|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 22, 2018 17:55:22 GMT
A question that I can't find any further information on , is when do we actually expect to receive interest now ?
The statement from Gordon Craig states as per Collateral original Terms Gosh 11025 Be delighted if we even get back the whole capital! It is very disappointing if the Administrators do not intend to resurrect even a static website. Indeed, if collateral really would like to repay a little of the faith & trust we invested in them, then surely, working with the Administrator, they could even give us a website that could supply updates on a loan-to-loan basis. Where is our ever-helpful Collateral Rep now? I am sure the absence of a information source (Web site or anything else) is not a deliberate act by the Administrator to obfuscate or conceal information. You are either talking tongue in cheek or being naive if you expect Collateral Rep to post on here. The only fault I would levy so far at the Administrator is that his staff issued information that raised expectations too early without themselves having enough time to understand the situation and problems they might encounter. Look at any defaulted loan on any platform to see the, slow, speed that they progress and the paucity of information, especially in the early stages from those Administrators, they are usually dealing with a single asset and single debtor. Add in 2000 lenders a client's account 100 loans regulatory problems and you may appreciate that things move frustratingly slowly from your point of view and you don't seem to get much information on progress.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288 
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Mar 22, 2018 18:05:01 GMT
We lenders are not FCA registered, and the loan agreement ultimately are between us and the borrower, does it mean we can’t collect loans either? IMHO I think that we should be fine with the bling, as theoretically this was never a loan. Collateral (on our behalf) bought the property from its original owners, who had the right to buy it back at a specified price within the agreed time period. So at the end of the period we have either the cash id the item has been repurchased or the item itself to sell. I do not know what, if any, obligation the administrator has to sell such items. The situation with property will presumably be different.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 22, 2018 19:49:44 GMT
We lenders are not FCA registered, and the loan agreement ultimately are between us and the borrower, does it mean we can’t collect loans either? IMHO I think that we should be fine with the bling, as theoretically this was never a loan. Collateral (on our behalf) bought the property from its original owners, who had the right to buy it back at a specified price within the agreed time period. So at the end of the period we have either the cash id the item has been repurchased or the item itself to sell. I do not know what, if any, obligation the administrator has to sell such items. The situation with property will presumably be different. This is interesting. I never knew there is such distinction between loans.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Mar 22, 2018 21:48:48 GMT
Collateral comrades - I am quite heavily involved in Collateral as many others here are but I have been trying very hard to stay chilled and relaxed and not log onto the forum too often because it is still very early days in terms of an administration. I believe it is only about 3 weeks since we had the bad news and it was always inevitable that things would take some time and in the scheme of things we are still at an early stage. While it is inevitable that speculation will run Riot it is nothing more than speculation and opinion because it is all in the hands of the administrator and the only communication we have had was positive and we have to now just sit back and wait.
Despite my risk averse strategy I ended up being shockingly overexposed to Collateral in that I had largely pulled out of my other platforms but was still very keen on what Collateral were doing and the tempting rates they were offering. Therefore in percentage terms of my overall wealth I probably am as badly exposed as anybody in this affair but I have not hit the panic button because I am remaining rational and I appreciate that this process will take some time. Fortunately and I hope this applies to all others here, my Investments through the platform were quite well spread amongst a variety of loans and therefore I remain optimistic that I will recover the lions share of my capital at the very least.
At the start of the process I think my expectations were raised too high by the positive tone of the administrators letter in that I was half expecting the website to reappear in a short time frame and interest to start being credited to my account for withdrawal. Now I am more realistic and patient and I really would urge everybody here to try and take a chill pill as hard as it may be when your hard earned is in limbo.
