GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jun 25, 2018 20:53:51 GMT
I may well have missed something here because I have not read every word but I am quite shocked to find out that the former member called DI has had private discussions with the Administrator and that there are investors who have invested on different, preferential terms to the rest of us if I understand it correctly. This is the complete opposite of transparency and it is quite clear that if this is true this person cannot be seen without doubt to be representing the interests of the majority of us. There is a conflict or apparent conflict of interest here. Also the fact that this person is not a COL investor ought to rule them out in the first round in my opinion. I was suspicious at an early stage when that particular person started arguing with me on the forum about why this job should be given to the big boys at BDO because that created concern in my mind about a possible connection particularly given the said person is from the same profession.
What I would like to see is that the persons on the creditor committee can all be seen to be independent of any special interests and broadly representative of investors as a whole - from the small time retail investor to the big hitter variety. What I think is required is a broad church of individuals none of whom have special interests or represent one group of investors above another.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 25, 2018 20:57:12 GMT
... The fact remains that DualInvestor conversed with BDO on behalf of a syndicate of members who invested on preferential terms. To expect others to believe that DualInvestor will now represent the interests of those not in the syndicate when votes are at stake is naive in my view. I've no idea who DualInvestor is and their identity is private (quite understandable given the degenerative nature of the various forums of late). ... Sorry. Getting more and more confused here. You know that dualinvestor spoke to BDO, that there is a syndicate on preferential terms that di represents, yet you/we don’t know who di actually is? I may need to reconsider my voting strategy. Do you have a source or link for this stuff please or can you elaborate further? A chapter never tells the whole story
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 25, 2018 20:59:57 GMT
I may well have missed something here because I have not read every word but I am quite shocked to find out that the former member called DI has had private discussions with the Administrator and that there are investors who have invested on different, preferential terms to the rest of us if I understand it correctly. This is the complete opposite of transparency and it is quite clear that if this is true this person cannot be seen without doubt to be representing the interests of the majority of us. There is a conflict or apparent conflict of interest here. Also the fact that this person is not a COL investor ought to rule them out in the first round in my opinion. I was suspicious at an early stage when that particular person started arguing with me on the forum about why this job should be given to the big boys at BDO because that created concern in my mind about a possible connection particularly given the said person is from the same profession. What I would like to see is that the persons on the creditor committee can all be seen to be independent of any special interests and broadly representative of investors as a whole - from the small time retail investor to the big hitter variety. What I think is required is a broad church of individuals none of whom have special interests or represent one group of investors above another. Lol....so maybe your opinion is slightly biased because you had an argument with him. Geez...egos!
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jun 25, 2018 21:18:31 GMT
It's got nothing to do with egos it's all about getting a fair and best possible outcome for all investors and for everyone to be treated fairly and equally and properly represented without people sitting on a creditors committee who have vested interests.
If it is true that the administrators have had private discussions with somebody who represents just a small group of investors then I think that is pretty shabby and should be flagged up because we were told they would not be talking to anybody and if somebody attempted to have such a private discussion I would have thought the correct response should have been to say that they cannot discuss and end the conversation.
If said person ends up being on the creditors committee I will personally object - if I should find out who that person is - for reasons that have been mentioned in this thread.
The financial world is a murky affair with very many vested interests and people need to be aware of that.
