pip
Posts: 542 
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 24, 2019 14:09:27 GMT
My First Post - Just my opinion. I believe that FS investors should not accept the administrators proposals as they currently stand. 1) The idea of accepting the proposals to get things moving and hoping that there will be an opportunity to change the contents of the proposals later seems a very weak negotiating position. Surely the time to negotiate something is BEFORE accepting it. 2) The idea of equal pro-rata responsibility for the Administration costs sounds superfically all fair square and equal until you stop and think about the reality of the situation. Funding Secure has been mis-selling investments to members of the general public. The investors are not equally responsible for the mess created by Funding Secure's mis-selling and overall mis-management. 3) It seems likely that the issue of who is entitled to what will go to a court hearing. It seems reasonable that would include a decision about who should pay for what. I think it is unfair of the Administrators to try and fix the outcome beforehand and investor acceptance of these proposals could be used to influence the courts decision. I don't agree with all of your points but I totally agree with the sentiment. Lost complete confidence of the entire sector.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Nov 24, 2019 18:49:16 GMT
My First Post - Just my opinion. I believe that FS investors should not accept the administrators proposals as they currently stand. 1) The idea of accepting the proposals to get things moving and hoping that there will be an opportunity to change the contents of the proposals later seems a very weak negotiating position. Surely the time to negotiate something is BEFORE accepting it. 2) The idea of equal pro-rata responsibility for the Administration costs sounds superfically all fair square and equal until you stop and think about the reality of the situation. Funding Secure has been mis-selling investments to members of the general public. The investors are not equally responsible for the mess created by Funding Secure's mis-selling and overall mis-management. 3) It seems likely that the issue of who is entitled to what will go to a court hearing. It seems reasonable that would include a decision about who should pay for what. I think it is unfair of the Administrators to try and fix the outcome beforehand and investor acceptance of these proposals could be used to influence the courts decision. Am I missing something? Does FS have any significant assets to pay the administrators? Are the administrators proposing to reduce recovery for investors by more than 2.5% for their fee? Assuming "NO" to both of the above, why will the administrators put any effort into recovering our money if they aren't being paid? Administrators are not great at this sort of recovery at the best of times, I don't think that we want to make it harder. If we are not careful they will auction the lot and the good ones will go for 15p in the pound and the rest for about 2p!
|
|
wishy
Posts: 33
Likes: 42
|
Post by wishy on Nov 24, 2019 20:53:30 GMT
I don't know, I am just some Joe Smoe small investor who has lurked here from time to time and just today plucked up the courage to join up and try to get involved. I don't know where to throw my small weight. There may be others similar out there.
I am not sure what the assets of FS are. I somehow got the idea that, for example, an investment, which investors might perceive as a 10% investment, might actually be charged to the borrower at something more like 30%. I don't know if that's true but if it is then why shouldn't that differential be used pay the Administrators. It's just a thought.
Does anybody know how much of the loan book is actually direct FS investment? Should we not even consider these things?
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Nov 24, 2019 23:48:35 GMT
I don't know, I am just some Joe Smoe small investor who has lurked here from time to time and just today plucked up the courage to join up and try to get involved. Soory wishy , my comment was no more aimed at you than almost everyone else on the previous 5 pages of this thread. I don't understand where the money is coming from to pay for administration if it doesn't come from our investments. But perhaps I have missed something that people have reason to be unhappy about (beyond being unhappy that we invested in a bad product).
|
|
wishy
Posts: 33
Likes: 42
|
Post by wishy on Nov 25, 2019 12:26:06 GMT
Thank you for that bigfoot, I get your point and you are right. However, I think we have been told that FS have invested company funds along with our investor funds. So presumably, as the loan book is recovered, their coffers will be replenished with their returning capital & interest possibly along with a margin of extra interest and admin fees.
Paying for the running of FS was not part of what I signed up to. I don't see the justification to reallocate the cost of running things to us if FS has the funds to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by defaultinator5000 on Nov 25, 2019 12:57:36 GMT
I don't know, I am just some Joe Smoe small investor who has lurked here from time to time and just today plucked up the courage to join up and try to get involved. I don't know where to throw my small weight. There may be others similar out there. I am not sure what the assets of FS are. I somehow got the idea that, for example, an investment, which investors might perceive as a 10% investment, might actually be charged to the borrower at something more like 30%. I don't know if that's true but if it is then why shouldn't that differential be used pay the Administrators. It's just a thought. Does anybody know how much of the loan book is actually direct FS investment? Should we not even consider these things? The issue is that many (like 80%) of the loans are rotten and will return no interest or fees, just capital losses. If this was not the case, the FS' directors would not have thrown in the towel. The administrators are well aware of the sorry state of the loan book and want to ensure they get paid for the work they do recovering those loans. If the loan repays, they propose taking only a small cut. Yes, it is absolutely FS's fault for the state the loan book was left in and ideally some people should be jailed for fraud. But administrators, unlike many of us investors, are no mugs and will not allow themselves to be taken for a ride by unscrupulous borrowers and their grossly overvalued securities.
|
|
wishy
Posts: 33
Likes: 42
|
Post by wishy on Nov 25, 2019 16:18:13 GMT
Thank you defaultinator5000. I have now joined the FSAG, caught up a bit and realised that our only hope is to go along with their plan. I am doing my forms now.
|
|
|
|
Post by FSAG Forum on Nov 25, 2019 20:16:02 GMT
With regard to many people's concerns reference the administrator's 2.5% cut coming from the loans, FSAG's solicitor is going to write a letter to the administrators suggesting some amendments to the APs, including that, where a loan repays sufficiently that FS receives a cut, this is used, in the first instance, to pay the administrators cut. These amendments should be voted on, at the meeting, before accepting the APs.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 26, 2019 10:49:24 GMT
Great move - thanks a lot.
