A comment from ablrate on collateral wouldn't go amiss

Mar 9, 2018 5:50:44 GMT elliotn said:

Mar 8, 2018 13:29:56 GMT blender said:

Yes, the main concern is D. There is only one Ablrate. He is outstandingly competent (and second best platform rep), but he is key to this platform and he's ours.

Abl is my only platform that had to email that loans I had invested in did not have the contractual security in place.

I thought that was outstandingly incompetent.

The same forum member that raised this alarm also highlighted concerns about the fishing assets and the loan was hastily restructured (with Abl washing their hands of their borrowing proposal saying it was solely the borrower's responsibility and ours to audit it).

The Scottish lodges now progressing on MT may have gone the whole time without its security in place on Abl - except it's difficult to tell as no final update has been given to investors.

The platform themselves have admitted that their loan monitoring to date has not been up to expectations.

On Coll I found legals to be strong (for their loans anyway!) and they had recruited someone with QS experience to monitor and provide feedback on their developments.

I'd also contrast their only defaults. Abl saw their borrower fail to complete on some containers whereas Coll's car dealership was reeled back in by the integrity of their legal documents (chattels' mortgage, buyback and sales' agency agreements).

Whilst no platform is perfect (and Coll was obviously fatally flawed) to suggest abl/dbw are "outstandingly competent" is to ignore some serious issues that have arisen on their platform.

I'm almost afraid to ask...who is the number 1 platform rep?

You're a tough crowd. In terms of the qualities of people who actually, hands on, originate and monitor loans on p2p platforms, I will stick with my opinion. Let me just say 'Whitehaven' to make the point about what goes on elsewhere.

Much of what is said above supports my main point, in that I was concerned about 'stretch', and it is when a competent person is stretched too far that things go wrong.  That is what worries me about our main man being sucked into the COL problems. Of course those with COL investments may see it differently.

Containers dates from a different era, when this was a double act, with a different platform rep. It is significant that no effort or expense is being spared in trying to fix this (many months ago the cost was estimated at £20k).

"Whilst no platform is perfect (and Coll was obviously fatally flawed) ...".  So obvious to you that you ... ?

The 'best' platform rep was voted as Chris of Assetz, who has provided excellent support since the forum was made (by Assetz). Again my point is that Chris is not also CEO etc etc plus knight in shining armour for those poor let-down lenders at COL.

Clearly, the lenders at COL would prefer to be rescued by someone better.

Note: It is now likely that I will be banned from the forum for 'knowingly making a complimentary remark'. I am putting forward two five three defences:

1. The words used were meant ironically.

2. The words were deliberate lies aimed at getting a better service for my loans.

3. The secret truth is that I am his father - or possibly uncle.

4. It was a valid conspiracy between ex-engineers.

It was fun.

Just in case ablrate is not following the Col administration saga. Things are not good there, in that a leaked draft administrator's report, on DD central, shows that the FCA are taking legal action to remove the current administrators. The whole problem at Col seems to revolve around regulatory compliance and approval, and the extension of that problem into the administration. Engagement in support of the current administrators' actions would not be seen as helpful by FCA, imo. The leaked report mentions a number of offers to help, but without names.

At present, at least until the legal challenge by FCA of the administration is resolved, Col seems to be a dangerous friend to support. Unfortunately its lenders are in limbo, but not contemplating loss unless the costs of the dispute fall upon them.