|
|
Post by francism on Mar 2, 2018 22:08:37 GMT
Even ignoring the regulatory shenanigans, it increasingly
Appeared the collateral had bitten off
more than they Could chew with so many poorly funded
Large loans. The 2% discount must have been a last
Ditch effort to placate the borrowers that funding
Would happen.
This corresponds to their interview recently when
They admitted that they were struggling to finance
Their recent loans.
Going into administration was probably the best thing
That could happen for the investors as now there is
A 3rd party to bring some order. If the company had
Continued, they may have filed for bankruptcy and
Then we would have been in real difficulty.
I think they just tried to get to big too fast without
A big enough investor base
Probably we will never know the real story
|
|
gc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 152 
Likes: 141
|
Post by gc on Mar 2, 2018 22:19:04 GMT
Even ignoring the regulatory shenanigans, it increasingly Appeared the collateral had bitten off more than they Could chew with so many poorly funded Large loans. The 2% discount must have been a last Ditch effort to placate the borrowers that funding Would happen. This corresponds to their interview recently when They admitted that they were struggling to finance Their recent loans. Going into administration was probably the best thing That could happen for the investors as now there is A 3rd party to bring some order. If the company had Continued, they may have filed for bankruptcy and Then we would have been in real difficulty. I think they just tried to get to big too fast without A big enough investor base Probably we will never know the real story I hope that you're right on that. I suppose it depends on how far down the line they were with their issues as we may still be "in real difficulty". Unfortunately it is just a waiting game now..
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Mar 2, 2018 23:16:34 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? How about investing in a load of their junk and hope it all defaults.. would that work?
|
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Mar 2, 2018 23:32:33 GMT
Great, what do we need to do to get funding secure into administration? It's the year 2190. Whilst we debate the worldwide bitcoin shortage and if we should have another referendum on Brexit, Funding Secure have finally been placed into administration after the 4000th "timber frames have been ordered" update was placed on the W***e****n loan.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Mar 2, 2018 23:56:30 GMT
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 mainstream 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 authorized. I'm sorry mason.. even if Collateral were fully authorized we do not have any recourse to FCSC.
|
|
dawn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 308 
Likes: 275
|
Post by dawn on Mar 3, 2018 0:04:26 GMT
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. This article suggests that we would only need to call on the FSCS if the bank holding the client account failed - if the P2P platform fails any unlent money in a ring-fenced client account (which we are told Collateral had) would be safe www.4thway.co.uk/candid-opinion/p2p-lending-sites-offer-fscs-protection/I don't think it matters whether Collateral were authorised or not - the high street bank holds a segregated ring-fenced account with our unlent money in it which cannot be included in Collateral's assets (the Administrator has confirmed the existence of the ring-fenced account). Whether we get all our money back from that account will depend on the Administrator's reconciliation of the account with Collateral's records.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 3, 2018 0:13:24 GMT
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. This article suggests that we would only need to call on the FSCS if the bank holding the client account failed - if the P2P platform fails any unlent money in a ring-fenced client account (which we are told Collateral had) would be safe www.4thway.co.uk/candid-opinion/p2p-lending-sites-offer-fscs-protection/I don't think it matters whether Collateral were authorised or not - the high street bank holds a segregated ring-fenced account with our unlent money in it which cannot be included in Collateral's assets (the Administrator has confirmed the existence of the ring-fenced account). Whether we get all our money back from that account will depend on the Administrator's reconciliation of the account with Collateral's records. Yes, my original response was somewhat unclear that the FSCS protection for uninvested cash related to the bank, not the platform. Ive edited (crossed with this post) Good find by the way
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Mar 3, 2018 0:38:24 GMT
The country has a GAS Shortage !!!!!!!
Tap into the load of hot air on this thread and we will all be toasty warm.
It is all IF THIS, What about that, Everybody is getting fleeced, Never mind what the Administrator says we know better,
Everything is dodgy,, !!!!
