quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295 
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Nov 14, 2019 19:56:00 GMT
I'm standing for election. My campaign slogan is "Make recoveries great again".
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 14, 2019 21:12:24 GMT
Its perhaps worth posting (on the final page of this thread) a reminder that nominations have to be received by 5pm TOMORROW (Friday 15th Nov). Something that all HNW lenders should consider doing .... from the email sent on the 8th: Personally I hope those putting themselves forward are doing it because they hope to make a useful contribution. I would hope they have some understanding of P2P, the functioning of the platform and the loan book & it's issues, not just a lot of money.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 14, 2019 21:16:20 GMT
My slogan will be 'Lenders First! Lenders First.'
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Nov 14, 2019 21:55:35 GMT
Personally I hope those putting themselves forward are doing it because they hope to make a useful contribution. I would hope they have some understanding of P2P, the functioning of the platform and the loan book & it's issues, not just a lot of money. To be honest, people with that sort of insight are unlikely to have been caught with any substantial part of their net worth on the platform.
|
|
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 Nov 14, 2019 22:02:55 GMT
My slogan is. “GET BREXIT DONE”!!!! Whoops wrong thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Nov 14, 2019 22:10:39 GMT
Personally I hope those putting themselves forward are doing it because they hope to make a useful contribution. I would hope they have some understanding of P2P, the functioning of the platform and the loan book & it's issues, not just a lot of money. To be honest, people with that sort of insight are unlikely to have been caught with any substantial part of their net worth on the platform.
Arguably many people would have now increased their talents in that area out of necessity since being 'caught'. So it has probably leveled somewhat.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 16, 2019 12:26:25 GMT
I can't see any reference to proxy voting, only nomination of individual lenders who I guess could be nominated many times, but would that make any difference to their investment size? Does LAG have additional information that other lenders don't?
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Nov 23, 2019 9:30:29 GMT
So when did this voting to nominate the body take place? I must have missed that... the original premise was going to be on how much much money the nominee had stuck in these rancid loans if they received more than 5 nominations.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Nov 23, 2019 13:50:11 GMT
So the 5 people from the Lendy Action Group became the 5 people on the CLB. I hope these people have the interests of all investers mind and there isnt some kind of agenda here.
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Nov 23, 2019 15:09:29 GMT
If there is one regulatory issue that both the Lendy and the FS administrations bring to light, it's the opaque relationship between security trustee (SSSH Ltd) and the platform (Lendy Ltd).
A massive weakness of P2P is that the security trustee is not independent of the platform. It doesn't need to have independent directors, and the compensation structure between the security trustee and the platform (fee waterfall) as defined by the service level agreement (SLA) can thus be arguably varied by the platform with no oversight from the investors. The result is that we have a situation where it's possible for investor's capital (SSSH Ltd) to end up with unsecured creditors (Lendy Ltd). RSM may try to create the idea of impartiality by using Grant Thornton to oversee the 'firewall' and act as 'conflict administrators'. Or they can create a "CLB", but that conflict of interest won't disappear. It can't disappear because it's baked into the structure by allowing the platform to control the security trustee. From first impressions, it seems that the situation at FS may actually be even worse, with co-mingling of assets occurring.
