elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 30, 2018 3:09:50 GMT
Just as a little bit of background to new members perhaps now might be a good time to remind ourselves that stub8535 was one of two members who took up Collateral's invitation in their early days to visit their premises and ask the directors various questions posed about the operation of the company. As I recall he came back with a positive feedback on which I and perhaps others invested further funds into the platform. I'm not holding stub8535 responsible or suggesting he had any motivation other than as an investor. Just putting out some background. He also had a more recent visit with the directors when visiting his poorly mum and asked us to wait patiently for an exciting, new change in direction. He has also had phone contact with the directors since the administration. He has also had priveleged access to the administrator's report and additonal information not contained therein which may question the adminstrator's impartiality at treating interested parties fairly. Or, if it were provided by a director or former member of staff, then they may prejudice the legal injunction being sought against the administrator and Stu*** unofficial, public circulation and request to email the administrator may implicate himself directly in any such proceedings. The report states the directors continued to run an unregulated business under legal advice but followed fca guidelines for "credibility" only (despite the Collateral forum rep stating as recently as 19/1/18 that FCA authorisation was still "ongoing"). There are obvious legal impllications for directors running an unregulated finance business and for my mind (/chartered accountant hat on) the administrator does not sufficiently challenge this nor the veracity of their own appointment under "tacit" [only] fca approval. They have however taken 88k out of the business along with the directors. Adding that to the remaining 376k (business) cash at bank gives 464k (nearly quarter million after deficiency owed to lenders 21/2). That may assuage some of Stu***'s concerns funding a regulator sanctioned administrator, if not quite administrator's/directors' expectation of a 6 figure dividend. Perhaps the directors have other assets the regulator could pursue if deemed neccessary too. Just adding a few more brush strokes to a still incomplete picture.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427 
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Mar 30, 2018 5:41:12 GMT
The report implies that an offer was made to buy the entire loanbook and pay 100p to lenders but it was blocked by the FCA. Come on get real. Anyone can make an 'offer'. Clearly if the offer was genuine the FCA would allow it but they saw through the obvious BS. On that basis I refuse to believe another word from RR (appointed by Col) and the FCA/B** would definitely get my vote to come in and clean out these cowboys.
as they were never approved and there is no such thing as tacit authorisation I think they should be relieved of their £50k fees too. And asked to stop leaking reports full of spin. Unprofessional at best. Deceitful at worst. Please hand the baton over to the professionals.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 6:28:46 GMT
It is not what you have said previously the judge must decide on whether the current administrator should be repleced by another, and you have lobbied for people to support the current administrator. So far in your posts you have said nothing about the legality or otherwise of the current administrator handling client funds or any court action to decide that. I have no data on the legality of the current administrator. The judge must decide that in court based on arguments presented. All I am requesting is that people register that our money needs to be protected when the decision is considered. If people wish to alter the wording then fine. If they don't want to register anything thats fine. Should the premise, as set out earlier, not be questioned then we will just need to accept what the judge decides. I prefer to have a small input in the judges deliberations that may bring better returns of my money than the FCA forced alternative. As I have stated this is not advice it is a request. Sending the email costs you nothing. I understand points already eloquently made. You clearly stated in a one line post earlìer that it was up to a judge to decide whether the current Administrator could handle client's money. It now turns out the only thing before the court is whether the current Administrator should be replaced. By one who apparently has the confidence of the FCA añd is therefore likely to be given the appropriate authority. Wihy then are you lobbying for the retention of an Administrator (covers aside) whom it's by no means clear will ever have the legal authority to return client's funds? Èven if it turns out the new firm costs half of the "pot" (something i seriously doubt) surely it is better to get 50% of something than 100% of nothing
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 1,861
|
Post by archie on Mar 30, 2018 7:06:46 GMT
Leaving aside the mix of company names, if Collateral had interim permissions they would have been lost the moment they withdrew their application for full permissions. The current administrator that the FCA are trying to replace isn't something Collateral have recently decided. Way back in March 2017 we were told they were the appointed company should Collateral fail - see this post. |
|
nd
Member of DD Central
Posts: 56
Likes: 37
|
Post by nd on Mar 30, 2018 7:48:58 GMT
Unfortunately we are still in limbo with little other than speculation. I'm prepared to be patient but had hoped for something more definite by now.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 8:03:41 GMT
Unfortunately we are still in limbo with little other than speculation. I'm prepared to be patient but had hoped for something more definite by now. You have just reached the threshold to become a member of DD Central the Administrator 's report is there which if you take that at face value you might think you have something more definite. Ps i understand the report is on financialthing.com and is publicly available
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 8:34:27 GMT
We may as well just accept that we are totally in the dark on this one. As for the FCA, who knows what their motivations are.
- maybe they have genuine concerns about RR
- maybe this is just some kind of jurisdictional p!ssing contest, ie its in the financial sphere so should be under their control (in their opinion)
- maybe its some kind of CYA situation... after all, the did they/didn't they silliness surrounding the FCA permissions doesnt exactly reflect well on the FCA either
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354 
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 30, 2018 9:04:11 GMT
We may as well just accept that we are totally in the dark on this one. As for the FCA, who knows what their motivations are. - maybe they have genuine concerns about RR - maybe this is just some kind of jurisdictional p!ssing contest, ie its in the financial sphere so should be under their control (in their opinion) - maybe its some kind of CYA situation... after all, the did they/didn't they silliness surrounding the FCA permissions doesnt exactly reflect well on the FCA either A succinct post which I think pretty much encapsulates the current situation (be that from verified information or otherwise).
