duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864 
Likes: 6,896
|
Post by duck on Sept 16, 2019 6:21:32 GMT
|
|
dh1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 409
Likes: 463
|
Post by dh1 on Sept 16, 2019 6:24:16 GMT
Your link just point back here, duck ! Well spotted, though. |
|
nw99
Posts: 340
Likes: 114
|
Post by nw99 on Sept 16, 2019 6:25:57 GMT
FCA knew about it and did nothing umm...
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 6,896
|
Post by duck on Sept 16, 2019 6:51:04 GMT
Your link just point back here, duck ! Well spotted, though. user incompetence  corrected!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 16, 2019 7:04:28 GMT
FCA knew about it and did nothing umm... and yet nothing will happen as a result we will still lose most of our money (as the article rightly points out).
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Sept 16, 2019 7:20:37 GMT
The question the FCA could be asking themselves is if spitting out the odd £17m (minus recoveries) and moving on may be better than continuing to be bombarded with negative press.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Sept 16, 2019 8:07:24 GMT
The question lenders perhaps need to ask is why did this article appear now. An orchestrated leak and rehash to prepare for the public pronouncement that sorry folks you've pretty much lost the lot?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Sept 16, 2019 8:23:57 GMT
Ultimately, I feel the truth will neither be as rosy as Titopuente hopes or as bleak as brightspark speculates. There's no doubt that recoveries are going to be disappointing, but not nothing.
Similarly, it is not inconceivable that ongoing pressure on the FCA to make some amends for their role in this will allow for some eventual partial compensation. For larger investors, definitely a fight worth having.
Also a fight worth having for anyone if the FCA can be pressured to buck up its ideas and perhaps avoid their next catastrophe (now I really am dreaming).
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 6,896
|
Post by duck on Sept 16, 2019 9:41:16 GMT
The question lenders perhaps need to ask is why did this article appear now. An orchestrated leak and rehash to prepare for the public pronouncement that sorry folks you've pretty much lost the lot? Far from it, the article appears because the FCA have replied in writing to questions posed by Lord Myners (as ordered by Lord Cookham) Example HL17420
Example HL17422Example HL17423
The response will appear at any time now and should be publicly visible. What the FCA are currently side stepping (by making continual reference to the 'investigation' and the changing of the interim register) is the issue that Cols Full Part 4A application was invalid. The FCA should have picked this up when the application was made (23/03/2016) before any of us invested a single 1p. Put simply Col should never have been allowed to trade.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 6,896
|
Post by duck on Sept 16, 2019 9:49:31 GMT
.... Similarly, it is not inconceivable that ongoing pressure on the FCA to make some amends for their role in this will allow for some eventual partial compensation. For larger investors, definitely a fight worth having. .... Interestingly the very small group of Col investors chasing this matter are actually small investors. For instance if a 100% loss was declared my losses would represent approx 6 months of interest, a long way from life changing. For me it is a matter of principal. For others the amounts involved will be life changing, I don't like seeing peoples lives being damaged by an organisation that is supposed to 'protect consumers'.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1,287
|
Post by james100 on Sept 16, 2019 11:20:08 GMT
.... Similarly, it is not inconceivable that ongoing pressure on the FCA to make some amends for their role in this will allow for some eventual partial compensation. For larger investors, definitely a fight worth having. .... Interestingly the very small group of Col investors chasing this matter are actually small investors. For instance if a 100% loss was declared my losses would represent approx 6 months of interest, a long way from life changing. For me it is a matter of principal. For others the amounts involved will be life changing, I don't like seeing peoples lives being damaged by an organisation that is supposed to 'protect consumers'. If the group of small investors chasing this matter (to the benefit of us all) incur any costs in pursuit, then I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be happy to chip in. Really grateful for your efforts, tenacity and communication to us all about this.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Sept 17, 2019 18:23:10 GMT
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 6,896
|
Post by duck on Sept 18, 2019 4:56:03 GMT
|
|
jcm9000
Member of DD Central
Posts: 181
Likes: 153
|
Post by jcm9000 on Sept 18, 2019 7:50:07 GMT
Am I confused about the timelines? The journalist seems to say collateral applied to be regulated two months before going public - was that the case? I thought the push to get everyone under the FCA umbrella and get interim permission so they could fully apply came after collateral was up and running; and I swear at some point I read (either on here from a Col rep, or on Col's site) that Col's lawyers didn't think permission was required - and that was well after they supposedly had interim permission. .
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 6,896
|
Post by duck on Sept 18, 2019 8:02:58 GMT
Am I confused about the timelines? The journalist seems to say collateral applied to be regulated two months before going public - was that the case? I thought the push to get everyone under the FCA umbrella and get interim permission so they could fully apply came after collateral was up and running; and I swear at some point I read (either on here from a Col rep, or on Col's site) that Col's lawyers didn't think permission was required - and that was well after they supposedly had interim permission. . Coll applied for full part 4A permission before they opened their doors to investors. Certain criteria were required for IP. Col did not (and could not) meet these. Part 4A permission required Col to be trading and to have IP. There were discussions between the FCA and Col as to if permissions were required (BDO noted a 'protracted dispute' in one of its reports) this has been taken up with the FCA but since the FCA have not published the FOI yet I can't disclose response.
|
|
corrected!
