated' depositors asked the question - presumably some did. There don't seem to have been too many sophisticated investors. Possibly the proportion of Derbyshire bond-holders who were locked in was fairly small. Nonetheless, DAG's silence on this issue does surprise me. Bellyache hasn't complained about not being notified (as far as I recall), so I imagine they did in fact find out - shortly after the deal was done. S No there werent many sophisticated investors because they were DEPOSITORS not investors. That is to use John Aspden speak - he who was so sophisticated he allowed 50% of the Banks assets to sail of to the UK to another Icelandic bank Un protected. Depositors mainly elderly people who didnt want to take risks with their money who put it in the SAFE and SECURE hands of a Bank ( the Derbyshire building society IOM - how safe does that sound ) where many had banked for years. Being 'unsophisticated' and trusting people maybe naive but it is not a crime. Mocking innocent people for trusting in the IOM is uncalled for . Lying is uncalled for. And unhelpful to your own cause. Have you noticed that nobody posts here to support you? You are an embarassment to your fellow investors. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Mocking innocent people for trusting in the IOM is uncalled for. Its not really the Isle of Man's fault though is it? The movement of assets to KSFUK was perfectly acceptable under the regulations and would have worked out fine had it not been for the UK deciding it best to break the bank up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Depositors mainly elderly people who didnt want to take risks with their money who put it in the SAFE and SECURE hands of a Bank ( the Derbyshire building society IOM - how safe does that sound ) where many had banked for years. I thought that I had read of a number of depositors who had very large deposits, £500,000 plus. Certainly it is not a crime to trust people, or to be 'unsophisticated. I was just wondering if some of the people who deposited large amounts of money had checked out the situation when KSF acquired the Derbyshire business. Your sentence above reinforces my concern that there was a significant and material change when these deposits were 'sold' to KSF. It surprises me that a regulator would not see it as such or that Derbyshire did not have to write to its depositors to fully explain the situation. It should be a concern to depositors (I am sure it is with KSF depositors) that their money can be transferred from an institution whose parent is regulated by the EU to another one with a non-EU regulated parent without this being seen as significant by the authorities. Bellyup do you know why DAG do not seem to have pursued this fundamental issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that a depositor with a Bank is an ordinary unsecured creditor. If the liability for the debt is to move from the original Debtor to another Debtor then the creditor has to agree to accept the liability of the second debtor, otherwise the liability of the original Debtor stays effective. Whilst the transfer may have been authorised by the T & C of the deposit account i.e. the depositor agreed in advance that they would agree to any transfer of liability I think the only other way the transfer could have legal effect is by an Act of Tynwald. Perhaps John Wright could comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Whilst the transfer may have been authorised by the T & C of the deposit account i.e. the depositor agreed in advance that they would agree to any transfer of liability I think the only other way the transfer could have legal effect is by an Act of Tynwald. Perhaps John Wright could comment? The T&C above (here) seems to show that the depositors would have agreed to the potential transfer of business. What would your "only other" mean in that context ? I'm probably misunderstanding what you have written. Do bank takeovers and mergers normally / regularly / ever involve an Act of Tynwald? Eg the recent Bradford & Bingley International takeover. Eg the current Britannia / Co Op merger. I'm not a lawyer either but I am fairly sure that it is always covered by the T&C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The T&C above (here) seems to show that the depositors would have agreed to the potential transfer of business. Everything hinges on these words: "on substantially the same investment terms." Although Slim might disagree with this, it is pretty obvious that the only significant thing about any investment is the balance between risk and reward. The phrase "investment terms" as applied to a deposit would presumably include the interest payable. If so, I would suggest that it is beyond argument that risk should feature in the equation too. That being the case, I think it is hard not to argue that a British building society would be perceived (and it's all about perception) as less risky than a very highly leveraged non-EU bank. From which it follows that if depositors were not offered a higher rate to compensate for a perceived higher risk, then they should have had the option to withdraw their deposits. If I were a silk, I would take this case. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Possibly the proportion of Derbyshire bond-holders who were locked in was fairly small. Nonetheless, DAG's silence on this issue does surprise me. Bellyache hasn't complained about not being notified (as far as I recall), so I imagine they did in fact find out - shortly after the deal was done. S Will you please stop it with the "S" thing. I don't know why but I (and possibly others) find it very irritating. It implies an over exaggerated sense of self importance. We know it is you who is making the post from your username. Nobody else seems to feel the need to do it. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Will you please stop it with the "S" thing. I don't know why but I (and possibly others) find it very irritating. It implies an over exaggerated sense of self importance. We know it is you who is making the post from your username. Nobody else seems to feel the need to do it. Thanks No. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The 'investment terms' means the return / rate and conditions IMO. Well that is how I would understand it as a simple minded saver. You are saying that the soundness of the institution should be a 'term'. Possibly it should. But it isn't under any current system. That is for the process / regulation / control etc. And it would not be for the savers to assess the rights and wrongs of a takeover or merger unless they somehow had a vote. Which they did not. Very complicated. And down to opinion ultimately. The T&C above (here) seems to show that the depositors would have agreed to the potential transfer of business. Everything hinges on these words: "on substantially the same investment terms." Although Slim might disagree with this, it is pretty obvious that the only significant thing about any investment is the balance between risk and reward. The phrase "investment terms" as applied to a deposit would presumably include the interest payable. If so, I would suggest that it is beyond argument that risk should feature in the equation too. That being the case, I think it is hard not to argue that a British building society would be perceived (and it's all about perception) as less risky than a very highly leveraged non-EU bank. From which it follows that if depositors were not offered a higher rate to compensate for a perceived higher risk, then they should have had the option to withdraw their deposits. If I were a silk, I would take this case. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The nub is whether the business (the undertaking, assets and liabilities) was sold or the company (the shares). Ignoring any regulatory requirements, in the first instance counterparties would have to agree to a change in the party with whom they originally contracted, in the second it is only a change in the owner of the party with whom you have contracted, so unless the contract says otherwise, there is no need for notification or approval. For example, NatWest was a stand alone bank, but I do not recall ever having to agree to their takeover by RBS - more's the pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Will you please stop it with the "S" thing. I don't know why but I (and possibly others) find it very irritating. It implies an over exaggerated sense of self importance. We know it is you who is making the post from your username. Nobody else seems to feel the need to do it. Thanks No. S Ok, look a dickhead if you must T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Will you please stop it with the "S" thing. I don't know why but I (and possibly others) find it very irritating. It implies an over exaggerated sense of self importance. We know it is you who is making the post from your username. Nobody else seems to feel the need to do it. Thanks No. S Ok, look a dickhead if you must T When in Rome... S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The nub is whether the business (the undertaking, assets and liabilities) was sold or the company (the shares). Ignoring any regulatory requirements, in the first instance counterparties would have to agree to a change in the party with whom they originally contracted, in the second it is only a change in the owner of the party with whom you have contracted, so unless the contract says otherwise, there is no need for notification or approval. For example, NatWest was a stand alone bank, but I do not recall ever having to agree to their takeover by RBS - more's the pity. I don't agree. When opening an account with Derbyshire Offshore, depositors were, we are told, asked to give approval to a change of ownership. The question is whether that approval, which depended on the "investment terms" being substantially similar, would be valid in a takeover by a risky foreign bank. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.