By contrast look at the institutional asset management industry. There you have a clear separation between the fund and the investment adviser/investment manager (IA/IM). The fund has independent directors with fund administrators controlling investor assets, books and records, subscriptions/redemptions, striking the NAV etc. The IA/IM is only allowed to direct the fund to execute transactions but is never allowed to hold client money. There is a clear SLA between the fund and the IA/IM, which cannot be altered at the IA/IM's discretion.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Nov 23, 2019 17:08:09 GMT
I can't see any reference to proxy voting, only nomination of individual lenders who I guess could be nominated many times, but would that make any difference to their investment size? Does LAG have additional information that other lenders don't? So when did this voting to nominate the body take place? I must have missed that... the original premise was going to be on how much much money the nominee had stuck in these rancid loans if they received more than 5 nominations. So the 5 people from the Lendy Action Group became the 5 people on the CLB. I hope these people have the interests of all investers mind and there isnt some kind of agenda here. Very obviously not. Another spoke in the wheel of conflicted interests. I have been disenfranchised as I was never informed who the candidates were or that I had a vote. Had I been given the opportunity I would have voted for a nominee who was not one of those 5. Very clearly RSM/LAG have colluded to rig the CLB membership; bad news for all other investors I'm sure. I thought it was strange that Grant Thornton weren't organising the CLB membership, so guess they are also party to this stitch up. I'm expecting to get even less back now. I will certainly be lodging a complaint against RSM/Grant Thornton as they are treating investors differently which I understood was against insolvency regulations. I only wish I were in a position to do more as this clearly stinks.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 23, 2019 20:11:51 GMT
It seems to me that there are two possibilities:
1. LAG's preferred candidate list were in fact the largest investors who received nominations (or indeed nobody else of any significance was nominated anyway) 2. The rules were changed without any announcement of the fact, and larger investors with no affiliation to LAG have been unfairly excluded.
Are we aware of any non-LAG nominees whose investment was large enough that they're surprised to have been excluded from the CLB?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 23, 2019 20:54:03 GMT
I can't see any reference to proxy voting, only nomination of individual lenders who I guess could be nominated many times, but would that make any difference to their investment size? Does LAG have additional information that other lenders don't? So when did this voting to nominate the body take place? I must have missed that... the original premise was going to be on how much much money the nominee had stuck in these rancid loans if they received more than 5 nominations. So the 5 people from the Lendy Action Group became the 5 people on the CLB. I hope these people have the interests of all investers mind and there isnt some kind of agenda here. Very obviously not. Another spoke in the wheel of conflicted interests. I have been disenfranchised as I was never informed who the candidates were or that I had a vote. Had I been given the opportunity I would have voted for a nominee who was not one of those 5. Very clearly RSM/LAG have colluded to rig the CLB membership; bad news for all other investors I'm sure. I thought it was strange that Grant Thornton weren't organising the CLB membership, so guess they are also party to this stitch up. I'm expecting to get even less back now. I will certainly be lodging a complaint against RSM/Grant Thornton as they are treating investors differently which I understood was against insolvency regulations. I only wish I were in a position to do more as this clearly stinks. Should this vote be void, since most lenders assumed that unless they had very big personal holdings it was not worth putting themselves up, and did not know that it was possible to proxy vote for someone else?
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Nov 23, 2019 21:52:43 GMT
Quiet possibly, but part of the problem is knowing what has actually happened. Information from RSM was that there were merely going to be self-nominees. However, from posters here it seemed the LAG was organising it’s members to vote, presumably for named candidates/self-nominees – it seems from RSM’s latest communique on the outcome there was indeed a "vote". Or was that just a bad communication, and the 5 LAG members were co-incidentally the self-nominees with the 5 largest holdings? I have asked for clarification. sl75 , for me it’s not just a matter of whether the outcome would’ve been different, it’s transparency and treating all investors fairly. I fail to see how RSM can justify changing the procedure /ground rules part way through and only informing a sub-set of investors who have clearly benefited from it, if that is what happened. If I had been given the opportunity to vote and the outcome was the same then I wouldn’t have grounds for complaint. However, who knows what the outcome would have been if every investor had been informed who all the nominees were and then allowed to vote, it may have been more equitable for all potential nominees. For once I think BDO did a far better and more transparent job than RSM appear to have, and I don't expect the cost would have been much different. |
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Nov 23, 2019 23:08:17 GMT
Leaving aside this stupid mismanagement from RSM (We all know that RSM, BDO and the likes are no more than second tier bean counters and proven incompetent), is there any reason to think that LAG has an agenda that is not aligned with the common interest of Lendy investors as a whole?
|
|
