blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 15, 2018 13:48:35 GMT
Hi blender . I am with you when you talk about the loan book. Would you tend to agree that Collateral is a business (irrespective of the state it might currently be) and as such it can sell part or all of the business to another, including the management of these loans? Or something along these lines. This with the understanding that things now will have to be done through the Administrators. Hi ablender, The two points from the Admins by Hantsowl are helpful. The fact that the existing loans are ringfenced and to be run down in the usual way just means that the platform is retained within the Coll business for now and no new loans are being made. Then they are looking at how the business can be continued. This may be within Coll with the compliance issues addressed and a handback to the owners with temporary approval by the FCA - with whatever was needed to be fixed actually fixed by the administrator. This sounds unlikely, given that the balance sheet of the Coll business is presumably declining, possibly requiring some funding to restart lending. More likely they would seek to sell the platform, not just the management of the loans, to some larger FCA approved co which has the resources and the business processes to run the platform in compliance. But why would another co take that on, unless they already wished to acquire a p2p platform? I do not think, reading some of the valuable posts above, that the management of the loans could be sold on without the platform, because it is through the platform that the loans are managed. So I would think that, other than liquidation with the loans run down, they either reinstate Coll as a viable p2p business, or they sell the p2p platform, including the management of the current loans. The additional mechanism, for the borrowers, is to refinance their loans through another platform - which I guess is where Ablrate might easily come in. That is not buying the loan book.
|
|
hantsowl
Member of DD Central
Posts: 672 
Likes: 546
|
Post by hantsowl on Mar 15, 2018 15:46:15 GMT
Hi blender . I am with you when you talk about the loan book. Would you tend to agree that Collateral is a business (irrespective of the state it might currently be) and as such it can sell part or all of the business to another, including the management of these loans? Or something along these lines. This with the understanding that things now will have to be done through the Administrators. Hi ablender, The two points from the Admins by Hantsowl are helpful. The fact that the existing loans are ringfenced and to be run down in the usual way just means that the platform is retained within the Coll business for now and no new loans are being made. Then they are looking at how the business can be continued. This may be within Coll with the compliance issues addressed and a handback to the owners with temporary approval by the FCA - with whatever was needed to be fixed actually fixed by the administrator. This sounds unlikely, given that the balance sheet of the Coll business is presumably declining, possibly requiring some funding to restart lending. More likely they would seek to sell the platform, not just the management of the loans, to some larger FCA approved co which has the resources and the business processes to run the platform in compliance. But why would another co take that on, unless they already wished to acquire a p2p platform? I do not think, reading some of the valuable posts above, that the management of the loans could be sold on without the platform, because it is through the platform that the loans are managed. So I would think that, other than liquidation with the loans run down, they either reinstate Coll as a viable p2p business, or they sell the p2p platform, including the management of the current loans. The additional mechanism, for the borrowers, is to refinance their loans through another platform - which I guess is where Ablrate might easily come in. That is not buying the loan book.
Maybe something similar to what happened with Funding Knight a couple of years ago. I don't know the full details, but they went into administration and were 'rescued' by GLI Finance. Looking at the FK website now it appears VERY similar to how it looked prior administration (when I was an investor). Maybe someone reading this and was a FK investor during the problems could shed some light on what went on and whether the current situation with Collateral is similar in any way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Mar 15, 2018 17:12:35 GMT
I've been a long time FK investor but divested most before it went off, if it did actually go pop i wasn't aware. I did get email saying they had merged but then I thought they had always been part of something larger so thought little of it.