Also the fact that it would appear that a group of investors have taken their ball away and decided to play on another, smaller pitch is very unhelpful indeed and at a time like this when over 1000 people's money is at stake I think it would be adult to set aside differences and come back to the table in a collective way. A well used quote now is that we have more in common than that which divides us.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 25, 2018 21:22:45 GMT
It's got nothing to do with egos it's all about getting a fair and best possible outcome for all investors and for everyone to be treated fairly and equally and properly represented without people sitting on a creditors committee who have vested interests. If it is true that the administrators have had private discussions with somebody who represents just a small group of investors then I think that is pretty shabby and should be flagged up because we were told they would not be talking to anybody and if somebody attempted to have such a private discussion I would have thought the correct response should have been to say that they cannot discuss and end the conversation. If said person ends up being on the creditors committee I will personally object - if I should find out who that person is - for reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. The financial world is a murky affair with very many vested interests and people need to be aware of that. Also the fact that it would appear that a group of investors have taken their ball away and decided to play on another, smaller pitch is very unhelpful indeed and at a time like this when over 1000 people's money is at stake I think it would be adult to set aside differences and come back to the table in a collective way. A well used quote now is that we have more in common than that which divides us. So you say.....but you admit you hadn't read the whole thread and yet you were prepared to immediately accept what someone had said about DI.....perhaps have a look at Dudes post which offers a counter view.....or maybe go onto the other forum and speak directly with DI...rather than make an inflammatory post
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 25, 2018 21:25:04 GMT
I've had very limited time online for the last couple of weeks, so have only read a fraction of the posts on this board, and haven't fully digested the 21st June document yet. Nor have I had the time for much other research.
So can someone point me to the relevant sections in the statutory duties of administrators which explains how non creditors (non investors for our purposes) can be allowed to be on a creditors committee.
The following document published by ACCA seems to be relevant:
and raises a number of questions in my mind regarding this whole nomination process. I'll phrase a question for moorfields in the next few days.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 25, 2018 21:27:14 GMT
I've had very limited time online for the last couple of weeks, so have only read a fraction of the posts on this board, and haven't fully digested the 21st June document yet. Nor have I had the time for much other research.
So can someone point me to the relevant sections in the statutory duties of administrators which explains how non creditors (non investors for our purposes) can be allowed to be on a creditors committee.
The following document published by ACCA seems to be relevant:
and raises a number of questions in my mind regarding this whole nomination process.
You mean like Moorfields for example
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 25, 2018 21:38:16 GMT
More background reading
which suggests if more than 5 creditors (investors) nominate themselves, the administrators will have to organise a vote.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jun 25, 2018 22:27:00 GMT
It's got nothing to do with egos it's all about getting a fair and best possible outcome for all investors and for everyone to be treated fairly and equally and properly represented without people sitting on a creditors committee who have vested interests. If it is true that the administrators have had private discussions with somebody who represents just a small group of investors then I think that is pretty shabby and should be flagged up because we were told they would not be talking to anybody and if somebody attempted to have such a private discussion I would have thought the correct response should have been to say that they cannot discuss and end the conversation. If said person ends up being on the creditors committee I will personally object - if I should find out who that person is - for reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. The financial world is a murky affair with very many vested interests and people need to be aware of that. Also the fact that it would appear that a group of investors have taken their ball away and decided to play on another, smaller pitch is very unhelpful indeed and at a time like this when over 1000 people's money is at stake I think it would be adult to set aside differences and come back to the table in a collective way. A well used quote now is that we have more in common than that which divides us. So you say.....but you admit you hadn't read the whole thread and yet you were prepared to immediately accept what someone had said about DI.....perhaps have a look at Dudes post which offers a counter view.....or maybe go onto the other forum and speak directly with DI...rather than make an inflammatory post It doesn't offer a counter view though.
CD wrote on here - "I contacted DI a while back simply as an investor after he indicated he was meeting with BDO and would raise some questions. He offered that opportunity to anyone on FRANK".
I have no idea who DI is and I'm not on FRANK - Until now I thought it was a website for people with drug problems. So it is fact he/she offered to represent a select few investors and not the majority.
Did he meet with BDO? If so I find this worrying and irregular. Will I, as an investor, be charged for BDO's time in meeting somebody who was representing a minority of investors and not me?
IMO anybody who is putting themselves forward for the CC via the internet should write a short resume about themselves and how they will act, much like a candidate standing for election as a local councillor would put through your door.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 25, 2018 23:09:48 GMT
So you say.....but you admit you hadn't read the whole thread and yet you were prepared to immediately accept what someone had said about DI.....perhaps have a look at Dudes post which offers a counter view.....or maybe go onto the other forum and speak directly with DI...rather than make an inflammatory post It doesn't offer a counter view though.
CD wrote on here - "I contacted DI a while back simply as an investor after he indicated he was meeting with BDO and would raise some questions. He offered that opportunity to anyone on FRANK".
