averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Dec 12, 2018 20:53:53 GMT
Excuse my ignorance but on the chattel loans and we see that all but one has returned their stock....should there be a shortfall are the borrowers still obliged to pay any balance still outstanding after sale TIA No. As these are pawn agreements the borrowers exposure is limited to just the asset itself. Thanks
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Dec 12, 2018 23:14:03 GMT
Re: the update by Monetus about a letter to the FCA.
I would urge all COL investors to follow the lead of others and complain individually to the FCA about their register being wrong and misleading.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 13, 2018 5:19:25 GMT
Thanks for the update Monetus . Verifiable data sets of CC members are a tangible improvement on the recent 6m update. More reg updates on the website very welcome. In general, what was the first indication as to latest valuation levels of the chattels compared to the original loans (presumably now the borrowers have exited their pawn agreements that does not compromise NDA). Also, a fundamental, general point which I haven't been able to clarify. Is data retrieval at a loan/ tranche/lender level irrelevant (and costly) if all borrower and lender client monies are not fully traceable first? If these can't be 100% traced, is a general distribution the only outcome? (This is a general clarification only re distribution of client monies in a recovery, not asking where we are at on this for CUK under NDA ie any undrawn borrower funds not being on the client account as cash, for example.)
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 13, 2018 10:09:01 GMT
Thanks for the update Monetus . Verifiable data sets of CC members are a tangible improvement on the recent 6m update. More reg updates on the website very welcome. In general, what was the first indication as to latest valuation levels of the chattels compared to the original loans (presumably now the borrowers have exited their pawn agreements that does not compromise NDA). Also, a fundamental, general point which I haven't been able to clarify. Is data retrieval at a loan/ tranche/lender level irrelevant (and costly) if all borrower and lender client monies are not fully traceable first? If these can't be 100% traced, is a general distribution the only outcome? (This is a general clarification only re distribution of client monies in a recovery, not asking where we are at on this for CUK under NDA ie any undrawn borrower funds not being on the client account as cash, for example.) Everything to do with the specifics of the loan book (including valuation of assets) is covered by the NDA for the protection of investors' interests. In regards to your second point, a similar question touched upon this topic briefly and it was my understanding that no - the administrators don't necessarily need to be able to balance every single penny in order to make a "trust asset" distribution so the recovery of data is indeed valuable.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Dec 13, 2018 16:31:44 GMT
Monetus: Very many thanks for your continuing efforts (and those of your colleagues) on behalf of we casualties of the COL debacle.
|
|
picnicman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 238
Likes: 215
|
Post by picnicman on Dec 13, 2018 16:35:39 GMT
Monetus: Very many thanks for your continuing efforts (and those of your colleagues) on behalf of we casualties of the COL debacle. Seconded/Thirded or whatever position I am in thanking you!!!! Cheers P
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Dec 13, 2018 18:21:38 GMT
Monetus: Very many thanks for your continuing efforts (and those of your colleagues) on behalf of we casualties of the COL debacle. Seconded/Thirded or whatever position I am in thanking you!!!! Cheers P What they said
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,841
Likes: 2,756
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 13, 2018 21:25:18 GMT
He's only doing it for the sandwiches.
|
|
|
Post by p2psavvy on Dec 14, 2018 14:11:45 GMT
Fees
Whilst several Committee members expressed various concerns in regards to the level of fees in both a pre-Committee meeting and the main meeting itself, the decision was ultimately made to "accept the inevitable" and approve the Administrators fees to date. The alternative would be the Administrators having the ability to take the matter to court which would likely result in them being approved anyway and would create significant additional costs to the Administration (as well as significantly slowing progress made). The Administrators have agreed to provide a new updated estimate of total likely costs based on a worse case scenario and it's clear at this point that total costs will be higher than the original proposals presented by BDO on the 27th of June. I am disappointed that the committee has had to accept that the level of fees charged is inevitable.
How did the BDO representatives play this? Did they provide the committee with justification that the fees so far are fair, reasonable and unavoidable? Did they provide any detailed breakdown of actual activities to demonstrate that they are working efficiently and have costs tightly under control? Or did they just suggest that any challenge would be met by court proceedings? I am not trying to criticise the actions of the committee, I would just like to know what method BDO used to persuade them? To qualify my position, my wife and I have almost £80k tied up in Collateral, about 20% of our p2p investments.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 14, 2018 15:00:53 GMT
The scope for affecting fees must surely only be in agreeing what work is necessary to be done. The charge-out rates are set, and I guess that BDO might have some experience in recording and presenting their charges to a sufficient standard. Very basic learning of standard procedures.
|
|
picnicman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 238
Likes: 215
|
Post by picnicman on Dec 14, 2018 15:18:45 GMT
Monetus - sorry forgot to ask - did you manage to ask about the pre administration withdrawal of £350k+ by the Directors and whether this is being recovered? Cheers P
|
|
|
Post by p2psavvy on Dec 14, 2018 15:57:31 GMT
The scope for affecting fees must surely only be in agreeing what work is necessary to be done. The charge-out rates are set, and I guess that BDO might have some experience in recording and presenting their charges to a sufficient standard. Very basic learning of standard procedures. I raised my question as the fees where queried "pre-Committee meeting and the main meeting itself". Then accepted as inevitable. It is only the decision making process that I am interested in. What convinced the committee that the current and future fees are OK? Is not one of the primary purposes of the creditors committee to ensure that the fees are fair, reasonable and justified? Does the committee accept that they are, including the apparent increases expected, or were they advised that any challenge would be met with court action to defend them? The wording does suggest the latter. I am still not criticising the committee here. Just asking the question, as I have a large vested interest, and was not there. I had dealings with BDO, many years ago when I was in business, but as a client for the software that my business produced. They were easy to do business with and are still a client of the business that I sold in 2005!
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 15, 2018 15:52:48 GMT
Thanks for the update Monetus . Verifiable data sets of CC members are a tangible improvement on the recent 6m update. More reg updates on the website very welcome. In general, what was the first indication as to latest valuation levels of the chattels compared to the original loans (presumably now the borrowers have exited their pawn agreements that does not compromise NDA). Also, a fundamental, general point which I haven't been able to clarify. Is data retrieval at a loan/ tranche/lender level irrelevant (and costly) if all borrower and lender client monies are not fully traceable first? If these can't be 100% traced, is a general distribution the only outcome? (This is a general clarification only re distribution of client monies in a recovery, not asking where we are at on this for CUK under NDA ie any undrawn borrower funds not being on the client account as cash, for example.) Everything to do with the specifics of the loan book (including valuation of assets) is covered by the NDA for the protection of investors' interests. In regards to your second point, a similar question touched upon this topic briefly and it was my understanding that no - the administrators don't necessarily need to be able to balance every single penny in order to make a "trust asset" distribution so the recovery of data is indeed valuable. Thanks, that’s v useful on trust distribution (even if the jewels being handed back has made me a bit less keen on my conservative bling/cash/undrawn book!).
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 16, 2018 13:00:09 GMT
Monetus - sorry forgot to ask - did you manage to ask about the pre administration withdrawal of £350k+ by the Directors and whether this is being recovered? Cheers P Not a subject I am able to discuss.
|
|
picnicman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 238
Likes: 215
|
Post by picnicman on Dec 16, 2018 14:15:06 GMT
Monetus - ok thanks and understood Cheers P
|
|