sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428 
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Mar 30, 2018 13:45:25 GMT
I think some of the wilder conspiracy theorists need to just take a breath; Col made a naïve mistake with the FCA authorisation but given how bureaucratic & time consuming the whole process clearly is (just read the experience of MT & AC as a couple of examples) I can see how they would be keen on avoiding it. Legal advice was never going to be enough cover but they clearly had ongoing dialogue with the FCA but that eventually failed & given the unfortunate situation they then found themselves in they did the responsible thing by appointing the administrator, who has confirmed that they actually ran the business correctly - all assets, money & loans are present & accounted for. The administrator has proposed a sensible plan to return lenders funds & appears to be ready to implement it; which would mean a great result in a short period of time at no cost to lenders (£48k fee has already been paid out of Col funds).
Administrators are strictly regulated & take their responsibilities very seriously in my experience & I put no stock in the claim that because Col appointed them they are some how unsuitable for the job, all the evidence currently available shows they have done both an efficient & effective job that will benefit lenders. The FCA are delaying the process, rightly or wrongly to make an example of how seriously they take firms operating without their explicit approval, will that get our money back any quicker, clearly not, will the FCA proposed administrator do a better job than the existing one, I very much doubt it, as they will have to repeat what has already been achieved.
Overall I think Col management have been foolish & naïve but no more than that & am satisfied they have acted in good faith. I have sympathy for the 5 members of staff who will likely lose their jobs, the FCA intervention will inevitable delay the return of investors funds which I am unhappy with but however the court case goes I believe anyone with cash, pawn, cars & even residential property on the platform will see 100% returned. My worry would be that some of the development loans may face difficulties, so whilst I am not personally exposed to any I feel some concern for those who are but they were always going to be the riskiest investments with or without the platform failure. I agree that the best option would have been for RR to administer the winding down of our loans, but they have severely damaged the confidence of lenders by leaving the website offline, not keeping lenders informed, not returning cash held in lender accounts and not paying interest for February. I prefer an administrator who would act solely in the interests of lenders and not have a duty to Collateral (UK). The fees would come from the upfront interest paid to Collateral (UK). RR need to ring-fence that money proportioned as of Feb 26th and ring-fence the lender interest from Feb 1st. I hope that is what the FCA are requesting from the Courts.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 30, 2018 14:05:36 GMT
I agree that the best option would have been for RR to administer the winding down of our loans, but they have severely damaged the confidence of lenders by leaving the website offline, not keeping lenders informed, not returning cash held in lender accounts and not paying interest for February. I prefer an administrator who would act solely in the interests of lenders and not have a duty to Collateral (UK). The fees would come from the upfront interest paid to Collateral (UK). RR need to ring-fence that money proportioned as of Feb 26th and ring-fence the lender interest from Feb 1st. I hope that is what the FCA are requesting from the Courts. That would be nice for lenders, but any administrator is primarily responsible to the creditors of the business (currently none unpaid) and not directly to the lenders, unless they are also creditors. It is the FCA whose duty includes the protection of lenders, through regulation. What they are probably requesting from the courts is to establish an administration where the actions are subject to regulatory concurrence, which they believe is required by law.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Mar 30, 2018 14:15:24 GMT
I agree that the best option would have been for RR to administer the winding down of our loans, but they have severely damaged the confidence of lenders by leaving the website offline, not keeping lenders informed, not returning cash held in lender accounts and not paying interest for February. I prefer an administrator who would act solely in the interests of lenders and not have a duty to Collateral (UK). The fees would come from the upfront interest paid to Collateral (UK). RR need to ring-fence that money proportioned as of Feb 26th and ring-fence the lender interest from Feb 1st. I hope that is what the FCA are requesting from the Courts. That would be nice for lenders, but any administrator is primarily responsible to the creditors of the business (currently none unpaid) and not directly to the lenders, unless they are also creditors. It is the FCA whose duty includes the protection of lenders, through regulation. What they are probably requesting from the courts is to establish an administration where the actions are subject to regulatory concurrence, which they believe is required by law. What I'm suggesting is that RR would continue acting for Collateral (UK), but a second administrator would be appointed by the FCA to act for the investors. Otherwise RR have a conflict of interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 14:25:49 GMT
I'm struggling to understand where this assertion re the almost certain use of investor's funds to pay administration costs has sprung from, but doesn't this (IMHO) scaremongering ignore the fact that whilst the loan book is extant there is a not insubstantial income stream being generated re the interest spread.
