reinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 194 
Likes: 224
|
Post by reinvestor on Nov 13, 2019 5:56:39 GMT
I am very alarmed at the proposals from the administrators. A few things that hit me: - FS were seemingly approved by the FCA without an appropriate wind-down plan - The legal right of investors to any secured assets is not clear apart from for 5 loans - FS was lending its own money against loans - The bad state of controls at FS have been known since at least December 2018 and the FCA allowed FS to continue to trade- There are non-investor debtors (including former directors) who have significant secured debt This has seemingly left investors in a terrible position. The administrator has no legal right to manage the loan book, however there is no mechanism for the loans to be managed or funds returned to investors. Investors are now being asked to approve a request from the administrator for investors to be de facto creditors and for them to be able to take their fees from proceeds. In my opinion to approve this would be a terrible outcome for investors. It would be to accept that the administrators can take their fees from our loans, but to have no clarity as to how the money will be distributed. How will we know that investors will be ahead of other creditors? I will re-read the proposal, but to me it looks awful for investors. I think we need answers from the FCA, it is not acceptable for them to wipe their hands. They approved FS' regulation and at the time we understood this included a wind-down plan. What are others thoughts? Let me save you the trouble Mr Teflon-Bailey and tell the masses your reply now - "We didn't intervene at the time because we wanted to avoid a disorderly wind-down" (or somesuch). ONE question for you Mr Teflon-Bailey, have you EVER been gainfully employed in the commercial sector, and/or had a responsible, decisionmaking position in running a commercial ( non quasi/government) business? At all? I ask also the same question of all employees at the FCA. Do ANY of you know ANYTHING other than how to tick boxes and quaff pink gin? Why not OWN UP to your numerous incompetencies, arrange appropriate compensations, and then shut yourselves down. THE FCA IS A COMPLETE, UTTER and TOTAL DISGRACE. Just when you thought the FCA couldn’t get any worse!!! Who the hell are they employing?  news.sky.com/story/city-watchdog-takes-aim-at-staff-over-shameful-toilet-habits-11859976
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 13, 2019 6:03:17 GMT
Very concerning that ex-Directors rather than investors may be predominantly making up the creditors committee.
How close are these administrators to the previous owners? Shades of Gordon Craig?
|
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Nov 13, 2019 9:03:30 GMT
Scanning through the 50 page document a couple of other points come to my mind not covered by previous posts/
1 I have cash invested in loans. Am I therefore an investor and or a creditor. This is not clear
2 They want to speed this up & need the approval of creditors and investors. I can't find any way I, as an investor, can voice my approval or disapproval
3 I can't find any reference as to what they will do with the cash held in investors accounts i.e. not invested. Do we get that back in full.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve11 on Nov 13, 2019 9:05:31 GMT
Can somebody please give me some guidance about the email sent today by CG and Co regarding the meeting taking place on 28th Nov in Manchester. I am a FS investor, probably like the majority here. I just want to make sure that I am not missing out on any claim as I was not planning to complete and return the 'Proof of Debt form' they have sent, as my understanding is that it needs only to be completed by creditors. Furthermore, I do believe the sole purpose of completing the form is to be eligible to vote at the 28th Nov meeting. Can somebody please confirm that all of the above is correct. Another legal virgin here im afraid..having read and failed to fully understand the email Id like to ask the same questions as steve11 . Am I correct in thinking im not a creditor but an investor only, so that the form does NOT require filling in ? I would appreciate a public forum post or a PM if that is considered more appropriate I also think the proposed %age Admin fees (2.5% of recoveries on defaulted loans, 0.125% on in term redemption ) would be a preferable way to proceed. Having now read all the recent posts on this Admin mail though and a fairly recent post regarding the Art Loans, I suspect my recoveries aren't going to be much. But at least this situation now has an end point..
|
|
|
|
Post by steve11 on Nov 13, 2019 9:08:45 GMT
I have just spoken to Helen from the Administrator's office this morning, and I can confirm that the 'Proof of debt form' is SOLELY related to the meeting on 28th Nov. investors do not need to complete the 'Proof of debt' form if they do not wish to attend the meeting on 28th Nov. We will not lose out on any claim if we do not complete the form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 9:23:02 GMT
I think the whole issue of investor or creditor is critical.
