gb007
Member of DD Central
Posts: 131 
Likes: 74
|
Post by gb007 on Nov 22, 2019 19:12:04 GMT
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,584
Likes: 4,181
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 22, 2019 19:25:00 GMT
'Funding Secure also allegedly wrote an illicit loan to the former wife of one of its founders'
Belated divorce settlement maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Nov 22, 2019 19:59:11 GMT
A right mess indeed. Also deserving attention is the mention that the FCA has written to 65 P2P platforms last September to clean up their act or face a crackdown. Other platforms may have cause to fear the guillotine.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 11,060
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 22, 2019 20:11:34 GMT
Mr Hurley has actually been very prolific & penned 3 articles on FS today. Just click on his name in the quoted article to see the others (all paywalled but I doubt any of them will make us feel good)
|
|
rrrupert
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 99
|
Post by rrrupert on Nov 22, 2019 20:33:17 GMT
I am not sure if this is old news for FS investors but I found the following quote from the Hurley article in The Times revealing....
"Administrators’ most pressing task is to establish whether Funding Secure was really a peer-to-peer lender at all. When properly structured, such platforms ensure investors’ money is ringfenced. In the event of a platform failure, in theory there should be no impediment to the full recovery of their money.
It is unclear whether that was the case with Funding Secure. Instead, investors may be treated as creditors, meaning their returns will be diluted by other costs and debts, including the price of the administration process itself.
Administrators said this “lack of clarity regarding the operation of the company’s lending platform” meant that they could not “safely distribute the assets held by the company or those realised” when loans were paid back."
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 11,060
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 22, 2019 21:10:59 GMT
I am not sure if this is old news for FS investors but I found the following quote from the Hurley article in The Times revealing.... "Administrators’ most pressing task is to establish whether Funding Secure was really a peer-to-peer lender at all. When properly structured, such platforms ensure investors’ money is ringfenced. In the event of a platform failure, in theory there should be no impediment to the full recovery of their money.
It is unclear whether that was the case with Funding Secure. Instead, investors may be treated as creditors, meaning their returns will be diluted by other costs and debts, including the price of the administration process itself.
Administrators said this “lack of clarity regarding the operation of the company’s lending platform” meant that they could not “safely distribute the assets held by the company or those realised” when loans were paid back."Utter nonsense. Of course it was a P2P lender, it had full authorisation from the FCA as such.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,839
Likes: 2,755
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 22, 2019 22:16:56 GMT
I am not sure if this is old news for FS investors but I found the following quote from the Hurley article in The Times revealing.... "Administrators’ most pressing task is to establish whether Funding Secure was really a peer-to-peer lender at all. When properly structured, such platforms ensure investors’ money is ringfenced. In the event of a platform failure, in theory there should be no impediment to the full recovery of their money.
It is unclear whether that was the case with Funding Secure. Instead, investors may be treated as creditors, meaning their returns will be diluted by other costs and debts, including the price of the administration process itself.
Administrators said this “lack of clarity regarding the operation of the company’s lending platform” meant that they could not “safely distribute the assets held by the company or those realised” when loans were paid back."Utter nonsense. Of course it was a P2P lender, it had full authorisation from the FCA as such. It had the authorisation to be a p2p lender but why does that mean it was one?
|
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Nov 22, 2019 23:10:29 GMT
If it wasn't/isn't one - the FCA will be trying very hard to ensure it was/is one!!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 11,060
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 23, 2019 1:37:47 GMT
Utter nonsense. Of course it was a P2P lender, it had full authorisation from the FCA as such. It had the authorisation to be a p2p lender but why does that mean it was one? Sorry, the sarcasm smiley was autocorrected out by my phone.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,568
Likes: 5,628
|
Post by duck on Nov 23, 2019 5:54:00 GMT
If it wasn't/isn't one - the FCA will be trying very hard to ensure it was/is one!! Not my experience with the FCA when chasing the Col debacle. Don't forget that the FCA don't check Part 4A applications so why should they be expected to pick up such small insignificant details? Administration, excellent, group hand washing exercise at the FCA. The article(s) / admin report contained an interesting fact unknown previously to me, one that I have already followed up with the FCA. 
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 23, 2019 6:45:46 GMT
It sounds like legally when investors put money in FS it was akin to throwing money down the drain. The minute that the money was loaned out, legally the investor was not entitled to any of the proceeds. Read the administrators report, apart from the 5 loans issued after Sep 19 investors are probably not the legal beneficiaries.
But now we are being asked to agree to a proposal that will see administrators get their fee before the fundamental issue has been addressed which is: will investors be the recipients of these loans and if yes will this be above, below or on par with other creditors.
The administrators will work within the law and there are strict rules for the distribution of funds in an administration. Investors I believe will just be unsecured creditors under the proposals, which means there are a lot of people to be paid in full before any money goes to investors.
That if why for me, and others need to take their own position, I will be opposing the administrators by arguing that they have no authority to ask investors to vote as to whether they agree to their proposals and a positive vote for their request will have no legal basis for removing any ring fence.
I understand that the FCA may try to cover their backs but I believe that going down that route in my view may bring a better recovery than blindly agreeing to these proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Nov 23, 2019 8:59:46 GMT
Surely the way to deal with the matter is to warn the Administrators that if they go down the road which you believe is not in accordance with the law on Administration that you will take them to court to recover your money over their maladministration. If you do that successfully other investors will copy your action. You will need to think twice if the Administrators persist down the route you oppose because they have taken legal advice before proceeding. The outcome if you pursue the matter may be you may end up with a large legal bill and not a lot to show for it.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 23, 2019 9:06:16 GMT
Surely the way to deal with the matter is to warn the Administrators that if they go down the road which you believe is not in accordance with the law on Administration that you will take them to court to recover your money over their maladministration. If you do that successfully other investors will copy your action. You will need to think twice if the Administrators persist down the route you oppose because they have taken legal advice before proceeding. The outcome if you pursue the matter may be you may end up with a large legal bill and not a lot to show for it. I will definitely not be going to court over it! I have asked the fca to sort it out. I am a retail investor, not a climate change activist!
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 1,936
|
Post by rocky1 on Nov 23, 2019 9:33:35 GMT
so what is secured lending and max 70% ltv and we have first charge on so called assets.i dont just mean with FS LY MT but when all platforms state WE have first charge they mean the platform not [investors] lenders.easy way out for borrowers and platforms to go into administration with practically nothing to lose.how a platform that has lost millions of pounds of lenders capital never mind accrued interest over the past few years are still legally entitled to fees and default interest with receivers,administrators,auctioneers,and whoever else piling in to get as much as they can before we even see a penny back is all wrong.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 23, 2019 9:39:13 GMT
so what is secured lending and max 70% ltv and we have first charge on so called assets.i dont just mean with FS LY MT but when all platforms state WE have first charge they mean the platform not [investors] lenders.easy way out for borrowers and platforms to go into administration with practically nothing to lose.how a platform that has lost millions of pounds of lenders capital never mind accrued interest over the past few years are still legally entitled to fees and default interest with receivers,administrators,auctioneers,and whoever else piling in to get as much as they can before we even see a penny back is all wrong. I agree hence why I am going after the fca not administrators. I don’t actually have any issue with how the administrators are handling things, they will always do things in their favour and must follow the law. The issue for me is with the people who were meant to regulate and ensure the companies controls were effective.
|
|
