mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666 
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 5, 2018 18:24:57 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) 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. It's an interesting theory, but the FCA have stated that COL never held valid permission. This is consistent with the well supported view that permissions cannot be lawfully transferred between different Limited companies, which is what was done in error according to the FCA register. I think the notion that COL ever held the correct permissions to carry out their regulated activities has well and truly been laid to rest.
|
|
zedi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80 
Likes: 47
|
Post by zedi on Apr 5, 2018 18:26:25 GMT
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-creditOk, then it would be wise for them to consider a kind of emergency permission just to run down a loanbook in the future.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 5, 2018 19:05:43 GMT
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. I think it's probably ok to expand on this a little (I'm happy to remove if the mods think otherwise). I gather that RR is giving quite frank and honest responses to certain questions posed to them. Including speculating that investor money from one of the loans that has not drawn down might possibly instead have been loaned against one of the other assets. That's a rather fundamental misunderstanding of the business model - at least I hope it is! It does appear from what I have read that they've looked at the total money lent vs. total security held and not yet performed a reconciliation on a loan by loan basis, which is equally concerning if true.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Apr 5, 2018 19:21:47 GMT
Sorry not sure what is allowable to post, but seems RR do not know seem to know where these funds are. I think it's probably ok to expand on this a little (I'm happy to remove if the mods think otherwise). I gather that RR is giving quite frank and honest responses to certain questions posed to them. Including speculating that investor money from one of the loans that has not drawn down might possibly instead have been loaned against one of the other assets. That's a rather fundamental misunderstanding of the business model - at least I hope it is! It does appear from what I have read that they've looked at the total money lent vs. total security held and not yet performed a reconciliation on a loan by loan basis, which is equally concerning. If that is so, then it is very concerning. Also of concern (to me) is, who is the arbiter of which information is made available to the wider investor base and when, as well as which information is kept within ddc and why.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 5, 2018 19:37:45 GMT
If that is so, then it is very concerning. Also of concern (to me) is, who is the arbiter of which information is made available to the wider investor base and when, as well as which information is kept within ddc and why. There's probably not really a great deal on DDC which is not available on here - albeit requiring trawling through 95 pages.
The easiest way is just request to join DDC. There's no obligation to post there.
My experience is there's nothing on DDC which any individual could not discover themselves if they have the time to do so. Fortunately DDC enables a pooling of information. It's not a secret society.
So please join.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 5, 2018 19:46:10 GMT
I think it's probably ok to expand on this a little (I'm happy to remove if the mods think otherwise). I gather that RR is giving quite frank and honest responses to certain questions posed to them. Including speculating that investor money from one of the loans that has not drawn down might possibly instead have been loaned against one of the other assets. That's a rather fundamental misunderstanding of the business model - at least I hope it is! It does appear from what I have read that they've looked at the total money lent vs. total security held and not yet performed a reconciliation on a loan by loan basis, which is equally concerning. If that is so, then it is very concerning. Also of concern (to me) is, who is the arbiter of which information is made available to the wider investor base and when, as well as which information is kept within ddc and why. My understanding is that RR is keen to get a communication out in some form and is currently in dialogue with the FCA as to what they can tell the wider investor base. As for information kept within DDC, as I understand it, information that can be posted here should be posted here (and expanded on in DDC if necessary). TBH, I tend to forget to check DDC and so I always read through this thread first - if I then come across something in DDC that's new to me, I'll know to share it. There isn't much point posting into DDC to hide things from COL or RR, since lots of people have DDC access and we've already seen instances of information leaking in one direction.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 5, 2018 20:09:03 GMT
After a glass or two  This is the reply about the funds. Mods delete if you think necessary, but this was sent by RR so is/should be in the public domain? The particularly contentious part highlighted. ""As advised previously all monies are secured against properties, however the final analysis of the information has not been finalised at this point due to the issues with the FCA & trying to deal with the ongoing court matters, our time at the moment is tied up dealing with that issue and not what we should be doing which would enable me to answer all investors queries. I can confirm that based on all the information I hold all investor monies are secured against properties and the value considerably outweighs investments made, all investors are intended to get 100pence in the pound should we remain in office, if another firm are appointed, I cannot determine what the outcome might be. I can say as a matter of fact that the balance you refer to has not been part of a ponzi scheme and has not been used by the Directors. I can only assume at present that this balance isn’t against the Chesterfield property but against some of the other larger developments, but I can’t say this for definite at the moment as detailed above. I am speaking with solicitors today about the information we have and what I can provide to investors to provide everyone with an update, and how I go about this in the circumstances. As advised I have been open and honest with all investors from the start of this process and continue to do so, should you wish to speak to the FCA in this manner then please feel free."" |
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Apr 5, 2018 21:31:21 GMT
Whilst beyond belief if its true that the Chesterfield money isn't in cash in a COL bank account, perversely if the funds have been advanced to the Bolton project, it may actually be good news for those in the Bolton loans as it may mean the funds required to complete the development could be much less than we were imagining. The smaller the funding gap, and the closer to completion the project is when funds becomes required, the easier it will be for the developer to either secure funds ranking behind the COL loans, or refinance the entire project as the development's value shouldn't be that far below the GDV.
