chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 20:45:31 GMT
Update for this week (Access moved 2 places - amazing!): Name Date Ref Market 10/07 17/07 24/07 31/07 07/08 14/08 21/08 27/08 nebula 13/03/2020 374693 Access 144 121 80 80 72 60 56 54Dates of queue change: 20/07 21/07 22/07 06/08 13/08 18/08 19/08 25/08 121 103 80 72 60 58 56 54
Thanks, stardust. You're a day early - unless you know something we don't Also, star dust - should we post tomorrow? I wasn't sure what the consensus on continuing this was... (but ever grateful for your hard work regardless)
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 20:42:08 GMT
I take the point, but I wouldn't want to discourage thread creation. In general I'd rather see multiple well titled threads than a single mega-thread. The mega-threads make it difficult to find the nugget one is looking for as their purpose tends to morph over time. Err..... much like we've just done here.... sorry. Agreed - single mega-threads can be bad too. But, this way, we end up talking about pretty much exactly the same thing in several different threads. coogaruk alone has now set up three different threads on the Metro Bank acquisition... (to go with the others set up by other users too!)
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 17:51:40 GMT
No, I didn't mention any phones. I had some pretty rapid back-and-forth with a CS agent which was all pretty coy; then I asked the more specific question about the T&C and there was a gap of almost 72 hours before this more senior person replied saying they were 'taking over' from the previous person in the correspondence. Is that all okay, Detective Beagle? Lol that is ok sergeant Chris - i just thought if there was a pause they tried to transfer you. Delay in email is probably pretty standard no? I would imagine there are tonnes of these emails pouring in. I have had delays of 5 days before. Irrespective - I would ask for it to be pushed up, you may well get more for your time Right, but as my posts have now clearly said more than once, the initial back and forth was very rapid; so the then delay of 3 days was rather noticeable! I think we can stop talking about the timeline of my emails now...
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 17:48:48 GMT
Can I make a humble (maybe unpopular) request that we don't have a new thread every time there is a development, when there are already ample threads that the post could go under?
This is one reason that newbies to the forum (and others!) find it hard to navigate and find an answer to their questions before posting, which is frustrating for everyone involved.
Thanking you in advance.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 17:46:02 GMT
They kept you on the line and passed it over? thought they emailed you ? No, I didn't mention any phones. I had some pretty rapid back-and-forth with a CS agent which was all pretty coy; then I asked the more specific question about the T&C and there was a gap of almost 72 hours before this more senior person replied saying they were 'taking over' from the previous person in the correspondence. Is that all okay, Detective Beagle?
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 16:59:36 GMT
you might want to escalate it and ask for reply from someone more senior than agents. Might get a more insightful reply. Thanks - there was already a long pause before their response, and a (seeming) escalation on their end from a CS agent to the Investor Services Team Leader (not sure how senior that is?), who took over to provide the answer I wrote about here. I’ll see what the next response brings.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 15:38:38 GMT
In answer to your question - no i have not read the wind-down plan in more then a vague way (so maybe i should have not commented really ) but only because no matter who the platform & not just picking on RS i am not sure i believe any of them know what would happen and how they will cope.Why i suggested what you called "rushed" was because to me once they had entered a wind down under the T&C's there must be a reason and it would not seem like a long life would be One of them? The terms/phrase were my own so again my bad - The term run off with Metro's help would suggest a form of payment ongoing for as long as it takes but in the manner they decide can be supported by the business The term wind down suggests a form of payment in a manner they have decided first for T&C's but by the point its required may be unable to actually deliver (but hopefully can) You're allowed to post whatever you want - but I think it might indeed help if you had a look through the wind-down plan (+ Clause 20 of the T&C). It's basically identical to what the 'run-off' apparently would be, but seemingly while still allowing some re-investment + RYI; whereas the 'run-off' apparently does not. Anyway, as Greenwood2 has said, we'll just have to wait and see. But I'll let you know if/when I hear back from then regarding more detail of the 'run-off' concept.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 15:32:53 GMT
RS don't need to initiate a wind down just because of a takeover, and so far they have said there is no change for lenders. If they then choose to gradually let the business decline running it under the existing T&Cs, that would just be an internal business decision for RS. I would probably prefer that anyway. It also means they don't have to panic the horses by declaring a wind down event particularly to the many lenders who don't read the forums etc. If by this you mean continuing to allow re-investment and RYIs, then I completely agree. The T&C obviously allow them to just stop doing new lending but make no other changes. It's if they want to do more than that - but not under Clause 20 - that I'm suspicious of.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 15:07:40 GMT
So many responses! Apologies for the length of this. Same thing, surely? If there are no new loans then it would be dodgy to allow passive lenders to keep reinvestment turned on: and with no new loans and no reinvestment there won't be any RYI. Well, no - I guess the whole point of this discussion is that I don't see them as the same thing at all; re-investment can happen without new loans, as long as there is RYI demand (and vice versa). This is what the RS wind-down plan appears to allow (which, I believe, will also have been approved by the FCA). While you may think this is 'dodgy', they don't seem to. So the whole discussion is premised on the fact that they might allow it - it's just unknown whether they will or not. The wind down plan says no new loans. I guess lenders could continue to buy old loans from RYIs if they wanted to, but no new loans implies that existing borrowers wouldn't be able to get another tranche of funds for a development. Although maybe they wouldn't label them as new loans. All clear as mud as usual. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. Sorry, yes - I should've been clearer that I was only referring to the repayment part of your previous post. Completely agree with the rest of your post here. By One being orderly i was sorta referring to what you mention in your last line about formalised wind down. To me they can change to a run off in a takeover or even without as they are letting the loans run down and paying out as they are being employed/paid to still run the business as a growing concern but maybe not in the way they started. But a wind-down sounds like for whatever reason they could be in trouble or want to close the business quick or change the modal from within etc. but shutting down for good.So agree its just very loose terms/semantics but not sure RS can really claim in the T&C's as i think somebody mentioned that it would be orderly on their own as they can't really say what state the company would be at that point? As an analogy - at the end of the day we thought they were One of the big Three and in terms of money while maybe not premier league certainly championship level.But now after events this year they seem to have been sold for the price of a division Two player with the hope of an FA cup run in the next Three years for a payout at the end - so hopefully whatever its called it works I'm not sure if I entirely follow what you're saying. Have you had a look at the wind-down plan? Because it sounds like it might be a little different to how you imagine it (there is nothing rushed about it at all). All that really matters here is how RS defines these terms (and, of course, which one they choose!). With regard to the latter, I'm also interested in how this works within the T&C. As I said before, I haven't been through these yet to see if it does easily fit in - so perhaps it does - but, to my mind, there really should be some provision covering this, just like there is for a 'wind-down' under Clause 20. Yes it is probably a tactical change of wording from Wind Down (which they have a clear(ish) written definition of how it should happen) to run off, where RS can pretty much decide how they want to continue running the platform (for as long as it lasts) as long as they stick within the T&Cs of the platform. I'm also suspicious of exactly this, which is why I want clarification from them on how this fits into the T&C. We signed up to the possibility of a 'wind-down'; but did we sign up to the possibility of a 'run-off'?
