bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,846
Likes: 1,482
|
Post by bugs4me on Mar 1, 2018 9:33:02 GMT
stevefindlay - in view of the recent events regarding another platform and bearing in mind that Bond Mason are not authorised by the FCA, please could you confirm that all client funds are held in a separate designated client account. This may be covered elsewhere but rather than spend time trawling through thought it may be quicker to simply ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Mar 1, 2018 10:04:31 GMT
|
|
savernake
Member of DD Central
Posts: 174 
Likes: 142
|
Post by savernake on Mar 1, 2018 10:33:15 GMT
The BondMason FAQ pages do say the funds are held in a separate client account held with Barclays. The FAQ also states - ' BondMason is not regulated by the FCA, however we have an application pending with the FCA for certain additional permissions'.
stevefindlay are you able to provide us with any update on the progress of this application? |
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Mar 1, 2018 11:45:25 GMT
All funds are held in a segregated client bank account in accordance with FCA CASS guidelines.
For the avoidance of doubt - client funds ARE NOT co-mingled with our operating funds and working capital.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,846
Likes: 1,482
|
Post by bugs4me on Mar 1, 2018 11:55:34 GMT
All funds are held in a segregated client bank account accordance with FCA CASS guidelines. For the avoidance of doubt - client funds ARE NOT co-mingled with our operating funds and working capital. - thank you for the clarification
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Mar 2, 2018 10:59:46 GMT
All funds are held in a segregated client bank account in accordance with FCA CASS guidelines. For the avoidance of doubt - client funds ARE NOT co-mingled with our operating funds and working capital. My understanding is that to operate a client money account you have to be FCA authorised. I cannot see that you are authorised but happy to be corrected if I am mistaken. Have your bank confirmed it is treating it as a CASS account? If so, on what basis have they done that seeing as you are not FCA authorised?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Mar 2, 2018 11:42:40 GMT
All funds are held in a segregated client bank account in accordance with FCA CASS guidelines. For the avoidance of doubt - client funds ARE NOT co-mingled with our operating funds and working capital. My understanding is that to operate a client money account you have to be FCA authorised. I cannot see that you are authorised but happy to be corrected if I am mistaken. Have your bank confirmed it is treating it as a CASS account? If so, on what basis have they done that seeing as you are not FCA authorised? Yes - the bank has provided a confirmation letter. It has been supplied on the basis that we have an application being progressed with the FCA. Which is still the current status. More to follow on this in the next month or so. Nearing the beginning of the end of that matter, which will be nice.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Mar 2, 2018 12:34:01 GMT
My understanding is that to operate a client money account you have to be FCA authorised. I cannot see that you are authorised but happy to be corrected if I am mistaken. Have your bank confirmed it is treating it as a CASS account? If so, on what basis have they done that seeing as you are not FCA authorised? Yes - the bank has provided a confirmation letter. It has been supplied on the basis that we have an application being progressed with the FCA. Which is still the current status. More to follow on this in the next month or so. Nearing the beginning of the end of that matter, which will be nice. According to FCA register BM has no permissions, no interim permissions and is no longer an Appointed Representative. So, what permissions have you actually applied for? It cannot be A36/electronic lending as your model is not compliant with that. What makes you believe you can trade without any permissions currently? Are you just another Collateral waiting for the FCA to come and close you down? Please explain your precise regulatory standing as of today. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Mar 2, 2018 14:48:13 GMT
Yes - the bank has provided a confirmation letter. It has been supplied on the basis that we have an application being progressed with the FCA. Which is still the current status. More to follow on this in the next month or so. Nearing the beginning of the end of that matter, which will be nice. According to FCA register BM has no permissions, no interim permissions and is no longer an Appointed Representative. So, what permissions have you actually applied for? It cannot be A36/electronic lending as your model is not compliant with that. What makes you believe you can trade without any permissions currently? Are you just another Collateral waiting for the FCA to come and close you down? Please explain your precise regulatory standing as of today. Thanks Dandy - No interim permissions: these were only supplied to entities operating prior to April 2015. This didn't include us. No Appointed Rep: when you submit a regulatory application you have to resign your Appointed Rep status when the application gets appointed a Reviewer. Which is why we are no longer an appointed rep (you can see our history of once being a Appointed Rep); our case has been appointed a reviewer (a long time ago). No permissions: the analysis is that Receivables Models (e.g. Market Invoice; ours) don't require permissions. But... Our application: ...we want to be approved, as feel our Innovative model (we were one of the first companies accepted onto the FCA Innovation Hub programme early in 2015) would be easier to market if we had FCA permissions in some aspects of our operations (we wouldn't need to keep rolling out this answer, for example). Current application status: we are no longer applying to be a 36(h) platform as, after 2 years of dialogue, it was deemed our Receivables service isn't a 36(h) platform (the analysis isn't as simple as you may suspect). We have accepted that analysis, and amended our application to enable us to offer a series of IF ISA bonds alongside the Receivables model; more on those in due course - and are awaiting the sign off for this. What makes us believe we can trade: we are in regular dialogue with the FCA (see above); and have legal analysis supporting our approach. I understand your sensitivity to this topic; and don't mind you asking these questions. Hope this is all clear - it is just a summary.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Mar 4, 2018 9:50:23 GMT
