victors
Member of DD Central
Posts: 157 
Likes: 86
|
Post by victors on Jun 17, 2018 14:56:34 GMT
I'm not going to look at this forum again until 22nd July.
All this speculation is driving me up the wall.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jun 17, 2018 15:14:53 GMT
- the owners have gone rogue, trying to destroy the evidence, Is there any evidence that this is the case?
I think the only facts are that COL had investor records when they were running the platform, but BDO do not. I assume RR had them (as they were anticipating an orderly distribution of funds as loans repaid) and would have been responsible for safeguarding them though the administration process. The first court case didn't remove RR, but it severely limited what they could do (for example collect borrower payments, but not spend any of that money). So if RR had investor data when they took over were they responsible for its safe retention until BDO took over?
I think it has been said here (with what authority I know not) that the restrictions placed on RR prevented them paying the fees needed to maintain off-site backups of data, and hence they lost whatever access to these records they may have had - although BDO are apparently talking the service provider concerned. I do have to wonder why among the immediate actions of RR on being appointed wasn't making copies of every accessible electron whether on- or off- site. I would have.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jun 17, 2018 15:57:55 GMT
I think it is notable that the BDO have 'leaked' their intentions in the last notification, seemingly in order to gauge opinion/reaction before making the next update. We do indeed need a leading voice to represent us and show the BDO that we mean business and will not be trampled on.
Whilst I do not think I have a problem with a 'one pot shared amongst all' approach, I am totally against being treated as an unsecured creditor of Collateral. That would be completely against the whole spirit and meaning of what our intention was - and what the intention of the Collateral company was too.
At the very least we are secured ring-fenced investors, and neither BDO nor anyone else has any right to put their grubby paws on our cash.
Being secured ring-fenced investors does not stop BDO from legally being entitled to use investors monies to pay for the costs of Administration. I believe the law was changed in the previous decade to allow this. The money has to come from somewhere and I don't see the ruins of Collateral itself having substantial assets. Beaumont Securities, an investment company flagged up by the US authorities is currently in Administration and the last I read investors were on the hook for £55M out of an investment pot of £600M. I do agree lenders may need a voice with the proviso that arguing with BDO over relatively minor matters may just push up further the costs of administration. I expect loudest voices will be those who stand to lose most!
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Jun 18, 2018 5:06:27 GMT
I think it is notable that the BDO have 'leaked' their intentions in the last notification, seemingly in order to gauge opinion/reaction before making the next update. We do indeed need a leading voice to represent us and show the BDO that we mean business and will not be trampled on.
Whilst I do not think I have a problem with a 'one pot shared amongst all' approach, I am totally against being treated as an unsecured creditor of Collateral. That would be completely against the whole spirit and meaning of what our intention was - and what the intention of the Collateral company was too.
At the very least we are secured ring-fenced investors, and neither BDO nor anyone else has any right to put their grubby paws on our cash.
Being secured ring-fenced investors does not stop BDO from legally being entitled to use investors monies to pay for the costs of Administration. I believe the law was changed in the previous decade to allow this. The money has to come from somewhere and I don't see the ruins of Collateral itself having substantial assets. Beaumont Securities, an investment company flagged up by the US authorities is currently in Administration and the last I read investors were on the hook for £55M out of an investment pot of £600M. I do agree lenders may need a voice with the proviso that arguing with BDO over relatively minor matters may just push up further the costs of administration. I expect loudest voices will be those who stand to lose most! Ring fenced - nice idea. As a holder of a Beauforts ISA I read that in a notice to investors from PWC that I will not be required to pay costs of more than my holdings are worth! They are actually optimistic that there most clients will have their costs in effect covered by the FSCS. As a former Equitable Life holder I thought that my pension funds were safe but that was not the case. Although the real problems there started many many many years ago investors were allowed to invest until the early 2000s.
|
|
|
|
Post by angrykittens on Jun 18, 2018 7:16:49 GMT
I have seen several people mention they would be happy with the "1 pot for all approach". For those that have stated this, what were the majority of your holdings?
I had 99% bling and i do NOT want my selective investments to prop up those who took on risky development tranches etc.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jun 18, 2018 7:19:29 GMT
I have seen several people mention they would be happy with the "1 pot for all approach". For those that have stated this, what were the majority of your holdings? I had 99% bling and i do NOT want my selective investments to prop up those who took on risky development tranches etc. To your question, I had 90% of BL00026 (circa 16% LTV) - I do NOT want my selective investments to prop up those unquantified bling loans 
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 1,861
|
Post by archie on Jun 18, 2018 7:40:46 GMT
I have seen several people mention they would be happy with the "1 pot for all approach". For those that have stated this, what were the majority of your holdings? I had 99% bling and i do NOT want my selective investments to prop up those who took on risky development tranches etc. I'm 100% bling so totally agree.  The 1 pot approach also means everyone will be waiting a very long time to receive anything back.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Jun 18, 2018 7:55:47 GMT
I have seen several people mention they would be happy with the "1 pot for all approach". For those that have stated this, what were the majority of your holdings? I had 99% bling and i do NOT want my selective investments to prop up those who took on risky development tranches etc. To your question, I had 90% of BL00026 (circa 16% LTV) - I do NOT want my selective investments to prop up those unquantified bling loans Have 50k in bl26 so definitely the one pot does not appeal to me personally but beware of divide and conquer tactics
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Jun 18, 2018 8:15:19 GMT
I'm not going to look at this forum again until 22nd July. All this speculation is driving me up the wall. Try banging your head against it. I understand it can be quite beneficial.
|
|
seb8072
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 99
|
Post by seb8072 on Jun 18, 2018 11:12:47 GMT
Do you think Paul Lewis would find this sad saga worthy of a few minutes air-time on BBC's Money Box?
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 18, 2018 11:26:24 GMT
I'm not going to look at this forum again until 22nd July. All this speculation is driving me up the wall. Maybe a month earlier?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,048
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Jun 18, 2018 11:42:28 GMT
I'm not going to look at this forum again until 22nd July. I can see the logic in this.
By 4 weeks after the administrators report comes out we will probably have had all our money returned.
|
|
k6
Posts: 266
Likes: 161
|
Post by k6 on Jun 18, 2018 12:19:25 GMT
Do you think Paul Lewis would find this sad saga worthy of a few minutes air-time on BBC's Money Box? Although we still far away from knowing what the outcome will be I think making a little bit more noise about it could potentially bring some attention to some authorities ? This is a fairly big issue/case in the whole P2P world so , yes.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jun 18, 2018 12:31:35 GMT
Do you think Paul Lewis would find this sad saga worthy of a few minutes air-time on BBC's Money Box? Although we still far away from knowing what the outcome will be I think making a little bit more noise about it could potentially bring some attention to some authorities ? This is a fairly big issue/case in the whole P2P world so , yes. dont you mean Martin Lewis? Col were not authorised yet this would make all P2P seem like the wild west if covered on a mainstream channel to less informed viewers. So I think it would be terrible and serve no useful purpose in return
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jun 18, 2018 12:57:11 GMT
Although we still far away from knowing what the outcome will be I think making a little bit more noise about it could potentially bring some attention to some authorities ? This is a fairly big issue/case in the whole P2P world so , yes. dont you mean Martin Lewis? Col were not authorised yet this would make all P2P seem like the wild west if covered on a mainstream channel to less informed viewers. So I think it would be terrible and serve no useful purpose in return
|
|
