KSF Megathread 2

[bellyup]

Also appeared in iomtoday with more details on bondholders etc

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/letters/ksf_suffering_continues_1_2808140

 

(This is not me BTW)

[jimbms]

Oh dear my heart pumps purple piss for them, rarely do i see such heart rendering tales of hardship as this. now thats the token sympathy out of the way fuck of and tell someone who gives a toss. oh and btw there is nothing wrong with terses avatar I passed it him, it just shows the nazi pervayor of catholisism oppersion and lies in a borat swimsuit

[bellyup]

.............there is nothing wrong with terses avatar I passed it him, it just shows the nazi pervayor of catholisism oppersion and lies in a borat swimsuit

 

 

Nothing wrong with it all apart from being silly and offensive but as I say very apt for the posters .

Not amusing or intelligent - suits you both to a T

[Gladys]

Well, this seems to be taking a turn for the worst; may almost end up on Belly Up's side.

 

However, for the record: I do not have your money, nor does anyone else on the IOM, I do not support the idea of buying the loan book even though it is said to be blue chip in terms of risk (is the loan book even up for sale, given the liquidators have it, not the people of the IOM?) and I certainly do not support the idea of stumping up any more cash to depositors when the whole reason the IOM bank flopped was due to a failure of the UK.

 

It is proper shit really, to that extent I agree, but who is to blame and so pay; well that is a whole other debate, but it ain't me.

[kipperman]

once again the manx people pay for decisions made in the uk. but who keeps there word

[bellyup]

Well, this seems to be taking a turn for the worst; may almost end up on Belly Up's side.

 

However, for the record: I do not have your money, nor does anyone else on the IOM, I do not support the idea of buying the loan book even though it is said to be blue chip in terms of risk (is the loan book even up for sale, given the liquidators have it, not the people of the IOM?) and I certainly do not support the idea of stumping up any more cash to depositors when the whole reason the IOM bank flopped was due to a failure of the UK.

 

It is proper shit really, to that extent I agree, but who is to blame and so pay; well that is a whole other debate, but it ain't me.

 

Gladys rest assured you have not stumped up anything for me. I have not claimed anything at all from the IOM. I put my trust there once and lost so I have taken my chances with the liquidator.

 

Nor have you stumped up anything for the hundreds of bondbolders with KSF because the DSC doesnt cover them .

 

Remember these are not big bussiness but mostly pensioners who were seeking a safe place for their savings.

 

As to the rest ,as the liquidators have ( by today )now paid out 61.5%

Much of the DSC paid out has already been recovered by the IOM - and that was largely funded by the banks anyway.The IOMG has been paid out by the liquidators.

The IOMG has also recovered 61.5% of the 10 million it had deposited in KSF.

 

 

 

So not only have you not stumped up anything for me but I have had to pay the IOM courts costs for defending myself from the SOA - an idea of the IOMG that I never asked for.

In that years delay that its caused the depositors paid -

 

They suffered the total loss of their funds

They were obliged to engage lawyers to defend their case.

They did not receive their DSC for a whole year.

The funds in that year have been eroded by inflation

You cant have a financial industry without offereing your clients some measure of security.

And all this is nothing compared with the emotional distress and real hardship that the depositors have 'paid' over the last two years.

[Gladys]

Has not the IOM paid out under the DPS? Who funded that?

 

I do really empathise with you. But at the end of the day, how was the IOM so negligent when you look at the behaviour of the UK, let alone Iceland?

 

The picture is painted of impoverished pensioners losing all, which probably has substance. But are they really pensioners in our traditional view, ie those who rely totally on a state pension and fear for the next power bill? If so, why on earth were they putting money offshore?

 

I don't know, truly I don't, but the bleating does make you wonder why put money offshore if your normal receptacle for savings is (or, more likely, should be) the mantlepiece teapot?

 

I still do not understand the motivaton/necessity for accounts of basically ordinary people to be held offshore.

 

That is not to excuse the current fiasco, but to understand why you put your money, which you could not afford to lose, into an environment that you plainly did not understand? Sophisticated investor and all that.

[bellyup]

Has not the IOM paid out under the DPS? Who funded that?