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Mar 22, 2018 22:09:47 GMT
I understand the notion of a living will here, but wonder whether it is more abstract concept than legal document. If the latter, where might I obtain a copy? Also, is there an executor and if so, who?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 23, 2018 7:32:00 GMT
I understand the notion of a living will here, but wonder whether it is more abstract concept than legal document. If the latter, where might I obtain a copy? Also, is there an executor and if so, who? The term is one of convenience rather than its true legal meaning. As part of the Regulatory process each platform is required to set out what will happen in the event it is unable to continue to trade. This document is called a living will despite a company not having testamentary capacity. The person who will oversee the arrangements set out in the "living will" is not called an executor I don't know of any regulations setting out the contents or how it may be financed (there may be but I am just not aware of them, the whole regulatory process of which this a part is pretty opaque). Again I don't think any platform or the FCA has published their living will and I don't think any are publicly accessible. Although I speak under correction. It is commonly thought that the living will is financed by ring fenced funds but although some platforma have apparently confirmed this on this forum and elsewhere I am not aware of an official FCA statement on the subject, again I speak under correction. If such a living will exists (for any platform) I am not sure of its legal position via a vis the Insolvency Act or any insolvency proceedure. Turning to Collateral although others have spoken of a living will (including me) I don't think the Administrator has and I am not aware of any statement at all on Collateral from the FCA. Although it has been assumed Collateral has a living will given the regulatory mess it was in it is by no means certain it has and if it has I don't think you will be able to get a copy.
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Mar 23, 2018 8:16:45 GMT
I understand the notion of a living will here, but wonder whether it is more abstract concept than legal document. If the latter, where might I obtain a copy? Also, is there an executor and if so, who? The term is one of convenience rather than its true legal meaning. As part of the Regulatory process each platform is required to set out what will happen in the event it is unable to continue to trade. This document is called a living will despite a company not having testamentary capacity. The person who will oversee the arrangements set out in the "living will" is not called an executor I don't know of any regulations setting out the contents or how it may be financed (there may be but I am just not aware of them, the whole regulatory process of which this a part is pretty opaque). Again I don't think any platform or the FCA has published their living will and I don't think any are publicly accessible. Although I speak under correction. It is commonly thought that the living will is financed by ring fenced funds but although some platforma have apparently confirmed this on this forum and elsewhere I am not aware of an official FCA statement on the subject, again I speak under correction. If such a living will exists (for any platform) I am not sure of its legal position via a vis the Insolvency Act or any insolvency proceedure. Turning to Collateral although others have spoken of a living will (including me) I don't think the Administrator has and I am not aware of any statement at all on Collateral from the FCA. Although it has been assumed Collateral has a living will given the regulatory mess it was in it is by no means certain it has and if it has I don't think you will be able to get a copy. Many thanks for the response, although it raises many more questions. I would have thought, reasonably, that this is an issue which falls within the FCA remit. However, I've similarly been unable to find any statement on this. Always acknowledged the Wild West nature of P2P, but really, what a bunch of cowboys.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 23, 2018 10:12:28 GMT
The term is one of convenience rather than its true legal meaning. As part of the Regulatory process each platform is required to set out what will happen in the event it is unable to continue to trade. This document is called a living will despite a company not having testamentary capacity. The person who will oversee the arrangements set out in the "living will" is not called an executor I don't know of any regulations setting out the contents or how it may be financed (there may be but I am just not aware of them, the whole regulatory process of which this a part is pretty opaque). Again I don't think any platform or the FCA has published their living will and I don't think any are publicly accessible. Although I speak under correction. It is commonly thought that the living will is financed by ring fenced funds but although some platforma have apparently confirmed this on this forum and elsewhere I am not aware of an official FCA statement on the subject, again I speak under correction. If such a living will exists (for any platform) I am not sure of its legal position via a vis the Insolvency Act or any insolvency proceedure. Turning to Collateral although others have spoken of a living will (including me) I don't think the Administrator has and I am not aware of any statement at all on Collateral from the FCA. Although it has been assumed Collateral has a living will given the regulatory mess it was in it is by no means certain it has and if it has I don't think you will be able to get a copy. Many thanks for the response, although it raises many more questions. I would have thought, reasonably, that this is an issue which falls within the FCA remit. However, I've similarly been unable to find any statement on this. Always acknowledged the Wild West nature of P2P, but really, what a bunch of cowboys.There is no justification for that, imo, especially from DI's well considered and informative post. Chilling out is a good idea, but there is a lot of expertise on this forum and it is good to talk sensibly, and to keep the Administrator aware of lenders' views and interests. (Reading the forum, 32 mins, charge £106.67). To chill out, don't read the forum. Assuming there is a living will, and it is for the administrator to implement or not, there would be a question about how its management is funded. If financed by future fees from the borrowers, or by some extra charge on lenders, there should not be a problem. If there is a lump sum set aside of company funds for this, or a need to set aside company funds to meet future costs, then there may be issues to be resolved with the rights of creditors, if there is a shortfall. So there may be some work to do, and perhaps it will be covered in the awaited Administrator's proposals.
