shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563 
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 3, 2018 10:31:40 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. The question is whether the administrator will be succesful at getting the repayments in. The good news being that as a practised administrator of bust companies he will have had plenty of practice and very sharp teeth. The bad news being that administrators are able to decide for themselves if the hassle of dealing with some recalcitrant borrowers is worth it
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 3, 2018 10:40:11 GMT
I had emailed the recovery company just to verify that the administrator in chief G*** C*** was not the same G*** C*** as used to be a boss at Collateral.
Amazingly he phoned me a couple of hours later to confirm that he wasn't.
He also said
that he is a touchy feely sort of guy, not remote, willing to answer questions
that it looks to him like the money is safe (quote). I mentioned that I thought that probably depended on borrowers keeping paying up but didn't really get a reply
that the company and C****e (directors) acted in good faith and had had legal advice that the state of the FCA permissions was ok, but now they have been told it isn't, and there may (will I think he said) be a legal case, so they had to act quickly to keep the vultures off.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Mar 3, 2018 11:12:18 GMT
I had emailed the recovery company just to verify that the administrator in chief G*** C*** was not the same G*** C*** as used to be a boss at Collateral. Amazingly he phoned me a couple of hours later to confirm that he wasn't. He also said that he is a touchy feely sort of guy, not remote, willing to answer questions that it looks to him like the money is safe (quote). I mentioned that I thought that probably depended on borrowers keeping paying up but didn't really get a reply that the company and C****e (directors) acted in good faith and had had legal advice that the state of the FCA permissions was ok, but now they have been told it isn't, and there may (will I think he said) be a legal case, so they had to act quickly to keep the vultures off. I know we will all have what are important questions to each of us and the quickest way to get an answer is to either telephone or email the Administrator. The Administrator also appears to have indicated to you that he is very willing to answer questions. However, while we do not yet know for certain whether any of the costs of administration will have to be met by lenders at some point, it may be useful to consider that on the assumption the Administrator is charging around £150 per hour, every 10 minutes spent on the phone/ composing an email to each lender is probably costing around £25. There is also an opportunity cost whereby if the Administrator is talking to lenders he is not engaged in the work of recovery.
Just something to think about before everyone starts telephoning or emailing the Administrator.
|
|
mickj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 435
Likes: 191
|
Post by mickj on Mar 3, 2018 11:21:59 GMT
I think a lot will be dependent on borrowers repayments and am sure the administrator will advise them. Problem may come with some borrowers expecting further tranches, the building trade eats money and it would be nice to see these projects completed cleanly. I know we are all apprehensive, perhaps happy with the sound of things at the moment but there must be borrowers scratching their heads and wondering.
Early days yet, lets hope for a positive couple of weeks now the weather is improving as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 3, 2018 11:55:39 GMT
Yep, the borrowers are probably in deeper doo-doo .. having given first charges (one assumes) to Coll, they now may need to raise funds elsewhere .. probably need to raise enough to buy out that first charge, rather than pay well over the odds for a second charge loan against the same security. Then there's the whole VR/admin costs issue. And the other potential platforms are not exactly awash with spare cash/begging lenders at the moment. Maybe come April and some more ISAs .. or maybe not.
Has anyone figured what the overhang of (so far unfunded) later tranches might be?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 3, 2018 12:35:25 GMT
I had emailed the recovery company just to verify that the administrator in chief G*** C*** was not the same G*** C*** as used to be a boss at Collateral. Amazingly he phoned me a couple of hours later to confirm that he wasn't. He also said that he is a touchy feely sort of guy, not remote, willing to answer questions that it looks to him like the money is safe (quote). I mentioned that I thought that probably depended on borrowers keeping paying up but didn't really get a reply that the company and C****e (directors) acted in good faith and had had legal advice that the state of the FCA permissions was ok, but now they have been told it isn't, and there may (will I think he said) be a legal case, so they had to act quickly to keep the vultures off. I know we will all have what are important questions to each of us and the quickest way to get an answer is to either telephone or email the Administrator. The Administrator also appears to have indicated to you that he is very willing to answer questions. However, while we do not yet know for certain whether any of the costs of administration will have to be met by lenders at some point, it may be useful to consider that on the assumption the Administrator is charging around £150 per hour, every 10 minutes spent on the phone/ composing an email to each lender is probably costing around £25. There is also an opportunity cost whereby if the Administrator is talking to lenders he is not engaged in the work of recovery.
Just something to think about before everyone starts telephoning or emailing the Administrator.
You'll be lucky. I'd assume much higher.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Mar 3, 2018 12:39:30 GMT
One question that may need posed by the administrator, given that most people in the latest tranches will also have considerable amounts in the earlier tranches, if the company is being actively run, is whether investors would be agreeable to that money being drawndown to help complete the project, which may be able to pay back in a matter of months. I don't think he can, can he? COL isn't regulated by the FCA and so can't engage in regulated activities. I presume that includes writing new loans, including new tranches of existing loans. I'm only speculating however, clarification by somebody who knows the law would be helpful.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Mar 3, 2018 12:54:55 GMT
I agree, I don't think they can.