Jack P
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 15, 2018 21:02:29 GMT
Maybe something similar to what happened with Funding Knight a couple of years ago. I don't know the full details, but they went into administration and were 'rescued' by GLI Finance. Looking at the FK website now it appears VERY similar to how it looked prior administration (when I was an investor). Maybe someone reading this and was a FK investor during the problems could shed some light on what went on and whether the current situation with Collateral is similar in any way. Nothing like it, apart from an utter lack of new loans everything ticked over
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Mar 15, 2018 23:35:22 GMT
Could the appointment of specialist compliance consultations suggest that Collateral are trying to sort out their issues with the FCA in order to resume trading? If that was possible it would probably be the best solution for everyone concerned. No doubt Collateral was trying very vigorously to "sort out their issues with the FCA" immediately prior to entering administration, but the road to gaining full authorisation starting from where we are now is likely to be too long for the platform to resume trading as it was before the regulatory issues came home to roost. I thought most platforms traded on interim FCA authorisation, and waited for full authorisation, surely collateral had interim authorisation? Please excuse my ignorance if this has been covered already.. no doubt i am a way behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 16, 2018 0:01:46 GMT
No doubt Collateral was trying very vigorously to "sort out their issues with the FCA" immediately prior to entering administration, but the road to gaining full authorisation starting from where we are now is likely to be too long for the platform to resume trading as it was before the regulatory issues came home to roost. I thought most platforms traded on interim FCA authorisation, and waited for full authorisation, surely collateral had interim authorisation? Please excuse my ignorance if this has been covered already.. no doubt i am a way behind. The crux of the matter as stated by the administrators is that Collateral believed they had interim authorisation when they infact didn't As to how long they were trading without interim authorisation, and how and when the FCA became awere of the issue is open to conjecture. An application for full authorisation seems to take most platforms c. 18 months to achieve and is understood to involve close working between the platform and the FCA in ensuring all aspects of the operation are in compliance.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Mar 16, 2018 0:08:28 GMT
I thought most platforms traded on interim FCA authorisation, and waited for full authorisation, surely collateral had interim authorisation? Please excuse my ignorance if this has been covered already.. no doubt i am a way behind. The crux of the matter as stated by the administrators is that Collateral believed they had interim authorisation when they infact didn't As to how long they were trading without interim authorisation, and how and when the FCA became awere of the issue is open to conjecture. An application for full authorisation seems to take most platforms c. 18 months to achieve and is understood to involve close working between the platform and the FCA in ensuring all aspects of the operation are in compliance. Mrc thanks.. somehow, it does not surprise me that they had no authorisation, be it interim or anything else.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 16, 2018 8:35:38 GMT
The crux of the matter as stated by the administrators is that Collateral believed they had interim authorisation when they infact didn't As to how long they were trading without interim authorisation, and how and when the FCA became awere of the issue is open to conjecture. An application for full authorisation seems to take most platforms c. 18 months to achieve and is understood to involve close working between the platform and the FCA in ensuring all aspects of the operation are in compliance. Mrc thanks.. somehow, it does not surprise me that they had no authorisation, be it interim or anything else. It surprised everyone else, including Col and presumably the FCA, when they found out and took action. The force must be strong in you.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 16, 2018 8:39:46 GMT
When people signed, they did have the IP, when it lapsed, COL didn’t inform lender; instead they changed T&C and remove FCA from small prints.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
Member is Online
|
Post by micky on Mar 16, 2018 9:52:02 GMT
Good Morning
We are currently in discussions with the FCA and cannot discuss matters further until these discussions are finalised. As soon as I am able, I will update investors accordingly
Yours sincerely
For Collateral (UK) Limited
Jessica Hodgson
For Gordon Craig
Administrator
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 16, 2018 9:57:05 GMT
Good Morning We are currently in discussions with the FCA and cannot discuss matters further until these discussions are finalised. As soon as I am able, I will update investors accordingly Yours sincerely For Collateral (UK) Limited Jessica Hodgson For Gordon Craig Administrator Are we still sending multiple, individual queries in to the administrators?
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
Member is Online
|
Post by micky on Mar 16, 2018 9:59:39 GMT
Not me but i can't answer for others. I thought that this was a general email that I received at 9.30am. Maybe not!
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 16, 2018 9:59:45 GMT
Good Morning We are currently in discussions with the FCA and cannot discuss matters further until these discussions are finalised. As soon as I am able, I will update investors accordingly Yours sincerely For Collateral (UK) Limited Jessica Hodgson For Gordon Craig Administrator Are we still sending multiple, individual queries in to the administrators? Are you offering to herd those cats?
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 16, 2018 10:04:36 GMT
We are currently in discussions with the FCA and cannot discuss matters further until these discussions are finalised. As soon as I am able, I will update investors accordingly I didn’t get this email, was it a specific communication to yourself? Thanks
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
Member is Online
|
Post by micky on Mar 16, 2018 10:10:32 GMT
I didn't think so as my only email to Jessica was at the start of the week asking about progress with the read only website, moist then posted information which covered my query.
|
|
