|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 4, 2018 20:10:25 GMT
Makes you wonder 1) Why FCA took so long to challenge Collateral re its authorisation - would have saved us a lot of trouble if they had come in early. 2) what legal justification For FCA approval of an Administrator to an Unregulated company - Surely legislation around the Administration process provides protection. 3) Why the FCA is seeking to appoint a top five alternative. 4) Why FCA refer to investors when the appropriate reference should be lenders. One could go on and on and on...
|
|
zedi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80 
Likes: 47
|
Post by zedi on Apr 4, 2018 22:52:47 GMT
In my view, it is the management of COL and their subsequent appointed administrators that I am annoyed with. Why are they now contesting this court case when without FCA approval they'll never be able to run a business like COL? Why can't they just stand aside and let the FCA appoint whoever they wish? I guess that´s a rhetorical question because it´s obvious that they (COL+RR) just want to maximise their profit (or save as much as is left). RR surely doesn´t want to loose a case (because that´s how they earn money) and COL management (as I understand it w/o having had access to the leaked document everybody talks about) probably still hopes that some money is left on COL´s balance sheet after all the claims are satisfied and that should work best if the administrator of their choice (RR) handles the case.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 5, 2018 4:25:59 GMT
Does this not set a precedent for the industry. Living wills not worth the paper they are written on if the FCA gets its way..... I'm hoping regulated firms who have had their living wills explicitly accepted as part of their full authorisation will be able to execute them accordingly. For companies that carry out regulated consumer finance activities without authorisation the FCA is entitled to put that company into administration and apply to court to appoint the administrator. Whilst CUK tried to preempt this by trying to take control of their own administration, perhaps for a more favorable outcome to themselves, they had no FCA authorised living will to execute (despite mimicking FCA regulations in the face of legal advice telling them that peer to peer lending was unregulated). I do not think we should extrapolate that all authorised living wills will now be invalidated because of this singular mess.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 5, 2018 4:46:05 GMT
The FCA statement says "The Collateral Companies were required to obtain the approval of the FCA when appointing an administrator." Who says? The company was not FCA regulated so why were they "required" Because it seems FCA have taken the view that carrying out peer to peer lending is an activity to be authorised by them and for which the administrator must be agreed as part of their authorisation. If CUK withdrew their submission per the leaked report then the FCA are entitled to apply to court to appoint an administrator if an unregulated company was deemed to be conducting regulated activity and had been ordered to desist from doing so. Whether regulated or not it seems the FCA do get a say.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 5, 2018 5:10:05 GMT
In my view, it is the management of COL and their subsequent appointed administrators that I am annoyed with. Why are they now contesting this court case when without FCA approval they'll never be able to run a business like COL? Why can't they just stand aside and let the FCA appoint whoever they wish? I guess that´s a rhetorical question because it´s obvious that they (COL+RR) just want to maximise their profit (or save as much as is left). RR surely doesn´t want to loose a case (because that´s how they earn money) and COL management (as I understand it w/o having had access to the leaked document everybody talks about) probably still hopes that some money is left on COL´s balance sheet after all the claims are satisfied and that should work best if the administrator of their choice (RR) handles the case. I also found the administrator's timeline of events a bit soft on the tension between information provided by the directors on their website and by the company representative on here as to their being suitably regulated whilst legal representatives informed them peer to peer was unregulated and CUK merely followed FCA guidelines for industry "credibility". There is also an update required as to the FCA being provided with information that appears to try and connect CUK to the credit finance permission of a pawn broker that remains an entirely distinct corporate entity on Companies House (and shares only directors - guff has kindly reproduced this on here recently). There is therefore potential civil and criminal proceedings for conducting unregulated financial activity that may need to be investigated and which may become more apparent with an independently appointed administrator. That may be enough to incentivise directors to wrap this sorry episode as quickly as possible and earn a nice little dividend to boot in their own administrator's SoA.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866 
Likes: 1,861
|
Post by archie on Apr 5, 2018 6:31:48 GMT
I dont have any emails about my loans in Collateral because I deleted them (at the time I didnt think there was any reason to have my inbox clogged up with Collateral emails!). I have my Collateral tax statement from last year, but thats it. Surely the database with who-lent-to-who is intact somewhere? What should I do? Sit tight and wait for an email from Collateral/Administrator? Sit tight. In my view there is no point contacting RR. The leaked report was blocked from release by the FCA and doesn't appear on Companies House. Any information or deadlines contained within aren't currently relevant. When the court case is resolved, the court sanctioned administrator will restart/resume the process. We should receive an official report at that time.