 

The DSC is funded by bank levies but as the Tynwald had raised the DCS to 50k without consultation with the banks an interest free loan from the treasury was granted in order to pay for this.

All depositors who had below 50k have been paid out by this although they had to wait a year before it was actioned.

Already 61% of this has been paid back together with a years bank levies.

Because the returns from liquidation are predicted to be high there will be very little cost at all to the IOM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do really empathise with you. But at the end of the day, how was the IOM so negligent when you look at the behaviour of the UK, let alone Iceland?

 

I believe that the IOM regulator should have been more vigilant when the Derbyshire Building Society was taken over by KSF. Depositors in the DBS were for the main very cautious savers and this should have been taken into consideration.

The UK behaved IMO opinion terribly - but i feel more action from the IOM government could have lead to more forceful representation of the depositors predicament.In short they could have demanded of the UK government that funds from KSFIOM were not put into the communal pot for a start.

They are after all a government and unlike the depositors can speak face to face with their opposing numbers in the UK.

Instead the depositors were left to flounder alone and the whole unhappy Scheme of Arrangement unfolded.

 

 

The picture is painted of impoverished pensioners losing all, which probably has substance. But are they really pensioners in our traditional view, ie those who rely totally on a state pension and fear for the next power bill? If so, why on earth were they putting money offshore?

 

I don't know, truly I don't, but the bleating does make you wonder why put money offshore if your normal receptacle for savings is (or, more likely, should be) the mantelpiece teapot?

 

I still do not understand the motivaton/necessity for accounts of basically ordinary people to be held offshore.

 

That is not to excuse the current fiasco, but to understand why you put your money, which you could not afford to lose, into an environment that you plainly did not understand? Sophisticated investor and all that.

 

 

 

Most did think that they understood the enviroment for most it was the Derbyshire Building Society .

What more traditional and solid sounding establishment can you have than that?

The very name conjures up those worthy northern values of work and prudent saving.

How sophisticated do you need to be to put your money into a building society?

 

There were however various kinds of depositors

Firstly there are those who deposited (individuals) and those that invested (Life Companies).

This is a vital distinction to remember, but one which people mix together.

People put money in KSFIOM for a variety of reasons - in fact some did not know that their money was being placed offshore . Most depositors are just like you and me - joe public.

 

Main types of depositors

 

1. Business - if you have a business that buys and sells around the globe then the main units of currency are £ pound, $ dollar and € euro. It is possible to run these types of accounts from within the UK but everything is converted to sterling, and you can lose out on exchange rates. Therefore it is 'more convenient' to have accounts in more than just sterling; this is something 'offshore' accounts provide that UK mainland banks do not.

 

 

2. Life Companies / Pension funds - if you deposit your funds with a life company they then have control over where the money, which has become theirs, is deposited or invested, you (the bondholder) have little or no say or control over where it goes.

 

 

3. Expats living overseas - there is again the possibility as in 1 above of using multi currency accounts, but the main reason is that 99.9% of UK financial institutions will not permit anyone who does not have a UK residential address to open or even to retain a bank account on the UK mainland. For many of those that are eligible for a UK state pension paid in sterling, it is pretty much the only route for them to eventually have access to their money. For others with some savings that they need to earn some income from, some of whom - as a result of working abroad for much of their working life - have no or very little state pension, again going 'offshore' is their only option.

 

 

4. IOM Residents - again used the bank as they would any bank, for current and savings accounts

 

 

5. UK Residents - deposited in savings accounts to help boost their State pension income, and provide a slightly more comfortable lifestyle in their retirement or simply saving for a rainy day. Were often pushed offshore by sales staff in UK branches.

 

 

Most people came from the period where you were taught that saving for your retirement, etc was a good thing to do, this is what they have done and have now ended up with no access to their savings. We were taught that keeping your savings under the mattress or on the mantelpiece was NOT a good idea - put them in the bank or building society for a rainy day and/or your old age.

 

Note that over half of KSFIOM depositors were British citizens living abroad, some in countries with highly unstable banking systems. For this, and other reasons, they need or wish to keep at least some of their savings in a sterling account near 'home', but - with no UK address - are unable to open accounts on the mainland.

For some, now retired, the income from a substantial sum - saved over a lifetime of work in sometimes difficult conditions - is the ONLY pension they have.