I thought I lent to a series of companies through the mechanism of FS. So not a Creditor of FS
I did not receive share holding, voting rights (last-rites?) in the company and I could not influence the board or decision making process. So not an Investor in FS.
Until the Authorities more clearly define what I am and my relationship to various P2P organisations once they enter administration I will continue to be unimpressed and certainly no more money to P2P.
|
|
|
|
Post by defaultinator5000 on Nov 13, 2019 9:36:18 GMT
Let me save you the trouble Mr Teflon-Bailey and tell the masses your reply now - "We didn't intervene at the time because we wanted to avoid a disorderly wind-down" (or somesuch). ONE question for you Mr Teflon-Bailey, have you EVER been gainfully employed in the commercial sector, and/or had a responsible, decisionmaking position in running a commercial ( non quasi/government) business? At all? I ask also the same question of all employees at the FCA. Do ANY of you know ANYTHING other than how to tick boxes and quaff pink gin? Why not OWN UP to your numerous incompetencies, arrange appropriate compensations, and then shut yourselves down. THE FCA IS A COMPLETE, UTTER and TOTAL DISGRACE. Just when you thought the FCA couldn’t get any worse!!! Who the hell are they employing? news.sky.com/story/city-watchdog-takes-aim-at-staff-over-shameful-toilet-habits-11859976Wow, that article was quite eye opening I must say. Now I know that "FCA approved" actually means "singed off by a drunk who pisses and defecates on the floor". Wish I knew that back in early 2017...
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 3,243
|
Post by jonno on Nov 13, 2019 9:57:55 GMT
Wow, that article was quite eye opening I must say. Now I know that "FCA approved" actually means "singed off by a drunk who pisses and defecates on the floor". Wish I knew that back in early 2017... Yeah well, they've certainly left us lot in the  
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 13, 2019 10:25:41 GMT
I think the whole issue of investor or creditor is critical.
I thought I lent to a series of companies through the mechanism of FS. So not a Creditor of FS
I did not receive share holding, voting rights (last-rites?) in the company and I could not influence the board or decision making process. So not an Investor in FS.
Until the Authorities more clearly define what I am and my relationship to various P2P organisations once they enter administration I will continue to be unimpressed and certainly no more money to P2P.
Bobo after reading the report again I suspect we may be nothing at all: - We are not creditors of FS as the loans we invested in were with third parties with FS as the agent. We may have had a claim against FS for negligence but the company now has a moratorium on claims. The administrator says that we will be treated as creditors, I don't really know what this means and for the reason below I don't think it may not be in investors interests to be creditors - We may not even have any claim on proceeds from the loans with third parties as according the administrator only the last 5 issued loans (since Sep 19) were worded so that the beneficiary is legally the investor. All loans before this therefore it is doubtful as to whether investors have any claim on proceeds from these loans at all. To me the situation is absolutely dire. Key questions are: - If investors agree to be treated as creditors, does this mean that other creditors will have equal or preferred claims to proceeds to the loans than investors. The company has only £700 of realisable assets so other creditors would love all investors to agree to use proceeds from our loans to recover them money. - As investors are not legally entitled to the proceeds of recoveries on loans (bar the most recent 5) will investors agreeing to be treated as creditors actually yield any results. Will not secured creditors be able to challenge in court that they have first dibs on our money? - Is there actually much of a prospect of any recoveries from loans here. No idea but from what it sounds the security and recovery on most loans, especially old ones like the ones I hold, looks non existent. To actually recover money will take long legal cases which as overseen by costly administrators and lawyers will eat up any recoveries. - According to FS' own website the FCA agreed a wind-down plan in the event of FS' failure. Where is that plan? - The proceeds from loans and investor cash seem to be in a trust which the administrator currently has no authority to take fees from and therefore as there is only £700 of realisable assets cannot be paid or proceed without access to this. While I get the administrators logic here, is the best solution for investors to give them access to this money or for us to refuse, and go back to the FCA and say nope we are not going to hand over lots of cash to an administrator to get you off the hook, what are you going to do to sort the situation out. To me I have had a think about it and this is my opinion: 1) To agree to the proposals would be to accept the dire oversight by the FCA and to agree to a scheme where there is no clarity in recoveries or how much of recovered funds would go to investors rather than creditors. Until this is clarified I will oppose the proposals. This is not my advice to others, others need to make their decision. 