|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Mar 8, 2018 23:10:23 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. Maybe just take your own frequently offered advice this week, and leave the Administrator to get on with the job.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 8, 2018 23:24:39 GMT
Should we not expect 'the philosopher of p2p' to question his own beliefs?
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Mar 9, 2018 8:36:34 GMT
2) I don't see why the loss of FCA permissions would change FSCS status ... I doubt it would but only because it doesn't really apply to most people. We still have FSCS insurance for cash in client accounts, not that we expect to need it. This covers defaults by the bank holding the deposit - i.e. the bank going bust or restructuring not inappropriate transfers out of a client account. There might be a case if you could prove fraud by the bank or bank employees if they somehow colluded or were at least negligent. 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. Not for most people in P2P. The bad advice or inappropriate risk profile would have to have been from an independent (FCA regulated) adviser who gave regulated advice to invest in Collateral, or some similar loss making investment. You would have to prove the advice was negligent and not just unlucky (hard) and claim from the adviser, the FSCS would step in if the adviser then failed. 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. I agree with this this, and I don't think think it would evaporate, but in this case there wasn't much to evaporate.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 9, 2018 12:48:54 GMT
A question for the bling connoisseurs, back in the autumn of 2016 questions were being raised as to whether the buyback loans were legally structured as direct to the end borrowers, or were in effect loans to Collateral (UK) given the lack of clarity in the T&C's at that time. Collateral Rep stated in January 2017 "Lenders are lending directly to borrowers" (see final quoted post below which also references their lawyers) Was this ever resolved ? Does the current T&C's ( google cached copy) provide the definitive answer ? (I can't find the words buyback or chattel in there. What should I be searching for ?). Did anyone manage to get a copy of a specimen agreement from COL for reference ? (I assume not given how stub8535 and polonius reported on the subject after their March 17 visit, documented in this post ref: page 4 of pdf). Did the way in which the defaulted car loans were recovered last year throw any light on this subject ? The reason for asking is if they were loans to Collateral (UK), then the lenders on them may be creditors of Collateral (UK) rather than being one degree removed through the security trustee as is the case with the loans secured on property. To Collateral Rep , Hi Gordon, two important issues were raised several months ago in this thead, both relating to risk concentration : (a) the apparent discrepancy, in the case of Buy Back loans, between actuallity & the T&Cs in repect of whom lenders are lending to - is it to Collateral (UK) Ltd or to the ultimate Borrower? (b) the need for Lenders to be able to identify the ultimate Borrower - the mooted "Borrower ID" (an issue, incidentally, which I first raised back in June, in this other thread) You last posted on these matters over a month ago. Please could we have an update - preferably one in which you give us some concrete timeline for these matters to be addressed. In contrast with the platforms early responsiveness on other matters, these issues seem to be dragging on unattended, and I find this worrying. I think lenders understand that legal consultation might delay resolution of the T&C issue; but this surely does not apply to the issue of providing an anonymous Borrower ID. I look forward to hearing from you soon Thanks Hi baldpate , I can assure you we are not "dragging on unattended" but are taking longer than expected. We expect the legals to be completed within the next four weeks when we will update T&Cs etc accordingly. We also expect the Borrower IDs to be implemented within the next two weeks. Many thanks, Gordon Hi nick , The BB agreements are Assignment of Chattels agreements whereby the seller (borrower) agrees to assign the goods to Collateral on behalf of the buyer (lender). Lenders are lending directly to borrowers, the Platform is the conduit to enable this to happen. These agreements have been written by our lawyers who are currently also updating our T&C’s to clarify the structure. Thanks
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204 
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 9, 2018 13:24:58 GMT
Should we not expect 'the philosopher of p2p' to question his own beliefs? If you do not question your own beliefs, how can you be sure that your beliefs are grounded on solid foundations? 
|
|
mikeymike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 76
Likes: 77
|
Post by mikeymike on Mar 9, 2018 13:42:08 GMT
COLLATERAL (UK) LIMITED - IN ADMINISTRATION (the Company) For those of us who understand little of these matters, a very useful and easy read guide to administration and what its is, can be found here: www.r3.org.uk/media/documents/publications/professional/Creditors_Administration.pdf. It also contains links to the various bodies which licence administrators. So people can see for themselves that the administrator is for real.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 9, 2018 14:40:55 GMT
It's interesting that there is not, presumably, a direct link between the FCA and administration, in that the FCA does not have that power. Presumably the FCA ordered COL to cease activities for which it did not have approval, and because of that COL decided to go into voluntary administration, which is a process based on insolvency - a consequence of not being able to trade. (This has probably be said in other posts).
