ceejay
Posts: 975 
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Apr 5, 2018 15:11:46 GMT
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... That's not how I see this at all. IF (deliberate caps, it's an important IF) COL were carrying out business which should have been regulated, when they clearly had no authorisation to do so, then I don't see the FCA's action as "showing their teeth" but rather them doing precisely what they should be doing. Whether they should have moved more quickly is another matter, although with COL being a small player it wouldn't be unreasonable for it to take a while to get to the top of the FCA's intray. If we can get passes for making "newbie mistakes" then how would you like to sign up for a little minor brain surgery with me (I've watched some really good YouTube videos, honest!)? I think COL's attempts at pretending to have some sort of interim authorisation, or that they were applying for authorisation when in fact they had none to be wholly unacceptable and I have very little sympathy with the directors. Sure, they can keep whatever is left, if anything, after the mess has been sorted out but they are right at the back of the queue. And I don't think there is much of a future for them in P2P or anything remotely related.
|
|
zedi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80 
Likes: 47
|
Post by zedi on Apr 5, 2018 15:17:06 GMT
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... That's not how I see this at all. IF (deliberate caps, it's an important IF) COL were carrying out business which should have been regulated, when they clearly had no authorisation to do so, then I don't see the FCA's action as "showing their teeth" but rather them doing precisely what they should be doing. Whether they should have moved more quickly is another matter, although with COL being a small player it wouldn't be unreasonable for it to take a while to get to the top of the FCA's intray. If we can get passes for making "newbie mistakes" then how would you like to sign up for a little minor brain surgery with me (I've watched some really good YouTube videos, honest!)? I think COL's attempts at pretending to have some sort of interim authorisation, or that they were applying for authorisation when in fact they had none to be wholly unacceptable and I have very little sympathy with the directors. Sure, they can keep whatever is left, if anything, after the mess has been sorted out but they are right at the back of the queue. And I don't think there is much of a future for them in P2P or anything remotely related. I get your point and probably you are right but forcing a platform into administration instead of giving them an interim permission (I don´t know whether that would have been possible) at least as long as it takes to run down the loanbook (without issueing new loans of course), is only the second best option in my view...
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 5, 2018 15:21:27 GMT
Before Col is judged too harshly see the earlier post by steveT referring to a post by bridge crowd which gives a flavour of the hoops to be jumped through before Regulation.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 5, 2018 16:04:27 GMT
And before you let them off the hook read the thread on BL00079 on DD Central.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Apr 5, 2018 16:25:55 GMT
And before you let them off the hook read the thread on BL00079 on DD Central. Rather difficult for zedi (and others) at the minute.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 5, 2018 16:36:17 GMT
That's not how I see this at all. IF (deliberate caps, it's an important IF) COL were carrying out business which should have been regulated, when they clearly had no authorisation to do so, then I don't see the FCA's action as "showing their teeth" but rather them doing precisely what they should be doing. Whether they should have moved more quickly is another matter, although with COL being a small player it wouldn't be unreasonable for it to take a while to get to the top of the FCA's intray. If we can get passes for making "newbie mistakes" then how would you like to sign up for a little minor brain surgery with me (I've watched some really good YouTube videos, honest!)?I think COL's attempts at pretending to have some sort of interim authorisation, or that they were applying for authorisation when in fact they had none to be wholly unacceptable and I have very little sympathy with the directors. Sure, they can keep whatever is left, if anything, after the mess has been sorted out but they are right at the back of the queue. And I don't think there is much of a future for them in P2P or anything remotely related. I get your analogy but I didn't sign up with COL for a bit of brain surgery. I signed up to invest some of my own money and generate (hopefully) a better rate of return than I could get at a bank. Quite rightly, shoplifters aren't treated as harshly as murderers. But who are the real victims as a result of this action? The answer is us, the investors. And we are the innocent parties. We weren't doing anything wrong. We met all our requirements in terms of ID and money laundering checks and most of us are taxpayers to boot. Yet by their actions the FCA are giving the punishment to us by denying us access to our money, keeping us in limbo for longer by trying to get the Administrator changed and probably causing people quite a bit of anxiety. Here's another analogy. How would one of the FCA bosses feel if their next door neighbour drove his car at 120mph and the Court decided to ban them from driving as well because they lived next door to him - even though they always stick to the 70 limit? In this kind of unfortunate situation there should be a more holistic way forward that takes into account the bigger picture and acts in a proportionate way that best protects the interest of the majority - and we are the majority. Who's money is it? Ours!