On the otherhand it would effectively have increased the Chesterfield''s lenders' exposure (=risk) to the Bolton development beyond what they had put in directly, and would presumably be equivalent to the 15% third rank tranches for ranking purposes in the current loanbook windup situation.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Apr 6, 2018 1:40:53 GMT
After a glass or two This is the reply about the funds. Mods delete if you think necessary, but this was sent by RR so is/should be in the public domain? The particularly contentious part highlighted. ""As advised previously all monies are secured against properties, however the final analysis of the information has not been finalised at this point due to the issues with the FCA & trying to deal with the ongoing court matters, our time at the moment is tied up dealing with that issue and not what we should be doing which would enable me to answer all investors queries. I can confirm that based on all the information I hold all investor monies are secured against properties and the value considerably outweighs investments made, all investors are intended to get 100pence in the pound should we remain in office, if another firm are appointed, I cannot determine what the outcome might be. I can say as a matter of fact that the balance you refer to has not been part of a ponzi scheme and has not been used by the Directors. I can only assume at present that this balance isn’t against the Chesterfield property but against some of the other larger developments, but I can’t say this for definite at the moment as detailed above. I am speaking with solicitors today about the information we have and what I can provide to investors to provide everyone with an update, and how I go about this in the circumstances. As advised I have been open and honest with all investors from the start of this process and continue to do so, should you wish to speak to the FCA in this manner then please feel free."" This is not explaining if the funds had been drawn down, or why cash is not in col account. And yet the letter try to say all funds are there ... that’s is contradiction in my opinion. Thank you very much for sharing!
|
|
p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 218
Likes: 187
|
Post by p2pmark on Apr 6, 2018 2:38:41 GMT
After a glass or two This is the reply about the funds. Mods delete if you think necessary, but this was sent by RR so is/should be in the public domain? The particularly contentious part highlighted. ""As advised previously all monies are secured against properties, however the final analysis of the information has not been finalised at this point due to the issues with the FCA & trying to deal with the ongoing court matters, our time at the moment is tied up dealing with that issue and not what we should be doing which would enable me to answer all investors queries. I can confirm that based on all the information I hold all investor monies are secured against properties and the value considerably outweighs investments made, all investors are intended to get 100pence in the pound should we remain in office, if another firm are appointed, I cannot determine what the outcome might be. I can say as a matter of fact that the balance you refer to has not been part of a ponzi scheme and has not been used by the Directors. I can only assume at present that this balance isn’t against the Chesterfield property but against some of the other larger developments, but I can’t say this for definite at the moment as detailed above. I am speaking with solicitors today about the information we have and what I can provide to investors to provide everyone with an update, and how I go about this in the circumstances. As advised I have been open and honest with all investors from the start of this process and continue to do so, should you wish to speak to the FCA in this manner then please feel free."" Not sure what is more worrying: 1. the loans may not be ringfenced; or 2. the administrator seems entirely relaxed about this; or 3. the administrator seems to think that if the sum of the GDVs is more than the sum of the lent funds then all is fine. There are lots of reasons why this isn't true.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Apr 6, 2018 3:21:58 GMT
I think the contradictions within Administrator’s communication is most worrying, that’s indication that he doesn’t actually understand what is happening and Collateral’s book is not clear!
