ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 18:50:16 GMT
So we're we scammed by Collateral who stated they had interim permission? The FCA have known about Collateral application for interim permission but have just realised that it was done incorrectly. Why didn't the FCA see this sooner? Also can the administrators run the business without being authorized by the FCA? Can you please clarify? You said: "Collateral application for interim permission" I understand that Collateral had interim permission, which now elapsed. Is my understanding correct?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 18:47:14 GMT
I've just read through 34 pages of comments. I'm positive and reasonably reassured. Investing isn't without risk. If I get 100% of my capital back I'll be thrilled. If I get more that 50% I'll be ok with it. If we are given 100%, since you are ok with 50%, may I ask for the other 50% please?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 14:23:49 GMT
I just can't accept that Gordon said in January 2017... 'Yes we're currently under interim permissions and our lawyers and compliance advisers are comfortable that we have the requisite permissions in our application for full FCA approval. '....On the 18th January 2018, Gordon states that 'Our FCA application is still ongoing...Then at the end of January 2018 changes are made to the information on the website as they continue to trade and then yesterday Collateral claim that '“The company was operating in the belief that it was authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under interim permission,” What is the reason you can't you accept it? We have no reason to believe the application was not ongoing on the 18th January 2018. We know as of the 29th January 2018 it was not still ongoing. This is consistent with a decision having been made by the FCA not to continue the application on or around that latter date. Whether that decision resulted in the change in IP or was the result of a lapse of IP remains to be seen. One possible explanation is that the FCA found something they didn't like and did not believe it could be fixed. If that's the case, we'll probably never find out exactly what it was. The events that occurred in February could be the desperate actions of a management team trying to save the business by brokering some sort of takeover, which ultimately fell through. But that's just one of many possible scenarios. I have tried to log on to web site using Firefox but have received saying that " site is not secure and is not allowing site to be axcessed " using Firefox. Tomtom Same thing happened to me using Safari. I was able to reach the site when I switched browser. I did manage to reach it using Firefox and Chrome.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 12:38:21 GMT
Doing my DD on Collateral it showed that they had an IP. I lent through COL on that basis as I did on SS and MT and ABL when they had IPs. What else do you suggest?Look at the other companies that the directors and senior managers have been involved with both currently and in the past. Look at who they have been in business with, and check how they handle(d) themsleves in those other companies. If in a past life they were fronting an estate agent (for example), were they accredited by the Estate Agent's trade body? Look at the companies house filings for all companies they have been associated with. Are the filings timely ? A well run buisness should be filing accounts no later than 6 months after year end to avoid credit rating knockbacks as the 9 month mark approaches. Do the accounts make sense ? Are the levels of creditors / debtors / assets in a range that feels appropriate ? Do all the loans that have been presented on the platform have the underlying security correctly documented at companies house and the land registry ? Have any and all platform conflicts of interests associated with the loans written been openly declared ? Have all VR's and QS reports presented in support of the loans been written by suitably qualified individuals ? I could go on, and on. You should be doing all this with each borrower anyway, all bugs4me is saying is the same DD needs to be done on the platform. What you are looking to achieve is a mental picture of the risk that the platform (or borrower) is engaging in what some would consider unethical practises, or at the very least may be desensitised to the risk of unethical practises. This is a general discourse not intended to implicate any indivual or platform. Thanks mrclondon
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 12:08:30 GMT
Maybe this comment is a little naive and premature for a professional to make. She is clearly talking on the present position based on the current information. I cannot agree with your position. If things change her analysis will change too as she puts this clearly with her choice of words.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 11:42:52 GMT
And what exactly do you think that investors should have done? Go and sit in their office? As per my usual droning on about the subject, investors need to do their own DD on the platforms prior to carrying out DD on the loan offerings. It's no use hoping the FCA 'fit and proper' person test is adequate as IMO it's certainly not. I know doing DD can be time consuming but with many loans we're investing in the sub-prime market. Best to make sure the platform owners are not sub-prime as well. There's at least a couple of P2P platforms that I wouldn't loan a pencil to let alone invest my hard earned cash with. Doing my DD on Collateral it showed that they had an IP. I lent through COL on that basis as I did on SS and MT and ABL when they had IPs. What else do you suggest?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 9:49:56 GMT
"The Company is continuing to trade under my supervision ..." (Jessica's letter)
I can't get my pretty head round the idea that they have been so STUPID. ARROGANT, SCHEMING,.......