Why can't everyone just wait. There is NOTHING we can do no matter what we make up as "Truth".
If you can't read the Administrator's communication and understand it then perhaps you should not be investing in Anything.
If the site had come back up after a few hours we would all be blissfully unaware of any "administrative problem"
We will get our money no matter where it is this was not a Liquidity or financial problem so STOP trying to make it one.
On lots of p2p you don't get anything back till the loans repay just pretend this is one of these and give your fertile imaginations and comments (fed by manure) a rest.
|
|
southport
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 88
|
Post by southport on Mar 3, 2018 7:19:52 GMT
The country has a GAS Shortage !!!!!!! Tap into the load of hot air on this thread and we will all be toasty warm. It is all IF THIS, What about that, Everybody is getting fleeced, Never mind what the Administrator says we know better, Everything is dodgy,, !!!! Why can't everyone just wait. There is NOTHING we can do no matter what we make up as "Truth". If you can't read the Administrator's communication and understand it then perhaps you should not be investing in Anything. If the site had come back up after a few hours we would all be blissfully unaware of any "administrative problem" We will get our money no matter where it is this was not a Liquidity or financial problem so STOP trying to make it one. On lots of p2p you don't get anything back till the loans repay just pretend this is one of these and give your fertile imaginations and comments (fed by manure) a rest. Sounds pretty "dodgy" to me.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 3, 2018 7:28:59 GMT
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 authorized. I'm sorry mason.. even if Collateral were fully authorized we do not have any recourse to FCSC. No, I'm sorry, but it's not correct that we do not have ANY recourse to the FSCS in respect of funds held in the client account. I may have been wrong in the specific instance of fraud though. www.fscs.org.uk/news/2012/august/fscs-and-peer-to-peer-lending-sites/"The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) met with some of the main players in the peer-to-peer lending market recently. FSCS does not cover peer-to-peer lending. However, if the peer-to-peer site holds the investor’s money in a client account opened with an FSA authorised bank or building society FSCS will cover the investor up to £85,000 if the bank or building society goes bust. FSCS would require evidence of the investor’s entitlement and aim to pay back the deposit within seven days."
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 3, 2018 7:38:46 GMT
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. This article suggests that we would only need to call on the FSCS if the bank holding the client account failed - if the P2P platform fails any unlent money in a ring-fenced client account (which we are told Collateral had) would be safe www.4thway.co.uk/candid-opinion/p2p-lending-sites-offer-fscs-protection/I don't think it matters whether Collateral were authorised or not - the high street bank holds a segregated ring-fenced account with our unlent money in it which cannot be included in Collateral's assets (the Administrator has confirmed the existence of the ring-fenced account). Whether we get all our money back from that account will depend on the Administrator's reconciliation of the account with Collateral's records. I've read that article and I'm still of the belief that the P2P company would have to be operating within the law (i.e. authorised) for the chain of custody of funds to be accepted. However, I do concede that my earlier comment about cash held in the client account being covered in the case of fraud by an authorised P2P firm does not seem to be supported by any official source I could find. If the administrator gained access to the client account and found it empty, it appears we would be out of luck even if Collateral's permissions had been in good standing when they entered administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by elephantrosie on Mar 3, 2018 10:04:05 GMT
Dont keep uninvested cash on any trading platforms.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Mar 3, 2018 10:08:31 GMT
Good idea I do the same..withdraw to a higher interest C/A and move around platforms to reinvest so therefore very little/no time not earning any interest.
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Mar 3, 2018 10:10:34 GMT
AIUI FSCS protection covers the holding bank going bust. Client money in the segregated account is ring fenced anyway in the bank. It's unlikely the holding bank will also go bust so FSCS isn't really relevant.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Mar 3, 2018 10:15:02 GMT
That seems a very accurate statement jeepers. Let's hope that the client account hasn't been pilfered.
|
|
