Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,387
Likes: 2,785
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 6, 2019 16:54:00 GMT
I'm a bit surprised at some of the stick Monetus is getting. He's clearly put in a lot of time and effort to get this show off the road. It might not be perfect for this or that reason but boy do we need some kind of voice that at least broadly represents us. There are so many problems with p2p. Just one of those is that whilst lenders ought to be on the same side, quite often we're not. In fact some of the platforms require lenders to compete with each other to do well. If we start nit-picking about who is going to represent us now or partially represent us, or campaign for us maybe folk like Adam will get pi**sed off, drop it and then we'll have even less of a voice recovering what is due. I'm not sure he is getting that much stick. The positive feedback seems to outweigh the negative feedback by a solid ratio. Nonetheless, it's reasonable for some to disagree. LAG does not pretend to represent every Lendy investor. In fact is only represents say 4% of Lendy investors, albeit I suspect rather more of the active investor base. Nor will it's aims align with every Lendy investor.
I've had concerns about the management of Lendy since they started in 2013. About their lack of experience, their prior roles in other companies, fee structure etc. So I think some of LAG's aims align with mine (I have so little on Lendy it hardly matters). I want Lendy investors to have their rights as bilateral lenders upheld but also be treated as creditors of Lendy. I'd want an efficient wind-down of the Lendy book that maximizes realisations on a loan-by-loan basis. I'd also argue for an investigation into the conduct of Lendy's directors by RSM.
I'm less keen on other parts of LAG objectives. There seems to be a 'compensation' culture building up with Lendy. Lendy was always going to be very high risk. The 12% nailed that on and to pretend otherwise is duplicitous. I fear that LAG's objectives may allow some investors to rewrite history and pretend that they were "mis-sold" and even be allowed FSCS compensation. That sort of compensation becomes a cost burden on other financial firms, that they pass on to their investors.
I suspect many lenders didn't understand the risk and were taken in by the flashy statements made by Lendy, many also must have realised that 12% didn't come without big risks, some of these people put in hundreds of thousands of pounds, surely they weren't that financially naive? On the other hand why shouldn't they use whatever legal options there are to maximise their recoveries? I'm sure any claims for compensation will be thoroughly investigated.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179 
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jul 6, 2019 17:40:08 GMT
Thanks michaelc and samford71 Yes despite a couple of comments on this forum the feedback for LAG has been overwhelmingly positive in all honesty. My years on P2P forums and involvement in the Collateral administration have also given me something of a thick skin!  We do hope that members of P2P Independent continue to join us and support what we're trying to achieve if they agree with our aims and goals. As mentioned already two members of LAG had a positive and constructive meeting with RSM yesterday. The aims of LAG were discussed and significant progress has been made in regards to several of them already. I will be posting a more detailed update next week but here are a few matters of interest for investors: - RSM intend to return all cash balances held on account in full to investors shortly once they resolve an administrative issue relating to their regulatory requirements. - RSM intend to wind the loan book down in an orderly fashion and repay DFL012 HQ investors the partial repayment that is due to them as soon as they can. - RSM are exploring a potential fee structure that would be a small % taken from each loan recovery. While this will of course require consideration from everyone, on the surface the proposed fees may potentially be far less than Lendy would have taken themselves under their latest terms and conditions (using PBL068 as an example). This means investors could potentially be in a better overall position. The proposed fee structure would also resolve concerns LAG have in regards to equality of fees between different variations of the Lendy Platform 36.H terms - Model 2, 2A, Lendy Wealth etc. - RSM has insisted it will be taking a robust approach to recoveries and will also be continuing/pursuing professional claims where appropriate in order to maximise recoveries for lenders. - RSM are taking legal advice but an initial analysis suggests that investors may also be treated as creditors from the outset of the administration. The extent of the liability owed by Lendy to each investor is not yet known, so it's possible that all lenders will be recorded with an initial nominal £1 claim. Further detail and clarity regarding on this will be coming in the detailed administrators proposals due in the next couple of weeks. - Lendy Wealth investors are likely to be treated in a similar fashion to "self-select" investors - the primary difference being that Lendy chose your investments for you. RSM will be reviewing the position of Lendy Wealth investors and analysing the loan parts held by each investor in due course. The Lendy Wealth website has been taken down to stop new investment. - RSM are committed to keeping the Lendy website portal live in order to communicate and provide updates to investors. Based on feedback and our "fail fast and pivot approach" will also be making some changes to the LAG website presence shortly. We look forward to the administrators proposals which should contain far more detail and also confirm exactly how many active investors/creditors are involved in the Lendy administration. Hopefully far less than 22,662! For now... enjoy your weekend!  |
|
wuzimu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 735
|
Post by wuzimu on Jul 6, 2019 17:55:49 GMT
Lendy and fscs Fscs have very comprehensive and complex set of legal tests to meet before a claim will be paid. If any lendy lenders can pass those tests they will get compensation. No morality test is required... FWIW I dont like victim blaming. I think the vast majority of lenders have been misled and subjected to serious breaches of trust and agency by lendy. Performance of a p2p loan is excluded from fscs. Liabilities springing from wrong doing of an fca regulated firm operating and electronic system of lending / (article 36h compliant), may be covered by fscs. Evidencing the liability will be the challenge, it is for every lender to do that on a loan by loan basis. If any lender can do that, and is eventually offered compensation by fscs they are entitled to take that compensation without rebuke from anybody. Fscs involvement is a prime aim of LAG and we make no apology for that.