Others, planning to return to live in the UK in retirement, use an offshore account to deposit funds in readiness for this move; a fair number had recently sold their home abroad and deposited the money in KSF while searching for a house in the UK - some of these people remain homeless, living with family and friends because - even with half their money returned - they still cannot afford to buy the home they need. Mortgages do not come easily to retired people.

 

More than half of KSFIOM depositors were with Derbyshire Offshore, chosen specifically because it was seen as a low-risk 'British' building society. Many of these were also expats - so forced to bank abroad if wanting to retain a sterling account. Many, who originally had accounts in the UK, were effectively 'transferred' offshore at the suggestion of the Derbyshire UK on moving abroad, often many years ago. Others, UK residents seeking to open accounts with the Derbyshire UK in more recent times, were persuaded by their mainland branch that an offshore axccount would better fit their needs, with a slightly higher interest rate - at no additional risk.

 

Pensioners are pensioners, today they don't have to conform to the teapot on the mantelpiece stereotype which is just as well as some were left with no mantelpiece much less a teapot!

 

Hope this explains things a bit.

[Barrie Stevens]

Has not the IOM paid out under the DPS? Who funded that?

 

The DSC is funded by bank levies but as the Tynwald had raised the DCS to 50k without consultation with the banks an interest free loan from the treasury was granted in order to pay for this.

All depositors who had below 50k have been paid out by this although they had to wait a year before it was actioned.

Already 61% of this has been paid back together with a years bank levies.

Because the returns from liquidation are predicted to be high there will be very little cost at all to the IOM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do really empathise with you. But at the end of the day, how was the IOM so negligent when you look at the behaviour of the UK, let alone Iceland?

 

I believe that the IOM regulator should have been more vigilant when the Derbyshire Building Society was taken over by KSF. Depositors in the DBS were for the main very cautious savers and this should have been taken into consideration.

The UK behaved IMO opinion terribly - but i feel more action from the IOM government could have lead to more forceful representation of the depositors predicament.In short they could have demanded of the UK government that funds from KSFIOM were not put into the communal pot for a start.

They are after all a government and unlike the depositors can speak face to face with their opposing numbers in the UK.

Instead the depositors were left to flounder alone and the whole unhappy Scheme of Arrangement unfolded.

 

 

The picture is painted of impoverished pensioners losing all, which probably has substance. But are they really pensioners in our traditional view, ie those who rely totally on a state pension and fear for the next power bill? If so, why on earth were they putting money offshore?

 

I don't know, truly I don't, but the bleating does make you wonder why put money offshore if your normal receptacle for savings is (or, more likely, should be) the mantelpiece teapot?

 

I still do not understand the motivaton/necessity for accounts of basically ordinary people to be held offshore.

 

That is not to excuse the current fiasco, but to understand why you put your money, which you could not afford to lose, into an environment that you plainly did not understand? Sophisticated investor and all that.

 

 

 

Most did think that they understood the enviroment for most it was the Derbyshire Building Society .

What more traditional and solid sounding establishment can you have than that?

The very name conjures up those worthy northern values of work and prudent saving.

How sophisticated do you need to be to put your money into a building society?

 

There were however various kinds of depositors

Firstly there are those who deposited (individuals) and those that invested (Life Companies).

This is a vital distinction to remember, but one which people mix together.

People put money in KSFIOM for a variety of reasons - in fact some did not know that their money was being placed offshore . Most depositors are just like you and me - joe public.

 

Main types of depositors

 

1. Business - if you have a business that buys and sells around the globe then the main units of currency are £ pound, $ dollar and € euro. It is possible to run these types of accounts from within the UK but everything is converted to sterling, and you can lose out on exchange rates. Therefore it is 'more convenient' to have accounts in more than just sterling; this is something 'offshore' accounts provide that UK mainland banks do not.

 

 

2. Life Companies / Pension funds - if you deposit your funds with a life company they then have control over where the money, which has become theirs, is deposited or invested, you (the bondholder) have little or no say or control over where it goes.

