tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300 
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Apr 6, 2018 9:21:23 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. We need someone *understand* the business model, and RR clearly didn’t. It is extremely worrying where the chesterfield funds has gone to.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 1,861
|
Post by archie on Apr 6, 2018 9:30:21 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. We need someone *understand* the business model, and RR clearly didn’t. It is extremely worrying where the chesterfield funds has gone to. Presumably RR are being assisted by COL management. You would hope they understand the business model. 
|
|
zedi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80 
Likes: 47
|
Post by zedi on Apr 6, 2018 9:45:21 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. Excuse me, I somehow lost the overview here but I really have to ask: Does this information come from a trustworthy source without any speculation?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Apr 6, 2018 9:52:56 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. Excuse me, I somehow lost the overview here but I really have to ask: Does this information come from a trustworthy source without any speculation? Unless the info is sourced from FCA press releases or from filed documents at companies house, any information should be assumed to be speculation or spin irrespective of who made it. Indeed the administrators make it clear its an assumption not fact
"I can only assume at present that this balance isn’t against the Chesterfield property but against some of the other larger developments"(assuming the original poster repeated it word for word from the reply they received from the administrators) My post was hypothesising as to which "larger development" might have benefited, and the consequences thereof. Pure speculation, it could equally have benefited the Scottish development which took ages for the 1st £60k dev tranche to be filled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Apr 6, 2018 10:03:41 GMT
Restating speculation, conspiricy & opinion as FACT & then drawing conclusions from those facts appears to have become the main purpose of this thread, or have I missed something?  |
|
p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 218
Likes: 187
|
Post by p2pmark on Apr 6, 2018 10:11:11 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. It's also unclear where the money for the February Blackpool bridging loans are.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 6, 2018 10:14:57 GMT
Restating speculation, conspiricy & opinion as FACT & then drawing conclusions from those facts appears to have become the main purpose of this thread, or have I missed something? Very valid points but IMO those conclusions are being driven by folks that have, or may be 'over committed' to the COL platform. So more than a few worries floating around perhaps.
The sooner the risk warnings are placed before the comforting '.....authorised and regulated by the FCA....' on platform websites the better.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Apr 6, 2018 10:15:10 GMT
Restating speculation, conspiricy & opinion as FACT & then drawing conclusions from those facts appears to have become the main purpose of this thread, or have I missed something? Nailed it lol
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Apr 6, 2018 10:34:55 GMT
Restating speculation, conspiricy & opinion as FACT & then drawing conclusions from those facts appears to have become the main purpose of this thread, or have I missed something? Nailed it lol speculation derived from the unprofessional approach of RR in the main ooh FACT is in capitals - that must add weight Now let's get that email campaign going again to keep them on the case
|
|
|
|
Post by medelm on Apr 6, 2018 10:56:25 GMT
To add to this speculation I think its all coming together for me, hear me out.
As per the report:
In the client account there is a balance of £395,404, which principally relates to 777 individuals
who have deposited money amounting to £370,553.
I will assume the £370,553 is on account money, as in, balance money sitting idle in the account. Money that either been just deposited or a loan part sold for example.
The difference of £24,851 at a guess would related to undrawndown loans. This is obviously far under the near £2,000,000 that should be there.
Now, where this starts to make sense is, Collateral more than any other platform kept loans up to fill and did not seem to care how long they took to fill. I mentioned it earlier but how does a company sustain 15% interest in a perdraw down stage for over 3 months on a 6 month loan when there margin is what 4% (?) and 2% fee AND also pay a cashback?
Some quick maths...
Loan Amount (from memory): £1,460,000
Predrawn down 3 Months at 15%: £73,000
Lets call it an average 2% cashback (possibly high): £29,200
Total Cost to Collateral: £102,200
Revenue at 4% margin for 6 months: £29,200
2% Fee costs: £29,200
Total Revenue: £58,400
Total LOSS on the loan: £43,800
Now either they had anticipated the loan to run WAY long (they will continue to make their margin) and at point it would break even (around a year LATE, so 6 month loan to 18 month loan) BUT the easier way to stop the loss? Lend the money out as you get it to another development paying the same interest! That loss then very quickly turns into a profit....
That makes sense to me and if so I am really pissed off. Collateral were using the funds as a play bucket and due to some loans not filling as fast as anticipated were stealing from the tin. Its not quiet a ponzi scheme but its not far off.
This is all speculation but with everything presented and how they have operated I unfortunately believe this to be the case.
Id appreciate the forums comments/views on this and if anyone had a legal opinion based on the T&Cs. To me this is NOT how the platform should operate but I am unsure if they T&C'd themselves out of it.
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Apr 6, 2018 11:42:47 GMT
Restating speculation, conspiricy & opinion as FACT & then drawing conclusions from those facts appears to have become the main purpose of this thread, or have I missed something? I guess P2P investors, by nature, abhor an information vacuum, eh  In lieu of fact, there's a tendency to write a script for this soap opera. What a comedy of errors!
|
|
jimc99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 284
Likes: 115
|
Post by jimc99 on Apr 6, 2018 13:16:32 GMT
Are we supposed to send off the "proof of debt" form attached to the administrators recent letter?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 6, 2018 15:07:06 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. Collateral were wither eligible for Peer to Peer Interim Permission by 31 March 2014 or not. That will be not then, as they were incorporated Nov 2014.
|
|
p2pete
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 142
|
Post by p2pete on Apr 6, 2018 16:00:58 GMT
The Collateral Companies were required to obtain the approval of the FCA when appointing an administrator. This is designed to protect investors by ensuring an independent person conducts the administration in the best interests of the investors. This did not happen. Accordingly the FCA has intervened to ensure investors are protected as the law requires.
On 16 March 2018, the High Court adjourned the FCA’s applications to 27 April 2018. Until then, the Court ordered that, barring incoming payment of loan interest and repayments and certain other administrative steps, the substantive progress of the administration should be paused.
The FCA will continue to work in the best interests of investors in the Collateral Companies. The case will return to the High Court in Manchester on 27 April 2018. I followed this up and when the FCA say investors they mean lenders. This is a real fact and confirmed by the FCA themselves!
|
|
p2pete
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 142
|
Post by p2pete on Apr 6, 2018 17:59:34 GMT
PS I was paraphrasing saying lenders, for clarity the FCA said: "We’re referring to individuals who have invested and paid money into this Peer to Peer Platform, with their funds being used to provide lending to other individuals."
|
|