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 13:13:55 GMT
Actually the difference might be that in a run off they could continue to fund existing borrowers (development loans) from funds on the platform, rather than returning all repayments to lenders as stated in the wind down plan. Think it’s the opposite. RS described ‘run-off’ as all repayments being diverted to holding account (see above). I also don’t think the wind-down plan says that. It says RYIs should ideally keep happening, which means re-investment must be occurring (see my posts above on this).
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 12:39:05 GMT
An interesting distinction, and one that makes sense, I think. If RS (under their new ownership) is still a viable business with all of the departments necessary to administer live loans, then surely running off - that is to say, simply not issuing any new loans (to retail lenders) - requires no special permissions or conditions at all. The loans repay, we get paid, end of story. I don't think there is anything in their current terms that says they have to issue new loans.
The wind-down plan covers the case where RS were no longer able to function properly for whatever reason, so need to hand over to administrators - with all the costs that go with that. One imagines that this plan remains in place for the scenario it was intended for. My point isn't about issuing new loans, it's about disabling re-investment and RYI functionality. Such changes to the operation of the platform would ordinarily have a basis set out in the terms of operation of the platform (I haven't looked through these in detail at this stage, and am just leaving it for them to explain). It's not so much about 'special permission'. Also, just to be clear, the wind-down plan does not involve administrators. It plans for the process to be dealt with completely in-house by RS.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 11:57:12 GMT
i have normally called it a run-off as i assumed in a takeover that it would be a orderly(ish) process and wind down would be the bad news decision if it falls through - so kinda makes sense I suppose I meant more in the sense of that I haven't heard this phrase from RS themselves or in relevant documents etc. The Clause 20 wind-down plan would also be 'orderly' - that's sort of the whole point of it; the FCA got these platforms to put this stuff in place to avoid a messy collapse in the event that they're not viable anymore. So I'm not sure that we can say that one is 'orderly' and one is not. In any event, these aren't technical terms - so all that's important is how RS uses them, really. I've followed up asking them to confirm which sections of the T&C allow what they suggest would come with a 'run-off'. If there isn't anything, I'll be interested to know on what legal basis they believe they can ditch the formalised wind-down plan for something else.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 11:21:35 GMT
There are so many threads where this is potentially relevant, now - this one seems as good as any.
Had a bit of back and forth with RS about post-acquisition plans. As expected, they were very coy (stressing that at the present time there are no changes, so nothing to report to investors etc. etc.). When I asked a more specific question about the wind-down plan and Clause 20 of the T&C, I received an interesting response, though. They stressed that there is a difference between the loanbook going into 'wind-down' and being 'run off' (I don't recall hearing the latter before?). While, obviously, there was no commitment to which would be followed post-acquisition, I was told that - 'hypothetically' - if the loanbook were to be 'run off' then RS would expect no re-investments and all repayments diverted to holding account; while a 'wind-down' would follow Clause 20 of the T&C and the wind-down plan (see my previous posts on this one).
So, make of that what you will. The criteria for which path is pursued is obviously entirely opaque still, but it's interesting to know, at least, that RS have in mind two different procedures here and we should keep an eye out for the language used in any comms from now on, I suppose.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 25, 2020 16:57:44 GMT
I'm really interested to see what RS does (if anything) when the 5 Year RYI queue is fully processed and, presumably, re-investment starts outstripping RYI requests. It seems very possible that this could happen by the end of September or soon after.
Will they allow re-investment requests to just sit there for a while before they're matched, or will they change their policy and channel some A/P/M RYI'd loan parts into 5 Year (which would make both 5 Year re-investors and A/P/M RYI-ers happy). My hope in this regard is probably quite obvious...
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 23, 2020 15:12:02 GMT
I object to that. I have no financial interest, though it would suit me to complete my task as soon as possible. The interests of those at the back of the queue are clearly different to those at the front and RS cannot make everyone happy, but it was put to me that there was no alternative and I merely suggested one. With respect, what I was actually suggesting to you was that there was no alternative to an arbitrary selection of a date which will please some and not others. What you have suggested isn’t an alternative; you just picked a date that works for you and not for others - i.e. exactly what I suggested the only option was!
|
|