sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Sept 26, 2019 19:45:45 GMT
If you invested in Collateral please view the advert in this link, which has been shown on television. www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-eriddmQEThis advert was produced by the FCA and was aimed at pension scams, but was all about being ScamSmart, and checking the FCA Register for bona fide companies. I was offended by this advert and complained to the ASA. The ASA have taken my complaint seriously but want more complaints on the same subject before taking action. If you feel offended please register an online complaint at www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html. It is important to state that you invested on the Collateral P2P platform which was listed on the FCA register, and that the FCA REGISTER CANNOT BE TRUSTED. If we can get an FCA advert censored in some way, it will get published by the ASA, enhance our complaint re. Collateral, and cause serious embarrassment to the FCA. EDIT: It's been pointed out below by star dust that you are asked for a date when making a complaint. I think you can enter any recent date because the ASA are fully aware of the advert and it has been widely shown. My complaint shows date as other.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Sept 26, 2019 22:06:33 GMT
Part of that complaint process asks you when and where you saw the advertisement. I know I've seen in on mainstream commercial TV several times and have a dim recollection of actually seeing it in a cinema.
So in an effort to find when and where it may have aired I found this -
which states "The 60” film for the new M&C Saatchi campaign ‘Don’t let a scammer enjoy your retirement’ launches on TV on Tuesday the 14th of August and then also online and cinema." Think 60" means seconds, and the year is 2018 i.e. 14 August 2018.
On the same day the Express covered the launch of the campaign and ran the ad where it can still be found -
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,548
Likes: 5,539
|
Post by duck on Sept 27, 2019 5:14:25 GMT
I'm sure we're all avid readers of that Many a true word is spoken in jest Have to say I like your style sqh I've also seen that advert and as I fumed my wife turned to me and said ' NO' knowing what I was thinking FWIW the ASA has teeth and is not afraid to use them. I and others had a road safety advert pulled some years ago. Whilst we didn't have a problem with the sentiment of the advert the vehicle used had been 'doctored' and the quoted figures were a figment of the advertisers mind. All I ever want is honesty from official bodies.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Sept 27, 2019 8:54:43 GMT
Nice one sqh , Some more info here: FCA Ads
If you look here there are more examples of their misleading advertising , which I have already commented on elsewhere.
|
|
brianlom1
Member of DD Central
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Posts: 383
Likes: 386
|
Post by brianlom1 on Sept 27, 2019 9:43:03 GMT
Great idea - complaint submitted
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,155
Likes: 4,823
|
Post by ozboy on Sept 27, 2019 15:16:54 GMT
DONE.
Just DO IT fellow Investors.
We have done nothing wrong here and the FCA must be held to account.
The FCA cannot be allowed to airily call The COLL Debacle "unfortunate" and simply walk away unscathed from causing the destruction of the invested savings of people who only did what the FCA told them to do, and trusted the Register.
|
|
brianlom1
Member of DD Central
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Posts: 383
Likes: 386
|
Post by brianlom1 on Sept 27, 2019 20:52:53 GMT
DONE. Just DO IT fellow Investors. We have done nothing wrong here and the FCA must be held to account. The FCA cannot be allowed to airily call The COLL Debacle "unfortunate" and simply walk away unscathed from causing the destruction of the invested savings of people who only did what the FCA told them to do, and trusted the Register. And the process is straightforward so it only takes a few minutes to complain (though, to be honest, when I started to document my grievances I did find a lot to write about)
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 623
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Sept 28, 2019 9:27:34 GMT
Submitted.
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Sept 28, 2019 10:05:33 GMT
Likewise. Lets continue to do all we can to raise the profile of this issue.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 24, 2019 11:05:42 GMT
Anyone looking at this from the outside might conclude by the performance to date of the Administrators in recoveries that the FCA were party to a Pyramid Scheme in which ever more investors had to be sucked in to keep Collateral afloat. At crunch time investors are to be left with virtually zero.
