|
Post by bobthebuilder on Aug 1, 2023 20:26:32 GMT
Just had a quick look through the latest Administrators' report. Totally depressing as expected, with a statement that where there have been recoveries the Administrators "will make these funds available to lenders in due course" (para 2.2, page 8). Presumably "in due course" means when the admin fees exceed the amount collected. It's hard not to see the reference in para 7.1 (page 13) to "the Insolvency Code of Ethics" as an oxymoron. Still, it's nice to know that a floating charge holder has received a payout. Silly me, I thought a fixed charge actually had some value.
Of course the main beneficiaries of this mess apart from Moorfields and their fellow IP, the Conflict Administrator, are the incompetent imbeciles who ran MT and were responsible for its demise. £261,500 in consultancy fees in 2½ years (page 19 of the Administrators' report). Nice work if you can get it, and what a reward for failure!
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Jul 27, 2023 20:11:19 GMT
For those lenders interested in getting money back, this comment has appeared on the FCA website :
Steve Smart, Joint Executive Director of Enforcement & Market Oversight said,
‘Peter Currie fraudulently amended the Register to entice investors in, and together with Andrew, stole client money once they knew the game was up. Unfortunately, the investors will now be left to pick up the tab for the loans that have turned bad. The FCA has begun confiscation proceedings to recover the financial benefit obtained by the defendants, as well as compensation proceedings to recover investor funds. We welcome these significant sentences which show we will take every enforcement action at our disposal to pursue criminals and protect consumers."
My bold.
I've chosen to mark in Bold a different part of the FCA's press release. "Unfortunately, the investors will now be left to pick up the tab for the loans that have turned bad". Clearly the FCA continues to be determined to avoid carrying the can for events that are overwhelmingly their responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Feb 18, 2023 9:04:52 GMT
Interesting addition to the Companies House website. The borrower is issuing up to £1m in 5% convertible unsecured loan notes. Could this indicate that repayment of the loan on MT is imminent?
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Jul 13, 2022 19:33:54 GMT
Still getting this issue. I’m trying to open the most recent lender vote text for loan #336 (academic now, I know, because the deadline for voting has passed, but I still want to know what it said) and the file won’t open. Firefox has investors.assetzcapital.co.uk/ as an exception for pop-up blocking on my laptop but despite that, I can’t read the text for the 8/7/22 vote. I have the same issue when using Chrome. Yet the file containing the lender vote text for 16/5/22 WILL open. Confused.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Jan 31, 2022 13:33:09 GMT
Did you mean "Therefore 07/01/20 23 becomes another of those dates"? (the date by which further complaints have to be made, i.e. 12 months after the date of the FCA's correspondence with the Treasury Select Committee)
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Apr 7, 2021 20:35:32 GMT
No funds received here yet. I phoned Ratesetter at 1519 expressing my displeasure. The lady was as helpful as she could have been, explaining that the delay was with Barclays processing the transactions. I requested that Barclays provide compensation for the delay. She promised to pass the request up to her team.
A pretty unbelievable excuse. I bank with Barclays and made a payment from my account on 6/4. No problems at all.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Mar 11, 2021 1:37:45 GMT
Rather confirms my suspicions. So AC have created a product that you can never fully exit without taking a loss and you can't even offset that loss against interest for tax purposes.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Mar 10, 2021 3:41:08 GMT
At the risk of oversimplifying... you can't offset any loss against profits elsewhere, but you can certainly offset them against other P2P profits, also known as the interest that AC have paid you. If you were to cash in with a small exit penalty, could you not just offset the exit fee against the final reported interest? EG £1000 capital + £50 interest - £2 exit fee reported as £48 interest. I have a strong intuition that you may be making this harder for yourself than you need to. I know that recent posts in this thread have been from the point of view of lending by limited companies, but I'd be interested in knowing whether a retail investor who sold an access account position at a discount that had been acquired in the primary market at par could offset the loss against interest paid by AC. It would be really useful if I could, but I suspect that the losses I as an individual can offset against P2P interest are those that result from borrower default, not those I choose to take because of the illiquidity of the access accounts. Any view on this, backed up by HMRC documentation, would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Oct 26, 2020 20:16:42 GMT
Really can't understand why GBBA1 holders seem to be so happy. If the PF pays out on this one, I'll get bugger all on the remaining problem loans in the GBBA. In effect I'm no better off than if I were a MLIA holder.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Apr 23, 2020 18:23:15 GMT
Not interested in mucking around with this new interface. The beta website says "If for any reason, you wish to switch back to the previous dashboard, you can do so up until 29th April."
How? If you click on your username there's a menu item "Back to Existing Dashboard" but this selection isn't remembered for future logins.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Sept 19, 2019 17:01:36 GMT
I agree with the recent comments. I had a pop up asking me if I would recommend RS to a friend - I gave them a zero.
So did I! And I explained that one of the reasons for that was their constant mucking around with the user interface.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Jun 30, 2019 3:35:33 GMT
I got out of MT a year ago with good returns after about 20 months and just one default (the mis-valued, mis-described Luton loan when my constitutional cynicism let me down). I was undecided on whether MT were not good at evaluating the risk of loans and the people they offered loans to, or good enough but didn't want to tell us. Too often, minimal DD showed the chances of repayment was no better than 50/50, Whatever, there would need to be big changes before I considered returning - and with the chance of decent size loans to make it worthwhile.
According to my records the Luton loan was repaid with full capital and interest on 7/12/17. There may be some turkeys on MT at the moment but this wasn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on May 9, 2019 0:37:23 GMT
Slightly worrying though that the FCA refused to settle because "there is no evidence to suggest the complainant had checked the Register". I know I did in the case of Collateral, but how do I or anyone else prove it? It also seems that the Commissioner cannot adjudicate but can only make recommendations that the FCA is free to ignore. Not good if, like me, you're expecting the FCA to accept responsibility for their incompetence and offer appropriate compensation for losses incurred as a result of it.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Mar 8, 2019 0:26:10 GMT
MoneyThing One further question if I may? Given the importance of the main shareholder to the day-to-day operation of the business, as revealed in your answer to question 17, is there any keyman insurance in place to protect lenders should anything happen to him?
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Feb 25, 2019 19:13:34 GMT
Interesting argument for increasing the interest rate on the latest refinance offer. Apparently it's because they're winning more profitable contracts so they can afford to pay more interest! Nothing at all to do with a risk premium then? Still, it seems to be working. Only 43% funded when I received the e-mail about this "opportunity" (as it's generally presented), and 72.8% funded when I checked less than two hours later.
|
|