cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Apr 28, 2021 1:10:29 GMT
About time these administers start earning the obscene amount of money they are charging us . I am getting so depressed of waiting for some sort of payout. I am 80 years old will I ever see any of my investmet returned from any of my loans? The only chance of much is the hard work from certain members in LAG (do you know about this; I see you only have one post here) I think. Things are in court. Legal proceedings are glacial.
The whole thing has shown me that P2P is simply too risky because of the lack of regulation and catastrophic risk being with platform failure. The interesting thing is that back when I was learning about P2P, this was never declared to be the main risk, with most commentators trusting the platforms that claimed to have systems in place to support lenders should they fail. As an aside, I suspect the big banks allowed or perhaps encouraged P2P in order to reduce pressure from government to lend riskier loans (that 'help' the economy) and thus reduce the banks' exposure to risk a bit. It is a way to get savers to directly absorb the potentially toxic debt, instead of the banks. Mind you, my experience of banks over the last few years is that they may simply be wanting to cut down on having to deal with the little people; have you tried opening an account recently?
I'd much prefer having a lack of regulation than having regulation working against us. I keep refering to Mintos, which is an international platform that is not regulated by the FCA and is doing WAY better than any UK p2p platform. The administrative useless paperwork create additional cost passed to investor. (For example, this KYC thing are cost passed to investors.) I still remember the rules the FCA added which prevented late loan to be sold. Suddenly the entire liquidity of the platform disappeared. That was years ago. It was the beginning of the doom. If you deprive a growing platform of funding it will tank in any case. Mintos allows to sell non performing loan at discount and there is a big market for that. It gives fee to the platform as well so it creates an economy. And I don't know if you remember as well.. it was the FCA who discussed with Lendy and agreed with them to go into administration. At that time due to pressure they were also making sure lendy couldn t get any more money. How else would they survive? And then when administration happened, I was shocked by the administrators fee. What job can pay £300-500/h? And they don't even have accountability. That is madness. I used to think that crypto was extremely high risk investment and p2p with assets back investments were way safer. How wrong I was. At least with crypto the game is fair. The risk and gain are clearly presented. With P2P, it feels like the entire system is against the investor.
|
|
garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on Apr 28, 2021 8:35:36 GMT
And then when administration happened, I was shocked by the administrators fee. What job can pay £300-500/h? And they don't even have accountability. This kind of comment irks me! I think you'll find there are several overheads before salaries get dished out, e.g. support staff, buildings/offices, furniture, computers, running costs e.g. utilities... This is not an assessment either way about the job the administrators are doing, and I don't know what the top guys' remunerations are, but their actual pay will be a fraction of the hourly rate, maybe somewhere between 20% and 50%?
|
|
sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Apr 28, 2021 8:37:25 GMT
I'd much prefer having a lack of regulation than having regulation working against us. You have me wrong; you think I am a supporter of the FCA. My point is that I believe they have been inadequate. To give Lendy full approval knowing that they had serious failings, and justifying this full approval BECAUSE they had failings is utterly wrong. It is like the medical authorities giving a dangerous surgeon a qualification to operate because, although they are utterly incompetent, it is a way to keep them from doing black market organ trade. To the public, it indicates a level of trust which simply should not exist. The point is that without adequate regulation the outcomes are more random. You mention Mintos; great. What if a Mr Brooks took control of it? Would it still be great? But then it is always going to be impossible for authorities to stay ahead of unscrupulous exploiters; the financial incentives are biased towards the exploiters. This is why a 'decent' system (where everyone knows the odds) only stabilises after a while. Banks have been around forever. P2P and crypto not so much. I believe KYC/AML is a way for government and police to force normal companies into financial police work, at the same time potentially exposing massive amounts of personal data to identity fraud. It is a way to pass the responsibility and reduce costs for the police. People should not be assumed guilty until proven innocent (it is fundamentally contrary to the foundation of our western justice systems) and certainly should not be policed by every commercial company that handles a bit of money for them. Why stop at financial companies? Why not have every branch of Tesco doing KYC/AML? It should be the job of investigative police performing work arising from justifiable suspicion (not just because someone has some dosh) or crime. The whole wording of the policy is vague, with no clear criteria, putting all responsibility on the companies to do what they guess they should be doing (who then have to increase costs because they have to pay a lawyer to advise them so that they can say they took professional advice). For any company that makes money from paper pushing, and has no competition (e.g. an appointed administrator), it is a gravy train. When a P2P company collapses, administration and court proceedings are always going to be hugely costly because of the number of people and contracts involved; it is messy! Also, the less efficiently the administrators work, the more they can justifiably cut from the carcass. Unless administrators are closely scrutinised by a competent body with integrity, this will always be the case. Even then, one reason costs are so high is because work can be sub contracted. They can do sweet fanny adams having subbed it out to another ranch. Oh, and of course, they will want to pay for advice from lawyers to cover every tiny possibility of risk, too; why should they take on any responsibility? Just pile it on to the costs. Sub contracting and consulting in an attempt to avoid responsibility is rife and it racks up cost. I agree with you about crypto; the fact that it is pure gambling is open to anybody to see.
