jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 1,444
|
Post by jlend on Jun 24, 2018 21:58:37 GMT
Redsky claims to hold 1% of the loan book and wishes to be on the creditors' committee. He has not, yet, sought the nominations of others. There may be other large investors who have sought membership, of whom we know nothing, apart from BM's nominee of course. Dualinvestor is not a creditor and relies on sufficient nominations by creditors, weighted by value. Did I read that right? You mean more than £1.7m invested on COL? Seriously? I think I've had too much sun today but this person must be apoplectic whether they received preferential terms in the syndicate or not. 1.7m would be 10 percent?
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jun 24, 2018 22:00:03 GMT
Did I read that right? You mean more than £1.7m invested on COL? Seriously? I think I've had too much sun today but this person must be apoplectic whether they received preferential terms in the syndicate or not. 1.7m would be 10 percent? Now that's the power of the British summer, what a glorious day
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 1,444
|
Post by jlend on Jun 24, 2018 22:01:41 GMT
1.7m would be 10 percent? Now that's the power of the British summer, what a glorious day Yep. Just seen Lionel Richie at an outdoor concert at Holkham Hall. Great concert and weather.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 24, 2018 22:06:57 GMT
Now that's the power of the British summer, what a glorious day Yep. Just seen Lionel Richie at an outdoor concert at Holkham Hall. Great concert and weather. He was in Hove yesterday close to where I am....but not all night long
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 24, 2018 23:01:38 GMT
Redsky claims to hold 1% of the loan book and wishes to be on the creditors' committee. He has not, yet, sought the nominations of others. There may be other large investors who have sought membership, of whom we know nothing, apart from BM's nominee of course. Dualinvestor is not a creditor and relies on sufficient nominations by creditors, weighted by value. Did I read that right? You mean more than £1.7m invested on COL? Seriously? I think I've had too much sun today but this person must be apoplectic whether they received preferential terms in the syndicate or not. Hello, is it me you're looking for? 'Cause I wonder where you are And I wonder what you do
|
|
moist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 240
Likes: 250
|
Post by moist on Jun 25, 2018 5:52:13 GMT
I have put myself forward. In conjunction with Mrs Moist I have in excess of 1% of the loan book.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Jun 25, 2018 6:26:10 GMT
I have put myself forward. In conjunction with Mrs Moist I have in excess of 1% of the loan book. I’ve got 0.6%. I suspect the preferential lenders will have clubbed to get the cashback that lured in people to put 50k to 100k into each investment. I’m not going to put myself forward because I’m happy people like DI, yourself have interests aligned with mine
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Jun 25, 2018 6:38:24 GMT
I suggest putting a new locked discussion up so no one can reply stating anyone who wants to put themselves forward to PM an admin (someone needs to volunteer) This will get a list of candidates. Once thats timed out up put a poll up for members to vote and discuss. Once the vote is complete the highest voted can put forward to BDO and its for them to select on their criteria. Once the vote is finished lock the discussion
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 25, 2018 6:48:47 GMT
Or follow the nomination process explained in the Administrators Proposals document (ie. complete the Resolution C form and return with your signed Proof of Debt form). Your choice, but only nominations submitted via the correct process will count (Incidentally, how could a poll on an internet forum carry any formal standing when there's no way of knowing who is or isn't a COL lender, nor the size of their debt owed?)