I have no idea who DI is and I'm not on FRANK - Until now I thought it was a website for people with drug problems. So it is fact he/she offered to represent a select few investors and not the majority.
Did he meet with BDO? If so I find this worrying and irregular. Will I, as an investor, be charged for BDO's time in meeting somebody who was representing a minority of investors and not me?
IMO anybody who is putting themselves forward for the CC via the internet should write a short resume about themselves and how they will act, much like a candidate standing for election as a local councillor would put through your door.
Try again.....I think you will find that people asked DI ..he didn't put himself forward...anyway at the end of the day you have your vote I have mine...best of luck with your resume's you haven't long.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 26, 2018 6:02:26 GMT
Sorry. Getting more and more confused here. You know that dualinvestor spoke to BDO, that there is a syndicate on preferential terms that di represents, yet you/we don’t know who di actually is? I may need to reconsider my voting strategy. Do you have a source or link for this stuff please or can you elaborate further? It is well known that DI sent a letter to BDO raising some question on behalf of the syndicate and received a response promising all investors would be given an update, which was duly posted to their website in the form of a FAQ on 2nd June. Perhaps that what dan1 is referring to, if not I'd also be interested in hearing more about this alleged conversation. Just reading Frank and apparently there is a private sub forum over there where DI and his syndicate can discuss his dealings with BDO. You couldn't make it up.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Jun 26, 2018 6:17:55 GMT
It is well known that DI sent a letter to BDO raising some question on behalf of the syndicate and received a response promising all investors would be given an update, which was duly posted to their website in the form of a FAQ on 2nd June. Perhaps that what dan1 is referring to, if not I'd also be interested in hearing more about this alleged conversation. Just reading Frank and apparently there is a private sub forum over there where DI and his syndicate can discuss his dealings with BDO. You couldn't make it up. Yes, it does appear that there is a lot going on behind the scenes. It does make me wonder whether there will be anyone on this creditor committee whose interests will be aligned with the majority of lenders, who (I presume) didn't invest with any preferential terms, don't have a complete record of their positions and are just looking for a conclusion that is closest to what they would have achieved from an orderly wind-up of the loan book without all of the regulatory issues.
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jun 26, 2018 6:33:32 GMT
Poison chalice for whoever does do it, they'll need a thick skin - they'll have their motives endlessly questioned even before they take part in a process that will leave most investors disappointed/angry Jack P
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Jun 26, 2018 6:42:06 GMT
Whilst I share some of the reservations expressed on this thread I take a rather broader view - that any lender, whether on the CC or not, wants the same basic result; return of 100% capital + interest in the shortest possible timescale (if this is achieved BDO fess are irrelevant). So given that is assumed to be the case our general priorities are broadly aligned & details such as individual loan return versus one pot creditors (which would favour riskier lenders over others) are much more likely to be determined by whether a full loanbook reconstruction, from the finally secured servers, is achieved as opposed to what any individuals may lobby to get one way or the other.
That said I have opted to support BondMason (Steve Findlay) as I believe a collective voice, who clearly have a public reputation to maintain, whilst perhaps not completely aligned to my own interests is preferential to an individual nominee (as previously stated without knowing them personally or having some sort of running manifesto it is a rather flimsy & potentially uncertain choice) I also have my doubts as to how effective a CC will prove with much of the progress or not being determined by the available information, court procedure/rulings & BDO/FCA rulebook rather than any lender input.
|
|
|
Post by Duane Dibley on Jun 26, 2018 7:41:53 GMT
Just reading Frank and apparently there is a private sub forum over there where DI and his syndicate can discuss his dealings with BDO. You couldn't make it up. Well, it's all becoming rather unedifying now. Much like two bald men fighting over a comb. Entertaining enough at first to draw a small crowd, but as the squabbling increases and the faces get redder and angrier, just descends into something rather more awkward and embarrassing and the crowd finds itself drifting away before punches are thrown. I won't be standing for the creditors committee nor will I be voting, I'll just be waiting quietly and patiently and letting the experts get on with their job whilst hoping for the best possible outcome.
|
|