rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354 
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 30, 2018 10:31:52 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.It is indeed - and the 'small firm of Insolvency Practitioners' (Court appointed that is - so I suggest totally legitimate), 'with associations (or not?) to an unregulated financial business (allegedly)' will get my vote pretty much every time over the incompetent, faceless and self-serving bureaucrats of the FCA.
I hope I haven't been too subtle there?
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975 
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Mar 30, 2018 10:37:43 GMT
Well, this is fun. Hang on a minute, I just need to nip out for another bucket of popcorn...
Much of the recent discussion has hinged on who we trust most - the FCA or the administrators appointed by COL.
Now there's a tricky one. It's fair to say that the FCA don't have the best reputation, and some comments here have reflected that.
OTOH, having read the administrator's report, my overwhelming impression is that the directors of COL were completely out of their depth and I have precisely zero confidence in any arrangements they might have made. I mean, who would seriously think that their activity could be unregulated? And, without any special knowledge, I'm not sure how this mess can be unpicked without an appropriately approved body being involved - whether that be an existing P2P lender (but why would they) or an administrator given the necessary approval. Which isn't, by the sound of it, going to be RR.
FWIW, as an investor I accept responsibility for doing my own DD, which in the case of COL turns out to have been inadequate: I did (I thought) check that they were FCA authorised, but was foolish enough to be taken in by the misleading claims they made on their promotional material.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 30, 2018 10:43:36 GMT
It is indeed - and the 'small firm of Insolvency Practitioners' (Court appointed that is - so I suggest totally legitimate), 'with associations (or not?) to an unregulated financial business (allegedly)' will get my vote pretty much every time over the incompetent, faceless and self-serving bureaucrats of the FCA.
I hope I haven't been too subtle there?
No, not court appointed. Appointed by the company voluntarily and unilaterally, not requested by any creditor and without agreement by FCA or any court.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 30, 2018 10:55:41 GMT
It is indeed - and the 'small firm of Insolvency Practitioners' (Court appointed that is - so I suggest totally legitimate), 'with associations (or not?) to an unregulated financial business (allegedly)' will get my vote pretty much every time over the incompetent, faceless and self-serving bureaucrats of the FCA.
I hope I haven't been too subtle there?
No, not court appointed. Appointed by the company unilaterally, not requested by any creditor and without agreement by FCA or any court. Having just checked I stand corrected - nevertheless, Gordon Craig is a Licensed Insolvency Practitioner (#7983) - and legitimate (unless that is also being contested?).
My views on the FCA remain extant.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 10:58:04 GMT
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. Thankfully you and I are not being canvassed nor should we be, it is not unreasonable to express myself or the views of my family toward those who hold sway over the future of our funds nor under whom's jurisdiction they may fall. Expressions of such importance are of considerable interest to me and also with high probability to many others with respect to their own funds invested in various loans through a now in Administration Collateral. Is it misguided to reason in such a way, is it unreasonable to consider options, potential cost implication's one way or the other? No these considerations are very important, critically so and consequently are not ones to be made in scant regard or flippancy. Youy evaded the question, what locus do you nclaim?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 30, 2018 10:59:35 GMT
I imagine the Directors' prime concern over potential appointment of a "top 10" accountancy firm as Administrator is that there'll be less money left at the end of the process to be returned to them. Naturally, RR want to keep hold of the business too so their interests are aligned with the Directors. All a bit too cosy for my liking, given the gross management failures that led us here.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 30, 2018 11:00:53 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'. I read in one of the news articles that the 4th Way didn't put Collateral on their P2P comparison site because of lack of information provided by Col. Perhaps a warning sign, but finding something by omission is a bit tricky.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 11:00:57 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  Very easy to quote things out of context isn't it? You claimed, nay protested, that you were kept in the dark I was only demonstrating that you were being disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 11:07:09 GMT
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.It is indeed - and the 'small firm of Insolvency Practitioners' (Court appointed that is - so I suggest totally legitimate), 'with associations (or not?) to an unregulated financial business (allegedly)' will get my vote pretty much every time over the incompetent, faceless and self-serving bureaucrats of the FCA.
I hope I haven't been too subtle there?
Appointment of Administrators is automatic, I have not suggested that RR is not totally legitimate, they have at two fully licensed Insolvency Practioners, just as it is open for you to be cynical about the FCA wanting a largr firm anyone else can be cynical about the motives for directors of an unreglated company wanting a small firm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 11:11:53 GMT
Very easy to quote things out of context isn't it? You claimed, nay protested, that you were kept in the dark I was only demonstrating that you were being disingenuous. Go back and re-read, slower this time. In the meantime, got any more of your deep and meaningful insights to share with us all? Water is wet? 2+2=4?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 11:13:11 GMT
Youy evaded the question, what locus do you nclaim? Therefor I/we have the right to seek that our carefully reasoned views be presented. This is my Birthright just as much as it is yours and equally so to those around us. Then I suggest you stand for parliament, you have no locus in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 11:14:46 GMT
Very easy to quote things out of context isn't it? You claimed, nay protested, that you were kept in the dark I was only demonstrating that you were being disingenuous. Go back and re-read, slower this time. In the meantime, got any more of your deep and meaningful insights to share with us all? Water is wet? 2+2=4? Very clever in fact I am astounded by your dfcepth of knowledge, the fact remains you are not totally in the dark
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 30, 2018 11:15:26 GMT
RR seem to think that investors are creditors - they are included in section 5 - and indeed according to the report there are no other creditors for the Creditor's Report to go to. However they have not sent the report to investors (except possibly stub8535 ?) |
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 11:21:00 GMT
FWIW, as an investor I accept responsibility for doing my own DD, which in the case of COL turns out to have been inadequate: I did (I thought) check that they were FCA authorised, but was foolish enough to be taken in by the misleading claims they made on their promotional material. Don't forget the information published by the FCA on its website that supported the falsehood that Collateral (UK) Limited was ever lawfully granted interim permissions. The only way your DD could have led you to the fact that COL didn't have any authorisation would have been to find the entry on the FCA register, examine the previous company name, look that up at Companies House and learn that it was a different Limited company. Even then, you'd have had to know that permissions cannot lawfully be transferred between two different Limited companies.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 30, 2018 11:24:12 GMT
It is indeed - and the 'small firm of Insolvency Practitioners' (Court appointed that is - so I suggest totally legitimate), 'with associations (or not?) to an unregulated financial business (allegedly)' will get my vote pretty much every time over the incompetent, faceless and self-serving bureaucrats of the FCA.
I hope I haven't been too subtle there?
Appointment of Administrators is automatic, I have not suggested that RR is not totally legitimate, they have at two fully licensed Insolvency Practioners, just as it is open for you to be cynical about the FCA wanting a largr firm anyone else can be cynical about the motives for directors of an unreglated company wanting a small firm. Well, best we just agree to disagree then? However, I would have to be very, very down on my luck to voluntarily let the FCA represent my best interests under any circumstances - I have no faith or trust in them whatsoever.
This is pure speculation, but I wonder if the FCA expected to go to Court and get RR removed simply as a formality, solely by waving their ID card at the Judge - seems they were given a bloody nose by RR if they did?
|
|
