bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368 
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jul 17, 2019 7:41:53 GMT
I work in IT consultancy and we charge rate to client as well. It has to include all cost as well (office, utilities, national insurance etc etc) Let me tell you that it's no where close to their rate. A director level charge "just" £1500/day or £187/h.. which is their support rate. They are just milking out profit just because they can. There was a quote from warren buffet asking a fund manager why their fees were so high at 3%. And the answer was because he couldn't charge more!!! The answer is they'll just charge the maximum they can. So switch industry and re-train as an Chartered Accountant and then as an Administrator / Receiver, passing all the necessary professional exams of course. Companies charge the "market price" for the products & services they provide. Yes exactly, it isn't a closed shop. Qualifying as a Chartered Accountant is tough enough, then you have to pass the JIEB exams which have a pass rate of around 20% (only around 200 people qualify a year). Then to become a partner you have to put in years of hard work and be at the top of your profession. £600 an hour is comparable to senior lawyers, top barristers etc. Besides all this is completely missing the point. Yes they may be charging £1m for a years work unpicking a massive mess that is taking up lots of highly skilled resources but don't let that deflect from the main issue that investors look set to lose c£70m on a loan book of c£150m due to the action of the directors of Lendy. £1m in that context is a rounding error.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 17, 2019 7:57:57 GMT
So switch industry and re-train as an Chartered Accountant and then as an Administrator / Receiver, passing all the necessary professional exams of course. Companies charge the "market price" for the products & services they provide. Yes exactly, it isn't a closed shop. Qualifying as a Chartered Accountant is tough enough, then you have to pass the JIEB exams which have a pass rate of around 20% (only around 200 people qualify a year). Then to become a partner you have to put in years of hard work and be at the top of your profession. £600 an hour is comparable to senior lawyers, top barristers etc. Besides all this is completely missing the point. Yes they may be charging £1m for a years work unpicking a massive mess that is taking up lots of highly skilled resources but don't let that deflect from the main issue that investors look set to lose c£70m on a loan book of c£150m due to the action of the directors of Lendy. £1m in that context is a rounding error.Indeed. And I'd be happy to see them charge £2m for 2 years work but recover another £20m through diligent pursuit of the best recovery options (rather than just the quickest)
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Jul 17, 2019 9:55:43 GMT
If we're talking about monies, how did O'Connor claim he is owed £6m?
Can't be salary but maybe he was promised some kind of equity bonuses in the contract.
Has Brooke made any public appearances or is he being made to report to work every day?
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Jul 17, 2019 12:48:29 GMT
I've a few questions if anyone knows the answers, answers as opposed to opinion, cheers. Are we as investors in loans offered through Lendy being treated as creditors of Lendy or the owners of those Loans under the Loan terms (as the FCA rules for P2P entities stipulate, that is complete separation of vehicle and loans offered through vehicle, a condition intended to protect us in these very circumstances)? Does Lendys provisions under the FCA rules for P2P companies in ensuring 'such funds are available to exercise loans to completion in the event of the vehicle company failing' (as Lendy has done) cover the 1.025 million plus VAT which the administrators have set as the upper limit of costs they will bill in the first year? With reference to previous comments on this thread: If loans are separate entities to the vehicle, i.e. Lendy, then how can any interest due on loans after Lendy going into administration be used to first service 'creditors' rather than 'investors', if those loans, after the vehicle has failed, are separate legal entities? On the same point, if it is the case that some portion of interest, monthly or otherwise, was 'Lendys share' for services, rather than 'all' just servicing the loan itself, then why is it so many comments on here suggest Lendy took all of their interest up front? Has anyone been able to access the website - https:llrsm.insolvencypoint.com, and if so, is there anything there worth reading which wasn't in the PDF associated with today's email? As of writing this post I'm still getting 'website can't be reached'. Thanks, Getting back to this post, does anyone have the answers?
|
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Jul 17, 2019 13:10:04 GMT
Yeah when is Brooke going to be appear?
