adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,874
Likes: 4,753
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 27, 2018 12:28:09 GMT
I always believed that the FCA would be hanging us out to dry when they appointed BDO You preferred RR? Never mind the investor-loan information, these are the people who didn't even notice the client account balance didn't correspond to the accounts. Good to see an open mind, ready to decide based on the facts... Then let me remind you where we're at... To date, £1.2m of cash received, together with £1.7m of bling loans defaulted and security in the administrators' possession. That's ~£3m of the £17m loan book already gathered in. Will the bling prove adequate security? <shrug> Remember, it has book value of £2.4m against loans of £1.7m - 70% LtV. And we were happy to loan against it on that basis. On whose DD? Collateral's... Why isn't the rest in? Because the borrowers are playing hard-to-get. Those borrowers are the people we were happy to lend to, based on whose DD? Collateral's... So what have we got here? A failure to enforce security competently, or inadequate security and shonky pre-loan DD? (Surely not! That'd be a first in the world of P2P, wouldn't it...?) Let's look at the time. ~450 hours spent across the three companies on "non-trust" administration (the three Col companies themselves), 660 on "trust" (the loanbook). Of the time on trust, 196hrs on the IT, 198hrs on the loanbook as a whole, 156hrs on specific loans. That doesn't look to me like "no sign whatsoever (even a pretence) that they are seriously working for investors/creditors benefit" - quite the opposite. I'm an IT techie - and, yes, I'm looking at the 200hrs of time on the IT side, and wondering is going on. But let's just remind ourselves why that time's even needed. Because RR patently failed completely in the most basic, very first task: securing the information - either through incompetence or malice. Of course, if you're of the preconception that the report is simply fabricated and bears no resemblance to reality, then... well, nothing in the report could ever change your opinion, could it?
|
|
stokeloans
Member of DD Central
Posts: 400
Likes: 484
|
Post by stokeloans on Nov 27, 2018 12:48:43 GMT
I quote adrianc"Then let me remind you where we're at...To date, £1.2m of cash received, together with £1.7m of bling loans defaulted and security in the administrators' possession. That's ~£3m of the £17m loan book already gathered in." Not quite,only £400,000 of loans actually turned into hard cash,£800,000 or thereabouts was in Collateral's bank accounts and none of the bling has yet been sold so it's anyone's guess how much that will total
|
|
peteuk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 120
Likes: 100
|
Post by peteuk on Nov 27, 2018 13:02:21 GMT
Since febuary now that some of the dust has settled, we are getting a clearer picture of what really went on. In my opinion the FCA in their heavy handed handling of the situation destroyed a platform that was making me money with no signs of distress. I as an unsophisticated invester allways checked tthe regisrer to see if they were okay which they WERE! The FCA were set up to protect the invester , but there kneejerk reaction let everyone down ,and there disgraceful questionnaire filled with lots of questions to trip you up. I DID NOT FILL IN . In the past i have on occasion phoned the FCA and have asked for the person dealing with PtoP issues, they did not have one. I complained about a certain other PtoP platform along with many others on this forum but they are still tradinding! which i find incredible I HOLD THE FCA WHOLLY TO BLAME FOR THIS DEBACLE and feel they should cover all losses plus compensation
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,155
Likes: 4,823
|
Post by ozboy on Nov 27, 2018 13:12:23 GMT
The FCA will get "sorted".
Many on here are motivated & relentless and won't ever give up until The FCA admits their obvious culpability, and compensates.
The only thing that really urinates me off is that the pathetic fatalists who go supine and do nothing will also benefit.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Nov 27, 2018 13:24:01 GMT
I always believed that the FCA would be hanging us out to dry when they appointed BDO You preferred RR? Never mind the investor-loan information, these are the people who didn't even notice the client account balance didn't correspond to the accounts. Good to see an open mind, ready to decide based on the facts... Then let me remind you where we're at... To date, £1.2m of cash received, together with £1.7m of bling loans defaulted and security in the administrators' possession. That's ~£3m of the £17m loan book already gathered in. Will the bling prove adequate security? <shrug> Remember, it has book value of £2.4m against loans of £1.7m - 70% LtV. And we were happy to loan against it on that basis. On whose DD? Collateral's... Why isn't the rest in? Because the borrowers are playing hard-to-get. Those borrowers are the people we were happy to lend to, based on whose DD? Collateral's... So what have we got here? A failure to enforce security competently, or inadequate security and shonky pre-loan DD? (Surely not! That'd be a first in the world of P2P, wouldn't it...?) Let's look at the time. ~450 hours spent across the three companies on "non-trust" administration (the three Col companies themselves), 660 on "trust" (the loanbook). Of the time on trust, 196hrs on the IT, 198hrs on the loanbook as a whole, 156hrs on specific loans. That doesn't look to me like "no sign whatsoever (even a pretence) that they are seriously working for investors/creditors benefit" - quite the opposite. I'm an IT techie - and, yes, I'm looking at the 200hrs of time on the IT side, and wondering is going on. But let's just remind ourselves why that time's even needed. Because RR patently failed completely in the most basic, very first task: securing the information - either through incompetence or malice. Of course, if you're of the preconception that the report is simply fabricated and bears no resemblance to reality, then... well, nothing in the report could ever change your opinion, could it? adrianc: So everything is fine and dandy then - we must have received different reports? That would explain why everybody posting here is so overjoyed?
