mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666 
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 15:33:02 GMT
AFAIUI all that was prevented by the FCA intervention NOT lack of ambition from RR who seem to have been ready to implement the return of investor funds but were prevented from doing so by the FCA, under threat of court action; but obviously difficult to judge the exact timeline without further information but I would hazard a guess that ignoring the best interests of lenders & imposing extra bureaucracy is most likely to be FCA driven. The original RR plan would seem to have served both the best interests of lenders, borrowers & Col alike but administrators are serious, professional individuals & won't risk breaching court imposed suspensions of their actions. I don't think we should be taking anything in that report as gospel. There is zero chance of a 100% buyout happening. The fact that it has been spun as being the case (and leaked) should make you see why the FCA do not want these admins handling this. Zero chance? I don't think any of us are in the position to know anything for sure at this stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 15:42:08 GMT
I understand allthe frustration and cynicism with the FCA and fear that the any new Administrator will cause extra cost and time delay. But the regulatory regime and legislation is set up as it is, recently there was a member who went on interminably about his perceived failure of the FCA to operate properly (on another platform). It seems they lose if they do they lose if they don't.
We are not privvy to their thoughts and although the current Administrator "talked a good job" he never actually produced anything. No-one has mentioned that he received £48,000 for his pre Administration costs (section 12.2 of his report) and no-one has any idea of what his total costs or timescale would be.
I don't know about you but £48,000 sounds an awful lot for a few days work by a small firm from Skelmersdale.
|
|
spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 967
Likes: 486
|
Post by spiral on Mar 30, 2018 15:49:11 GMT
Mmm let's see. If Col had entered administration whilst still under interim permission, the current administrators would have been appointed as a result of their living will. The FCA would not then I assume have tried to replace them.
If they would, it makes a mockery of all the living wills on all platforms as the procedures set out by the platforms to wind down the loan book in an orderly fashion would/could be overridden.
Or is the outcome of all this because Col was never deemed to have had interim permission?
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 16:01:08 GMT
No-one has mentioned that he received £48,000 for his pre Administration costs (section 12.2 of his report) and no-one has any idea of what his total costs or timescale would be. I don't know about you but £48,000 sounds an awful lot for a few days work by a small firm from Skelmersdale. Hmm, I was perhaps mistakenly under the impression that the £48k would go towards the costs of the administration, rather than RR pocketing the whole sum regardless of the actual pre-administration costs. If not, then that is quite concerning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 30, 2018 16:01:19 GMT
I understand allthe frustration and cynicism with the FCA and fear that the any new Administrator will cause extra cost and time delay. But the regulatory regime and legislation is set up as it is, recently there was a member who went on interminably about his perceived failure of the FCA to operate properly (on another platform). It seems they lose if they do they lose if they don't. We are not privvy to their thoughts and although the current Administrator "talked a good job" he never actually produced anything. No-one has mentioned that he received £48,000 for his pre Administration costs (section 12.2 of his report) and no-one has any idea of what his total costs or timescale would be. I don't know about you but £48,000 sounds an awful lot for a few days work by a small firm from Skelmersdale. I assume you are discounting the full & comprehensive 27 page report posted on DD central as "fake news?"
If you read my previous posts you will see that I have mentioned it twice & given it covers the administration to conclusion I think £48k offers good value & represents no cost to lenders; If you think it is excessive, which is an equally valid opinion, I suggest you sit down with a stiff drink before reading how much the FCA approved administrator will charge!
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 16:05:15 GMT
Mmm let's see. If Col had entered administration whilst still under interim permission, the current administrators would have been appointed as a result of their living will. The FCA would not then I assume have tried to replace them. If they would, it makes a mockery of all the living wills on all platforms as the procedures set out by the platforms to wind down the loan book in an orderly fashion would/could be overridden. Or is the outcome of all this because Col was never deemed to have had interim permission? We don't know why the FCA is taking this action. We might learn more after the court hearing, but my guess is that we will remain in the dark.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 16:15:16 GMT
I understand allthe frustration and cynicism with the FCA and fear that the any new Administrator will cause extra cost and time delay. But the regulatory regime and legislation is set up as it is, recently there was a member who went on interminably about his perceived failure of the FCA to operate properly (on another platform). It seems they lose if they do they lose if they don't. We are not privvy to their thoughts and although the current Administrator "talked a good job" he never actually produced anything. No-one has mentioned that he received £48,000 for his pre Administration costs (section 12.2 of his report) and no-one has any idea of what his total costs or timescale would be. I don't know about you but £48,000 sounds an awful lot for a few days work by a small firm from Skelmersdale. I assume you are discounting the full & comprehensive 27 page report posted on DD central as "fake news?"
If you read my previous posts you will see that I have mentioned it twice & given it covers the administration to conclusion I think £48k offers good value & represents no cost to lenders; If you think it is excessive, which is an equally valid opinion, I suggest you sit down with a stiff drink before reading how much the FCA approved administrator will charge!
No I have read the report the only mention of fees is the direct quote in my original post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 30, 2018 16:23:51 GMT
I assume you are discounting the full & comprehensive 27 page report posted on DD central as "fake news?"
If you read my previous posts you will see that I have mentioned it twice & given it covers the administration to conclusion I think £48k offers good value & represents no cost to lenders; If you think it is excessive, which is an equally valid opinion, I suggest you sit down with a stiff drink before reading how much the FCA approved administrator will charge!