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Mar 23, 2018 10:33:46 GMT
Many thanks for the response, although it raises many more questions. I would have thought, reasonably, that this is an issue which falls within the FCA remit. However, I've similarly been unable to find any statement on this. Always acknowledged the Wild West nature of P2P, but really, what a bunch of cowboys.There is no justification for that, imo, especially from DI's well considered and informative post. Chilling out is a good idea, but there is a lot of expertise on this forum and it is good to talk sensibly, and to keep the Administrator aware of lenders' views and interests. (Reading the forum, 32 mins, charge £106.67). To chill out, don't read the forum. Assuming there is a living will, and it is for the administrator to implement or not, there would be a question about how its management is funded. If financed by future fees from the borrowers, or by some extra charge on lenders, there should not be a problem. If there is a lump sum set aside of company funds for this, or a need to set aside company funds to meet future costs, then there may be issues to be resolved with the rights of creditors, if there is a shortfall. So there may be some work to do, and perhaps it will be covered in the awaited Administrator's proposals.
Sorry, should have made myself clearer. Re. the words in bold, I meant P2P, the industry in general, not the forum which is a great resource! The bunch of cowboys? Collateral first, and the FCA who seemingly have few policies in place to deal with the fallout from their actions / inaction. Too much speculation and too few answers.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 23, 2018 10:48:55 GMT
I took your meaning as you intended. I should have been clearer in meaning that DI's post did not, imo, help to build a case for a p2p wild west full of cowboys (and presumably dead injuns Native Americans). We are talking at this point about possible cracks in the second line of defence (living will) for a fully regulated new sector of the finance industry. Compare that with the failure of the established banks and the government bailouts - which means bailout by us, whether we chose to participate or not. That's my benchmark, and p2p is more like Finland than the Wild West.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 23, 2018 12:06:09 GMT
I took your meaning as you intended. I should have been clearer in meaning that DI's post did not, imo, help to build a case for a p2p wild west full of cowboys (and presumably dead injuns Native Americans). We are talking at this point about possible cracks in the second line of defence (living will) for a fully regulated new sector of the finance industry. Compare that with the failure of the established banks and the government bailouts - which means bailout by us, whether we chose to participate or not. That's my benchmark, and p2p is more like Finland than the Wild West. Well, to be honest, my experience tells me that the 'bailout' of established financial institutions workswell, much better than this case. I was in with funds in two separate regulated financial institutions which went into trouble and the FSCS passed back all my money within days, with zero effort or worries on my side. In the case of Collateral, I don't think the work behind the scenes has been efficient or at least transparent to a major stakeholder (the lenders), as the FSCS aims for. After almost a month of forced administration we are still totally blind on what is going on, what is the status of the company, the loans and the securities, what is the status of our cash and when it will be passed back, a timeline of future events. I'd question whether a bank operating without the correct regulatory permissions would be treated in the same way as you describe. The answer would probably depend on how big it was. In this case, there is unlikely to be any political imperative to make sure investors do not lose confidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 23, 2018 12:09:34 GMT
I took your meaning as you intended. I should have been clearer in meaning that DI's post did not, imo, help to build a case for a p2p wild west full of cowboys (and presumably dead injuns Native Americans). We are talking at this point about possible cracks in the second line of defence (living will) for a fully regulated new sector of the finance industry. Compare that with the failure of the established banks and the government bailouts - which means bailout by us, whether we chose to participate or not. That's my benchmark, and p2p is more like Finland than the Wild West. Well, to be honest, my experience tells me that the 'bailout' of established financial institutions workswell, much better than this case. I