|
Post by dan1 on Jun 26, 2018 7:55:54 GMT
I expected you to reply to my post (in fact, I would go so far as to say that if you hadn't I would have been disappointed ). It is entirely understandable given your position as a member of the syndicate who invested on preferential terms (I can only guess but enhanced cashback, interest rate, access to information etc? Rhetorical not requiring an answer). Safe to say that if I were in your position that I would have replied likewise. I understand where you're coming from because at the end of the day we're all investing to make money, cold hard money, by and large we're not in it for the greater good, why should we be? I expected you to garner significant support in your pumping of DualInvestor, there are those that are inside the syndicate who have a vested interest in supporting you and those who believe it is in their interests to support you to gain from your due diligence and perhaps one day access to the syndicate to be able to reap the rewards of preferential investor terms. 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). What you're implicitly telling me is look I know who they are so trust me. I'm afraid we've had that kind of endless BS from virtually every high yield platform on this forum and it just doesn't cut it with me anymore. I need to perform my own due diligence on anyone who influences my financial affairs be it platforms, borrowers, or those who purport to represent my interests, and I thought that you of all people would understand that but, it appears I'm mistaken. Moorfields Advisory and BondMason are known entities in public through which I can perform due diligence, and in the case of BondMason we know their interests lie in protecting their clients, again I would expect nothing less. It's all about vested interest at the end of the day. What on earth are you talking about? Have you been sniffing something? I wasn't endorsing DI, I was informing you why I nominated him and posted specifically because the guy can't respond himself because you lot banned him! It is nothing to do with syndicates at all. I know what you are implying, but I can reassure you that then the opportunity for DI to represent investors, for any investor who chose to respond came about via FRANK long before DI actually met with BDO and long before this Creditors meeting. It really is as simple as that; DI has no vested interest, no specific concern for any one party. He will speak his mind and he does know this sector (I don't, and won't, have to endorse him here; you can see from his posts that what I say is accurate). If you read my post in full, I ended by saying that it doesn't matter. I'm on the side of paul123 here; there is too much talk about nothing, and possibly some unessersery politics here by you. Some volunteers have raised their hands, I doubt there will be an oversupply for the meet (or skype... ) so take your pick of all of the above or one or the other. Why do you feel the need to resort to a personal insult? What possibly can it achieve? Do you have something to hide, anything that we should know? Everyone involved in the Collateral UK administration has a vested interest, to suggest that DualInvestor has no vested interest is disingenuous at best. We all have a vested interest in how this administration is handled but not of our interests are aligned, and to be honest I really can't see how you can deny that. As I understand it DualInvestor is a retired Insolvency Practitioner. It is not unreasonable that they have contacts at BDO, whether they be of a personal or professional nature, at present or some point in the past. For all we know they could have practiced at BDO as a partner. What I believe that everyone who is considering nominating DualInvestor should know is not only their allegiance to any investor syndicate(s), whether they personally invested on the platform or not, but also if there are any conflicts of interest due to his previous occupation. This information, call it due diligence, is directly relevant to decisions of who to vote for in terms of the creditors committee, and again honestly I can't see how you can argue with this. The fact that DualInvestor has already met with BDO raises my suspicions further. How on earth could someone with no investment in Collateral UK and no vested interest meet with a firm such as BDO, they don't have an open door policy and have stated that communication will be via email with investor questions answered by FAQs available to all? I'm baffled and disturbed, will they meet me or my representatives, no so why have they met with DualInvestor? I fail to believe that we're being told the whole truth here and I believe we have a right to know.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 26, 2018 8:34:05 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. LOL
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 26, 2018 8:35:41 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. Perhaps you could post the reasons behind that which you seem to have omitted..just might give people a chance to make their judgement on why that was the case
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 26, 2018 8:38:51 GMT
What on earth are you talking about? Have you been sniffing something? I wasn't endorsing DI, I was informing you why I nominated him and posted specifically because the guy can't respond himself because you lot banned him! It is nothing to do with syndicates at all. I know what you are implying, but I can reassure you that then the opportunity for DI to represent investors, for any investor who chose to respond came about via FRANK long before DI actually met with BDO and long before this Creditors meeting. It really is as simple as that; DI has no vested interest, no specific concern for any one party. He will speak his mind and he does know this sector (I don't, and won't, have to endorse him here; you can see from his posts that what I say is accurate). If you read my post in full, I ended by saying that it doesn't matter. I'm on the side of paul123 here; there is too much talk about nothing, and possibly some unessersery politics here by you. Some volunteers have raised their hands, I doubt there will be an oversupply for the meet (or skype... ) so take your pick of all of the above or one or the other. Why do you feel the need to resort to a personal insult? What possibly can it achieve? Do you have something to hide, anything that we should know? Everyone involved in the Collateral UK administration has a vested interest, to suggest that DualInvestor has