|
|
Post by peerlessperil on May 25, 2018 8:11:06 GMT
In the interests of managing expectations, it is worth noting that a year has now elapsed since Strand Capital was put into special administration, and based on that timing the FSCS has started to pay out.
This was a small DFM (Discretionary Fund Manager) with about 3000 clients, so perhaps in the same broad ballpark as Collateral. Google it for more info.
Given Strand were subject to the CASS regime for client money and Collateral (apparently) weren't, I'm not sure why we can expect Collateral to be resolved any more rapidly?
Unless things have changed since the process I was involved in a few years back, then an FSCS payout is VERY different from an overall resolution. Effectively, what the FSCS can do is pay out early once what is owed to who has been established, up to the protection limit, and the FSCS then takes over the position as creditor. When the administrators start to actually distribute money, it will then go to reimburse the FSCS, either partially or fully. This can take months or even years longer. So the timing of an FSCS payout says very little about the timing of when the administrators eventually start paying out. And of course, an FSCS payout only applies to those platforms which are actually covered in this first place...
Unfortunately the FSCS has absolutely nothing to do with the Collateral situation whatsoever
I was merely making the point that the Strand Capital administration has gone past the one year point, and the CASS regime would have ensured Strand at least did some form of regular client money reconciliation. Collateral may not have done these reconciliations, making it a more difficult task for an administrator to pick up the pieces. There are therefore arguments to say Collateral may take longer than Strand, and Strand has taken over a year so far for only 3000 clients. Just imagine how many more posts there will be on this thread in another 12 months if forum members keep posting at the current rate!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2018 8:26:52 GMT
I was merely making the point that the Strand Capital administration has gone past the one year point, and the CASS regime would have ensured Strand at least did some form of regular client money reconciliation. Collateral may not have done these reconciliations, making it a more difficult task for an administrator to pick up the pieces. There are therefore arguments to say Collateral may take longer than Strand, and Strand has taken over a year so far for only 3000 clients. Just imagine how many more posts there will be on this thread in another 12 months if forum members keep posting at the current rate! Yep, understood. I was making the point that an FSCS payout at Strand doesn't mean the Admin process is complete, far from it! It just means that the Admin process is far enough along that they've figured out who is owed what... the actual collection and distribution of what is owed is another matter entirely...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2018 8:48:21 GMT
From reading a bit more, it seems that the actual distribution of client money from the Administrators of Strand may be months further away, since it will require court approval and legal wrangling etc.
So the FSCS can pay creditors the full amount owed now, then the FSCS gets repaid (or not) by the Admins later, in a few months time.
And its taking them that long just to sort out client cash positions!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 11:18:16 GMT
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 11, 2018 11:28:30 GMT
Makes for pretty sore reading
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 11, 2018 11:31:01 GMT
Makes for pretty sore reading Especially the decommissioning of the IT and all back ups.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179 
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jun 11, 2018 11:41:02 GMT
Makes for pretty sore reading Especially the decommissioning of the IT and all back ups. It seems bizarre that they just de-commissioned everything like that don't you think? Potentially done out of spite or to cover their tracks?
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Jun 11, 2018 11:41:36 GMT
Makes for pretty sore reading Especially the decommissioning of the IT and all back ups. How very efficient of them to destroy the platform IT. When and why did that happen I ask. Furious.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 11, 2018 11:41:57 GMT
Especially the decommissioning of the IT and all back ups. It seems bizarre that they just de-commissioned everything like that don't you think? Potentially done out of spite or to cover their tracks? Well quite. Deliberate sabotage for whatever reason.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 11, 2018 11:45:13 GMT
It seems bizarre that they just de-commissioned everything like that don't you think? Potentially done out of spite or to cover their tracks? Well quite. Deliberate sabotage for whatever reason. It seems like the sort of thing that a certain *other* set of administrators might have been expected to pick up on in their couple of months of appointment.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 11, 2018 11:46:50 GMT
Well quite. Deliberate sabotage for whatever reason. It seems like the sort of thing that a certain *other* set of administrators might have been expected to pick up on in their couple of months of appointment. Might not have been deleted then
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 11, 2018 11:51:17 GMT
It seems like the sort of thing that a certain *other* set of administrators might have been expected to pick up on in their couple of months of appointment. Might not have been deleted then Well, either a) it was deleted before RR were appointed and they failed to notice or b) it was deleted after RR were appointed.
I'm not sure which is worse!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 11, 2018 11:51:40 GMT
I think this all makes:
1) a significant haircut more likely
2) a quick wind up less likely
3) dodgy play by the directors more likely
More worried about my free cash and non-drawdown loans now. Bling seems fine at least.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jun 11, 2018 11:58:04 GMT
I think this all makes: 1) a significant haircut more likely 2) a quick wind up less likely 3) dodgy play by the directors more likely More worried about my free cash and non-drawdown loans now. Bling seems fine at least. I think this also significantly increases the chance of a "one pot for all creditors" outcome and individual tranches/loans being ignored.
|
|
andy1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 103
Likes: 107
|
Post by andy1 on Jun 11, 2018 11:59:01 GMT
Good news (IMHO) - BDO have control of the bank accounts.
- Some payments have continued.
- They clearly think the loans are valid since they're seeking repayment and interest.
- "...there is no reason to doubt the validity of the security documentation...".
- "...in the event that borrowers do not repay the loans as they fall due, the Joint Administrators will take all steps available to them to recover
the amounts due...". - All the bling is safe.
- They have details of all investors and their total loan exposure.
Bad news (IMHO)
- Everybody who knew what was happening got fired months ago.
- Loads of stuff has not repaid.
- They don't know details of investors' specific loans etc...
- The website and all the data had gone poof in a country far, far away.
- Their lawyers say we are creditors and therefore our money is theirs to pick away at.
More news on 22nd June.
|
|
