|
|
Post by dudester on Mar 8, 2018 15:25:15 GMT
would be my preferred outcome...better to let another experienced p2p platform take over than the administrator
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Mar 8, 2018 15:35:17 GMT
chris1200 - see this recent post by MoneyThing for the implications for their business, and in that context consider the update that has just gone up on their Everton loan(s) if you are a lender there. AC offer facility loans, and the assumption is they believe they have adequate headroom and liquidity in QAA/30DAA to cover the tranche calls as they occur. They may also still have access to their underwriting panel for the largest loans. Similiarly Lendy may have agreements with underwriters to enable them to offer the mega development loans they do (equally they may not, and the stuation would be as MT describe). The apparent slow uptake of development tranches at COL would indicate they probably didn't have agreements with underwritiers to cover the Bolton loan to completion. This doesn't answer your question, as I've no idea how the loan agreement with the borrower was structured at COL. If there are no funds in place to guarantee all tranches of a development can be filled, then the loans aren't suitable to p2p.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Mar 8, 2018 15:44:23 GMT
would be my preferred outcome...better to let another experienced p2p platform take over than the administrator If ABLrate do takeover it is likely to be on good terms for Col customers, lest they damage their own reputation. Coo customers are highly likely to also be ABL customers. A sale of the loan book to an opportunist company, may well not be a Good deal for Col customers.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Mar 8, 2018 15:45:50 GMT
would be my preferred outcome...better to let another experienced p2p platform take over than the administrator As far as I can see, Col is still there operating the platform with its own highly experienced property team* ... (ahem!), but under administrator restrictions. Handling the loans should still be professional - assuming Gordon and Co still have the desire to do them at all. ABL will not necessarily be better - just properly authorised. Still, I'm happy for ABL to take over if my exit from some loans is available immediately.  *(though highly misled compliance team!)
|
|
boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 368
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Mar 8, 2018 15:46:40 GMT
would be my preferred outcome...better to let another experienced p2p platform take over than the administrator I'll repeat here what I've just posted on the ABL board: I for one would welcome ABL taking over COL's loanbook, subject to another layer of DD. As far as I can make out COL's main problem was originating/filling loans due to its small size - I had no particular worries about the quality of its loanbook. A 'merger' would fix the size problem, and ABL's IFISA status would make it more attractive to lenders (esp with us about to go into a new FY). I have loans on both platforms so do have skin in the game!
|
|
btc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 193
Likes: 132
|
Post by btc on Mar 8, 2018 15:56:07 GMT
would be my preferred outcome...better to let another experienced p2p platform take over than the administrator As far as I can see, Col is still there operating the platform with its own highly experienced property team* ... (ahem!), but under administrator restrictions. Handling the loans should still be professional - assuming Gordon and Co still have the desire to do them at all. ABL will not necessarily be better - just properly authorised. Still, I'm happy for ABL to take over if my exit from some loans is available immediately. *(though highly misled compliance team!) Why not let Lendy, Funding Secure or Assetz Capital take over?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Mar 8, 2018 16:00:57 GMT
Maybe they can share "the spoils", but I can't see AC wanting this degree of risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 8, 2018 16:11:52 GMT
chris1200 - see this recent post by MoneyThing for the implications for their business, and in that context consider the update that has just gone up on their Everton loan(s) if you are a lender there. AC offer facility loans, and the assumption is they believe they have adequate headroom and liquidity in QAA/30DAA to cover the tranche calls as they occur. They may also still have access to their underwriting panel for the largest loans. Similiarly Lendy may have agreements with underwriters to enable them to offer the mega development loans they do (equally they may not, and the stuation would be as MT describe). The apparent slow uptake of development tranches at COL would indicate they probably didn't have agreements with underwritiers to cover the Bolton loan to completion. This doesn't answer your question, as I've no idea how the loan agreement with the borrower was structured at COL. If there are no funds in place to guarantee all tranches of a development can be filled, then the loans aren't suitable to p2p. Absolutely. Underwriters (aka professional investors) are the key to being able to offer facility loans, but some platforms aren't prepared to entertain their needs for written certifiable data on which to base their own due dilligence. NDA's provide the solution for confidentilaity, and are certainly enforceable on UK residents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 16:21:35 GMT
The whole p2p portal industry will want this "error" out of the press as soon as possible.