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Jun 25, 2018 7:04:24 GMT
Or follow the nomination process explained in the Administrators Proposals document (ie. complete the Resolution C form and return with your signed Proof of Debt form). Your choice, but only nominations submitted via the correct process will count (Incidentally, how could a poll on an internet forum carry any formal standing when there's no way of knowing who is or isn't a COL lender, nor the size of their debt owed?) as I said BDO will select applicants on their criteria; investor/creditor, debt
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 25, 2018 7:36:45 GMT
I assume at some point we will find out who is on the committee. It will be interesting to see how many individuals are proposed and how many of the people mentioned on the forums make it, or if they are pushed out by big hitters who don't frequent the forums.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jun 25, 2018 9:16:55 GMT
You've hit the nail on the head, decisions on who should serve on the creditors committee should be made in knowledge of vested interest. All those connected to the alternative finance/direct lending/peer-to-peer industry have a vested interest in proceedings. However, those interests may not align with your own. I would expect those who serve on the credit committee to represent the interests of those they represent and not necessarily the interests of all of the investors. An analysis of the possible candidates who have emerged to my knowledge to date (note that I don't follow frank, MSE Forums, nor the forum on TC): BondMason Client Ltd ( stevefindlay ) - Invested in select property backed loans on behalf of their clients. - Assume they invested on preferential terms. Moorfields Advisory Ltd ( moorfields ) - "a firm of Insolvency Practitioners who have experience in advising P2P firms" - Introduced to the forum by MoneyThing - would they be prepared to serve on the creditors committee and if so would they charge a fee? - Insolvency "advice" is presumably covered by professional indemnity insurance. DualInvestor ( dualinvestor ) - Represents a syndicate of COL lenders who invested on preferential terms. - Not a COL investor - Identity unknown in public but a retired Insolvency Practitioner qualified as a Chartered Accountant In my opinion the stand out candidate is moorfields . They are practising Insolvency Practictioners with experience in this sector and also because the interests of MoneyThing align with lenders, whether they invested in bling, grouped asset or property backed loans (MoneyThing being another high yield platform with experience in bling, grouped asset and property back loans). If they are unable to serve on the creditors committee then BondMason would be my choice. They too have an interest in maintaining confidence in the sector although one would expect them to serve their clients interests, i.e. those select property backed loans. They are visible both on the forum and through their business on which we can undertake our own due diligence. I would not be prepared to vote for someone who is unknown to me and wishes to remain private. Experience of this industry should inform us all in that we should undertake due diligence on all those who we choose to influence our finances whether that be platforms, borrowers, or those who serve on a creditors committee. Please someone correct me if I'm misinformed but I believe this applies to DualInvestor. If I were to vote for DualInvestor I would need to perform my own due diligence (as has recently been performed on Gordon Craig of Refresh Recovery). They also represent a syndicate of lenders who invested on preferential terms, presumably the syndicate comprises of high net worth investors (referred to as big hitters, BH and medium hitters, MH) who would have invested in the larger loans, that is the property backed loans and maybe some of the larger grouped asset loans. It would be naive to expect DualInvestor to represent the interests of those outside of the syndicate although it is not unreasonable to expect considerable support from those who wish to be inside the syndicate (although you should ask yourself why given the disastrous decision to invest in Collateral, I can make that mistake myself thank you very much ). We should expect there to be other syndicates who are unknown the forum(s) and institutional investors who would also have invested on preferential terms. In the light that DI can't exactly respond to this (not directly anyway), I thought I would give it a go - Not entirely sure where you got this; I contacted DI a while back simply as an investor after he indicated he was meeting with BDO and would raise some questions. He offered that opportunity to anyone on FRANK, so AFAICS he represents any investor (or creditor... pains me to call us that) who contacted him. Others have been kind enough to nudge others here in the direction of DI, so it is an open invitation
- He is not an investor... which is a good thing. Impartiality and knowledge of the area that is actually important; insolvency.
- Not known in public, but I doubt anyone here would is really known in public; even if you knew his name, would you know him?. I have met DI, face to face and consider him to be a genuine guy and seriously knows his onions. He is very knowledgeable not just about what he knows, but about the P2P world, the realities of the P2P world and insolvency. He is friendly, easy to deal with but also won't mince his words and won't be afraid to speak the truth (that counts both ways between BDO & Investors
My vote is for DI. Moorfields will surely charge a lot of money (and I'm surprised nobody has looked into that line, but hey ho) and BM will have their own interests; I would prefer an impartial voice for the wider investor base.