Some have suggested that RR may be too 'in bed' with COL - I do not know that and neither does anyone else in reality. I can say that I spoke directly to Jessica and was perfectly adequately impressed with her responses to my questions and her knowledge and competence. I am also content with the (alleged) way that RR want to proceed henceforth - to run down the loan book. The trouble is that this is far too sensible and obvious it seems!?
However, the alternative is to trust the FCA - which I do not. In my considered opinion the FCA are far more likely to be concerned with their own self-interests and not loosing face in public than in our need to recover trapped funds - to blindly trust the FCA would be naïve. If you want a further view on their general competence maybe you should ask somebody impacted by the recent Beaufort Securities scandal - brought to light and prosecution by a US operation - whilst the FCA were asleep at the wheel (again).
All IMHO.
Edit: typo
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 30, 2018 9:18:55 GMT
We may as well just accept that we are totally in the dark on this one. As for the FCA, who knows what their motivations are. - maybe they have genuine concerns about RR - maybe this is just some kind of jurisdictional p!ssing contest, ie its in the financial sphere so should be under their control (in their opinion) - maybe its some kind of CYA situation... after all, the did they/didn't they silliness surrounding the FCA permissions doesnt exactly reflect well on the FCA either A succinct post which I think pretty much encapsulates the current situation (be that from verified information or otherwise).
Some have suggested that RR may be too 'in bed' with COL - I do not know that and neither does anyone else in reality. I can say that I spoke directly to Jessica and was perfectly adequately impressed with her responses to my questions and her knowledge and competence. I am also content with the (alleged) way that RR want to proceed henceforth - to run down the loan book. The trouble is that this is far too sensible and obvious it seems!?
However, the alternative is to trust the FCA - which I do not. In my considered opinion the FCA are far more likely to be concerned with their own self-interests and not loosing face in public than in our need to recover trapped funds - to blindly trust the FCA would be naïve. If you want a further view on their general competence maybe you should ask somebody impacted by the recent Beaufort Securities scandal - brought to light and prosecution by a US operation - whilst the FCA were asleep at the wheel (again).
All IMHO.
Edit: typo Sums up my feelings nicely
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Mar 30, 2018 9:50:45 GMT
One thing I'd love to know (though we never will) is what was the P2P industry mood music w.r.t Collateral?
I remember back when BCCI collapsed. I was working in wholesale financial services at the time and leading up to the collapse, neither my organisation, nor any other insiders I knew of would have touched them with a bargepole - there was just an 'avoid' buzz.
Given how you pick up little nuggets about your own industry, I wonder if any of the other platforms had 'heard anything'.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 9:55:07 GMT
I am happy with the current run off arrangements, this is my carefully considered view. Have just emailed Jessica to seek that my family's wishes regarding our modest invested funds are presented in Court. What locus do you cliam? You are not a creditor so why should the judge consider your views? This is a Insolvency Procedure not a hustings to listen to representations of one preferred candidate over another.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Mar 30, 2018 9:58:35 GMT
Unfortunately we are still in limbo with little other than speculation. I'm prepared to be patient but had hoped for something more definite by now. You have just reached the threshold to become a member of DD Central the Administrator 's report is there which if you take that at face value you might think you have something more definite. Ps i understand the report is on financialthing.com and is publicly available Thank you - it's a shame it's been hidden from some of us for so long and for no apparent reason that I can see… www.financialthing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Collateral.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 10:06:42 GMT
We may as well just accept that we are totally in the dark on this one. As for the FCA, who knows what their motivations are. - maybe they have genuine concerns about RR - maybe this is just some kind of jurisdictional p!ssing contest, ie its in the financial sphere so should be under their control (in their opinion) - maybe its some kind of CYA situation... after all, the did they/didn't they silliness surrounding the FCA permissions doesnt exactly reflect well on the FCA either Not totally in the dark, you have access to the Administrator's report that gives some information from his perspective. You do not know, and are never likely to know, why the FCA have taken the action they have it is not the way regulatory enforcement works. You will only see the results and that will take an indeterminate time to play out. It is up to you whether to take the representations of a small firm of Insolvency Prctitioners with associations to an unregulated financial business and a vested interest over the statutory regulator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 10:20:08 GMT
You do not know, and are never likely to know, why the FCA have taken the action they have it is not the way regulatory enforcement works. You will only see the results and that will take an indeterminate time to play out. Wow, thanks for that nugget of wisdom. I was expecting the FCA to keep me fully notified of all their thoughts and dreams until you clarified things 
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 30, 2018 10:27:58 GMT
I am happy with the current run off arrangements, this is my carefully considered view. Have just emailed Jessica to seek that my family's wishes regarding our modest invested funds are presented in Court. What locus do you cliam? You are not a creditor so why should the judge consider your views? This is a Insolvency Procedure not a hustings to listen to representations of one preferred candidate over another. It’s up to them though isn’t it...not for you to say one way or the other
|
|