If any lender (including supporters of LAG), could be eligible for FSCS compensation, but prefers not to take it as they feel bad that the financial services industry has to pay for this eventually.... just don't bring a claim to FSCS, they wouldn't be forcing the money upon you.
As a side note, the FSCS is funded by the financial services industry which greatly benefits from the existence of FSCS because it engenders trust in regulated firms and so FSCS is very good for business when no failures occur. When failures do occur they tend to be like No9 buses. Then there is nashing of teeth from industry how unfair the system is having forgotten about the benefits. Anyway the comensation system is what it is and financial world is all about trust. And the Lendy case is all about breach of trust.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss5678 on Jul 7, 2019 7:35:35 GMT
Thanks michaelc and samford71 Yes despite a couple of comments on this forum the feedback for LAG has been overwhelmingly positive in all honesty. My years on P2P forums and involvement in the Collateral administration have also given me something of a thick skin! We do hope that members of P2P Independent continue to join us and support what we're trying to achieve if they agree with our aims and goals. As mentioned already two members of LAG had a positive and constructive meeting with RSM yesterday. The aims of LAG were discussed and significant progress has been made in regards to several of them already. I will be posting a more detailed update next week but here are a few matters of interest for investors: - RSM intend to return all cash balances held on account in full to investors shortly once they resolve an administrative issue relating to their regulatory requirements. - RSM intend to wind the loan book down in an orderly fashion and repay DFL012 HQ investors the partial repayment that is due to them as soon as they can. - RSM are exploring a potential fee structure that would be a small % taken from each loan recovery. While this will of course require consideration from everyone, on the surface the proposed fees may potentially be far less than Lendy would have taken themselves under their latest terms and conditions (using PBL068 as an example). This means investors could potentially be in a better overall position. The proposed fee structure would also resolve concerns LAG have in regards to equality of fees between different variations of the Lendy Platform 36.H terms - Model 2, 2A, Lendy Wealth etc. - RSM has insisted it will be taking a robust approach to recoveries and will also be continuing/pursuing professional claims where appropriate in order to maximise recoveries for lenders. - RSM are taking legal advice but an initial analysis suggests that investors may also be treated as creditors from the outset of the administration. The extent of the liability owed by Lendy to each investor is not yet known, so it's possible that all lenders will be recorded with an initial nominal £1 claim. Further detail and clarity regarding on this will be coming in the detailed administrators proposals due in the next couple of weeks. - Lendy Wealth investors are likely to be treated in a similar fashion to "self-select" investors - the primary difference being that Lendy chose your investments for you. RSM will be reviewing the position of Lendy Wealth investors and analysing the loan parts held by each investor in due course. The Lendy Wealth website has been taken down to stop new investment. - RSM are committed to keeping the Lendy website portal live in order to communicate and provide updates to investors. Based on feedback and our "fail fast and pivot approach" will also be making some changes to the LAG website presence shortly. We look forward to the administrators proposals which should contain far more detail and also confirm exactly how many active investors/creditors are involved in the Lendy administration. Hopefully far less than 22,662! For now... enjoy your weekend! - RSM are exploring a potential fee structure that would be a small % taken from each loan recovery. While this will of course require consideration from everyone, on the surface the proposed fees may potentially be far less than Lendy would have taken themselves under their latest terms and conditions (using PBL068 as an example). This means investors could potentially be in a better overall position. The proposed fee structure would also resolve concerns LAG have in regards to equality of fees between different variations of the Lendy Platform 36.H terms - Model 2, 2A, Lendy Wealth etc. Thank you LAG leaders for this information, I hope this fee structure can be agreed and LAG can continue to influence the decision making process.
|
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jul 7, 2019 8:41:30 GMT
I'm not sure he is getting that much stick. The positive feedback seems to outweigh the negative feedback by a solid ratio. Nonetheless, it's reasonable for some to disagree. LAG does not pretend to represent every Lendy investor. In fact is only represents say 4% of Lendy investors, albeit I suspect rather more of the active investor base. Nor will it's aims align with every Lendy investor.
