mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666 
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 2, 2018 19:18:37 GMT
As for the £50,000 limit provided Collateral made the loan you will only get the money back if the loan repays ie the FSCS does not cover the underlying investment. As an anology if you had bought shares in Carrillion through a FSCS coveted broker you would not expect the FSCS to cover your loss The difference being if you paid an authorised broker for the Carrillion shares and someone in the back office faked the deal and instead ran off with the money, you would be covered by the FSCS, but for an equivalent P2P authorised platform, you would not (unless you did it under regulated advice).
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 2, 2018 19:25:26 GMT
As for the £50,000 limit provided Collateral made the loan you will only get the money back if the loan repays ie the FSCS does not cover the underlying investment. As an anology if you had bought shares in Carrillion through a FSCS coveted broker you would not expect the FSCS to cover your loss The difference being if you paid an authorised broker for the Carrillion shares and someone in the back office faked the deal and instead ran off with the money, you would be covered by the FSCS, but for an equivalent P2P authorised platform, you would not (unless you did it under regulated advice). That was taken as read nobody believes normal direct investment in P2P is covered by FSCS hence the mention of the specific limit
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 2, 2018 19:48:24 GMT
The difference being if you paid an authorised broker for the Carrillion shares and someone in the back office faked the deal and instead ran off with the money, you would be covered by the FSCS, but for an equivalent P2P authorised platform, you would not (unless you did it under regulated advice). That was taken as read nobody believes normal direct investment in P2P is covered by FSCS hence the mention of the specific limit Then I don't understand the stated analogy with a stockmarket investment, which is covered by the FSCS. They are not analogous in terms of the protections offered.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 2, 2018 19:56:20 GMT
That was taken as read nobody believes normal direct investment in P2P is covered by FSCS hence the mention of the specific limit Then I don't understand the stated analogy with a stockmarket investment, which is covered by the FSCS. Because they would both be by regulated financial advisors.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 2, 2018 20:10:28 GMT
Then I don't understand the stated analogy with a stockmarket investment, which is covered by the FSCS. Because they would both be by regulated financial advisors. Sorry, I misunderstood. I assumed you were referring to a direct investment made without regulated financial advice (i.e. using a execution only platform). If an investment was made as the result of financial advice, then £50k FSCS compensation would apply to both P2P and stockmarket investments in the case of fraud. The inequality only exists for direct investments made without regulated financial advice. But most people go down the DIY route with P2P (and indeed S&S I'd wager).
|
|
btc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 193
Likes: 132
|
Post by btc on Mar 2, 2018 20:39:09 GMT
Also, with nought to gain now by being over accommodating with Borrowers, I imagine the Administrator might just be rather a bit more professional (ie aggressive) with late/no payers? I would like to see this happen, too many Borrowers see P2P as a soft touch, often aided and abetted by The Platform, and lead Lenders on a merry dance. Which is very unfortunate of course for the honest Borrowers. Great, what do we need to do to get funding secure into administration?
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Mar 2, 2018 20:43:38 GMT
The short story is there were two loans on collateral , one a property and the other some land, both being quoted at specific value's , when i looked deeper into it, both the assets were owned by companies that belonged to curries brother, and both had been purchased at significantly lower prices (10x lower) than the valuations . I contacted collateral and challenged them, and they agreed to remove both from their platform. I could have revealed this on the forum, but they were a fairly new co, and i certainly did not want to start any unrest. It was enough for me to pull everything out of collateral and i never had any inclination to return, i just never trusted them after that. Ah yes Martin, I remember something about this, wise move you made! Like a fool I continued on with it, even though the signs were there, that the 'business men' behind Collateral were, well, more than just a little 'Arthur Daley' like. Lately I had lost all confidence in the property loans, sold what I could, leaving mostly bling. The Jewellery loans are however by no means safe. Especially the grouped asset ones, which are, IMO, quite likely to default. A lot depends on the honesty of those 'shopkeepers' who buy & sell this stuff - and therefore also to what extent they they may be 'linked' to the Currie brothers. Bottom line is, the people behind this operation can fairly (IMO) be described as dodgy. There has been stuff going on behind the scenes we know nothing about. IMO this 'event' has been 'in the planning' for some time. The underhand changes to the T & C's, now leaving client money at risk of being 'spirited away', says it all. I repeat my assertion that these people have utterly betrayed the faith and trust we placed in them. And I would not trust anyone appointed by Collateral to administer this mess. (if they can so appoint).