A sort of miniature Berni Madoff operation.
|
|
|
Post by mattygroves on Oct 24, 2019 11:52:28 GMT
Anyone looking at this from the outside might conclude by the performance to date of the Administrators in recoveries that the FCA were party to a Pyramid Scheme in which ever more investors had to be sucked in to keep Collateral afloat. At crunch time investors are to be left with virtually zero. A sort of miniature Berni Madoff operation. Couldn’t that be said about all P2P though ? The platforms can only make money and keep themselves afloat by funding new loans which means new investors. Particularly true of the self select development loan platforms. being a bit of a devil’s advocate I would say that an outsider would see investors seeking a return that looks too good to be true and then whinging when it goes wrong even though they’ve been warned their capital is at risk.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Oct 24, 2019 12:05:36 GMT
"being a bit of a devil’s advocate I would say that an outsider would see investors seeking a return that looks too good to be true and then whinging when it goes wrong even though they’ve been warned their capital is at risk"
So if money was lost as a result of lies , deception , incorrect valuations and general malpractice on an investment offering 4% , should there be more support and help given than one offering higher rates but suffering the same destruction ?
|
|
|
Post by mattygroves on Oct 24, 2019 13:15:42 GMT
Couldn’t that be said about all P2P though ? The platforms can only make money and keep themselves afloat by funding new loans which means new investors. Particularly true of the self select development loan platforms. being a bit of a devil’s advocate I would say that an outsider would see investors seeking a return that looks too good to be true and then whinging when it goes wrong even though they’ve been warned their capital is at risk.Yeah, Im getting kinda fed up with that sort of comment. I know youre just playing devil's advocate, but I have seen idiots say that before. I was lending against what I thought were 1st charge over properties with low LTVs and ongoing safety mechanisms that made sure the money was being spent sensibly/responsibly. Never was I told that - in actual fact - I was lending/giving money to frauds and crooks; borrowers and platforms combined; all made easy by the connivance of the FCA. Surely you must have realised that the borrowers weren’t going to be the best ? People don’t borrow at those rates if they are a good credit risk.
|
|
|
Post by mattygroves on Oct 24, 2019 13:29:04 GMT
"being a bit of a devil’s advocate I would say that an outsider would see investors seeking a return that looks too good to be true and then whinging when it goes wrong even though they’ve been warned their capital is at risk" So if money was lost as a result of lies , deception , incorrect valuations and general malpractice on an investment offering 4% , should there be more support and help given than one offering higher rates but suffering the same destruction ? I think the general public would have more sympathy particularly if there was no warning that capital was at risk. There was little sympathy for the shareholders who lost out when RBS was rescued - that will have ruined many retirement plans as they were a highly touted income bearing share at the time. Property valuations are to a certain extent subjective and when done on the residual basis it will only take small variations in assumptions to make the outcome very different. In any case they will never give a true view of what you’d get for a part finished project. I’ve always worked on the basis that I’m lending at about 140% LTV for a supposed 70% LTV and expect defaults and losses. The fact that almost all projects are set up as SPVs indicates the borrowers aren’t sure about the outcomes - they are making sure they can walk away without damaging their main business. Malpractice happens in all businesses and P2P is full of small newly formed companies which are always more likely to fail. I’m not sure self select property loan platforms should be open to retail investors - but that is easy to say with hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 24, 2019 13:36:52 GMT
Anyone looking at this from the outside might conclude by the performance to date of the Administrators in recoveries that the FCA were party to a Pyramid Scheme in which ever more investors had to be sucked in to keep Collateral afloat. At crunch time investors are to be left with virtually zero. A sort of miniature Berni Madoff operation. Couldn’t that be said about all P2P though ? The platforms can only make money and keep themselves afloat by funding new loans which means new investors. Particularly true of the self select development loan platforms. being a bit of a devil’s advocate I would say that an outsider would see investors seeking a return that looks too good to be true and then whinging when it goes wrong even though they’ve been warned their capital is at risk. Your argument was applied for several years to Berni Madoff's operation which allowed him to keep raking it in. In the case of Collateral, the FCA new that there were irregularities in its approval but the Regulatory door was left open for investors to commit. An investment offering a return of 12% on capital is always going to be high risk but complete platform failure with no failsafe mechanisms did come as a bit of a surprise.
|
|