I've had concerns about the management of Lendy since they started in 2013. About their lack of experience, their prior roles in other companies, fee structure etc. So I think some of LAG's aims align with mine (I have so little on Lendy it hardly matters). I want Lendy investors to have their rights as bilateral lenders upheld but also be treated as creditors of Lendy. I'd want an efficient wind-down of the Lendy book that maximizes realisations on a loan-by-loan basis. I'd also argue for an investigation into the conduct of Lendy's directors by RSM.
I'm less keen on other parts of LAG objectives. There seems to be a 'compensation' culture building up with Lendy. Lendy was always going to be very high risk. The 12% nailed that on and to pretend otherwise is duplicitous. I fear that LAG's objectives may allow some investors to rewrite history and pretend that they were "mis-sold" and even be allowed FSCS compensation. That sort of compensation becomes a cost burden on other financial firms, that they pass on to their investors.
I suspect many lenders didn't understand the risk and were taken in by the flashy statements made by Lendy, many also must have realised that 12% didn't come without big risks, some of these people put in hundreds of thousands of pounds, surely they weren't that financially naive? On the other hand why shouldn't they use whatever legal options there are to maximise their recoveries? I'm sure any claims for compensation will be thoroughly investigated. The risks that lenders thought they were exposing themselves to for 12% return are quite different to the risks as they now appear to be. The principal risk expected was the failure of the borrower to pay the interest due and the subsequent need to liquidate the asset which may result in some losses. The risk that seems to be in the process of being revealed is that the assets may have been mis-valued in the first place and that the platform may have not have acted in the interests of lenders both in the setting up of the loans and then in their administration. I really don't think this shows naivety on the part of the lender but more shows mismanagement and possibly worse on the part of the platform.
|
|
TenKay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 117
|
Post by TenKay on Jul 7, 2019 11:38:22 GMT
The risk that seems to be in the process of being revealed is that the assets may have been mis-valued in the first place and that the platform may have not have acted in the interests of lenders both in the setting up of the loans and then in their administration. i understood the risk, well i did from what i was lead to believe on their site, what i didn't realise and therefore couldn't account for was the fact that properties weren't being valued correctly
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jul 7, 2019 12:28:22 GMT
Lendy and fscs Fscs have very comprehensive and complex set of tests to meet before a claim will be paid. If any lendy lenders can pass those tests they will get compensation. No morality test is required... FWIW I dont like victim blaming. I think the vast majority of lenders have been misled and subjected to serious breaches of trust and agency by lendy. Performance of a p2p loan is excluded from fscs. Liabilities springing from wrong doing of an fca regulated firm operating and electronic system of lending / (article 36h compliant), may be covered by fscs. Evidencing the liability will be the challenge, it is for every lender to do that on a loan by loan basis. If any lender cam do that, and is eventually offered compensation by fscs they are entitled to take that compensation without rebuke from anybody. Fscs involvement is a prime aim of LAG and we make no apology for that. Just to add to this we've received several reports from our members and some even have admittance in writing from Lendy in regards to certain loans being mis-sold or Lendy failing to disclose certain matters when they should have as per their regulatory requirements. Some of these people have received / were also due remediation payments as compensation for being mis-sold on these loans but were kept quiet by NDAs. Therefore confirmed instances of mis-selling already seem to have occurred and it will be interesting to see just how widespread these occurrences were and how many other loans/investors may have faced similar issues. As Bruce already mentioned any potential FSCS involvement would not be for poor investment performance on a level playing field, but rather negligence or breaches in agency and/or trust on behalf of Lendy should they be discovered as the administration progresses.
|
|
thedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 111
|
Post by thedog on Jul 7, 2019 13:30:21 GMT
Thanks michaelc and samford71 Yes despite a couple of comments on this forum the feedback for LAG has been overwhelmingly positive in all honesty. My years on P2P forums and involvement in the Collateral administration have also given me something of a thick skin! We do hope that members of P2P Independent continue to join us and support what we're trying to achieve if they agree with our aims and goals. ...... - RSM are taking legal advice but an initial analysis suggests that investors may also be treated as creditors from the outset of the administration. The extent of the liability owed by Lendy to each investor is not yet known, so it's possible that all lenders will be recorded with an initial nominal £1 claim. Further detail and clarity regarding on this will be coming in the detailed administrators proposals due in the next couple of weeks. ...... For now... enjoy your weekend! Thanks, much appreciated.
I appreciate it's really unfair to start picking through the precise meaning of everything you've said epecially when RSM's views are still WIP but.... .... in the phrase I've highlighted are you saying RSM may seek to undo the Investor / Creditor distinction for all lenders and treat all funds as 1 pot? Or just for interest accruals from the date of the Admin or something else?