No I have read the report the only mention of fees is the direct quote in my original post. Well I beg to differ; Posted on this thread by me yesterday @ 5.01pm “the administrator could achieve all this for what looks a very reasonable £48k fee but now the FCA is going to court next month to appoint a big London firm to do the job, obviously for a much larger fee” & from 4 hours ago “The administrator has proposed a sensible plan to return lenders funds & appears to be ready to implement it; which would mean a great result in a short period of time at no cost to lenders (£48k fee has already been paid out of Col funds).”
|
|
k6
Posts: 266
Likes: 161
|
Post by k6 on Mar 30, 2018 16:28:18 GMT
No I have read the report the only mention of fees is the direct quote in my original post. Well I beg to differ; Posted on this thread by me yesterday @ 5.01pm “the administrator could achieve all this for what looks a very reasonable £48k fee but now the FCA is going to court next month to appoint a big London firm to do the job, obviously for a much larger fee” & from 4 hours ago “The administrator has proposed a sensible plan to return lenders funds & appears to be ready to implement it; which would mean a great result in a short period of time at no cost to lenders (£48k fee has already been paid out of Col funds).” Sorry but where all this information is coming from ? Am I missing some emails ? Is it from some website? Thanks for info
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Mar 30, 2018 16:29:34 GMT
how are you coming up with the 48K being the total admin cost as it's repeatedly referred to as the
'pre-appointment cost' (which has 'tacit' agreement apparently)
please can you point out in the report where it states this is the total cost ?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 30, 2018 16:33:57 GMT
I understand allthe frustration and cynicism with the FCA and fear that the any new Administrator will cause extra cost and time delay. But the regulatory regime and legislation is set up as it is, recently there was a member who went on interminably about his perceived failure of the FCA to operate properly (on another platform). It seems they lose if they do they lose if they don't. We are not privvy to their thoughts and although the current Administrator "talked a good job" he never actually produced anything. No-one has mentioned that he received £48,000 for his pre Administration costs (section 12.2 of his report) and no-one has any idea of what his total costs or timescale would be. I don't know about you but £48,000 sounds an awful lot for a few days work by a small firm from Skelmersdale. I assume you are discounting the full & comprehensive 27 page report posted on DD central as "fake news?"
If you read my previous posts you will see that I have mentioned it twice & given it covers the administration to conclusion I think £48k offers good value & represents no cost to lenders; If you think it is excessive, which is an equally valid opinion, I suggest you sit down with a stiff drink before reading how much the FCA approved administrator will charge!
You seemed to assume that £48k was the total cost of the administration (and you still seem to), which I rebutted. It was the cost of them taking off their hats and coats and rolling up their sleeves and was paid. This was for the pre-administration, the administration bill to follow...
|
|
|
|
Post by medelm on Mar 30, 2018 16:36:09 GMT
On another question, after reading the report I would be interested in the forums view.
BL00079-BL00084 the Chesterfield land, filled just days prior to the administration and as far as I saw never drew down and I never saw any cashback paid (which is an indication it was drawn down).
In the report it stats:
In the client account there is a balance of £395,404, which principally relates to 777 individuals
who have deposited money amounting to £370,553
How would you interpret this:
- I am assuming as its far less than the 1.4mil the loan had filled for this money only relates to money on account and not assigned to a loan.
- Is there maybe another client account that holds money that has been committed against loans that wasnt mentioned in the report?
- The loan did infact drawdown post administration?
I do have a holding in the loan and was personally hoping it didnt drawdown and the funds could be returned whenever possible BUT it appears that either they are hiding in another account or the loan has drawndown. My pure speculation I think its drawndown, the fees and ongoing interest margin are all positives for directors pockets and potential administrator fees.
Anyone else have an opinion on it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 30, 2018 16:38:16 GMT
how are you coming up with the 48K being the total admin cost as it's repeatedly referred to as the 'pre-appointment cost' (which has 'tacit' agreement apparently) please can you point out in the report where it states this is the total cost ? The administrator was appointed by Col voluntarily, in a very responsible move IMO, to wind up their affairs in a sensible, managed way so a fee was agreed before the appointment was confirmed so it could be pre paid by Col before administration was commenced (along with £40k to cover staff salaries so they could assist & speed up the process). This £88k came for Col's own funds & doesn't affect any return to lenders, there will be an allowance for unexpected costs incurred, like court costs, but the substantial administration costa are effectively already paid, unless the FCA win at court & impose their approved London based firm & then costs will inevitably increase rapidly & could compromise the return to lenders.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 30, 2018 16:40:09 GMT
The main administration costs from RR are yet to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 30, 2018 16:42:17 GMT
I assume you are discounting the full & comprehensive 27 page report posted on DD central as "fake news?"
If you read my previous posts you will see that I have mentioned it twice & given it covers the administration to conclusion I think £48k offers good value & represents no cost to lenders; If you think it is excessive, which is an equally valid opinion, I suggest you sit down with a stiff drink before reading how much the FCA approved administrator will charge!
You seemed to assume that £48k was the total cost of the administration (and you still seem to), which I rebutted. It was the cost of them taking off their hats and coats and rolling up their sleeves and was paid. This was for the pre-administration, the administration bill to follow... We just disagree on this point £48k + any unexpected costs should be the final RR bill, obviously unless the FCA get their way at court & then all bets are off & the total cost will be far higher.
|
|