Thanks for this Steve. So what you are saying is you do not have any permissions and you do not need any. You are applying for permission however for new bond products. This is the best news I have had in a long time. I have always quite fancied myself as a fund manager but was put off by the cost and effort of FCA permission and all that red tape. And I am currently at a bit of a loose end. Sorry, I was at a bit of a loose end but now, I have decided. I will be opening Dandy Bonds next week.  Terms will be: 10% to investors. Paid monthly. Capital back whenever they want it if i can get it. I just need to sort out the domain and form a company. I will make sure I have 2 bank accounts too. Very exciting. Thank you once again. |
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Mar 4, 2018 13:40:16 GMT
Thanks for this Steve. So what you are saying is you do not have any permissions and you do not need any. You are applying for permission however for new bond products. This is the best news I have had in a long time. I have always quite fancied myself as a fund manager but was put off by the cost and effort of FCA permission and all that red tape. And I am currently at a bit of a loose end. Sorry, I was at a bit of a loose end but now, I have decided. I will be opening Dandy Bonds next week. Terms will be: 10% to investors. Paid monthly. Capital back whenever they want it if i can get it. I just need to sort out the domain and form a company. I will make sure I have 2 bank accounts too. Very exciting. Thank you once again. To be a fund manager you would likely need AIFM permissions. BondMason isn't a fund. To offer bonds, you also need permissions or need the Financial Promotion approved by an FCA regulated firm. BondMason isn't yet offering a bond. As we are applying for those permissions.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Mar 4, 2018 15:57:37 GMT
One of the other challenges with not being regulated is regarding complaints.
If a lender puts in a complaint and the lender is not happy with the response, they cannot follow up with the FOS. All they could do is go via a court.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Mar 4, 2018 16:09:54 GMT
According to FCA register BM has no permissions, no interim permissions and is no longer an Appointed Representative. So, what permissions have you actually applied for? It cannot be A36/electronic lending as your model is not compliant with that. What makes you believe you can trade without any permissions currently? Are you just another Collateral waiting for the FCA to come and close you down? Please explain your precise regulatory standing as of today. Thanks Dandy - No interim permissions: these were only supplied to entities operating prior to April 2015. This didn't include us. No Appointed Rep: when you submit a regulatory application you have to resign your Appointed Rep status when the application gets appointed a Reviewer. Which is why we are no longer an appointed rep (you can see our history of once being a Appointed Rep); our case has been appointed a reviewer (a long time ago). No permissions: the analysis is that Receivables Models (e.g. Market Invoice; ours) don't require permissions. But... Our application: ...we want to be approved, as feel our Innovative model (we were one of the first companies accepted onto the FCA Innovation Hub programme early in 2015) would be easier to market if we had FCA permissions in some aspects of our operations (we wouldn't need to keep rolling out this answer, for example). Current application status: we are no longer applying to be a 36(h) platform as, after 2 years of dialogue, it was deemed our Receivables service isn't a 36(h) platform (the analysis isn't as simple as you may suspect). We have accepted that analysis, and amended our application to enable us to offer a series of IF ISA bonds alongside the Receivables model; more on those in due course - and are awaiting the sign off for this. What makes us believe we can trade: we are in regular dialogue with the FCA (see above); and have legal analysis supporting our approach. I understand your sensitivity to this topic; and don't mind you asking these questions. Hope this is all clear - it is just a summary. Very thorough response. Thanks for that. Does Bond Mason have any indemnity insurance to cover for example any of their staff doing anything fraudulent? I should say I really don't think you are or have any reason to think you would do anything like this. It might just provide lenders some cover in certain circumstances?
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Mar 4, 2018 18:31:46 GMT
Possibly off topic but I’m interested that permission is needed to offer “bonds”. The word bond is one of my personal hates since it is used in so many places for so many things (premium bond, nationwide investment bond, corporate/company bonds, government bonds/gilts, timeshare bonds, wisealpha bonds, etc, etc). All with widely differing behaviour, risks, returns. All of which is likely to confuse consumers or make them think that some thing is more secure than it really is. “My word is my bond” and all that. so is it a particular type of bond which needs this extra permissions or care before offering or is it a “bond”? Agreed. It can be confusing. This is one example... I must say I am in no way inferring anything like this is going on with Bond Mason. It is just an example as you asked. www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2015/sep/05/independent-portfolio-managers-ipm-mini-bond-losses. From what I know which may not be quite the correct language. IPM approved the financial promotion of the bond. The bond itself was not regulated by the FCA, but IPM was authorised and regulated for financial promotions and signed off the promotions. The authorisation of IPM was later revoked by the FCA. This case has been going on for several years via the FOS and it looks like it may finally be coming to a conclusion this year in terms of a final ruling from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Mar 4, 2018 20:42:50 GMT
Yes - we have Professional Indemnity and D&Os insurance.
|
|
