opes appeal dismissed, page-9

A lot of people are very positive above the scheme now, and the fact is that on average, ex OP clients will get around 75-80% of what they would have had if OP had not collapsed and they had stayed in the market with their portfolios.

The average client can be happy or satisfied with this, and good luck to them - but don't mistake a good result for a just result. This has been a travesty of justice, with the ANZ very lucky that the market fell strongly after the collapse of OP, the average OP client lucky that their position was closed out for them by the collapse, and those clients who would have had nothing had OP not collapsed are spectacularly lucky and of course very supportive of the scheme. It's the "outliers" whose positions would have increased or fallen by less than the average who are most hurt by the collapse and by the schemes. It's only natural that they are the ones who are most vocal against the schemes - and certainly doesn't mean they should be branded insane. Likewise for the Sweeneys - the fact they are trying to achieve what they believe is a just result (regardless that it might result in a worse result for some creditors) does not mean that they are doinf a bad job or simply being frivolous in trying to break a deal.

There is a bias toward people believeing something is fair if it is in their interest. Consider how fair this scheme would seem if the same thing had happened except that the market had risen sharply folowing collapse so that client claims were doubled instead of halved. There would be $250m to distribute among $1.2b of claims - roughly 20c in the dollar. This is the exact situation faced by some of the "outliers" now.