|
|
rzys
Member of DD Central
Posts: 56
Likes: 44
|
Post by rzys on Apr 5, 2018 6:33:18 GMT
For me, my stance is that as a Lender, not a Creditor, I have a binding Contract with the Borrower and I expect full repayment of Capital with full Interest, barring Defaults, in due course, just as if COLL were still operating, and I do not expect, or will accept, anything less. If you too feel this way perhaps you should say so? Agree with this also.
|
|
|
|
Post by 123qweasdzxc on Apr 5, 2018 7:35:03 GMT
For me, my stance is that as a Lender, not a Creditor, I have a binding Contract with the Borrower and I expect full repayment of Capital with full Interest, barring Defaults, in due course, just as if COLL were still operating, and I do not expect, or will accept, anything less. If you too feel this way perhaps you should say so? Agree with this also. Agreed, certainly that is what we should expect of the administrator, whoever they turn out to be. At least the RR report indicated that most of COLL's procedures seemed to have worked so the roll up of the loan book may be do-able in the short-term. The proposed sale of the loan book also makes me cautiously optimistic that we may see a return by Xmas (even Bolton) 
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 5, 2018 8:40:32 GMT
The FCA statement says "The Collateral Companies were required to obtain the approval of the FCA when appointing an administrator." Who says? The company was not FCA regulated so why were they "required" You don't get to opt out of the relevant law/regs just because you choose to violate certain other parts of them... It's not so much that Collateral weren't regulated as that they didn't lawfully obtain permission within the regulations.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 5, 2018 10:04:41 GMT
Agreed, certainly that is what we should expect of the administrator, whoever they turn out to be. At least the RR report indicated that most of COLL's procedures seemed to have worked so the roll up of the loan book may be do-able in the short-term. The proposed sale of the loan book also makes me cautiously optimistic that we may see a return by Xmas (even Bolton) I would say with some certainty that the Collateral loan book was high-class - at least where P2P loan books are concerned it was at the top end of the quality scale. A teasing and tempting mixture of jewelry classic cars artwork buy to let residential properties and some larger developments as well. There really was something for everyone and for those who like to spread their risk as across many different loans they were able to diversify to a great extent within the Collateral platform itself. Therefore what we have here is a high class loan book and it is no wonder to me that so many other operators are salivating at the thought of getting their hands on it and enabling us to be paid 100p in the pound. It does seem that despite forgetting to get their approvals in order, the Collateral chiefs cleverly took advantage of their prime location in the NW amongst such a densely populated urban area and the existence of places like Blackpool and Bolton and they really put themselves about and got some business of a kind that was unique unto them. And quality business it was in that they were never over-reliant on the declining London property market and Russian oligarchs. What I liked about Collateral was that the platform had a gritty, Coronation Street style feel to it and that added authenticity to the platform and encouraged me to invest. We just have to get this administrator mess sorted out and a judgement from the court and then I am hopeful that things can proceed full steam ahead with a very decent outcome for one and all.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Apr 5, 2018 10:38:39 GMT
Hey, Georgie! Pah! Have you seen Coronation Street lately? It has more than its fair share of fake building development scams, rapists, thugs, murderers, fraudulent use of investors' cash, bent solicitors, bent coppers, domestic violence, child sexual exploitation, racists, David Platt sexual exploitation, arsonists, etc.  ...and it ain't over yet! There's more murder on its way. The Currie brothers and Craigie are softies compared to Barlow's buddies, and Pat'n'Vinnie etc but they still have our spondoolies to account for and return. |
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 5, 2018 10:54:55 GMT
Hey, Georgie! Pah! Have you seen Coronation Street lately? It has more than its fair share of fake building developments, rapists, thugs, murderers, fraudulent use if investors' cash, bent solicitors, bent coppers, domestic violence, child sexual exploitation, arsonists, etc. ...and it ain't over yet! There's more murder on its way. The Currie brothers and Craigie are softies compared to Barlow's buddies, but they still have our spondoolies to account for and return. And all before 9pm shocking
|
|
jcm9000
Member of DD Central
Posts: 181
Likes: 153
|
Post by jcm9000 on Apr 5, 2018 11:00:01 GMT