I'm ready to be shot down in flames if this is naïve drivel.
Allegedly there is £150,000 per month ongoing interest according to the Statement of Affairs attached to the Adminisrators report and proposals, no split of whether it is the company's or lenders/investors though or how it might be used. No flames from me, but I'm not sure of the veracity of the cliams on the statement of affairs
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 30, 2018 14:28:35 GMT
That would be nice for lenders, but any administrator is primarily responsible to the creditors of the business (currently none unpaid) and not directly to the lenders, unless they are also creditors. It is the FCA whose duty includes the protection of lenders, through regulation. What they are probably requesting from the courts is to establish an administration where the actions are subject to regulatory concurrence, which they believe is required by law. What I'm suggesting is that RR would continue acting for Collateral (UK), but a second administrator would be appointed by the FCA to act for the investors. Otherwise RR have a conflict of interests. You can have two Administrators but highly unusual from separate firms where thisn type of conflict occurs, there would be a major practical problem, whose view would prevail in the event of a disagreement?
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 30, 2018 14:31:38 GMT
I think some of the wilder conspiracy theorists need to just take a breath; Col made a naïve mistake with the FCA authorisation but given how bureaucratic & time consuming the whole process clearly is (just read the experience of MT & AC as a couple of examples) I can see how they would be keen on avoiding it. Legal advice was never going to be enough cover but they clearly had ongoing dialogue with the FCA but that eventually failed & given the unfortunate situation they then found themselves in they did the responsible thing by appointing the administrator, who has confirmed that they actually ran the business correctly - all assets, money & loans are present & accounted for. The administrator has proposed a sensible plan to return lenders funds & appears to be ready to implement it; which would mean a great result in a short period of time at no cost to lenders (£48k fee has already been paid out of Col funds).
Administrators are strictly regulated & take their responsibilities very seriously in my experience & I put no stock in the claim that because Col appointed them they are some how unsuitable for the job, all the evidence currently available shows they have done both an efficient & effective job that will benefit lenders. The FCA are delaying the process, rightly or wrongly to make an example of how seriously they take firms operating without their explicit approval, will that get our money back any quicker, clearly not, will the FCA proposed administrator do a better job than the existing one, I very much doubt it, as they will have to repeat what has already been achieved.
Overall I think Col management have been foolish & naïve but no more than that & am satisfied they have acted in good faith. I have sympathy for the 5 members of staff who will likely lose their jobs, the FCA intervention will inevitable delay the return of investors funds which I am unhappy with but however the court case goes I believe anyone with cash, pawn, cars & even residential property on the platform will see 100% returned. My worry would be that some of the development loans may face difficulties, so whilst I am not personally exposed to any I feel some concern for those who are but they were always going to be the riskiest investments with or without the platform failure. I agree that the best option would have been for RR to administer the winding down of our loans, but they have severely damaged the confidence of lenders by leaving the website offline, not keeping lenders informed, not returning cash held in lender accounts and not paying interest for February. I prefer an administrator who would act solely in the interests of lenders and not have a duty to Collateral (UK). The fees would come from the upfront interest paid to Collateral (UK). RR need to ring-fence that money proportioned as of Feb 26th and ring-fence the lender interest from Feb 1st. I hope that is what the FCA are requesting from the Courts. AFAIUI all that was prevented by the FCA intervention NOT lack of ambition from RR who seem to have been ready to implement the return of investor funds but were prevented from doing so by the FCA, under threat of court action; but obviously difficult to judge the exact timeline without further information but I would hazard a guess that ignoring the best interests of lenders & imposing extra bureaucracy is most likely to be FCA driven. The original RR plan would seem to have served both the best interests of lenders, borrowers & Col alike but administrators are serious, professional individuals & won't risk breaching court imposed suspensions of their actions.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Mar 30, 2018 14:40:41 GMT