Of course, as I understand it there can be others who can attend so this may be a moot point
I expected you to reply to my post (in fact, I would go so far as to say that if you hadn't I would have been disappointed ). It is entirely understandable given your position as a member of the syndicate who invested on preferential terms (I can only guess but enhanced cashback, interest rate, access to information etc? Rhetorical not requiring an answer). Safe to say that if I were in your position that I would have replied likewise. I understand where you're coming from because at the end of the day we're all investing to make money, cold hard money, by and large we're not in it for the greater good, why should we be? I expected you to garner significant support in your pumping of DualInvestor, there are those that are inside the syndicate who have a vested interest in supporting you and those who believe it is in their interests to support you to gain from your due diligence and perhaps one day access to the syndicate to be able to reap the rewards of preferential investor terms. The fact remains that DualInvestor conversed with BDO on behalf of a syndicate of members who invested on preferential terms. To expect others to believe that DualInvestor will now represent the interests of those not in the syndicate when votes are at stake is naive in my view. I've no idea who DualInvestor is and their identity is private (quite understandable given the degenerative nature of the various forums of late). What you're implicitly telling me is look I know who they are so trust me. I'm afraid we've had that kind of endless BS from virtually every high yield platform on this forum and it just doesn't cut it with me anymore. I need to perform my own due diligence on anyone who influences my financial affairs be it platforms, borrowers, or those who purport to represent my interests, and I thought that you of all people would understand that but, it appears I'm mistaken. Moorfields Advisory and BondMason are known entities in public through which I can perform due diligence, and in the case of BondMason we know their interests lie in protecting their clients, again I would expect nothing less. It's all about vested interest at the end of the day.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jun 25, 2018 10:01:27 GMT
What on earth are you talking about? Have you been sniffing something? I wasn't endorsing DI, I was informing you why I nominated him and posted specifically because the guy can't respond himself because you lot banned him! It is nothing to do with syndicates at all. I know what you are implying, but I can reassure you that then the opportunity for DI to represent investors, for any investor who chose to respond came about via FRANK long before DI actually met with BDO and long before this Creditors meeting. It really is as simple as that; DI has no vested interest, no specific concern for any one party. He will speak his mind and he does know this sector (I don't, and won't, have to endorse him here; you can see from his posts that what I say is accurate). If you read my post in full, I ended by saying that it doesn't matter. I'm on the side of paul123 here; there is too much talk about nothing, and possibly some unessersery politics here by you. Some volunteers have raised their hands, I doubt there will be an oversupply for the meet (or skype... ) so take your pick of all of the above or one or the other. And how can we be sure that you are not dualinvestor
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 25, 2018 10:50:50 GMT
From Frank
Post by Troy on about an hour ago
It is clear that there are substantial differences of opinion among investors about the way to proceed should the loan book data be recovered AND there is a shortfall when it comes to the reckoning. One objective way of dealing with it is to separate our investments into three different categories: A - performing loans which will return capital and interest B - "bad" loans which will return less than the due capital and interest; and C - investments which had not been drawn down at the time of cessation of business. I suspect many investors will have investments in all three categories, but some won't. Those mostly with Category A investments who went for the least risky strategy will not want share the losses of Category B investors. After all, those who have pursued the riskiest loans should not be cross subsidised by those who followed a safer strategy. Category C investments have not actually been invested in anything, and the capital should be still there in the bank account (I'm coming to the alternative scenario). These investments should have a value of whatever was a deposited. So in the first instance, the method of determining an investor's nominal "entitlement" should be the actual returns on each loan invested in plus the value of any undrawn funds. Should the actual realisations be less than the "entitlements" then every investor shares the same percentage haircut. Every investor shares the pain, and there is no cross-subsidisation of one class of investor by another. If there is someone out there who is hoping or expecting to be invited on to the Credit Committee who agrees with the above approach, he or she would get my vote. Of course, if all data in unrecoverable (which I don't believe) then we all share the costs but in a disproportionate manner. By the way, I don't have access to the IF but if anybody wants to copy and paste this post there, my permission is given.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Jun 25, 2018 11:50:28 GMT
... The fact remains that DualInvestor conversed with BDO on behalf of a syndicate of members who invested on preferential terms. To expect others to believe that DualInvestor will now represent the interests of those not in the syndicate when votes are at stake is naive in my view. I've no idea who DualInvestor is and their identity is private (quite understandable given the degenerative nature of the various forums of late). ... Sorry. Getting more and more confused here. You know that dualinvestor spoke to BDO, that there is a syndicate on preferential terms that di represents, yet you/we don’t know who di actually is? I may need to reconsider my voting strategy. Do you have a source or link for this stuff please or can you elaborate further? It is well known that DI sent a letter to BDO raising some question on behalf of the syndicate and received a response promising all investors would be given an update, which was duly posted to their website in the form of a FAQ on 2nd June. Perhaps that what dan1 is referring to, if not I'd also be interested in hearing more about this alleged conversation.
|
|