garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on Mar 30, 2018 13:02:45 GMT
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. Might be worth a BM investor updating them similarly.Been wondering about that. I've now read the report and will contact BM just in case they aren't aware of it.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 4, 2018 16:21:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Apr 5, 2018 9:23:18 GMT
Hmmm... that's not good. It seems that the guys over there have received some very bad advice, I hope the law firms PI insurance is up to date. Although the good news for lenders is, that it is not loan related..... we await to know who the new Administrator is and will get in touch with them also.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 5, 2018 11:06:40 GMT
It seems they claim to be running a business which is not subject to FCA regulation. Whether they win or lose, they are p2p toast. Perhaps needing some butter and marmalade.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 5, 2018 11:07:11 GMT
Good to hear other companies showing a genuine and sympathetic interest. Perhaps it was the ineligibility to use the credit finance permission for their pawnbrokers for p2p that forced them into this regulatory deadend. ablrate , as another company that does not show "peer to peer" interim permission on the consumer credit register (ablrate.com launching after the IP cut-off), was it the credit broker IP from AT&CL - introducing borrowers/lenders - that covered abl whilst they successfully submitted their request for full fca authorisation. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Apr 5, 2018 11:41:03 GMT
Good to hear other companies showing a genuine and sympathetic interest. Perhaps it was the ineligibility to use the credit finance permission for their pawnbrokers for p2p that forced them into this regulatory deadend. ablrate , as another company that does not show "peer to peer" interim permission on the consumer credit register (ablrate.com launching after the IP cut-off), was it the credit broker IP from AT&CL - introducing borrowers/lenders - that covered abl whilst they successfully submitted their request for full fca authorisation. Thanks. The company was formed in 2012 and we had an OFT license, I believe in late 2013, well before the IP beginning. The launch date was not material, it was whether you had an existing OFT license when the FCA took over. I remember there was mucho confusion around what boxes you should have ticked under the OFT and there wasn't much guidance at the time. The major issues, however, were around platforms' interpretation of Article 36(H). We, of course, believe our solution was best and properly complies with that section, hence full authorization being granted. The issue over with C seems to be that they were formed after the OFT/FCA hand over which would have meant that they could never have had interim permissions and must have had advice that the structure of their agreements took them out of 36(h) and therefore made them unregulated. The confusing point is that if you were outside of the regs, how could you apply to be inside the regs (applying for authorization) and still operate in a compliant manner? I have sympathy with the guys, as it was not an easy road when regs were being interpreted differently by different people. Fortunately we have a very good and experienced lawyer who spent a long time with us creating logical links between various rules that ultimately saw us create an acceptable solution to 36(h).
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 7, 2018 15:14:59 GMT
I am reading the sympathy with the Coll directors as sympathy for all p2p operators who have difficulty navigating the tortuous route to FCA approval. However, one problem emerging over there seems to relate to the treatment of the deposits advanced against loans not yet drawn down, the expected sum of which is not reflected in the cash held. No-one is suggesting that that cash has gone outside of the company and the borrowers. However, the Administrator's staff, no less, in an answer to a lender, have suggested that it might be that the considerable deposits made against one loan might have provided cash lent on another. This would be an efficient model, especially where loans were collecting deposits for long periods with interest being paid, but it would be a model for which it might be difficult to gain FCA approval. Probably better to be unregulated. While the drawn-down loans are safe when the music stops, lenders may be creditors when it comes to the deposits.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 27, 2018 16:49:11 GMT
I am reading the sympathy with the Coll directors as sympathy for all p2p operators who have difficulty navigating the tortuous route to FCA approval. However, one problem emerging over there seems to relate to the treatment of the deposits advanced against loans not yet drawn down, the expected sum of which is not reflected in the cash held. No-one is suggesting that that cash has gone outside of the company and the borrowers. However, the Administrator's staff, no less, in an answer to a lender, have suggested that it might be that the considerable deposits made against one loan might have provided cash lent on another. This would be an efficient model, especially where loans were collecting deposits for long periods with interest being paid, but it would be a model for which it might be difficult to gain FCA approval. Probably better to be unregulated. While the drawn-down loans are safe when the music stops, lenders may be creditors when it comes to the deposits. Looks like I have to retract part of what I said above.
See blink's report of the hearing 27th April: p2pindependentforum.com/post/263875/thread
"£390,000.00 was taken from the client accounts on 13th and 26th February. Stated for business profits."
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 27, 2018 17:24:33 GMT
"£390,000.00 was taken from the client accounts on 13th and 26th February. Stated for business profits." That at least explains the necessity to upload T&Cs stating the client accounts would become unsecured creditors of Collateral before the directors took the website down.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Apr 27, 2018 20:22:28 GMT
May also explain why the FCA were not happy with the previous administrators (but Coll were), and why the FCA are, I gather, applying freezes and chasing funds.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 27, 2018 20:55:07 GMT
May also explain why the FCA were not happy with the previous administrators (but Coll were), and why the FCA are, I gather, applying freezes and chasing funds. A classis pre-pack, except that because there were no creditors, they had to create some by withdrawing their profits. It soon became clear who was supposed to to recover, refreshed. However, my intention was to emphasise the distance between there and here, and not to contaminate this sub-board.
|
|