Therefore those projects that need further tranches really need to be refinanced or sold off to another platform asap to avoid getting stalled.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 3, 2018 13:01:02 GMT
That is a good point ali . With the intent to "protect" investors, might this be something that the FCA would give leeway on, given that it is not new business? Especially if it was an important step in safeguarding the X million already in that loan? If the administrator asked for a vote from investors, like AC do? Just food for thought rather than a suggestion, so no sarcy comments please given that we should all be on the same side. I'd assume the FCA will follow the rules precisely. If they relaxed any rule and the loan then went bad losing the lenders money.....
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 632
Likes: 780
|
Post by m2btj on Mar 3, 2018 13:08:15 GMT
I'm still baffled by the fact that Coll were trading under the very noses of the FCA for as long as they did!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 3, 2018 13:09:25 GMT
That is a good point ali . With the intent to "protect" investors, might this be something that the FCA would give leeway on, given that it is not new business? Especially if it was an important step in safeguarding the X million already in that loan? If the administrator asked for a vote from investors, like AC do? Just food for thought rather than a suggestion, so no sarcy comments please given that we should all be on the same side. If the undrawn funds represented 100% of the funds needed to complete the development, and there was a binding legal agreement from a purchaser simply awaiting the project's completion then your suggestion would have merit. As it is the undrawn funds I'm quessing total around £200k leaving a shortfall of c. £1m needed to complete the project (assuming no overrun). So unless there is someone wlling to put in £1m plus as a second charge loan indpendent of COL (in administration) at this stage sending the borrower the undrawn £200k would most likely be seen as reckless.
|
|
|
|
Post by elephantrosie on Mar 3, 2018 13:16:22 GMT
My money is trapped to stop me from spending it.
Thank you, collateral.
But if collateral ever make a come back, I am not going to have anything to do with it.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Mar 3, 2018 13:25:05 GMT
That is a good point ali . With the intent to "protect" investors, might this be something that the FCA would give leeway on, given that it is not new business? Especially if it was an important step in safeguarding the X million already in that loan? If the administrator asked for a vote from investors, like AC do? Just food for thought rather than a suggestion, so no sarcy comments please given that we should all be on the same side. I'd assume the FCA will follow the rules precisely. If they relaxed any rule and the loan then went bad losing the lenders money..... Does the FCA have any option but to follow the rules precisely? My understanding is that Col's interim authorisation had ceased to be some weeks ago - and without spending my time reading back through a welter of e-mails I can't mentally square the circle between changes n the website/ToC and a mention somewhere here of them having been misled/ill-informed about their FCA status. I'm not sure that the FCA could allow Col and/or the administrator to continue, even with 'works in progress' and even if it was to the ultimate benefit of lenders. And being cynical about it, it may be that the FCA see this as an opportunity 'pour encourager les autres'.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Mar 3, 2018 13:25:13 GMT
I would suggest everyone waits at least a week to see what announcements are made.
Although COL were losing money as a small company this maybe just reflected the amount taken out of it to pay directors etc - I don't know. But many of the loans should be as good as many others on P2P. Few P2P platforms make a paper profit. Some of the largest have been running at a loss for years.
I also do not know the extent to which the people who ran COL may be actively assisting the Administrators - if they are able and willing to do so longer term this could be to the great benefit of investors. This is after all not a failed company, it is one that fell foul of FCA regulation - and admittedly should have known better.
Indeed, the directors may even have plans for a COL2 - again I don't know. But there is little merit in flogging the reputation of the people who ran COL when they might well be potentially instrumental in recovering funds from existing borrowers.
My interest is as a major investor in some of the COL loans. I wish therefore to see the best possible final outcome for these loans. If any parties are able and willing to assist they should not be discouraged from so doing.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Mar 3, 2018 13:37:39 GMT
Nicely put seeingred.
I do think that this post highlights why the directors would be actively involved in doing things properly now...it is to reduce the impact of a possible legal case against them
2 hours ago shimself said:
I had emailed the recovery company just to verify that the administrator in chief G*** C*** was not the same G*** C*** as used to be a boss at Collateral.
Amazingly he phoned me a couple of hours later to confirm that he wasn't.
He also said
that he is a touchy feely sort of guy, not remote, willing to answer questions
that it looks to him like the money is safe (quote). I mentioned that I thought that probably depended on borrowers keeping paying up but didn't really get a reply
that the company and C****e (directors) acted in good faith and had had legal advice that the state of the FCA permissions was ok, but now they have been told it isn't, and there may (will I think he said) be a legal case, so they had to act quickly to keep the vultures off.
|
|