Can we expect the FCA to make available a report of their views and decisions? If so, when and where might that be? Crikey - not sure if that's serious or tongue in cheek (genuinely)? This is the FCA we're talking about - you are a mere citizen with a vested interest in this recovery i.e. you and I will be very low down the list of priorities the FCA will have here I suspect? Given what we do know I find it unlikely that the FCA would come out of an independent enquiry into this whole debacle without some egg on face. Now, the FCA is staffed by bureaucrats - for whom there is no greater shame than getting egg on face. Getting it wrong is OK - happens all the time - but actually getting caught getting it wrong if full public gaze - well, that's simply anathema. So, in answer to your question - I doubt it! I do not understand the hate towards the FCA. They are there to regulate and ensure complaince and this is effectively a test case. They will want to be seen to be effective and robust and doing the right thing for those it is there to protect (us!) So why anyone prefer to put their trust in administrators that are appointed by those who got us into this mess in the first place and have no authorisation themselves is beyond me. Let's give the FCA a chance to stamp their mark on this sector
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Mar 30, 2018 14:46:31 GMT
I agree that the best option would have been for RR to administer the winding down of our loans, but they have severely damaged the confidence of lenders by leaving the website offline, not keeping lenders informed, not returning cash held in lender accounts and not paying interest for February. I prefer an administrator who would act solely in the interests of lenders and not have a duty to Collateral (UK). The fees would come from the upfront interest paid to Collateral (UK). RR need to ring-fence that money proportioned as of Feb 26th and ring-fence the lender interest from Feb 1st. I hope that is what the FCA are requesting from the Courts. AFAIUI all that was prevented by the FCA intervention NOT lack of ambition from RR who seem to have been ready to implement the return of investor funds but were prevented from doing so by the FCA, under threat of court action; but obviously difficult to judge the exact timeline without further information but I would hazard a guess that ignoring the best interests of lenders & imposing extra bureaucracy is most likely to be FCA driven. The original RR plan would seem to have served both the best interests of lenders, borrowers & Col alike but administrators are serious, professional individuals & won't risk breaching court imposed suspensions of their actions. I don't think we should be taking anything in that report as gospel. There is zero chance of a 100% buyout happening. The fact that it has been spun as being the case (and leaked) should make you see why the FCA do not want these admins handling this.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 30, 2018 14:47:13 GMT
What I'm suggesting is that RR would continue acting for Collateral (UK), but a second administrator would be appointed by the FCA to act for the investors. Otherwise RR have a conflict of interests. You can have two Administrators but highly unusual from separate firms where thisn type of conflict occurs, there would be a major practical problem, whose view would prevail in the event of a disagreement? That would not work here. The problem seems to be that the existing administrator is trying to act on the basis that the business and the conduct of the administration is not subject to FCA regulation. Presumably hoping that the FCA would sit back and accept a happy outcome for the financially interested parties. An additional administrator, who thought the administration should be subject to FCA regulations and approval, could not work with the first. It is set for the courts unless the current administrator resigns.
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Mar 30, 2018 14:52:29 GMT
So the FCA is actually holding up the distribution of client account funds to investors, and the resolution of the loan book.
One thing I learned in my many years as a Compliance Officer in the financial services industry is that FCA (F..ing Companies/Customers About) will protect itself above all other matters. Outcomes for customers, to the extent they’re of interest at all, will be secondary to FCA self promotion.
The report from Refresh is implicitly critical of the role of the FCA in the failure of Collateral. The FCA will want an in house solution (in this case via a trusted stooge, B**) that will obscure the role the FCA itself played in the failure of Collateral. The cost to investors will be a secondary concern.
Refresh: “The matter was vigorously defended and it was subsequently adjourned to be heard again in April on the basis that certain restrictions were imposed on the Administrator including the disposal of assets and funds being returned to investors.”
Why would FCA have sought to halt the return of funds to investors. Because the FCA are part of a cartel of leaches circling the assets? Because B** will need their quid pro quo to protect the FCA?
Don’t trust FCA or B**.
|
|
yorky
Posts: 28
Likes: 29
|
Post by yorky on Mar 30, 2018 14:55:13 GMT
I wonder why RR did not send us a email copy of their report as it was was in the public domain,was it because we are not creditors (or are we ).it could have stopped a lot of speculation and guessing by over 1000 investors.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Mar 30, 2018 15:02:02 GMT
I'm disappointed in this latest development. I was happy with the progress being made by Jessica and co.