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Apr 5, 2018 16:38:09 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) as a non-bridgecrowder - how are they perceived ? are they any less clownlike/amateurish/crooked (delete as you see fit) than the Coll boys ? (or is that yet to be determined) on a quick read they seemed to be skipping between grey areas but again I'm not familiar with them
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Apr 5, 2018 16:45:58 GMT
That's not how I see this at all. IF (deliberate caps, it's an important IF) COL were carrying out business which should have been regulated, when they clearly had no authorisation to do so, then I don't see the FCA's action as "showing their teeth" but rather them doing precisely what they should be doing. Whether they should have moved more quickly is another matter, although with COL being a small player it wouldn't be unreasonable for it to take a while to get to the top of the FCA's intray. If we can get passes for making "newbie mistakes" then how would you like to sign up for a little minor brain surgery with me (I've watched some really good YouTube videos, honest!)? I think COL's attempts at pretending to have some sort of interim authorisation, or that they were applying for authorisation when in fact they had none to be wholly unacceptable and I have very little sympathy with the directors. Sure, they can keep whatever is left, if anything, after the mess has been sorted out but they are right at the back of the queue. And I don't think there is much of a future for them in P2P or anything remotely related. I get your point and probably you are right but forcing a platform into administration instead of giving them an interim permission ( I don´t know whether that would have been possible) at least as long as it takes to run down the loanbook (without issueing new loans of course), is only the second best option in my view... Not possible: www.fca.org.uk/firms/interim-permission-consumer-credit
|
|
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 Apr 5, 2018 17:01:44 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) Contains an very interesting link to the FCA. www.fca.org.uk/firms/client-money-assetsIt points to a page on the FCA website which could explain why COL's Interim Permission ceased. There are 3 categories of FCA firm, small, medium and large. A firm is assessed each calendar year, and must report by Jan 15th. It must also make a forward prediction on Feb 1st each year. In 2017 COL went from a small to medium firm. This means COL had to adhere to monthly reporting of CMAR. (Client money and asset return). If they didn't report CMAR monthly then I can see why the FCA ceased the Interim Permission.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 5, 2018 17:04:15 GMT
as a non-bridgecrowder - how are they perceived ? are they any less clownlike/amateurish/crooked (delete as you see fit) than the Coll boys ? (or is that yet to be determined) on a quick read they seemed to be skipping between grey areas but again I'm not familiar with them Do you really want to refer to the 'Coll boys' as 'crooked'? I posted earlier that "COL was operating ..." - let's say my opinion / observation was that it was outside of the laws of the land. An opinion / observation that tied in with several other posts which made assertions over the legality of Cols operational status such as this one -- notable for having been 'liked' by both an admin and a moderator. Mine was pulled. Yours may be too. BTW - not knocking samford71 ' post or yours, just wishing for a bit of consistency when it comes to moderating. I don't think it can be in any doubt that COL were operating outside of the legal requirements that they should have conformed to.
Is that the same as "crooked"? It's all about intent. I don't believe that COL intended to operate outside the requirements - quite the opposite, in that I think everybody (including the FCA) believed they were operating correctly under a valid interim permission - so I don't think "crooked" an apposite word. In any event, it certainly doesn't help to move anything forward...
|
|
|
|
Post by steelspanner on Apr 5, 2018 17:13:03 GMT
I reckon that when we have moved forward another 96 pages we will not be any further forward.😡
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Apr 5, 2018 17:15:10 GMT
I reckon that when we have moved forward another 96 pages we will not be any further forward.😡 There'll be a lot more people in DDC though.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 5, 2018 17:24:17 GMT
Hi new2p2p,
I wish to own up to being one of those who reported your post. I would have posted directly about it, but had previously left this discussion to those who were actually lenders with Coll, which presumably includes you - and I think you have every right to be displeased with the situation. I think that your statement had taken it clearly over the line, on an issue which will be before the courts on 27th. This is dangerous stuff for our forum, without which there would be no discussion. I think the mods have tried very hard, perhaps too hard, to allow people leeway here, and a number of statements have been made which were unwise, shall we say, and you were just the one who tripped the alarm. Your posts are generally valuable imo and appreciated. Being a mod here is a thankless task and quite difficult at times like this - I wouldn't do it. And they can be inconsistent. I was very surprised to see 14 posts removed because some posters were unpleasant to one another. But they volunteer and do their best. Now you can blame me, and I don't plan to respond.
|
|
zedi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 47
|
Post by zedi on Apr 5, 2018 18:17:57 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) Thanks for the link! Does anyone know what kind of bridging loans aren´t regulated by the FCA like mentioned by the BridgeCrowd statement? Are those property bridging loans on Collateral also unregulated and the issue here are only the bling loans?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 5, 2018 18:19:09 GMT
And before you let them off the hook read the thread on BL00079 on DD Central. Rather difficult for zedi (and others) at the minute. Sorry not sure what is allowable to post, but seems RR do not know seem to know where these funds are.
|
|