|
|
alison
Member of DD Central
Sanctuary!!
Posts: 356
Likes: 99
|
Post by alison on Nov 27, 2018 13:30:15 GMT
So an (of course unnamed) firm of administrators takes a lifetime to realise the assets put up by some borrowers, but reaps substatntial fee payments.
The borrowers go under because of the lack of subsequent tranche funding, or the value of a unfinished developments plummeting because of delays in obtaining alternative funding.
So the borrowers go into administration.
And unnamed firms of administrators reap more substantial fee payments........
Is this the circle of life?
Why didn't I make the career choice of becoming an administrator?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,874
Likes: 4,753
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 27, 2018 13:34:28 GMT
adrianc: So everything is fine and dandy then Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me to where I said that? Clearly it is not "fine and dandy" - I'm simply saying to those screaming that the sky is falling on their heads, and it's all BDO's fault - "it isn't that simple".
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 27, 2018 14:05:45 GMT
The costs are high but let's not forget we are talking about a loanbook of the value of £17m. So a few % here or there is really not worth going to war over.
Blaming the FCA for all this seems a bit silly. Either that was a red line for you or it wasn't. For me (and I really believe at least 99% of investors) it wasn't. Even if it was it was only ever Interim capable of subsequent rejection for full permission. If it was a red line for you then I empathize with that but be prepared to show that you have never before invested through a company that does not have an FCA (or equivalent) permission. Other than that the FCA are hardly to blame for the shambles we are in, in fact they got rid of the biggest dangers to all of us imo, the owners and their cosy administrator.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 27, 2018 14:09:35 GMT
Since febuary now that some of the dust has settled, we are getting a clearer picture of what really went on. In my opinion the FCA in their heavy handed handling of the situation destroyed a platform that was making me money with no signs of distress.
You mean apart from the funds apparently not being where you were told they were, the IT system being apparently encrypted to within an inch of its life, and designed to self destruct on impact, and the 'in case of problem' nominated administrators (RR) now themselves being in administration?? How much signs of distress does it take to exceed your threshold? I'd accuse the FCA of being tardy to leap in, and culpable for the incorrect register status, but saying they should have waited a bit longer (until the funds were all firmly beyond the event horizon?) doesn't seem such a great suggestion.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Nov 27, 2018 14:09:35 GMT
adrianc: So everything is fine and dandy then Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me to where I said that? Clearly it is not "fine and dandy" - I'm simply saying to those screaming that the sky is falling on their heads, and it's all BDO's fault - "it isn't that simple". adrianc: I look at the fees being levied by BDO to date and then I look at what they have actually achieved to justify that huge sum. Now, in my world, that looks like legalised theft - but you are of course entitled to your opinion (as I am mine).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,874
Likes: 4,753
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 27, 2018 14:10:27 GMT
The borrowers go under because of the lack of subsequent tranche funding, or the value of a unfinished developments plummeting because of delays in obtaining alternative funding. So the borrowers go into administration. Why couldn't the borrowers refinance elsewhere?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 27, 2018 14:25:02 GMT
Well, I've read it a few times now and slept on it (metaphorically!) - but I find nothing of significance which gives me any solace. I always believed that the FCA would be hanging us out to dry when they appointed BDO - but I'd previously dared to hold out a little hope I would be wrong and it would not be quite as bad as I feared. Regrettably, the reality of the interim report seems actually worse than even my most pessimistic previous assessment. From my perspective we are now well and truly in the (economic) killing field (with no cover in sight) and with the FCA licensed assassins BDO showing they have already zeroed their weapons to bring down accurate and sustained fire and thereby create maximum (economic) casualties amongst us. I see no sign whatsoever (even a pretence) that they are seriously working for investors/creditors benefit - in fact the report looks akin to a long detailed invoice to me (probably the first of many) 'for services not yet rendered' - and guess who's paying? I saw (I think it was bobo?) suggesting we'll perhaps get back 70% (ish)? At this juncture that would look a very good outcome to me. Furthermore, I note a few serial optimists are now showing above the ramparts - I can only hope that you are correct and I am wrong - as ever, time will tell.