Sorry, all this is off topic. It should be discussed (and has been!) elsewhere.
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Apr 28, 2021 16:25:11 GMT
And then when administration happened, I was shocked by the administrators fee. What job can pay £300-500/h? And they don't even have accountability. This kind of comment irks me! I think you'll find there are several overheads before salaries get dished out, e.g. support staff, buildings/offices, furniture, computers, running costs e.g. utilities... This is not an assessment either way about the job the administrators are doing, and I don't know what the top guys' remunerations are, but their actual pay will be a fraction of the hourly rate, maybe somewhere between 20% and 50%? Some modest calculation to show you the amount of profit they make:- Let say a simple clerk doing the KYC check. Nothing special. Probably paid £20-25k/year, that's about £100/day or £12.50/hour. So even if charged £200/h it's way over 10 fold margin. - Now let take a higher up role, let say an accountant or something of that sort. These guys are usually paid £40-60k/year. So £150-200/day or £20-25/h (gross). At £300/h it's 10 fold again but of course it's way more. I actually regularly work through design agency who will bill the end client. It's a similar set up, there is a bunch of employee in the agency who will do some work for the end client. The agency has to provide the office, support, furniture, computer, utilities so that the employees can do the job for the end client. There is of course directors, managers, business development, etc. etc. And the rate are as follow: - The design agency pays his staff between £20k and £80k depending on the seniority then charge back the client. - A junior staff earning £20k/year will be charged £400/day. (Per day, not hour) - A mid weight earning £30-40k/year will be charged £600-800/day - A director/manager at £80k/year will be charged £1000-1500/day And these agencies still thrive and keep growing. They regularly do pitch as well where they spent big amount of money resulting in potentially nothing. A £30-40k staff will cost the agency £150/day. Then it's charged back £600-800. That's where you have the earning fraction at 20-50% of the daily rate. That is what they should charge. That's how normal capitalism work. Madness is when administrator can charge at an hourly rate what is usually charged at a daily rate in an open market system.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,618
Likes: 4,191
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 28, 2021 16:53:43 GMT
This kind of comment irks me! I think you'll find there are several overheads before salaries get dished out, e.g. support staff, buildings/offices, furniture, computers, running costs e.g. utilities... This is not an assessment either way about the job the administrators are doing, and I don't know what the top guys' remunerations are, but their actual pay will be a fraction of the hourly rate, maybe somewhere between 20% and 50%? Some modest calculation to show you the amount of profit they make:- Let say a simple clerk doing the KYC check. Nothing special. Probably paid £20-25k/year, that's about £100/day or £12.50/hour. So even if charged £200/h it's way over 10 fold margin. - Now let take a higher up role, let say an accountant or something of that sort. These guys are usually paid £40-60k/year. So £150-200/day or £20-25/h (gross). At £300/h it's 10 fold again but of course it's way more. I actually regularly work through design agency who will bill the end client. It's a similar set up, there is a bunch of employee in the agency who will do some work for the end client. The agency has to provide the office, support, furniture, computer, utilities so that the employees can do the job for the end client. There is of course directors, managers, business development, etc. etc. And the rate are as follow: - The design agency pays his staff between £20k and £80k depending on the seniority then charge back the client. - A junior staff earning £20k/year will be charged £400/day. (Per day, not hour) - A mid weight earning £30-40k/year will be charged £600-800/day - A director/manager at £80k/year will be charged £1000-1500/day And these agencies still thrive and keep growing. They regularly do pitch as well where they spent big amount of money resulting in potentially nothing. A £30-40k staff will cost the agency £150/day. Then it's charged back £600-800. That's where you have the earning fraction at 20-50% of the daily rate. That is what they should charge. That's how normal capitalism work. Madness is when administrator can charge at an hourly rate what is usually charged at a daily rate in an open market system. Unfortunately rates in some professions are high.
About 25 years ago I worked for a company that went to arbitration with the Welsh Office. Our QC was on £350 / hr and when he went on holiday shortly before a preliminary hearing we paid £20k to his mate to look through about 5 files of information and repreent us at a one day hearing.
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Apr 28, 2021 21:11:38 GMT
Unfortunately rates in some professions are high.
About 25 years ago I worked for a company that went to arbitration with the Welsh Office. Our QC was on £350 / hr and when he went on holiday shortly before a preliminary hearing we paid £20k to his mate to look through about 5 files of information and repreent us at a one day hearing.