|
|
p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 218
Likes: 187
|
Post by p2pmark on Apr 6, 2018 3:38:59 GMT
Whilst beyond belief if its true that the Chesterfield money isn't in cash in a COL bank account, perversely if the funds have been advanced to the Bolton project, it may actually be good news for those in the Bolton loans as it may mean the funds required to complete the development could be much less than we were imagining. The smaller the funding gap, and the closer to completion the project is when funds becomes required, the easier it will be for the developer to either secure funds ranking behind the COL loans, or refinance the entire project as the development's value shouldn't be that far below the GDV. On the otherhand it would effectively have increased the Chesterfield''s lenders' exposure (=risk) to the Bolton development beyond what they had put in directly, and would presumably be equivalent to the 15% third rank tranches for ranking purposes in the current loanbook windup situation. If true (and it's a big if), it would explain this post: p2pindependentforum.com/post/255476
|
|
moist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 241
Likes: 251
|
Post by moist on Apr 6, 2018 6:12:46 GMT
Whilst beyond belief if its true that the Chesterfield money isn't in cash in a COL bank account, perversely if the funds have been advanced to the Bolton project, it may actually be good news for those in the Bolton loans as it may mean the funds required to complete the development could be much less than we were imagining. The smaller the funding gap, and the closer to completion the project is when funds becomes required, the easier it will be for the developer to either secure funds ranking behind the COL loans, or refinance the entire project as the development's value shouldn't be that far below the GDV. On the otherhand it would effectively have increased the Chesterfield''s lenders' exposure (=risk) to the Bolton development beyond what they had put in directly, and would presumably be equivalent to the 15% third rank tranches for ranking purposes in the current loanbook windup situation. If true (and it's a big if), it would explain this post: p2pindependentforum.com/post/255476and make Col a fraudulent ponzi scheme......just my thought.
|
|
snowmobile
Member of DD Central
Posts: 230
Likes: 448
|
Post by snowmobile on Apr 6, 2018 7:27:37 GMT
After a glass or two This is the reply about the funds. Mods delete if you think necessary, but this was sent by RR so is/should be in the public domain? The particularly contentious part highlighted. ""As advised previously all monies are secured against properties, however the final analysis of the information has not been finalised at this point due to the issues with the FCA & trying to deal with the ongoing court matters, our time at the moment is tied up dealing with that issue and not what we should be doing which would enable me to answer all investors queries. I can confirm that based on all the information I hold all investor monies are secured against properties and the value considerably outweighs investments made, all investors are intended to get 100pence in the pound should we remain in office, if another firm are appointed, I cannot determine what the outcome might be. I can say as a matter of fact that the balance you refer to has not been part of a ponzi scheme and has not been used by the Directors. I can only assume at present that this balance isn’t against the Chesterfield property but against some of the other larger developments, but I can’t say this for definite at the moment as detailed above. I am speaking with solicitors today about the information we have and what I can provide to investors to provide everyone with an update, and how I go about this in the circumstances. As advised I have been open and honest with all investors from the start of this process and continue to do so, should you wish to speak to the FCA in this manner then please feel free."" This is extremely worrying. What has happened to the monies advanced by lenders during February is the most significant issue in this whole sorry mess and needs to be investigated by the FCA ASAP. I have rising concerns that their 'new' T&C apparently give the company free reign to do whatever they want with that money, as they do not think it is subject to FCA regulation. RR were asked a simple question. That they are having to make assumptions leads me to wonder if they really do have full access to the company accounting records. The money is either still in the bank account or it has been advanced to the borrower on draw-down. It should be a very simple process to check, the money is either there (safely segregated in a bank account) or it is not. It goes without saying that there should be no circumstances in which money funded for a specific loan should be used for any other purpose. None at all. That it is why it should be ring-fenced. The suggestion that the balance could have been used against another development is beyond belief. By now I would have expected RR to have compiled a full record of individual loans and be able to detail this to individual lender level. Regardless or whether they are allowed to release this information to lenders they should have access to it. It is their job to compile a full statement of affairs. What they appear to have instead is just a broad overview that total assets are 'valued' at more than the total due to lenders, therefore we are getting "100p in the pound". Just when I think the situation cannot get any worse I read this reply sent by RR yesterday. It was originally posted on the DD area, so if I'm not supposed to quote it here, let me know and I'll delete or move this bit. Further evidence that RR really do not understand the business they are dealing with and what ring fenced means. For the loans not yet drawn down they cannot possibly be secured against the relevant asset, if legals have not been completed and charges not registered. I also note the change from "all investors are intended to get 100pence in the pound" to "when an asset would be realised the relevant investors would be paid out accordingly". This is very different.
|
|
|
|
Post by dudester on Apr 6, 2018 8:51:38 GMT
if true that the Chesterfield money was used for other loans the situation could get messy as this is obviously completely unacceptable. As mentioned by other forum members, the fact that RR seems relaxed about this worries me. I for one would be much happier if the "expensive London firm" preferred by theFCA continued with the administration process.
|
|
This is the reply about the funds. Mods delete if you think necessary, but this was sent by RR so is/should be in the public domain? The particularly contentious part highlighted.
