nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056 
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Mar 9, 2018 20:17:46 GMT
{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? As a protective measure I will be submitting information regarding my loans and cash balance held by them. It is debatable whether we are creditors (particularly in respect of the loans), but it is dangerous to assume that your loans/cash balance has all been correctly accounted for by COL and that the administrator has all the correct records (although this would appear to be the case). Better to provide the information to the best of your knowledge and thus putting a stake in the ground than risk being excluded from being able to make a claim at a later date. However, I'm holding off for a few weeks in the hope that we will be given read only access to records to make the reporting far easier than trying to reconstruct my position which I had last reconciled a couple of weeks prior to administration. In a similar situation to COL, I was a customer of MF Global, the big inter-dealer/brokerage, which when into administration about 6 years ago. At the time I held shares in nominee accounts and had a cash balance - so a similar situation where my shares were held by them on trust. On that occasion I was treated as a creditor and required to made a claim which was greatly assisted by the issue of a closing statement of my account. Slightly off topic, but may be of general interest, the MF Global insolvency uncovered instances where some client money hadn't correctly been cleared directly to the client account at the time of administration. I believe the issue went to UK courts and ultimately the court ruled that client money (which has the effect of ring fencing the customer money from MF Global's assets) is only treated as such if it has actually been segregated. The result being that some customer funds which should have been treated as client money but never actually got transferred, became part of the general pool of assets against all which all creditors had a claim. In the end I sold my claim to an investment bank at 95% face value after a about 2 years - I believe that in the end UK creditors eventually received a full recovery plus some interest after a long drawn out process.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Mar 9, 2018 20:44:25 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?  How can you be sure that your self-questioning is grounded on solid foundations? Or that solid foundations even exist?
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 9, 2018 20:58:44 GMT
client money (which has the effect of ring fencing the customer money from MF Global's assets) is only treated as such if it has actually been segregated. This is the most feared reason for Collateral and our investments; however hopeful and optimistic we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Mar 9, 2018 20:59:17 GMT
If you do not question your own beliefs, how can you be sure that your beliefs are grounded on solid foundations? How can you be sure that your self-questioning is grounded on solid foundations? Or that solid foundations even exist? If the vast majority believe that solid foundations do exist, arguably their existence is not relevant, only the belief is questioable?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 9, 2018 22:50:22 GMT
How can you be sure that your self-questioning is grounded on solid foundations? Or that solid foundations even exist? If the vast majority believe that solid foundations do exist, arguably their existence is not relevant, only the belief is questioable? That makes sense if the vast majority all believe in the same set of grounds. Suppose that half of the vast majority believe in one set of grounds and the other believes in a different, incompatible set. Then their existence would be a matter of some debate and importance - assuming the two populations interact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Mar 9, 2018 23:26:49 GMT
If the vast majority believe that solid foundations do exist, arguably their existence is not relevant, only the belief is questioable? That makes sense if the vast majority all believe in the same set of grounds. Suppose that half of the vast majority believe in one set of grounds and the other believes in a different, incompatible set. Then their existence would be a matter of some debate and importance - assuming the two populations interact.
Logically gives the same conclusion with broader parameters in the early part. as in............ If various groups of people believe in things existing, then the things existing is not relevant, only the belief is questionable.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 10, 2018 0:56:21 GMT
How can you be sure that your self-questioning is grounded on solid foundations? Or that solid foundations even exist? If the vast majority believe that solid foundations do exist, arguably their existence is not relevant, only the belief is questioable? After all we do believe that money, paper or plastic, (or digital numbers) have value, even though the same money can vanish in an instant. The fact that we usually experience value from money makes us believe that this is always the case.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 10, 2018 0:57:54 GMT
If the vast majority believe that solid foundations do exist, arguably their existence is not relevant, only the belief is questioable? That makes sense if the vast majority all believe in the same set of grounds. Suppose that half of the vast majority believe in one set of grounds and the other believes in a different, incompatible set. Then their existence would be a matter of some debate and importance - assuming the two populations interact.
This is a very perfect explanation for Brexit negotiations.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 10, 2018 10:40:47 GMT
client money (which has the effect of ring fencing the customer money from MF Global's assets) is only treated as such if it has actually been segregated. This is the most feared reason for Collateral and our investments; however hopeful and optimistic we are. I don't think anyone doubts, with reason, the existence of a client account the only justifiable niggle at the moment is whether it reconcileseems. The Administrator appears to be taking steps to reconcile this so a ĺittle more patience is required. Ithe is still relatively early days in the process so it's best to leave him to get on with it.
|
|
gc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 152
Likes: 141
|
Post by gc on Mar 10, 2018 10:53:56 GMT
If the vast majority believe that solid foundations do exist, arguably their existence is not relevant, only the belief is questioable? After all we do believe that money, paper or plastic, (or digital numbers) have value, even though the same money can vanish in an instant. The fact that we usually experience value from money makes us believe that this is always the case. I hear you on that and I may try telling that to HMRC next April and see how well it goes down :-D That said, digital or not, when it vanishes, there is almost always someone that benefits (real money) from this.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,335
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 10, 2018 11:35:48 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. You seem very certain of the fact the directors called in the Administrator. Is this stated in any official or unofficial statement anywhere? I don't recall reading anything about that. Its in the email. Attached AM01 says appointed by director. Hasnt made its way to CH yet
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 10, 2018 12:17:42 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. You seem very certain of the fact the directors called in the Administrator. Is this stated in any official or unofficial statement anywhere? I don't recall reading anything about that. I seem to recall that the directors petitioned for the Administration Order quoted in several posts. No I am not going to look through 100 pages or so of posts on the subject to find quotes. In law it is only a creditor, a shareholder or the company (via the dirextors) who can apply for Administration order (except in particular circumstances when the Secretary of State can and that has not happened). As neither of the first two categories would have a reason the logical solution is it is the directors.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 10, 2018 12:29:09 GMT
If you do not question your own beliefs, how can you be sure that your beliefs are grounded on solid foundations? How can you be sure that your self-questioning is grounded on solid foundations? Or that solid foundations even exist? I kept on thinking about your question. Basically my belief has to satisfy me and does not need to convince anyone else. If I have deliberated my ideas and I am convinced about them, be it God, or what lending I am going to do, than I am happy with that and I will go with it. Other people will have to do the same about their ideas. The important thing is that you do not do something, act, talk etc because someone else did it or said it. You need to be convinced, or in my case, I have to be convinced. That is the solid foundation I mentioned in my previous post.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 10, 2018 12:33:36 GMT
After all we do believe that money, paper or plastic, (or digital numbers) have value, even though the same money can vanish in an instant. The fact that we usually experience value from money makes us believe that this is always the case. I hear you on that and I may try telling that to HMRC next April and see how well it goes down :-D That said, digital or not, when it vanishes, there is almost always someone that benefits (real money) from this. Yes, I agree. Sometimes it is the government.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 10, 2018 17:07:57 GMT
That makes sense if the vast majority all believe in the same set of grounds. Suppose that half of the vast majority believe in one set of grounds and the other believes in a different, incompatible set. Then their existence would be a matter of some debate and importance - assuming the two populations interact.
Logically gives the same conclusion with broader parameters in the early part. as in............ If various groups of people believe in things existing, then the things existing is not relevant, only the belief is questionable. Yes you're right. They say that the vast majority of people on this forum believe that p2p is real. The groups supporting the various platforms believe their choices are the right ones. How silly is all that?
|
|
