|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Mar 1, 2018 19:41:32 GMT
We do not know what has been going on behind the scenes, but it is surely the case that the FCA would never have taken this action if there had existed a reasonably viable alternative that could have allowed things to continue, and get sorted out along the way. This whole event adds up to a massive breach of trust that we investors have faithfully placed in this business, and those people that operate it. The winds now blow cold over the world of p2p investing, even colder than those winds that now blow outside. Never a colder Curry have we known. Certain individuals should perhaps be thrown in jail. I repeat: this event is a massive breach of trust. I think you are going way too far there. I was just as angry and mad as anyone about the way Collateral treated us when they went offline and imo that was deserved but "thrown in jail" is way over the top. All the money is there, all the loans appear to be in order and despite the t&c changes everything appears so far to be compliant with the way the FCA wanted things done. I am extremely grateful this looks like a best case scenario and I know many others will be also - others with way more at stake than me. You have to give a lot of credit for that. I do agree that Collateral knew they were operating without a licence. Removing the reference to it from their emails a month ago makes it obvious they knew. For that reason I agree I wouldn't trust them going forward and I am curious as to the reason why they lost the licence - but this situation looks very rosy compared to what could have been and you have to give them credit for that.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150 
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Mar 1, 2018 19:58:49 GMT
I give them no credit at all. They began as a pawnbroker, built up investor trust to attract large amounts of cash on various property deals, then threw it all away with, at best, gross miss-management.
At best. But surely they are not that stupid.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 1, 2018 20:08:08 GMT
This is a great find ganymede; if anyone has any doubts that this was not an error read these replies from Gordon. The current belief is that Collateral held interim permissions until the end of January 2018. That seems entirely consistent with the comments in that thread. What is unclear at this time is the reason why the IP lapsed - whether it was a rejection of Collateral's application by the FCA or a the result of an error remains to be seen.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Mar 1, 2018 20:32:04 GMT
We do not know what has been going on behind the scenes, but it is surely the case that the FCA would never have taken this action if there had existed a reasonably viable alternative that could have allowed things to continue, and get sorted out along the way. This whole event adds up to a massive breach of trust that we investors have faithfully placed in this business, and those people that operate it. The winds now blow cold over the world of p2p investing, even colder than those winds that now blow outside. Never a colder Curry have we known. Certain individuals should perhaps be thrown in jail. I repeat: this event is a massive breach of trust. I think you are going way too far there. I was just as angry and mad as anyone about the way Collateral treated us when they went offline and imo that was deserved but "thrown in jail" is way over the top. All the money is there, all the loans appear to be in order and despite the t&c changes everything appears so far to be compliant with the way the FCA wanted things done. I am extremely grateful this looks like a best case scenario and I know many others will be also - others with way more at stake than me. You have to give a lot of credit for that. I do agree that Collateral knew they were operating without a licence. Removing the reference to it from their emails a month ago makes it obvious they knew. For that reason I agree I wouldn't trust them going forward and I am curious as to the reason why they lost the licence - but this situation looks very rosy compared to what could have been and you have to give them credit for that. Has that actually been confirmed - The liquidator is quick to have established that already but maybe I have missed this confirmation ? Hopefully the FCA have some sort of mechanism to ensure that the chancers involved won't trouble the industry again in the future.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 1, 2018 20:41:32 GMT
I think you are going way too far there. I was just as angry and mad as anyone about the way Collateral treated us when they went offline and imo that was deserved but "thrown in jail" is way over the top. All the money is there, all the loans appear to be in order and despite the t&c changes everything appears so far to be compliant with the way the FCA wanted things done. I am extremely grateful this looks like a best case scenario and I know many others will be also - others with way more at stake than me. You have to give a lot of credit for that. I do agree that Collateral knew they were operating without a licence. Removing the reference to it from their emails a month ago makes it obvious they knew. For that reason I agree I wouldn't trust them going forward and I am curious as to the reason why they lost the licence - but this situation looks very rosy compared to what could have been and you have to give them credit for that. Has that actually been confirmed - The liquidator is quick to have established that already but maybe I have missed this confirmation ? Hopefully the FCA have some sort of mechanism to ensure that the chancers involved won't trouble the industry again in the future. No, we've had no confirmation of any reconciliation yet. We have had it confirmed that uninvested cash was segregated from the business, but the administrator does not yet even have access to this account.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 1, 2018 20:42:30 GMT
Money is in the client account but it has not,as yet, been reconciled to lender's balances. Be fair the Administrator was only appointed yesterday and with 1000+ members and nearly £2million these things take time
|
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Mar 1, 2018 20:49:41 GMT
Has that actually been confirmed No - as I said it "appears" to be that way. I believe they confirmed that our cash was indeed held in a segregated client account as we would hope, despite the t&c changes. That was from a reply from the administrator to an investor, it's posted in this forum somewhere. They also confirmed that our investments in drawn down loans will be proceeding as normal and we don't need to do anything to get the repayments. Nothing more specific than that. That's from the initial letter we all got last night. The actual confirmation has not happened yet, but it appears to me to be as good as we could hope for at this stage.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 1, 2018 21:01:12 GMT
I think it has been made very clear in Gordon’s letter that they may still possible to bring the directors to civil court. Why? Because before reconciliation, it is possible that client money could have been misplaced! From client account to company account, instead used for secured loans, used for other purpose.
