quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295 
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jul 26, 2019 16:00:32 GMT
The administrators just need to wind down the loan book as cheaply as possible.
FCA were responsible for AML supervision:
1.5 The Government created the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS) as part of a wider package of government reforms to strengthen the UK's AML and CTF regime. We are housed within the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and became operational on 1 February 2018.1 Mar 2019
Lendy were required to have their own ML officer [Controlled Function 11], Mr. P*** C***. It was his duty to supervise and enforce AML procedures at the firm. Checking the current FCA register will confirm his duty as CF11. Yes I know you have to do it yourselves but my point being they passed FCA scrutiny so why do RSM think they have a remit to challenge it now and whose money should be used to pay for that? I know the answer to the last part of that question!
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jul 26, 2019 16:03:03 GMT
No, the way ot works is you find things to bill for. Did Lendy ever employ anyone without a work visa? Did they report their VAT correctly? there's no end to the historical things you could look into. And there was me thinking RSM might go above and beyond to be seen to be reasonable due to the publicity this administration attracts. As someone who admits to not know much technically about the somewhat murky world of administrations and administrators, maybe just maybe this AML work they have decided to do is really something they couldn't avoid doing and remain professional+compliant administrators. If so, that would be forgivable and it would be for another day and another thread to discuss how the industry might change to better meet the needs of creditors. If however, they could reasonably avoid doing that work but haven't, it would be a sign of them attempting to maximise their fees as most administrators seem to do. Let me pose this question, if there was no lender's money to look at AML would they do it themselves at their own expense? The answer to that question will answer how above and beyond they would go.
|
|
boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 368
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Jul 26, 2019 16:20:11 GMT
Once you have bern involved in an administration you realise that administrators are in the game to make money. Partner rates at 300-500 per hour. And to keep as many lawyers involved to maximise their administrative returns Isn't making money what most people work for? Their rates may seem steep to humble mortals like you and me but they're not a charity.
|
|
rrrupert
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 99
|
Post by rrrupert on Jul 26, 2019 16:29:46 GMT
And there was me thinking RSM might go above and beyond to be seen to be reasonable due to the publicity this administration attracts. As someone who admits to not know much technically about the somewhat murky world of administrations and administrators, maybe just maybe this AML work they have decided to do is really something they couldn't avoid doing and remain professional+compliant administrators. If so, that would be forgivable and it would be for another day and another thread to discuss how the industry might change to better meet the needs of creditors. If however, they could reasonably avoid doing that work but haven't, it would be a sign of them attempting to maximise their fees as most administrators seem to do. Let me pose this question, if there was no lender's money to look at AML would they do it themselves at their own expense? The answer to that question will answer how above and beyond they would go. If there was no lenders money then they would not be paying anything to lenders so no AML would be necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 16:44:45 GMT
I note with some amusement that the administrators believe it is impossible to provide internet access to their "creditors meeting" in the heart of England. What a sorry state we live in.
The rest of their letter is frankly very poor communication and given the fees they charge, "should do better" should be scribbled across the bottom in red ink.
Still,only money, have a great weekend.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jul 26, 2019 17:38:37 GMT
Let me pose this question, if there was no lender's money to look at AML would they do it themselves at their own expense? The answer to that question will answer how above and beyond they would go. If there was no lenders money then they would not be paying anything to lenders so no AML would be necessary. So they are going to examine the sources of all funds before they are returned to us? I await the phone call. I doubt it will come. They claim they don’t like how Lendy did AML, that’s a subjective claim. The FCA (responsible for AML supervision) were happy.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Jul 26, 2019 18:24:24 GMT
If there was no lenders money then they would not be paying anything to lenders so no AML would be necessary. They claim they don’t like how Lendy did AML, that’s a subjective claim. The FCA (responsible for AML supervision) were happy. No, the FCA were not happy, hence they placed Lendy under significant restrictions, including how they could move money around. We may never know the reasons for the FCA restrictions in full, but the hope that payouts from the Administrators will commence in October is good news, that’s less than 6 months to start repaying money. The Collateral debacle is the measure, 18 months on and not a sniff of any significant recovery, let alone a payout to investors!
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Jul 26, 2019 19:01:27 GMT
The point, surely, is that the FCA authorised Lendy without having confirmed that they complied with AML. That must be a failure of the FCA.
We should not now be too surprised that Lendy didn't care where the money was coming from but AML ought to have been one of the first things that the FCA looked at. This is a really fundamental failure on behalf of the FCA.
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Jul 26, 2019 19:50:46 GMT
I note with some amusement that the administrators believe it is impossible to provide internet access to their "creditors meeting" in the heart of England. What a sorry state we live in.
The rest of their letter is frankly very poor communication and given the fees they charge, "should do better" should be scribbled across the bottom in red ink.
Still,only money, have a great weekend.
It would be trivial to stream video of the meeting from any modern smartphone.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 26, 2019 20:42:17 GMT
I note with some amusement that the administrators believe it is impossible to provide internet access to their "creditors meeting" in the heart of England. What a sorry state we live in.
The rest of their letter is frankly very poor communication and given the fees they charge, "should do better" should be scribbled across the bottom in red ink.
Still,only money, have a great weekend.
May not be as informative as we might wish, but it is far more frequent than we get from BDO.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Jul 26, 2019 20:45:09 GMT
I note with some amusement that the administrators believe it is impossible to provide internet access to their "creditors meeting" in the heart of England. What a sorry state we live in.
The rest of their letter is frankly very poor communication and given the fees they charge, "should do better" should be scribbled across the bottom in red ink.
Still,only money, have a great weekend.
thank goodness you said this. I find much of their document incomprehensible or unreadable. It's like machine code except machine code is written better. Who are all of the third parties and what's their relationship to the borrower or borrower companies?
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jul 26, 2019 22:01:36 GMT
The form wants the information for 24 may..how do I find that out !??..the website just adds up the interest every day..no idea what it was then !!
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jul 26, 2019 23:40:48 GMT
They claim they don’t like how Lendy did AML, that’s a subjective claim. The FCA (responsible for AML supervision) were happy. No, the FCA were not happy, hence they placed Lendy under significant restrictions, including how they could move money around. We may never know the reasons for the FCA restrictions in full, but the hope that payouts from the Administrators will commence in October is good news, that’s less than 6 months to start repaying money. The Collateral debacle is the measure, 18 months on and not a sniff of any significant recovery, let alone a payout to investors! I actually don't care, there's many on this forum who seem to want some kind of expensive historical witch hunt; I prefer the cheapest possible wind down of the loan book and return of funds to investors; I won't get that of course
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jul 27, 2019 8:06:23 GMT
Here, here and money held in the client account distributed promptly. i.e. it should already be on its way. It is immoral and grasping that the very large sum tied up in the HT deal has not yet been returned to investors. it is beneath contempt that the Administrators might let a few dribs and drabs out earlier to anyone going to them in desperate need with a begging bowl. the whole ting is beginning to smell of City grandees stripping the flesh from the carcase.
|
|
tombraider
Member of DD Central
Posts: 117
Likes: 103
|
Post by tombraider on Jul 28, 2019 3:44:38 GMT
|
|