 

 

3. Expats living overseas - there is again the possibility as in 1 above of using multi currency accounts, but the main reason is that 99.9% of UK financial institutions will not permit anyone who does not have a UK residential address to open or even to retain a bank account on the UK mainland. For many of those that are eligible for a UK state pension paid in sterling, it is pretty much the only route for them to eventually have access to their money. For others with some savings that they need to earn some income from, some of whom - as a result of working abroad for much of their working life - have no or very little state pension, again going 'offshore' is their only option.

 

 

4. IOM Residents - again used the bank as they would any bank, for current and savings accounts

 

 

5. UK Residents - deposited in savings accounts to help boost their State pension income, and provide a slightly more comfortable lifestyle in their retirement or simply saving for a rainy day. Were often pushed offshore by sales staff in UK branches.

 

 

Most people came from the period where you were taught that saving for your retirement, etc was a good thing to do, this is what they have done and have now ended up with no access to their savings. We were taught that keeping your savings under the mattress or on the mantelpiece was NOT a good idea - put them in the bank or building society for a rainy day and/or your old age.

 

Note that over half of KSFIOM depositors were British citizens living abroad, some in countries with highly unstable banking systems. For this, and other reasons, they need or wish to keep at least some of their savings in a sterling account near 'home', but - with no UK address - are unable to open accounts on the mainland.

For some, now retired, the income from a substantial sum - saved over a lifetime of work in sometimes difficult conditions - is the ONLY pension they have.

Others, planning to return to live in the UK in retirement, use an offshore account to deposit funds in readiness for this move; a fair number had recently sold their home abroad and deposited the money in KSF while searching for a house in the UK - some of these people remain homeless, living with family and friends because - even with half their money returned - they still cannot afford to buy the home they need. Mortgages do not come easily to retired people.

 

More than half of KSFIOM depositors were with Derbyshire Offshore, chosen specifically because it was seen as a low-risk 'British' building society. Many of these were also expats - so forced to bank abroad if wanting to retain a sterling account. Many, who originally had accounts in the UK, were effectively 'transferred' offshore at the suggestion of the Derbyshire UK on moving abroad, often many years ago. Others, UK residents seeking to open accounts with the Derbyshire UK in more recent times, were persuaded by their mainland branch that an offshore axccount would better fit their needs, with a slightly higher interest rate - at no additional risk.

 

Pensioners are pensioners, today they don't have to conform to the teapot on the mantelpiece stereotype which is just as well as some were left with no mantelpiece much less a teapot!

 

Hope this explains things a bit.

 

The Isle of Man Government/officials did make an effort and meet with their opposite numbers or some such in London did they not? They came back with nothing dragging their tails behind them. (See above)

 

I think they also tagged along with the UK delegation to Iceland or at least had some form of proxy representation.

 

Simple fact is that Isle of Man Government counts for very little off-Island and as we know from the Island's own High Court, it does not legally exist as an independent entity. (Isle of Man Government is British Government with another hat on)

 

Manx officials simply have no clout in London other than any clout graciously granted to them like the Biblical crumbs falling from the rich man's table.

 

I recall writing at the time on the KSF site that the UK had effectively put a lien on the funds and was going to confiscate them! (Quoting that possession is nine points of the law by custom)

 

I was howled down! One man even said that a lien was only used to repossess cars on the "Never Never".

 

Spoils of war! The UK wins and the Island gets the ha'pence; 'twas ever thus and always shall be!

[Gladys]

Do you know what a lien is Barrie?

 

It is a very specific remedy and one that arises in very specific circumstances.

[bellyup]

Well this is our second Christmas together my mankie friends

 

only another 6 to go!

 

 

Happy Christmas and New year to you all Manxmates

[censorship]

my mankie friends

Is that intended to be offensive?

[jimbms]

my mankie friends

Is that intended to be offensive?

He could mean all his friends who invested in KSF who can no longer afford to wash i.e. they are mankie

[censorship]

my mankie friends

Is that intended to be offensive?

He could mean all his friends who invested in KSF who can no longer afford to wash i.e. they are mankie

and wankie, don't forget wankie.

[jimbms]

my mankie friends

Is that intended to be offensive?

He could mean all his friends who invested in KSF who can no longer afford to wash i.e. they are mankie

and wankie, don't forget wankie.

Nah he's just a tosser not a wanker.