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 2, 2018 20:54:30 GMT
Also, with nought to gain now by being over accommodating with Borrowers, I imagine the Administrator might just be rather a bit more professional (ie aggressive) with late/no payers? I would like to see this happen, too many Borrowers see P2P as a soft touch, often aided and abetted by The Platform, and lead Lenders on a merry dance. Which is very unfortunate of course for the honest Borrowers. Great, what do we need to do to get funding secure into administration? You only want to be aggressive with late/no payers in instances where there's a reasonable chance of the loan security covering the outstanding balance COUGH COUGH
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Mar 2, 2018 21:15:17 GMT
The short story is there were two loans on collateral , one a property and the other some land, both being quoted at specific value's , when i looked deeper into it, both the assets were owned by companies that belonged to curries brother, and both had been purchased at significantly lower prices (10x lower) than the valuations . I contacted collateral and challenged them, and they agreed to remove both from their platform. I could have revealed this on the forum, but they were a fairly new co, and i certainly did not want to start any unrest. It was enough for me to pull everything out of collateral and i never had any inclination to return, i just never trusted them after that. I *think* the two loans being referred to here are BL00001 and BL00002. For those with access to DD Central I documented some of the background to these two loans at the beginning of December ( DDC Thread). I included in that thread Peter's response on the forum concerning those loans. Note that the BL00001 land is that of the £1.7m loan that is for sale on Racefields that I posted about at the end of January in this thread and this DDC thread. EDIT: Again for those with DD Central access, a re-read of BL00045/BL00007's DDC Thread might be interesting with hindsight. If my memory serves me right, this was around june/july 2017, a warehouse/storage unit and a plot of land with planning permission for some apartments, both in manchester i think... Ill try and dig back t/moro and find the exact details. There was some private discussion as well where maybe some of the participants may see this post and remind me. Edit.. feel free to PM me if anyone can recall the circumstances..... age is befuddling me 
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 2, 2018 21:22:37 GMT
Sorry for being thick but could someone confirm or not the following:
If I stash some cash into a p2p firm that has full FCA authorisation but that firm doesn't put it into a segregated client account and instead runs away with it am I covered by any compensation scheme?
Completely different question is what did the Currie brothers hope to gain by attempting to hide the FCA lapse? Could the firm owe money to a principle who is in some way linked to them meaning that if the segregation account was no longer ring-fenced, they might gain from funds moving out of it to their creditors?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Mar 2, 2018 21:28:54 GMT
The short story is there were two loans on collateral , one a property and the other some land, both being quoted at specific value's , when i looked deeper into it, both the assets were owned by companies that belonged to curries brother, and both had been purchased at significantly lower prices (10x lower) than the valuations . I contacted collateral and challenged them, and they agreed to remove both from their platform. I could have revealed this on the forum, but they were a fairly new co, and i certainly did not want to start any unrest. It was enough for me to pull everything out of collateral and i never had any inclination to return, i just never trusted them after that. Ah yes Martin, I remember something about this, wise move you made! Like a fool I continued on with it, even though the signs were there, that the 'business men' behind Collateral were, well, more than just a little 'Arthur Daley' like. Lately I had lost all confidence in the property loans, sold what I could, leaving mostly bling. The Jewellery loans are however by no means safe. Especially the grouped asset ones, which are, IMO, quite likely to default. A lot depends on the honesty of those 'shopkeepers' who buy & sell this stuff - and therefore also to what extent they they may be 'linked' to the Currie brothers. Bottom line is, the people behind this operation can fairly (IMO) be described as dodgy. There has been stuff going on behind the scenes we know nothing about. IMO this 'event' has been 'in the planning' for some time. The underhand changes to the T & C's, now leaving client money at risk of being 'spirited away', says it all. I repeat my assertion that these people have utterly betrayed the faith and trust we placed in them. And I would not trust anyone appointed by Collateral to administer this mess. (if they can so appoint).
I think describing them as "Dodgy" fitted in pretty well how i also felt..... Hindsight is a wonderful thing... but it always had a bit of a wiffy feel to it ( my perspective) too much bling coming from seemingly unaccountable sources.
|
|
dawn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 308 
Likes: 275
|
Post by dawn on Mar 2, 2018 21:41:57 GMT
Funds lent are not covered, but AIUI funds not lent that are sitting in the client account are covered (the client account in this case being a normal Barclays? account). Funds not drawndown should still be sitting in the client account so should be covered, again AIUI. Some-one please let me know if my understanding is not correct as I would really like to be certain about this for all the platforms I invest through. Not sure this would apply to funds held by an unauthorised firm. You may be right - but we have been assured by the Administrator that the funds are in a segregated Client account. The account is with a main stream bank (Santander? for Collateral or is it Barclays?) - in which case when the account was set up it should have had the correct "protections" put in place and Santander (or Barclays or whoever) are the ones holding the funds at the moment (not the "unauthorised" firm). Edit - assuming the funds were transferred as they should have been and we have no evidence so far to suggest they haven't been
|
|
|
|
Post by notascooby on Mar 2, 2018 21:43:35 GMT
I am going to go slightly off topic and say well done to some of the senior board contributors for cutting through the fog. To the less experienced investors, the time and patience put in justifies the existence of these boards. Thanks to Stardust for taking on an unenviable task of running the Administration board.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 2, 2018 21:52:11 GMT
Sorry for being thick but could someone confirm or not the following: If I stash some cash into a p2p firm that has full FCA authorisation but that firm doesn't put it into a segregated client account and instead runs away with it am I covered by any compensation scheme? In theory, yes. That's the million dollar question. Presumably what they hoped to gain was to keep things afloat and solve the regulatory problem. How exactly they were attempting to do that, or get away with continuing to operate without permissions, I have no idea. It all smacks of desperation.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 2, 2018 21:57:44 GMT
Not sure this would apply to funds held by an unauthorised firm. You may be right - but we have been assured by the Administrator that the funds are in a segregated Client account. The account is with a main stream bank (Santander? for Collateral or is it Barclays?) - in which case when the account was set up it should have had the correct "protections" put in place and Santander (or Barclays or whoever) are the ones holding the funds at the moment (not the "unauthorised" firm). Edit - assuming the funds were transferred as they should have been and we have no evidence so far to suggest they haven't been Yes, I have no doubt that the funds are properly stored, but if there was a shortfall * we'd have no recourse to the FSCS unless Collateral was fully authorised. Edit: * on further checking, this would appears to only apply to a loss by the bank holding the funds rather than the P2P company
|
|
