|
|
Post by easteregg on Jun 19, 2018 12:02:44 GMT
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 I strongly disagree To a punter it looked as if it was authorised - I certainly do Not have enough expertise to tell one form of authorisation from another and one name of the company from another very similar one. As it looks it is not only me.
Collateral was listed to have interim permission based on the information published on the FCA website and I checked these on a monthly basis.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 740 
Likes: 862
|
Post by 11025 on Jun 19, 2018 12:09:45 GMT
I strongly disagree To a punter it looked as if it was authorised - I certainly do Not have enough expertise to tell one form of authorisation from another and one name of the company from another very similar one. As it looks it is not only me.
Collateral was listed to have interim permission based on the information published on the FCA website and I checked these on a monthly basis.
I think you and many others , what I really disliked was the way the FCA very quietly and quickly amended their website after this all kicked off .
|
|
sildenafil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 60
|
Post by sildenafil on Jun 19, 2018 13:27:51 GMT
In the Huddle borrowing proposal it states:
"This is a refinance of an existing loan from another lender which has come
to the end of its term"
So can presume it is the same one. Now, do I invest in it to hopefully speed up return of monies from Collateral...??
|
|
sildenafil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 60
|
Post by sildenafil on Jun 19, 2018 13:33:46 GMT
Email from Huddle stating they have another new property loan going live next week. And:
"We have a stream of new property borrowers now and will be looking to launch a minimum of 3 new loans per month for the foreseeable future."
Perhaps the property loans from Collateral are being refinanced there
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Jun 19, 2018 14:38:15 GMT
Email from Huddle stating they have another new property loan going live next week. And: "We have a stream of new property borrowers now and will be looking to launch a minimum of 3 new loans per month for the foreseeable future." Perhaps the property loans from Collateral are being refinanced there Wonder what the haircut being offered by BDO was? (runs off quickly  ).
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Jun 19, 2018 16:03:40 GMT
I think it a positive development if we see Collateral loans being refinanced at Huddle, & worthy of serious consideration. Now if FS, never & no way, but Huddle, they are doing a good job so far. Their careful & slow development approach so far inspires more confidence, and I suspect they do a bit more than tick a few boxes before taking on a new proposal.
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Jun 19, 2018 16:36:37 GMT
Email from Huddle stating they have another new property loan going live next week. And: "We have a stream of new property borrowers now and will be looking to launch a minimum of 3 new loans per month for the foreseeable future." Perhaps the property loans from Collateral are being refinanced there Wonder what the haircut being offered by BDO was? (runs off quickly ).
There was no haircut; the Col loan expired was paid back and the borrower went to the market and refinanced with Huddle in this case. Other borrowers have paid back on expirity and refinanced in the market
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 19, 2018 16:43:43 GMT
Wonder what the haircut being offered by BDO was? (runs off quickly ).
There was no haircut; the Col loan expired was paid back and the borrower went to the market and refinanced with Huddle in this case. Other borrowers have paid back on expirity and refinanced in the market This is the refinance, it won't pay back until this loan is drawn AFAICS
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Jun 19, 2018 16:46:08 GMT
There was no haircut; the Col loan expired was paid back and the borrower went to the market and refinanced with Huddle in this case. Other borrowers have paid back on expirity and refinanced in the market This is the refinance, it won't pay back until this loan is drawn AFAICS Yes you are of course correct, I worded it badly but no haircut; thanks for correction
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jun 19, 2018 22:30:38 GMT
I strongly disagree To a punter it looked as if it was authorised - I certainly do Not have enough expertise to tell one form of authorisation from another and one name of the company from another very similar one. As it looks it is not only me.
Collateral was listed to have interim permission based on the information published on the FCA website and I checked these on a monthly basis.
Was Collateral UK incorporated after FCA interim permissions were granted or do you mean Collateral was also added as a trading name to Regal?
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Jun 20, 2018 5:30:21 GMT
Collateral was listed to have interim permission based on the information published on the FCA website and I checked these on a monthly basis.
Was Collateral UK incorporated after FCA interim permissions were granted or do you mean Collateral was also added as a trading name to Regal? Neither. The Firm Name "Regal Pawnbroker Limited" was edited to read "Collateral (UK) Limited" on the FCA register, when in fact Regal had not changed its name and Collateral (UK) Limited was a different Limited company. In addition to that, "Collateral" was added as a trading name, but it is the incorrect Firm Name that caused consumers to be misled by the FCA register. We have it direct from the FCA that Collateral (UK) Limited never held any such permission.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 20, 2018 7:49:38 GMT
Was Collateral UK incorporated after FCA interim permissions were granted or do you mean Collateral was also added as a trading name to Regal? Neither. The Firm Name "Regal Pawnbroker Limited" was edited to read "Collateral (UK) Limited" on the FCA register, when in fact Regal had not changed its name and Collateral (UK) Limited was a different Limited company. In addition to that, "Collateral" was added as a trading name, but it is the incorrect Firm Name that caused consumers to be misled by the FCA register. We have it direct from the FCA that Collateral (UK) Limited never held any such permission. Yes, but as publisher, regulator, and protector of unsophisticated investors from being misled, FCA have to take responsibility for what they allowed to be shown on their website. Or else it is useless.
|
|
mickj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 435
Likes: 191
|
Post by mickj on Jun 20, 2018 8:31:04 GMT
Was Collateral UK incorporated after FCA interim permissions were granted or do you mean Collateral was also added as a trading name to Regal? Neither. The Firm Name "Regal Pawnbroker Limited" was edited to read "Collateral (UK) Limited" on the FCA register, when in fact Regal had not changed its name and Collateral (UK) Limited was a different Limited company. In addition to that, "Collateral" was added as a trading name, but it is the incorrect Firm Name that caused consumers to be misled by the FCA register. We have it direct from the FCA that Collateral (UK) Limited never held any such permission. The problem is many of us believed Collateral in all it's guises did have permissions - and FCA seems to have aided that belief. Where were we, as lenders, expected to check and why would we question it.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Jun 20, 2018 11:20:45 GMT
Yes, but as publisher, regulator, and protector of unsophisticated investors from being misled, FCA have to take responsibility for what they allowed to be shown on their website. Or else it is useless. The problem is many of us believed Collateral in all it's guises did have permissions - and FCA seems to have aided that belief. Where were we, as lenders, expected to check and why would we question it. I wholeheartedly agree. The FCA is responsible for the content of its own register. Its factual statement that Collateral (UK) Limited never held interim permission probably belies its own understanding of the situation prior to date when it 'corrected' the register. It does seem there will be a causal link between the information it published on its website and investor losses resulting from this administration.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on Jun 20, 2018 11:41:29 GMT
The problem is many of us believed Collateral in all it's guises did have permissions - and FCA seems to have aided that belief. Where were we, as lenders, expected to check and why would we question it. The logical answer to that is the FCA website and we would question it if the FCA had no authority and accepted anyone could just change the name of their registration to another company and then pretend to be authorised. Now, if the FCA will come out and state to the court that they have no authority, their website should be ignored as its just a piece of social media where anyone can post what they like and they are just a trade body looking after their own interest than that would be fine and dandy.
|
|
). 