no vested interest is disingenuous at best. We all have a vested interest in how this administration is handled but not of our interests are aligned, and to be honest I really can't see how you can deny that. As I understand it DualInvestor is a retired Insolvency Practitioner. It is not unreasonable that they have contacts at BDO, whether they be of a personal or professional nature, at present or some point in the past. For all we know they could have practiced at BDO as a partner. What I believe that everyone who is considering nominating DualInvestor should know is not only their allegiance to any investor syndicate(s), whether they personally invested on the platform or not, but also if there are any conflicts of interest due to his previous occupation. This information, call it due diligence, is directly relevant to decisions of who to vote for in terms of the creditors committee, and again honestly I can't see how you can argue with this. The fact that DualInvestor has already met with BDO raises my suspicions further. How on earth could someone with no investment in Collateral UK and no vested interest meet with a firm such as BDO, they don't have an open door policy and have stated that communication will be via email with investor questions answered by FAQs available to all? I'm baffled and disturbed, will they meet me or my representatives, no so why have they met with DualInvestor? I fail to believe that we're being told the whole truth here and I believe we have a right to know. Perhaps take his ban away and let him speak for himself? Just a thought......but all this is rather distracting ..still not long until it has to be sorted..5/7?
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 648
Likes: 444
|
Post by Mike on Jun 26, 2018 9:08:11 GMT
I haven't got anything lent through Col., but all this talk of "the majority of investors" is a bit silly. Money talks, like it or not, this is about absolute amounts lent not number of lenders. [There is a committee precisely to appease different groups of lenders, don't forget, there is no need for a single entity to win the vote..]
DI probably has enough weight behind him from those he has already got support from, and moaning about it for whatever reason seems silly. There may be a vote, and then a result. Complaining at BDO about a candidates eligibility doesn't sound productive to me [especially when this is to-and-fro between two forums]. After all, it sounds like his 'Syndicate' isn't much different to a group who would support him in being on the CC to represent them. Is there any difference? I'm not sure, but it's a moot point because this is money and people are allowed to have different views on who to entrust to behave in their own best interests. Are those interests going to be the same for everyone? Of course not. There's no point us seeking an ideal world where the CC can somehow perfectly represent everyone's interests because everyone's interests are not the same.
This forum is, at the end of the day, just a forum. It reminds me of a public stock & shares forum sometimes - by and large full of small investors [including me] who mean almost nothing in the grand scheme of the money machine. I have read all the posts on Col. here, and it's mostly just noise, we shout and shout but when it comes to it have little in the way of sensible thought-through alternatives.
An unhelpful aside: look at AC's costs in recovery with Epping [which were monster, and a very bad example, but an example of big recovery costs nonetheless]. Will the administrators be spending that kind of effort dealing with uncooperative borrowers, without treating the pot as one giant soup of money for everyone? Is their bill going to be itemised per loan that needs recovery action? Questions to think about -- who would pick up the tab on a loan where time & money is spent and there is no recovery (or less than enough to cover the time cost)?
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jun 26, 2018 9:17:12 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. I fully agree that BondMason has the experience, skillset and most of all reasonably aligned interest as Collateral investors (having invested themselves, they certainly will not be accepting any haircut). They could bring to the table both the collateral exit' solution and the free loan management offer they publicly made already months ago. I honestly don't understand why anyone else (DI) is even discussed, given the strenght of this proposal.3 minimum as I understand it
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jun 26, 2018 9:24:42 GMT
One initial solution publicly proposed was to transfer the whole loan book to a specialist company (like BondMason) which has the internal resources to deal with these additional loans without loosing out. In fact BondMason, which has a large investment in Collateral, had proposed themselves from the start in order to give the best chances to the loans to complete properly! This is the optimal solution to me, once the mess around the Collateral balance sheet (and eventual criminal activities) is sorted out by the administrator. Zero additional costs and real committment from someone who has iterest in full recovery! This whole mess arose "apparently" because Col were not authorised. I doubt the solution is to pass the loanbook over to another company that is also not authorised (BM)
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jun 26, 2018 10:49:00 GMT
This whole mess arose "apparently" because Col were not authorised. I doubt the solution is to pass the loanbook over to another company that is also not authorised (BM) BDO is not FCA authorised as well, so that is certainly not a critical factor. At this stage (company contracts closing down and liquidation with no new contracts to be opened) you need somebody with experience, a good legal team and time to dedicate (without extra charges) to the resolution of loans. The FCA full authorisation has a meaning for companies running and opening new loans. In my view it is not a requirement for orderly closing down loans to around 30 companies.... And to be honest BDO costs cannot be afforded (by the COllateral assets for sure) for potentially the 6-24 months which might be necessary to close down all the loans in case of refinancing problems. BDO are authorised by FCA register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000000MfViRAAVI don't necessarily disagree that BDO might be a case of using a 'sledgehammer to crack a nut', but that's where we are. Better them than their predecessors imho.