It is investors who have been stupid not to keep a much closer eye on all the chancers who run these outfits.And what exactly do you think that investors should have done? Go and sit in their office?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 9:44:34 GMT
collateral Collateral Rep Is it possible for collateral to set up a new company with FCA approval and transfer the business? If they were granted a license tomorrow and started trading as before do you honestly think they haven't destroyed their reputation beyond all repair? Would you trust a company that made the basic mistake of letting it's licence lapse? What other mistakes or oversight's have they made? I truly truly loved COL, it had a good selection of bling loans and I could also dip my toe into the better property loans (I'm a very small scale investor). They engaged and communicated well, they were keen enough to turn away trashy loans even after initial listing on the site, but I'm not sure I could pick back up where I left off. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice... I too liked COL. To answer your question, I do not know. I think the best way to answer is to say that I feel numb, but perhaps this will be the best outcome in the short term. What I will do in the longer term is something that I will have to think about.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 1, 2018 12:11:32 GMT
collateral Collateral Rep Is it possible for collateral to set up a new company with FCA approval and transfer the business? If they respond I will eat my shoe. I do not need them to respond, although I would love to see you eat your shoe. I only wish they see it and think about it. It can be a good way forward.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 1, 2018 12:04:20 GMT
collateral Collateral Rep Is it possible for collateral to set up a new company with FCA approval and transfer the business?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 1, 2018 12:00:27 GMT
Received just now...By the way, I am also invested 6 figs but I don't mind everybody emailing the Administrator. At worst she will tack on 1 days wages which is a drop in the ocean. Besides, it may not be us investors that need to foot that bill anyway. Also, if everybody emails with their queries, my guess is they will send out a global email later today with all appropriate answers. Good Morning We are at the very start of this process and I do not have answers to all queries at present, I can only confirm that the intention of the Administrator is for all investors to recover their funds in full as the various investments are realised. I can confirm however that any monies that are sat on the platform and are not invested are ring fenced in a separate client account and the intention is for these to be returned to all investors after the Administrator has obtained control of the bank account and carried out a reconciliation. We are currently looking into the website and the possibility of this being reopened in order for investors to view the balance of their investments, however this isn’t something that will be dealt with until next week at the earliest. Some of the information contained in that letter is general information that we are legally required to distribute to creditors of the Company, however in the circumstances your position would be different in that your investment is secured against either an item or property as detailed in your agreement, consequently when the item is disposed of, your investment would be settled. I am will be going into matters in finer detail next week, then I should have more information in this regard. Yours sincerely For Collateral (UK) Limited Jessica Hodgson For Gordon Craig Administrator An exact copy of the email I received including the grammatical error "I am will be going" in the last paragraph.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 1, 2018 11:47:01 GMT
Nobody should be emailing the administrators. I have 6 figures with col so just want them to sort this out as soon as possible. I am still amazed this FCA error has been made by Col, who seemed to be an incredibly dilligent bunch. What exactly caused all this? Which FCA error do you refer to?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 14, 2018 22:33:44 GMT
Out of my deposit to Lendy I only managed to pull out about 1/4 in 2 days. The rest is stuck in defaults or SM queues. This contrasts sharply with my experience from about a year ago when I managed to sell practically all my investment in a matter of days.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 8, 2018 16:41:48 GMT
Ly is my least favourite .. you pay MORE the longer it takes your part to sell (which is exactly bass-ackwards IMO), and Ly themselves have the ability (which they use) to queue jump &/or to 'suspend' the loan, making sure you keep on paying the "non-performance fee". A straight 0.25%/0.5% upon sale is much more acceptable, but the MT/ABL 'no charge, thanks for your custom' is by far my favourite. Moving goal posts (they now appear to have met in the middle, or maybe crossed into the imaginary domain) is the main reason I joined the queue for the exit. It's the same at Collateral, but fewer people seem to be complaining about them. I think if you just add a discounting option, then the loss of interest becomes less of a problem as you can sell more or less instantly at your own defined charge, or take your chance on the queue. But when people are offered the possibility of introducing discounting to non-discountable SMs (e.g. see other threads on the Forum), many are set against it. I mainly use Collateral for the Jewelery and cars which sell practically instantly. People will start to complain when they start having to wait for a long time to sell. Re discounting problem. It would amount to not loosing the interest and instead loose part of the capital. Wow - that is a great improvement.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 8, 2018 16:03:01 GMT
Many people are mentioning that it is not realistic to receive 12% with no risk. I agree with this but it is also realistic that if I am taking a risk I expect to receive that 12%. I am not referring to the IA loans, but to the insane situation when one stops receiving interest if the loan part is on the SM. I as a lender will still bear the weight of the risk with no interest. I do not see this as realistic. If Lendy Support wants to keep the interest I feel that they should take the risk as well. Or they could charge for sales as many sites do. You usually pay one way or another - fee, early redemption or lost interest - with some notable exceptions (eg MT, FS, ABL, AC) in which you may pay in other ways (discount needed, or time to wait). And presumably for a site to remain viable, if it loses money from one type of income stream, it just has to raise it from somewhere else so you pay in a different way. I don't personally think it is insane, I think it is good to have different SM models for the different sites - my favourite is ABL, but many people complain about that too, so the reality is that you can't please all the people all the time. " if it loses money from one type of income stream, it just has to raise it from somewhere else so you pay in a different way" Lendy was making profit before they introduced this idea to keep the interest for themselves. I do not think that they really need it. At the time it made sense for two reasons. 1. There was the buy now pay later system which is not the case now. 2. The SM was as dry as the Sahara desert. If you put something on sale it would sell within seconds or at most within the day. There were only very few exceptions to this. All this has gone. Today, putting something for sale, taking days if not weeks or months to sell, during which the investor is exposed to the risk at no reward is unacceptable. Yes, there are platforms which charge a fee for the SM. A fixed fee or a percentage of sale means that I know what I am going to pay. As it is on Lendy, it could be anything. Re ABL, although I do find ABL's SM more complex than I would like, lenders do receive interest on parts offered for sale. Re pleasing people - I do not think that it is a question of pleasing people. It is more like if I am going to risk my money I want a return for it. I do not think that this is much to ask for.
|
|