Interesting discussion this - not that I wish I had never heard of FS!
Well at least some of us chipped in to pay for this solicitor!
|
|
wishy
Posts: 33
Likes: 42
|
Post by wishy on Nov 27, 2019 11:54:43 GMT
Like some on this board, I was initially against the FSAG plan. I changed my mind because the path the FSAG are on is the best advice of specialist solictors. In such specialist field my individual thoughts and ideas won't make a difference whereas doing as the specialist advises just might.
If anyone else out there is still "Um"ing and "ah"ing, please remember that the deadline for proxy forms is 4.00pm today.
|
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Dec 3, 2019 15:49:09 GMT
On this style of questioning you might also ask why the funding has now been cut off so no one else is "entitled" to see the legal advice or to expand the legal brief to include your and sb's concerns. I would put it more mildly, but I find it an odd decision to without explanation cut off the ability to add to the legal fund, unless there is overwhelming confidence that no more money is needed, or a concern about the work involved in dealing with the excess, (of which there will very likely be none in my view as I feel this will run and run and will warrant a lot more legal input). As a caveat, I wish I had a facebook account to see what is being said there, but it is so dangerous in my opinion that it's not going to happen. Hi all, just to clarify the legal advice will be shared as soon as we have gone through it but has to go out in a suitable form on a closed forum for obvious reasons. It came in late last night. We have limited the scope to an evaluation of the administrators proposal and the formation of the CC, as those are the two key current issues at hand. Because many third parties are donating, the scope has also come with a fixed price agreed up front - so no open ended racking up of hours. The funding was stopped because the target was met really quickly by contributions from both big and small investors. If at any time in the future more advice is needed then we will make another request on a fixed price arrangement against a fixed scope. I can't think of a fairer way to do this for those that do want to contribute. It is problematic refunding excess funds received through go fund me, so we want to raise only as much as we need at any one time To confirm, the lawyer advice is requested with a clear mandate to benefit ALL lenders big and small - maximise return to lenders on a timely and cost effective basis. It is not geared to advantage any one investor or investor group. That sentence covers all of the conversation around fees, lenders, creditors, etc. Put another way, we want to get the absolute best deal for all lenders all things considered. There will be battles to be had about fees etc down the line, but the strategy now is to get a lender focused CC in place. If we don't get that, we can't have the battles when we need to. There's no separate agenda for HNW vs small lenders, we are all in the same corner fighting the same battle 100%, everyone's pound is worth the same. There is a practical issue that the Administrators are only really replying directly to the larger investors and less so to the smaller ones, they have even told us that. So having an investor representative group with members regardless of the size of their holdings is the best way to get heard. Regarding the legal advice - it is difficult to publish on open forum for obvious reasons. I will post something up under DD, if the admins here are happy for that, and on the other FSAG private forum, which genuine investors can join. It is not easy to be fully open about the advice simply because in open forum it completely undermines us if that advice is seen in full by the other parties. Sorry to the admins here about the other board, but because we needed a mechanism to ensure members are genuine investors there seemed no other way. It's not an attempt to undermine indy. The Lendy Action Group have done exactly the same with their LAG forum. At the end of all this I would really reiterate that our focus is 100% on best returns to all lenders whether you have £25 or £4M lent. There are real practical limitation on how we can communicate with all to everyone's satisfaction. I gave up most of my family holiday earlier this month working on stuff in the background and I'm probably spending 12hrs a day on all this ATM, the other FSAG guys are the same. It's not enough time though to communicate perfectly with everybody on every forum (FB, indy, frank, FSAG pro-boards). We wish it was. So we have to pick what we do carefully to make sure we hit the big picture stuff as well. None of us get paid! Thanks for the clarification and I totaly understand the need to stop the funding after the target was reached (I too contributed my Share) and the issues with refunding the small extra that was raised.
I have 2 points here :
1) Why have we allowed the Administrators to be Members of the Closed Facebook Group (and possibly the Forum) - doesn't it undermine us that our debates, decisions and legal advice is seen in full by them and other parties (in advance) when we know that in all likelihood their interests are not aligned with ours and these might even get leaked to the Directors/Creditors ? 2) Although all the Large, HNW and Small Investors' common interest is to maximise the overall Returns from the Assets before anyone else can get a Share, when it comes to the decision of whether or not to appoint Recievers for individual Loans, the interests would differ depending on whether or not one has an exposure to that particular Loan. So, it's not that simple and straight forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by banffy on Dec 3, 2019 17:30:35 GMT
I agree with the above, the administrators are certainly not our pals and have they not changed their stance recently which is not in our favour so get rid of them so they can't see what is being said. There is no need for them on our forums and they can be engaged solely through our members on the comitee?
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Dec 4, 2019 12:53:24 GMT
Tell me; with regard to any redeemed loans since the administrators took over, where the funds are now showing as available funds.
What is the status of those funds, if they came from repaid loans that were not properly designated to lenders.
Are the funds ring fenced or can the administrators apply a fee when & if the funds are available to withdraw.
|
|
taffy
Posts: 148
Likes: 360
|
Post by taffy on Dec 4, 2019 13:35:35 GMT
Extract from F.S Terms.
"The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) seeks to protect the cash held in your Funding Secure Limited (‘FSL’) client money account (up to a maximum amount of £85,000)"
So, should we make a claim?
|
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Dec 4, 2019 14:54:40 GMT
Extract from F.S Terms. "The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) seeks to protect the cash held in your Funding Secure Limited (‘FSL’) client money account (up to a maximum amount of £85,000)" So, should we make a claim? They should just let us withdraw it, as the administrators at Lendy have done
|
|
