re opes, page-24

yep - it all comes down to dollars and distribution method.

It seems now that everyone who lost portfolio value between collapse and default wants to use portfolio value and vice-versa for those who gained portfolio value over the same period. However, if it is a fixed pool of money to distribute, all those whose portfolio value decreased less than the average decrease between collapse and default of all opes accounts will be better off if the default date is used, and all those whose portfolios performed worse than the average of op client portfolios will be better off if the collapse date valuation is used.

This was pointed out by FH during discussions prior to the collapse of the first round of mediation but seems to have been forgotten by many people. If the money pool is not limited and ppl are offered a percentage of portfolio value, of course the vast majority would prefer March 27. Given that the pot is going to be limited (whether it's presented that way to clients or not) there will end up being half of the clients by value who want to use March 27, and half the clients by value who want to use default date. Better to work out which side of the equation your on now to enable a better decision if and when an offer is made.

As for the lack of notification from FH - seems to be their normal behaviour. very poor form imo, and if past performance is anything to go by we can probably expect a noncommittal email ay minute now telling us that progess is being made toward something uncertain and the time frame has been extended to some near future but not quite defined time.

Still - the banks have caused so many difficult issues through their initial actions that I can imagine they could be genuinely trying to settle but finding it difficult to extricate themselves with any semblance of organisation.