From a financial point of view so would I, but part of me would like to see what an Administrator does with it.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Mar 8, 2018 16:37:20 GMT
chris1200 - see this recent post by MoneyThing for the implications for their business, and in that context consider the update that has just gone up on their Everton loan(s) if you are a lender there. AC offer facility loans, and the assumption is they believe they have adequate headroom and liquidity in QAA/30DAA to cover the tranche calls as they occur. They may also still have access to their underwriting panel for the largest loans. Similiarly Lendy may have agreements with underwriters to enable them to offer the mega development loans they do (equally they may not, and the stuation would be as MT describe). The apparent slow uptake of development tranches at COL would indicate they probably didn't have agreements with underwritiers to cover the Bolton loan to completion. This doesn't answer your question, as I've no idea how the loan agreement with the borrower was structured at COL. If there are no funds in place to guarantee all tranches of a development can be filled, then the loans aren't suitable to p2p. A.C. have a good enough model for DFL Liz plenty of money in 30 day access a/c, QAA and the relevant black box account to soak up the tranches. Maybe that's the future direction DFL platforms will need to go in future or have big institutions in place to take the biggest risk for a premium.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Mar 8, 2018 19:03:10 GMT
I'm late to the party, but a few points that don't seem to have been made.
1) I don't understand the late change to the T&Cs. A cynical view would be that it provides more money to pay a dividend to bond holders, and on directors' loans. But, while not a lawyer (I am not a lawyer ) I have difficulty believing that it would stand up in court. My last activity on my account was last autumn, or earlier, and I can't see that they would be allowed to make such as change on me, especially when unadvertised. Perhaps they received (hopefully bad) legal advice that once they lacked FCA approval they were no longer allowed to maintain ring-fenced client accounts. The administrator at least seems to think differently.
2) I don't see why the loss of FCA permissions would change FSCS status (with the possible exception of people who invested in February). We still have FSCS insurance for cash in client accounts, not that we expect to need it. There is also FSCS insurance on investments, based on bad advice (such as advising an inappropriate risk profile for investments, or an overconcentrated portfolio) or fraud. It would be silly for your FSCS insurance to evaporate if the regulator discovers a problem and strikes the company off the register. But I don't know whether Collateral falls within the scope of this. Bottom line - I don't think FSCS is relevant.
3) The best option for lenders and borrowers is for another company to take over the loan book, analogous to the nil premium acquisitions of troubled building societies. The problem, other than the administrator trying get a price that no-one wants to pay (perhaps a deferred payment conditional on earnings would be the way to go), is the loans with overhanging future tranches. Some platforms are already struggling to fund loans; a failure to achieve a corresponding increase in lender base to compensate might result in negative outcomes. On the other hand acquiring the loan book increases their income with I suspect a relatively low operating capital requirement - I expect that the upfront loan origination costs are reduced. (On the other hand the IT costs of migrating the loan book might be a problem - the Coop Bank came a cropper on their acquisition of Britannia, and, IIRC, that was partly due to IT expenditures.)
|
|
mikeymike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 76
Likes: 77
|
Post by mikeymike on Mar 8, 2018 19:23:46 GMT
Well hi micky fellow doom-monger! I think we can safely say that the people running Collateral are not 'stupid'. Many things they may be, but 'stupid' is not one of them. They may even have out-smarted all of us... There's no doubt about that Kaya. what I have problems understanding is that some people still seem to think that this sorry business is down to mistakes. I have my own opinion which I think you a few others might share. With you on this one Kaya and micky
|
|
gc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 152
Likes: 141
|
Post by gc on Mar 8, 2018 20:15:03 GMT
Don't want to alarm anyone here and could be wrong, but just in case no one has heard, there is some rumour that Collateral are having some sort of issues!!
42 pages!?!? Sorry, couldn't help myself.... I know, i'll get my coat!!
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Mar 8, 2018 20:23:14 GMT
There's definitely too much fluff round here I've only just seen this erudite post 
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Mar 8, 2018 22:55:48 GMT
I remain very positive and we have a situation where the existing loan book is being managed by the oversight of an Administrator with the cooperation of the Collateral chiefs. I am sure an awful lot is going on behind the scenes and who knows what will occur but I have few fears. We all know there is a risk involved in this type of investment and it is reassuring to know that our investments are being handled professionally.
I appreciate that it may be a few weeks before there is a considerable amount of news but I would,personally, quite like to receive a short, holding, comfort letter from the administrator before the weekend just for peace of mind purposes even if there is little extra information to impart at this point.
Sometimes it is nice to be told that there is nothing you can be told - if that makes any sense.
|
|
.