I am still very concerned what if Jessica come back and said half of the funds are missing. ... does that mean we all bear 50% loss in our cash position? That would be disastrous, at least for some.
|
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Mar 1, 2018 21:04:09 GMT
Received just now...By the way, I am also invested 6 figs but I don't mind everybody emailing the Administrator. At worst she will tack on 1 days wages which is a drop in the ocean. Besides, it may not be us investors that need to foot that bill anyway. Also, if everybody emails with their queries, my guess is they will send out a global email later today with all appropriate answers. Good Morning We are at the very start of this process and I do not have answers to all queries at present, I can only confirm that the intention of the Administrator is for all investors to recover their funds in full as the various investments are realised. I can confirm however that any monies that are sat on the platform and are not invested are ring fenced in a separate client account and the intention is for these to be returned to all investors after the Administrator has obtained control of the bank account and carried out a reconciliation. We are currently looking into the website and the possibility of this being reopened in order for investors to view the balance of their investments, however this isn’t something that will be dealt with until next week at the earliest. Some of the information contained in that letter is general information that we are legally required to distribute to creditors of the Company, however in the circumstances your position would be different in that your investment is secured against either an item or property as detailed in your agreement, consequently when the item is disposed of, your investment would be settled. I am will be going into matters in finer detail next week, then I should have more information in this regard. Yours sincerely For Collateral (UK) Limited Jessica Hodgson For Gordon Craig Administrator A nice reply to read that.
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Mar 1, 2018 21:40:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 1, 2018 21:41:47 GMT
I think it has been made very clear in Gordon’s letter that they may still possible to bring the directors to civil court. Why? Because before reconciliation, it is possible that client money could have been misplaced! From client account to company account, instead used for secured loans, used for other purpose. I am still very concerned what if Jessica come back and said half of the funds are missing. ... does that mean we all bear 50% loss in our cash position? That would be disastrous, at least for some. If Collateral were misusing clients money it is a criminal offence, someone who had money misused could sue but it would not be worth it against a company in Administration. The Administrator (not an individual creditor) could take action against the directors under s213 or s214 of the Insolvency Act (wrongful or fraudulent trading, both civil actions despite their names) to recover some assets but such actions are rare and not often successful.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Mar 1, 2018 21:44:54 GMT
This is a great find ganymede; if anyone has any doubts that this was not an error read these replies from Gordon. The current belief is that Collateral held interim permissions until the end of January 2018. That seems entirely consistent with the comments in that thread. What is unclear at this time is the reason why the IP lapsed - whether it was a rejection of Collateral's application by the FCA or as a result of an error remains to be seen. I just can't accept that Gordon said in January 2017... 'Yes we're currently under interim permissions and our lawyers and compliance advisers are comfortable that we have the requisite permissions in our application for full FCA approval. '....On the 18th January 2018, Gordon states that 'Our FCA application is still ongoing...Then at the end of January 2018 changes are made to the information on the website as they continue to trade and then yesterday Collateral claim that '“The company was operating in the belief that it was authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under interim permission,”
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 1, 2018 21:48:42 GMT
Bold statement that I hope she doesn't regret it later not least because it relies on all borrowers paying in full.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Mar 1, 2018 21:52:22 GMT
Maybe this comment is a little naive and premature for a professional to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 1, 2018 22:17:23 GMT
Maybe this comment is a little naive and premature for a professional to make. Absolutely, if it is what she actually said (with no caveats) then it demonstrates naivity with respect to the recovery prospects of p2p loans in a default situation, and is a statement no one in the p2p sector would dream of making. I have a feeling they are meekly expecting capital repayments will generally appear on the maturity date of the loan agreements.
|
|
