In Administration (Col)

My thoughts on this seem to differ from most:

1. It's seems far too early to know whether BDO are doing a bad job - they haven't even released their first report yet. And it's likely they know more than anybody in this thread re: whether we are creditors or not.

2. There are some advantages to everybody being lumped together in one pot anyway:
(a) it diversifies risk
(b) I think it also helps those who had money in their client accounts or lent money on undrawndown loans, as these appear not to be ringfenced.
(c) Like many on here I'm invested mainly in bling but I wonder how easy it will be to sort out the grouped assets.

3. Having said that the comparison of total loans with total assets paints too good a picture as we can't keep any surplus on loans where the value of the asset exceeds the loan.

4. Even if the backups weren't potentially missing, my hazy understanding is that it's possible it'll be one pot anyway. I remember dualinvestor suggesting this before the recent BDO revelations.

5. I'm less worried about being treated as creditors than most, as Col don't appear to have many debts. And whatever happens, it seems that administration fees will have to come out of lenders' funds (at least to begin with) - the owners seemed to have withdrawn any surplus. Where else could the administration fees come from? I also doubt administration fees will be that large relative to the assets.

6. BDO average hourly rate is probably more like £300 than £500
. £500 is only for the partner

7. My (potential) criticism of the FCA is that they were not harsh enough on Col. Col were able to keep taking deposits and initiate two new loans even after it was clear they didn't have the right permissions. (I say this is a potential criticism as I don't know what happened behind the scenes or the powers FCA have to stop them.)

8. I doubtful the apparently faulty FCA register is much help to us (in terms of suing them), given that the permissions appeared not to relate to p2p. That nobody understood this won't be a defence.

9. Would people really prefer RR? They (a) seemed to "forget" about client account money in their report, (b) didn't reveal that the Col owners had withdrawn "profits" after the FCA intervened, (c) delayed the new administrators as long as they could and, when it came down to it, didn't even bother to turn up to court to defend their side, and (d) were chosen by Col and were paid an interestingly large sum upfront.

The RR rec looked incomplete. The main omission being millions of undrawn funds. There was also no mention of 100,000s allegedly taken by the directors from client funds nor to the apparent obfuscation over using a non-p2p permission from a separate company. The question has also been raised about the misappropriation of lender funds being applied to unrelated projects.

It is not the job of UK regulators to overlook potentially illegal activities and allow unregulated parties to manage their own administration without prior notification for a simpler winding up and to protect the directors.

The concern must be that the only other significant creditor may be the administrator/liquidator. If lenders become company creditors for the loans, then presumably the loans become assets of the company. The risk is that the liquidation might then provide a stream of gravy into which the administrator's bread might be fully dipped. But the proposals will be out soon enough, and the FCA will be there to protect investors/lenders.

Elliottm is right that the regulator could not turn a blind eye towards a quick and dirty solution - but also the regulator needs to be held to account on the promised protection of investors.

I used to run a website (a few actually) and when I decided to change hosts, I let my hosting contracts expire. The ex-hosts starting issuing me with Invoices adding a late payment charge, to which I took umbrage and I think everything was held by them for 7 days before it was all deleted irrevocably. 

I had my own local tar.gz copies of the sites, so could recreate quickly elsewhere. I'd be very surprised if someone didn't have offline backups somewhere, this is standard practice, even if the data on the servers have gone. They may be on a computer somewhere, or on cloud storage, if Colleral had an IT person, they would likely know. I'd be very surprised if the site's data cannot be reconstructed.

Well blender - if you really believe that (my bold italics) then I suggest you are somewhat naïve. I wouldn't trust the FCA to take my dog for a walk (and I don't have a dog!). I suggest the likes of you and I (mere citizen investors) come well down their list of priorities or concerns - and their BDO buddies (or did I miss the competitive tender process for this (increasingly) lucrative Administration project?)) will undoubtedly have their financial self interest as their prime (sole?) focus.

You're correct about one thing though - the proposals will be out soon so I'll keep most of my powder dry until then - but I reckon I'll be needing and using it in quantity in due course.

I hope I've got this all wrong and that BDO will indeed be our saviours - but I'm not holding my breath.

We are not far apart here rxdav. Of course the FCA would like to leave it all to BDO and to have no further involvement. But FCA fumbled the registration, they eventually caused Coll to go into administration, they forced the court to replace RR with BDO, specifically to protect investor/lenders. They have called all the shots and are on the hook politically at least. If BDO's proposals are not liked, then the buck stops with FCA, and the court is monitoring, and presumably available to a creditors' committee. BDO may provide acceptable proposals on 22nd, but if not lenders have some clout.