was in with funds in two separate regulated financial institutions which went into trouble and the FSCS passed back all my money within days, with zero effort or worries on my side. In the case of Collateral, I don't think the work behind the scenes has been efficient or at least transparent to a major stakeholder (the lenders), as the FSCS aims for. After almost a month of forced administration we are still totally blind on what is going on, what is the status of the company, the loans and the securities, what is the status of our cash and when it will be passed back, a timeline of future events. Did you not read the disclaimer that Collateral (and all other platforms) were not covered by the FSCS? That was the one warning that was particularly clear as I recall. Not only on Collateral but all platforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Mar 23, 2018 12:39:11 GMT
One of the big issues with P2P platforms is that the regulatory capital adequancy requirements seem too low. A P2P platform with a full FCA permission and a loan books below £50mm is only required to hold reg cap of 0.3%. So on a platform the size of Col with a loan book of £20mm (?) that is just £60k. Given the number of loans, high risk of default on those loans and possibility of extended recovery times, that just seems far too slender. Those without full permission but who were grandfathered in from the OFT aren't even required to hold that amount.
Of course you would hope the massive margins that many P2P platforms charge would provide enough trail income to allow an ordered unwind but there is often a point where the bulk of the loan book has redeemed and you are left with the hardest loans to recover on. That is when the lack of reg cap to fall back on can mean it is more logical to take a haircut on the remaining debt than continue to pursue the borrowers.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 23, 2018 12:41:28 GMT
Well, to be honest, my experience tells me that the 'bailout' of established financial institutions workswell, much better than this case. I was in with funds in two separate regulated financial institutions which went into trouble and the FSCS passed back all my money within days, with zero effort or worries on my side. In the case of Collateral, I don't think the work behind the scenes has been efficient or at least transparent to a major stakeholder (the lenders), as the FSCS aims for. After almost a month of forced administration we are still totally blind on what is going on, what is the status of the company, the loans and the securities, what is the status of our cash and when it will be passed back, a timeline of future events. Did you not read the disclaimer that Collateral (and all other platforms) were not covered by the FSCS? That was the one warning that was particularly clear as I recall. Not only on Collateral but all platforms. could be referring to the fact that at least one of the banks involved in the FSCS bailouts was not covered either (it was covered by the Icelandic compensation scheme, which I understand decided to renege on its obligations to non-Icelandic citizens). Moreover, the Government committed funds from the Treasury to repay consumer deposits above the usual £85k limit held in the afflicted institutions. The Government did these things with good reasons, but those reasons do not exist in the current situation.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 23, 2018 12:45:18 GMT
One of the big issues with P2P platforms is that the regulatory capital adequancy requirements seem too low. A P2P platform with a full FCA permission and a loan books below £50mm is only required to hold reg cap of 0.3%. So on a platform the size of Col with a loan book of £20mm (?) that is just £60k. Given the number of loans, high risk of default on those loans and possibility of extended recovery times, that just seems far too slender. Those without full permission but who were grandfathered in from the OFT aren't even required to hold that amount. Of course you would hope the massive margins that many P2P platforms charge would provide enough trail income to allow an ordered unwind but there is often a point where the bulk of the loan book has redeemed and you are left with the hardest loans to recover on. That is when the lack of reg cap to fall back on can mean it is more logical to take a haircut on the remaining debt than continue to pursue the borrowers. Just out of interest, what are the requirements for a DIY investment platform? That would be closer to a like for like comparison than a bank. Banks, in the main, need to guarantee savers' deposits and maintain a high level of liquidity, whereas investment firms and P2P platforms pass investment and liquidity risk through to the investor.
|
|