I've written down to a 50% recovery - and I was 90% in bling and cash (and that might still be a tad optimistic).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,874
Likes: 4,753
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 27, 2018 14:27:11 GMT
I look at the fees being levied by BDO to date Yes, it's a big number, if viewed as £xxx,xxx. View it as a %age of the loan book, and it's currently a snidge over 2%, compared to the 17.5% of the loan book which BDO already have under their control. It's also a lower hourly rate than was originally quoted. I would rather look at the overall final return than the individual components that form it. Right now, we have absolutely no way of knowing what that will be. BUT... Do I have a LOT more confidence in BDO producing a better return than if Refresh had been retained? Yes. Have a very large part of the costs incurred to date been SOLELY due to Refresh's incompetence and/or conspiracy with Collateral's ex-management? Yes. Did Refresh's incompetence and/or conspiracy markedly significantly reduce our changes of a good return, compared to if it had gone straight to BDO (or similar)? Yes. Would a different competent administrator produce a markedly better return? Probably not. None of us know what has or has not been achieved to date, except what's in the report. All this report says is that they're still underway - we don't know which loans are repaid (although we may be able to take an educated guess from charges and other platforms). The creditor's committee may (or may not) get an update on progress to date on the loans that are still outstanding, as well as the IT work. They may (or may not) be able to share that information with us. Their last meeting saw, we're told by Monetus, a line-by-line breakdown of progress on the loanbook, but behind an NDA. The next meeting is a fortnight tomorrow - and I doubt this one will be different in terms of the either information given or whether it can be disseminated. As far as I'm concerned, there is no other game in town. BDO, with the creditor committee representing our interests, are the people who have the job of turning this ongoing mess into an actual return and closure for us. That is not going to change. So... should we be monday-morning-quarterbacks carping emptily from the sofa, or be critically trusting allies? I know which I think is the more positive way to proceed, both in terms of my ongoing blood pressure and my eventual wallet.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 27, 2018 14:30:19 GMT
I do wonder if I'm on a different planet today.
So the administrators have now had a good look around and all the chattel loans seem to actually exist. Those Jewellery Grouped Asset Loans and the bling items actually exist, the borrowers haven't vanished into thin air and there is actually stock being surrendered, even if it is unlikely to be worth anything near the numbers the LTVs are based on (and given retail pricing tends to incorporate a 50% margin just what was everyone expecting?). Auction fees will take another bite, but some value will be extracted.
For a platform failure where the directors were not called Michael and Gabriel this is not a bad result.
If the defaulted bling loans aren't covered by the security, then it was loaned/valued incorrectly. 70% LTV should mean that the value (not retail price) more than covers the loan even allowing for auction fees. I realise there are issues with valuations (though bling ought to be closer than property development residuals).
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Nov 27, 2018 14:31:59 GMT
I have just tortured myself by reading the report again and at a slower and more digestive speed. Unfortunately it doesn't improve on the second read. Quite the opposite.
To put it simply, every single loan is now overdue for repayment and after all these months only £315,000 in loans has been recovered out of a total loan book of £17 million. That is a current recovery amount of just 1.85%.
To date, the fees greatly exceed the amount of loan monies recovered. In the last 6 months just £105,000 in loan monies has been recovered but the fees racked up in the last 6 months are £349,000.
On the property side we're told there are just 17 borrowers in total. I remember investing in many small buy-to-let type properties in the north east of England like Gateshead and Wallsend and in the north west in Blackpool and so on and all of these assets are very easily and quickly realisable. I wonder if they are waiting for the property value falls to gather steam next year.
We have an admission that all of the data has been recovered from the server and that should have been achievable in a day and yet 200 hours of IT time later and they still haven't figured out how to get the information off the database itself. It beggars belief. But then again it doesn't when you are on a big hourly rate and only your mates have the authority to challenge you.
Unfortunately only people controlling 5% or more of the loan book can even question the fees and to actually make an official complaint to the court you need 10% under your wing. So that means that fatcats, hedge fund bosses and syndicate managers are holding all the aces here and can steer the administrators actions in their direction while the man and woman in the street type of investor has almost zero say in the goings on.
#shafted #stitchup #snoutsinthetrough
|
|