FWIW I think the comments on here had a lot to do with reaction to the tone of comments made by another poster unconnected to you who has since left this BB and you caught the unfortunate collateral damage.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jul 7, 2019 13:47:28 GMT
Thanks michaelc and samford71 Yes despite a couple of comments on this forum the feedback for LAG has been overwhelmingly positive in all honesty. My years on P2P forums and involvement in the Collateral administration have also given me something of a thick skin! We do hope that members of P2P Independent continue to join us and support what we're trying to achieve if they agree with our aims and goals. ...... - RSM are taking legal advice but an initial analysis suggests that investors may also be treated as creditors from the outset of the administration. The extent of the liability owed by Lendy to each investor is not yet known, so it's possible that all lenders will be recorded with an initial nominal £1 claim. Further detail and clarity regarding on this will be coming in the detailed administrators proposals due in the next couple of weeks. ...... For now... enjoy your weekend! Thanks, much appreciated.
I appreciate it's really unfair to start picking through the precise meaning of everything you've said epecially when RSM's views are still WIP but.... .... in the phrase I've highlighted are you saying RSM may seek to undo the Investor / Creditor distinction for all lenders and treat all funds as 1 pot? Or just for interest accruals from the date of the Admin or something else?
FWIW I think the comments on here had a lot to do with reaction to the tone of comments made by another poster unconnected to you who has since left this BB and you caught the unfortunate collateral damage.
No. This would mean that investors would be able to claim against their assets via their agency agreement in the first instance but also have a potential secondary claim against Lendy themselves in future which is to be be determined. Investors will still have the right to receive proceeds from their asset recoveries.
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Jul 7, 2019 18:52:47 GMT
I suspect many lenders didn't understand the risk and were taken in by the flashy statements made by Lendy, many also must have realised that 12% didn't come without big risks, some of these people put in hundreds of thousands of pounds, surely they weren't that financially naive? On the other hand why shouldn't they use whatever legal options there are to maximise their recoveries? I'm sure any claims for compensation will be thoroughly investigated. The risks that lenders thought they were exposing themselves to for 12% return are quite different to the risks as they now appear to be. The principal risk expected was the failure of the borrower to pay the interest due and the subsequent need to liquidate the asset which may result in some losses. The risk that seems to be in the process of being revealed is that the assets may have been mis-valued in the first place and that the platform may have not have acted in the interests of lenders both in the setting up of the loans and then in their administration. I really don't think this shows naivety on the part of the lender but more shows mismanagement and possibly worse on the part of the platform. That statement is spot on
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Jul 7, 2019 18:54:06 GMT
The risk that seems to be in the process of being revealed is that the assets may have been mis-valued in the first place and that the platform may have not have acted in the interests of lenders both in the setting up of the loans and then in their administration. i understood the risk, well i did from what i was lead to believe on their site, what i didn't realise and therefore couldn't account for was the fact that properties weren't being valued correctly Exactly
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jul 7, 2019 23:29:09 GMT
i understood the risk, well i did from what i was lead to believe on their site, what i didn't realise and therefore couldn't account for was the fact that properties weren't being valued correctly Exactly The valuations were made by independent RICS accredited individuals and no matter what the conspiracy theorists think there is NO evidence there was any interference in their valuations.
|
|
TenKay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 117
|
Post by TenKay on Jul 8, 2019 6:34:51 GMT
The valuations were made by independent RICS accredited individuals and no matter what the conspiracy theorists think there is NO evidence there was any interference in their valuations. i dont believe i ever inferred that, i guess i was just too trusting in the various parties concerned
|
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jul 8, 2019 8:54:42 GMT
The valuations were made by independent RICS accredited individuals and no matter what the conspiracy theorists think there is NO evidence there was any interference in their valuations. Godanubis. I have no hard information to go on so I am not making allegations here. The valuations do appear to be consistently poor don't they? Is there not evidence of a pattern of poor valuations even if it is too early to say what was driving the pattern? Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jul 8, 2019 9:37:46 GMT
The valuations were made by independent RICS accredited individuals and no matter what the conspiracy theorists think there is NO evidence there was any interference in their valuations. Godanubis. I have no hard information to go on so I am not making allegations here. The valuations do appear to be consistently poor don't they? Is there not evidence of a pattern of poor valuations even if it is too early to say what was driving the pattern? Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks Not getting at you just the general moaners. You are correct Valuations in most P2P do seem not to be in keeping with eventual sales. This might be an inability of valuers to grasp the current and future market trends.
Nothing would be lost if their valuations were kept to the conservative side and only robust projects would get the funding required. It is like Tax credits I don't think Tax payers should pay credits to poorer workers to subsidise an otherwise unviable business. There should be a decent minimim wage and only businesses that can be viable with that should be set up.
Thanks for your concidered comments and posts.
|
|