To some extent, a high rate isn't a problem if it gets sorted well. That's why you paid this £20k for 5 files and a day hearing. It has accountability as well. You wouldn't keep him if it wasn't progressing fast. The problem here is the system is against us. We can't decide who to use, there is no accountability for errors or delays (it actually benefit them to make mistake as they can charge more fees). And what worse, they use our own fund for a legal battle on illegal lendy's fee. Even when the judge discarded that, it resulted in them earning even more money from us. That is what I meant by a system made to be against us. Which is designed and approved by the FCA. Which, ironically, has no accountability either as we can't sue them.
|
|
one21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 265
|
Post by one21 on Apr 29, 2021 11:38:10 GMT
Unfortunately rates in some professions are high.
About 25 years ago I worked for a company that went to arbitration with the Welsh Office. Our QC was on £350 / hr and when he went on holiday shortly before a preliminary hearing we paid £20k to his mate to look through about 5 files of information and repreent us at a one day hearing.
To some extent, a high rate isn't a problem if it gets sorted well. That's why you paid this £20k for 5 files and a day hearing. It has accountability as well. You wouldn't keep him if it wasn't progressing fast. The problem here is the system is against us. We can't decide who to use, there is no accountability for errors or delays (it actually benefit them to make mistake as they can charge more fees). And what worse, they use our own fund for a legal battle on illegal lendy's fee. Even when the judge discarded that, it resulted in them earning even more money from us. That is what I meant by a system made to be against us. Which is designed and approved by the FCA. Which, ironically, has no accountability either as we can't sue them. .......... All of this on top of the fact that Lendy / SSSH are being handled by the administrators as though they were a legitimate company, whereas they were in fact operating as an incompetent company (over valuations etc) throwing Lenders good money after bad and authorised by the FCA into the bargain. This is another reason why the Lenders are being penalised with their funds being gobbled up. I think the time it's taking to investigate and deal with this underhand activity should be met by the FCA at least.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,570
Likes: 6,560
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 30, 2021 15:23:38 GMT
Looks like the case has been reawakened at the court. A filing was made this afternoon
|
|
|
Post by gaza77 on May 1, 2021 11:56:19 GMT
Looks like the case has been reawakened at the court. A filing was made this afternoon What on earth can the filer of the claim hope to achieve, apart from delaying things further and costing us more money that will probably go to RSM and Liam? Surely there is no further mileage in this case?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on May 1, 2021 13:29:06 GMT
Looks like the case has been reawakened at the court. A filing was made this afternoon What on earth can the filer of the claim hope to achieve, apart from delaying things further and costing us more money that will probably go to RSM and Liam? Surely there is no further mileage in this case? Same amount of mileage in the case as there was at the start. The case has never been heard.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 2, 2021 8:13:24 GMT
Looks like the case has been reawakened at the court. A filing was made this afternoon What on earth can the filer of the claim hope to achieve, apart from delaying things further and costing us more money that will probably go to RSM and Liam? Surely there is no further mileage in this case? The filer of the case (the mother really) has spent a lifetime in winning (mostly) in and out of court settlements. Her Modus Operandi (one of them) is war of attrition.
|
|
|
Post by gaza77 on May 2, 2021 13:35:05 GMT
What on earth can the filer of the claim hope to achieve, apart from delaying things further and costing us more money that will probably go to RSM and Liam? Surely there is no further mileage in this case? The filer of the case (the mother really) has spent a lifetime in winning (mostly) in and out of court settlements. Her Modus Operandi (one of them) is war of attrition. Ironically, the mother, will be benefitting Lendy’s directors and RSM in delaying the payments to the investors. Not sure that was her intention?
|
|
|
Post by frannieo on May 6, 2021 4:30:18 GMT
Looks like the case has been reawakened at the court. A filing was made this afternoon What on earth can the filer of the claim hope to achieve, apart from delaying things further and costing us more money that will probably go to RSM and Liam? Surely there is no further mileage in this case? Any more information on the filing? Who is she claiming against this time? When will it be heard? Will this nightmare never end?
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 290
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on May 6, 2021 7:19:34 GMT
Is one allowed to continue to pursue a case having not paid costs from previous attempts, if so it would seem a way to endlessly make other people pay without any risk to yourself
|
|
|
Post by gaspilot on May 6, 2021 19:21:45 GMT
Excuse my ignorance of the law but given her track history etc, is there not a case of this person being a vexatious litigant and if so is there any recourse to that? Also, if my memory serves me correctly, as she wasn't the borrower wasn't she unable to file anything legally? Please correct my misunderstandings and legal naivety.
|
|