I do understand that RR (Jess and co.) were appointed directly by the COL chiefs and that is not ideal, but they seemed to be competent and doing the job to our advantage and were approachable. Also, the close working arrangement that was going on between RR and COL was speeding things up nicely because the COL people were on the payroll. I could almost start to smell my money getting closer to my bank account. Now, with this complication, my cash seems to have started reversing back up the M6.
It seems that, thanks to the FCA, we are faced with some London fee rate big boys coming in and that will delay it all as they will have to start from scratch and more of our cash will get gobbled up to pay their top whack London fees. Those guys won't get out of bed for less than a grand.
I don't care about the etiquette and rules, I would prefer things to stay as they are. So I say No to the FCA and I say No to London big boys taking over. However I fear the Court will say Yes.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 30, 2018 15:11:35 GMT
Crikey - not sure if that's serious or tongue in cheek (genuinely)? This is the FCA we're talking about - you are a mere citizen with a vested interest in this recovery i.e. you and I will be very low down the list of priorities the FCA will have here I suspect? Given what we do know I find it unlikely that the FCA would come out of an independent enquiry into this whole debacle without some egg on face. Now, the FCA is staffed by bureaucrats - for whom there is no greater shame than getting egg on face. Getting it wrong is OK - happens all the time - but actually getting caught getting it wrong if full public gaze - well, that's simply anathema. So, in answer to your question - I doubt it! I do not understand the hate towards the FCA. They are there to regulate and ensure complaince and this is effectively a test case. They will want to be seen to be effective and robust and doing the right thing for those it is there to protect (us!) So why anyone prefer to put their trust in administrators that are appointed by those who got us into this mess in the first place and have no authorisation themselves is beyond me. Let's give the FCA a chance to stamp their mark on this sector So far the actions and proposals of the current administrator inspire confidence that the outcome for investors will be positive. The FCA's first interest is in ensuring that consumers have confidence in the sector and its competence as a regulatory authority. Rather selfishly, I just want the best possible outcome for lenders, which RR was tantalisingly close to delivering prior to the FCA's intervention. Coincidentally this also would have been the best possible outcome for the directors, which presumably goes against the desires of the FCA.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Mar 30, 2018 15:25:17 GMT
I'm disappointed in this latest development. I was happy with the progress being made by Jessica and co. I do understand that RR (Jess and co.) were appointed directly by the COL chiefs and that is not ideal, but they seemed to be competent and doing the job to our advantage and were approachable. Also, the close working arrangement that was going on between RR and COL was speeding things up nicely because the COL people were on the payroll. I could almost start to smell my money getting closer to my bank account. Now, with this complication, my cash seems to have started reversing back up the M6. It seems that, thanks to the FCA, we are faced with some London fee rate big boys coming in and that will delay it all as they will have to start from scratch and more of our cash will get gobbled up to pay their top whack London fees. Those guys won't get out of bed for less than a grand. I don't care about the etiquette and rules, I would prefer things to stay as they are. So I say No to the FCA and I say No to London big boys taking over. However I fear the Court will say Yes. What a surprise - I would never have guessed that you would support the current admins appointed by Col. (cough)
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Mar 30, 2018 15:26:25 GMT
So far the actions and proposals of the current administrator inspire confidence that the outcome for investors will be positive. The FCA's first interest is in ensuring that consumers have confidence in the sector and its competence as a regulatory authority. Rather selfishly, I just want the best possible outcome for lenders, which RR was tantalisingly close to delivering prior to the FCA's intervention. Coincidentally this also would have been the best possible outcome for the directors, which presumably goes against the desires of the FCA. maybe you've been inspired - sadly I've quite the opposite feeling. Thus far they seem to have been thoroughly unprofessional although apparently pleasant for a quick chat on the phone. I've a similar level of faith in their prognostications as I would a Lendy update. Quicker an independent admin is on the case the better imho for us mugs altho maybe not so much for the incompetent chancers that ran Coll anyways it's all idle speculation, with a dose of amusing shilling, til the court sorts it out ho hum
|
|