|
|
|
Post by karloshi on Jun 26, 2018 16:16:03 GMT
If people want to represent others in the creditors committee it would be helpful to those considering using their services if they could post on here their sales pitch.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Jun 26, 2018 16:51:29 GMT
I fully agree that BondMason has the experience, skillset and most of all reasonably aligned interest as Collateral investors (having invested themselves, they certainly will not be accepting any haircut). They could bring to the table both the collateral exit' solution and the free loan management offer they publicly made already months ago. I honestly don't understand why anyone else (DI) is even discussed, given the strenght of this proposal. Of those currently putting themselves forward, it is BM that concerns me the most. They have a full and accurate record of their positions and security and will be vigorously protecting those interests. I can easily see the scenario in which those that can prove their positions and security get first dibs on the recoveries, while those who cannot end up being demoted to sharing out whatever is left in a single pot after costs.
|
|
radar
Member of DD Central
Posts: 106
Likes: 62
|
Post by radar on Jun 26, 2018 17:24:28 GMT
I have a complete record of every transaction from day one to 16 Feb, but I cannot see I have any advantage over anyone.
Am I right in thinking that the interest was taken up front and held by Collateral and should be in an account, but the loan amount may not have been recovered and in some cases not due for repayment until a later date.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,637
Likes: 4,210
|
Post by agent69 on Jun 26, 2018 17:41:25 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. I thought the idea of the other place was that it was somewhere that you could have open and honest debate. Not certain a restricted sub-forum really fits the bill.
I'm not keen on DI, as poachers often don't make good game keepers. Also, while syndicates have been around for a long time (and there's nothing wrong with like minded people getting together for their mutual benefit) I would need visibility of who is in with DI before I can take his promoters seriously. I'm probably drifting towards BM, but accept that they have a certain amount of baggage with them. Whatever happens the CC are only there to give advice and have no powers to compel BDO to do anything. For those that are bored and want something to read:
|
|
caerus
New Member
Posts: 3
Likes: 2
|
Post by caerus on Jun 26, 2018 17:44:35 GMT
I can not see how the creditor's committee will achieve a great deal should full details of which investments people are in are not obtained. As I understand, if they are acting in accordance with the law that they do not have a conflict of interest and they have a duty to act in good faith, I cannot see any other alternative but a one pot system (which is not in my best interests but hey-ho).
Some people have stated they have full records of their transactions but it rather reminds me of Joe Lycett's Parking Ticket story on Countdown.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jun 26, 2018 17:48:30 GMT
Of those currently putting themselves forward, it is BM that concerns me the most. They have a full and accurate record of their positions and security and will be vigorously protecting those interests. I can easily see the scenario in which those that can prove their positions and security get first dibs on the recoveries, while those who cannot end up being demoted to sharing out whatever is left in a single pot after costs. I cannot imagine that would be legal. Either BDO obtain reliable investor allocations for the entire loanbook, or they dont. There cant be a half way house as you suggest as relying on investors' own records (however reliable they might appear) is a total non-starter.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Jun 26, 2018 17:54:14 GMT
Of those currently putting themselves forward, it is BM that concerns me the most. They have a full and accurate record of their positions and security and will be vigorously protecting those interests. I can easily see the scenario in which those that can prove their positions and security get first dibs on the recoveries, while those who cannot end up being demoted to sharing out whatever is left in a single pot after costs. I cannot imagine that would be legal. Either BDO obtain reliable investor allocations for the entire loanbook, or they dont. There cant be a half way house as you suggest as relying on investors' own records (however reliable they might appear) is a total non-starter. I hope you are correct.
|
|