Is he walking into the sunset with loot?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,333
Likes: 11,552
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 17, 2019 13:35:46 GMT
I've a few questions if anyone knows the answers, answers as opposed to opinion, cheers. Are we as investors in loans offered through Lendy being treated as creditors of Lendy or the owners of those Loans under the Loan terms (as the FCA rules for P2P entities stipulate, that is complete separation of vehicle and loans offered through vehicle, a condition intended to protect us in these very circumstances)? Does Lendys provisions under the FCA rules for P2P companies in ensuring 'such funds are available to exercise loans to completion in the event of the vehicle company failing' (as Lendy has done) cover the 1.025 million plus VAT which the administrators have set as the upper limit of costs they will bill in the first year? With reference to previous comments on this thread: If loans are separate entities to the vehicle, i.e. Lendy, then how can any interest due on loans after Lendy going into administration be used to first service 'creditors' rather than 'investors', if those loans, after the vehicle has failed, are separate legal entities? On the same point, if it is the case that some portion of interest, monthly or otherwise, was 'Lendys share' for services, rather than 'all' just servicing the loan itself, then why is it so many comments on here suggest Lendy took all of their interest up front? Has anyone been able to access the website - https:llrsm.insolvencypoint.com, and if so, is there anything there worth reading which wasn't in the PDF associated with today's email? As of writing this post I'm still getting 'website can't be reached'. Thanks, Getting back to this post, does anyone have the answers? Investors in model 1 loans are currently seen as creditors as they were lending to Lendy and not P2P. Investors in model 2 loans are not creditors on the basis of the loans themselves but may be (and LAG is seeking for them to be) considered as creditors for any shortfall due to their agancy agreement with Lendy. Both the above are still subject to legal enquiries. (Section 2.1, 5.3.6, 6.1.3)
No. Based on the evidence presented in the admin report there are no or insufficient funds specifically held to cover the costs of administration, however, there is £905k in Lendy non trust accounts which presumably RSM would have first call on for costs. (Section 5.1.3)
Retained interest should have been held in a client account, based on the administration report this does not appear to have occured so any money in the 'interest' account is an asset of Lendy and available to all creditors. In most cases, there was no retained interest remaining on appointment date, and for those loans where there should have been the majority appears to be missing from the account it was supposed to be in. On this basis, investors in model 2 loans are potentially creditors of Lendy for unpaid interest accrued between beginning of May & point that retained interest ran out. (Section 5.3.2)
Incorrect or a misinterpretation. Lendy retained interest on drawdown of loans, advanced as part of the loan. This money should have been held in the separate client account as it belonged to the borrower until due. When due the proportion owed to Lendy as servicing fees it would have been transferred to Lendy. As above the money appears not to have been held in a client account.
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jul 17, 2019 14:10:02 GMT
But they still got full FCA,,how come ??,all efforts need to be focused on the FCA and RICS.
|
|
|
|
Post by zee on Jul 17, 2019 17:02:55 GMT
Given Ilmoro's reply to my questions, and what I read in the report regards 'should be in account' 'not in account'...are we looking at criminal proceedings against Lendy do you think or just a naughty naughty boy letter from the FCA before Liam sets up his next company and does it all over again?
Also, what is LAG, I feel I should know but up until this point I've tried to stay away from the forum as all the speculation just depressed me?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,051
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 17, 2019 18:10:06 GMT
A person who has been to prision many times (or possibly the Lendy Action Group)
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Jul 17, 2019 18:29:11 GMT
But they still got full FCA,,how come ??,all efforts need to be focused on the FCA and RICS. To be fair all the warning signals were there to be seen. It took in inordinate amount of time for the FCA to move Lendy from interim permission to full permission. So there were clearly some issues. I'm speculating but the FCA probably found itself between a rock and a hard place with many platforms. Fail a platform in the process of moving from interim to full permission and you have an instant platform run on your hands. The platform will collapse. Don't fail them and you risk letting all sorts of poor management and controls through the gate. The FCA's fundamental error was to ever allow the grandfathering of already extant P2P platforms like SS/Lendy from OFT permissions to FCA interim permission. I suspect the government probably had a hand in that decision after suitable amounts of lobbying from the platforms.
You also need to be realistic about wha the FCA can/cannot do. The FCA have 3,500 staff. They regulate over 50,000 entities, employing over 1 million people. The idea they have enough people to provide in-depth oversight is just ridiculous. All they can achieve is modest box ticking exercise. P2P is not even a speck on their radar. The total volumes of P2P loan originated in the UK in the last 12 months is just £6bn. By comparison, in the last 12 hours, I've lent over $6.5bn and borrowed $3.9bn in multiple currencies and I'm small fry in City terms. Their priority list tends to focus on the big stuff in the City, not some small outfit in Portsmouth. It just wasn't on the radar until too late.
You also get what you pay for. Median remuneration at the FCA is just £65k so they are paid poorly compared to those they are meant to be watching (and if you pay peanuts ...). The people they hire often have little or no experience of the products. Those who do quickly find themselves promoted into management or leave for compliance roles at banks and funds where the pay is much higher.
I know lots of dedicated people at the FCA. I'm just glad I don't have to work there.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jul 17, 2019 18:50:34 GMT
The complaint levelled against the FCA is not what they could or could not do but that for previous two years they didn't. It was a failure of judgement rather than of resources.
|
|
jane
Posts: 145
Likes: 214
|
Post by jane on Jul 17, 2019 18:54:09 GMT
If we're talking about monies, how did O'Connor claim he is owed £6m? Can't be salary but maybe he was promised some kind of equity bonuses in the contract. Has Brooke made any public appearances or is he being made to report to work every day? I hope Brooke is not still on the pay roll.
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jul 17, 2019 19:06:19 GMT
So the FCA is inadequate on every level then !?..= pointless.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jul 17, 2019 19:25:45 GMT
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 17, 2019 20:07:35 GMT
It may have been that the FCA gave Lendy full permission to give some protection to lenders, and give Lendy a chance to turn things around, even though they knew Lendy were finding it difficult to sustain the platform. Rather than refuse full permission and drop lenders in the deep s.... immediately. Between a rock and a hard place for the FCA.
|
|