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 9, 2018 14:48:05 GMT
Should we not expect 'the philosopher of p2p' to question his own beliefs? If you do not question your own beliefs, how can you be sure that your beliefs are grounded on solid foundations? I remember some spoof guidance notes for assessing verbal communication abilities on a 1 to 5 scale, from old personnel appraisals:-
Talks with God Talks like God Talks to himself Argues with himself Loses those arguments
However, I do believe georget can have faith in this process.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,717
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 9, 2018 14:50:01 GMT
I'm late to the party, but a few points that don't seem to have been made. 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. My bold. I was worried about this (and still am). I started a thread about this only and the consensus seems to be that p2p platforms are not covered for fraud even though other platforms like share dealing platforms are. I'm not suggesting the risk is that high BUT if it did happen it would involve a total platform wipeout. Also a lot of the platforms are new which often means small and they are more at risk than established ones. If the platform doesn't put your money into a segregated account but acts fraudulently with it, why oh why won't the FSCS cover it when they do for most other investment platforms. p2pindependentforum.com/thread/11873/fraud-get-money-back
|
|
hantsowl
Member of DD Central
Posts: 672
Likes: 546
|
Post by hantsowl on Mar 9, 2018 16:28:56 GMT
A question for the bling connoisseurs, back in the autumn of 2016 questions were being raised as to whether the buyback loans were legally structured as direct to the end borrowers, or were in effect loans to Collateral (UK) given the lack of clarity in the T&C's at that time. Collateral Rep stated in January 2017 "Lenders are lending directly to borrowers" (see final quoted post below which also references their lawyers) Was this ever resolved ? Does the current T&C's ( google cached copy) provide the definitive answer ? (I can't find the words buyback or chattel in there. What should I be searching for ?). Did anyone manage to get a copy of a specimen agreement from COL for reference ? (I assume not given how stub8535 and polonius reported on the subject after their March 17 visit, documented in this post ref: page 4 of pdf). Did the way in which the defaulted car loans were recovered last year throw any light on this subject ? The reason for asking is if they were loans to Collateral (UK), then the lenders on them may be creditors of Collateral (UK) rather than being one degree removed through the security trustee as is the case with the loans secured on property. To Collateral Rep , Hi Gordon, two important issues were raised several months ago in this thead, both relating to risk concentration : (a) the apparent discrepancy, in the case of Buy Back loans, between actuallity & the T&Cs in repect of whom lenders are lending to - is it to Collateral (UK) Ltd or to the ultimate Borrower? (b) the need for Lenders to be able to identify the ultimate Borrower - the mooted "Borrower ID" (an issue, incidentally, which I first raised back in June, in this other thread) You last posted on these matters over a month ago. Please could we have an update - preferably one in which you give us some concrete timeline for these matters to be addressed. In contrast with the platforms early responsiveness on other matters, these issues seem to be dragging on unattended, and I find this worrying. I think lenders understand that legal consultation might delay resolution of the T&C issue; but this surely does not apply to the issue of providing an anonymous Borrower ID. I look forward to hearing from you soon Thanks Hi baldpate , I can assure you we are not "dragging on unattended" but are taking longer than expected. We expect the legals to be completed within the next four weeks when we will update T&Cs etc accordingly. We also expect the Borrower IDs to be implemented within the next two weeks. Many thanks, Gordon Hi nick , The BB agreements are Assignment of Chattels agreements whereby the seller (borrower) agrees to assign the goods to Collateral on behalf of the buyer (lender). Lenders are lending directly to borrowers, the Platform is the conduit to enable this to happen. These agreements have been written by our lawyers who are currently also updating our T&C’s to clarify the structure. Thanks Maybe this could provide a little clarity....
p2pindependentforum.com/thread/7093/collaterals-lender-reference-guide-business
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 9, 2018 16:41:35 GMT
Thanks hantsowl. I've made the thread you referred to a stickie as posts on this thread quickly get overtaken. |
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Mar 9, 2018 17:52:13 GMT
It's interesting that there is not, presumably, a direct link between the FCA and administration, in that the FCA does not have that power. Presumably the FCA ordered COL to cease activities for which it did not have approval, and because of that COL decided to go into voluntary administration, which is a process based on insolvency - a consequence of not being able to trade. (This has probably be said in other posts). The FCA does have the power to apply to the court for a company to be wound-up as part of enforcement action, but I've never heard of it being used. Far more likely is injunction to prevent further trading (should a firm not be co-operative), fines, and in the most serious of cases, criminal prosecution (undertaking a regulated activity without authorisation is a criminal offence punishable by up to 2 year imprisonment, false claims of being authorised (even if you don't undertake regulated activities) has a maximum penalty of 6 months prison time). I believe COL administration was a protective measure to allow the orderly wind-up/sale of the business given that it clearly could not continue to write business. A couple of links which give a succinct overview of the FCA's enforcement powers and the criminal offences that are liable to prosecution: A summary of FCA's enforcement powers linkA summary of criminal offences link
|
|
jimc99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 284
Likes: 115
|
Post by jimc99 on Mar 9, 2018 19:15:03 GMT
Whilst I agree records are great and having them is a very useful activity... doesn’t one of the FAQs suggest that sending data isn’t needed at this juncture? {shrug} "suggest" and "isn't needed at this juncture" are imho bureaucratic ways of making their (administrators) lives simpler. Making something clear by putting a stake (verifiable data) in the ground is something different. Sorry to ask if it's been resolved already.....but do investors have to do anything for the Administrator or just sit tight?
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Mar 9, 2018 19:28:51 GMT
It's interesting that there is not, presumably, a direct link between the FCA and administration, in that the FCA does not have that power. Presumably the FCA ordered COL to cease activities for which it did not have approval, and because of that COL decided to go into voluntary administration, which is a process based on insolvency - a consequence of not being able to trade. (This has probably be said in other posts). Well the FCA apprear to have been instrumental in closing this outfit... citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/fca-delayed-dfm-shutdown-to-protect-fbi-investigation/a1099709So I'm not sue you are correct. Hopefully COL did not attract the attention of the FBI!
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 9, 2018 19:56:38 GMT
Whilst it is true the FCA was instrumental in starting the process because it and Collateral became aware it was contrary to law to continue, it did not force the company into Administration. The directors found themselves in the position of needing the most effective way of winding the business down and concluded that Administration was the process to use.
It was probably also the method prescribed in its living will.
|
|