Indeed, I was quite a fan of the offerings on Collateral and it worked fine until the FCA woke from their slumber - pending the truth on why the company was put in to administration of course and clarity on exactly how much the FCA were involved long before February, which is a possibility. It did seem to be a good book of business and I too am hopeful that a transfer to another P2P operator will happen - some well known names in this little community have been showing significant interest. I am another one that expects full / decent recovery. I'm looking forward to the end of this FCA/administrator tit for tat to let someone get on with the job, whether it be the current appointed company, the other mid tier accounting firm that has been mentioned or Bill & Ben the flower pot men, don't really care as long as they are registered insolvency practitioners with ICAEW / ICAS which is all the stamp of approval I need as an ICAS member. The more delays there are the more it creates uncertainty for the whole industry, small beans P2P site or not. Other than this malarkey with the FCA, so far the procedures put in place for administration seem to have worked (time will tell but it appears sound from what we know), so there may end up being a positive story out of all this including ratification of the procedures that the FCA (and indeed the P2P industry) call for. Fingers crossed. While the Directors and their service providers seemed a tad short with the truth regarding continuing to work towards FCA approval, and perhaps blindly followed some possibly questionable legal advice (hint hint - every other site was trying to get approved/is approved....if it quacks....); the FCA are not smelling of roses here so far, and it does seem additional clarity is needed from them on what is and is not a regulated activity in regards to P2P. Relying on lawyers makes me squirm, they always disagree with each other! So many questions I would like to ask them yet we seem to have to put up and shut up while they do their little regulatory thing that they potentially didn't bother doing over the last two years. Since they suddenly think they rule the roost, some communication from them to investors would be nice to get rid of the potentially comments. Alas, i fear a case of Ivory towers and all that. I Feel better now  . I await the court case with mild distaste at the continued delay, even if I understand why they are doing it ( potentially covering their ar....). Edit - i see the fca did put some info up on their site, nice of them to let us know. |
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 5, 2018 11:07:10 GMT
This response from BridgeCrowd to questions about their regulatory status might be of interest in the context of the COL discussion (for those who don't look at the BC board)
|
|
zedi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 47
|
Post by zedi on Apr 5, 2018 14:52:54 GMT
Agreed, certainly that is what we should expect of the administrator, whoever they turn out to be. At least the RR report indicated that most of COLL's procedures seemed to have worked so the roll up of the loan book may be do-able in the short-term. The proposed sale of the loan book also makes me cautiously optimistic that we may see a return by Xmas (even Bolton) I would say with some certainty that the Collateral loan book was high-class - at least where P2P loan books are concerned it was at the top end of the quality scale. A teasing and tempting mixture of jewelry classic cars artwork buy to let residential properties and some larger developments as well. There really was something for everyone and for those who like to spread their risk as across many different loans they were able to diversify to a great extent within the Collateral platform itself. Therefore what we have here is a high class loan book and it is no wonder to me that so many other operators are salivating at the thought of getting their hands on it and enabling us to be paid 100p in the pound. It does seem that despite forgetting to get their approvals in order, the Collateral chiefs cleverly took advantage of their prime location in the NW amongst such a densely populated urban area and the existence of places like Blackpool and Bolton and they really put themselves about and got some business of a kind that was unique unto them. And quality business it was in that they were never over-reliant on the declining London property market and Russian oligarchs. What I liked about Collateral was that the platform had a gritty, Coronation Street style feel to it and that added authenticity to the platform and encouraged me to invest. We just have to get this administrator mess sorted out and a judgement from the court and then I am hopeful that things can proceed full steam ahead with a very decent outcome for one and all. I understand that the FCA wanted to show their teeth if a platform operates unregulated but since Collateral was quite well in their business (what you can also see at their reputation here prior it went into administration), it´s a pity that they had to shutdown because of what seems to be (with the information we´ve got now) a newbie mistake...
|
|
. I await the court case with mild distaste at the continued delay, even if I understand why they are doing it (potentially covering their ar....). 