2) I believe that the best resolution is for the FCA to implement a mechanism to wind down the loan book in line with their approved plan. If this plan did not exist or is not fit for purpose the FCA should be liable for funding an appropriate mechanism. 3) I believe that the best solution may be for the FCA to manage an auction and sale of the loan book and the proceeds dispersed. The dispersal method can be debated. I honestly believe this may deliver the best outcome for investors. I very much fear that if investors approve the administrators proposals they will only get years of administrators reports but little to any recoveries. I cannot support this based on the current proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Nov 13, 2019 10:50:33 GMT
To me I have had a think about it and this is my opinion:
1) To agree to the proposals would be to accept the dire oversight by the FCA and to agree to a scheme where there is no clarity in recoveries or how much of recovered funds would go to investors rather than investors. Until this is clarified I will oppose the proposals. This is not my advice to others, others need to make their decision.
2) I believe that the best resolution is for the FCA to implement a mechanism to wind down the loan book in line with their approved plan. If this plan did not exist or is not fit for purpose the FCA should be liable for funding an appropriate mechanism.
3) I believe that the best solution may be for the FCA to manage an auction and sale of the loan book and the proceeds dispersed. The dispersal method can be debated. I honestly believe this may deliver the best outcome for investors.
I very much fear that if investors approve the administrators proposals they will only get years of administrators reports but little to any recoveries. I cannot support this based on the current proposals.
Whilst I agree to points 1-3 of your opinion, to date 3 loans have paid some or all back since administration & I now have over £300 sitting in my un-invested account at FS (which I can't withdraw)
My opinion on your last para is that at least some of the 300+ loans will still pay back as per normal.
I personally have 106 loan parts still showing as active out of a total of 161, even after today's culling.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 13, 2019 11:00:20 GMT
From my first read through, the proposal for the admin fees (2.5% of recoveries on defaulted loans, 0.125% on in term redemptions) seems an equitable approach. (page 16, para 8.5) 2.5% of say £40m recovered would be £1m.
I assume the expenses listed on page 47 are in addition to the administrators fees?
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 13, 2019 12:19:43 GMT
I have an impression that either the administrators are not very clued or simply dishonest. In the report they claim that it is not clear "who owns what" without explaining what is the issue.
I can imagine the following cases
a) they don't have records of our investments. I find it unlikely as the online system kept track of them and no investor was complying about missing investments
b) FS was very "flexible" about cash flows, funding the loans with a mixture of its own and investors money. I don't see much problem here as long a shortfall is on the investors side, they should be able to take excess money from the client account. If is is other way around, FS used the client money for other purposes than investing in our loans, then investors are creditors for the shortfall. The administrators should inform authorities about a theft.
c) FS took investors money and lend it as themselves, an analog of buying a house where a solicitor takes your money and buy a house for himself. That is a fraud and the legal documents should be rectified.
The report suggests that FCA was aware about the issues for months. If they knew about a criminal activity and they didn't inform a relevant authority then they are partially liable for our losses due to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollypoppy on Nov 13, 2019 12:35:19 GMT
Hi having read through all the posts on the above and not having and to access the Administrators report. I am an individual invested in various P2P for many years now (basically trying to leave a legacy for my kids). I believe you are both in the same position rogerthat; steve11 correct me if I'm wrong (although maybe not for your kids) We all are aware of the risks but surely if loans are secured on property we stand a chance of recouping some of our money. I don't care about the interest accrued which currently sits on mine at just over £9000. Any friendly incites would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance Sorry to any of the larger investors but us small investors need all the help we can get. 😊 Can somebody please give me some guidance about the email sent today by CG and Co regarding the meeting taking place on 28th Nov in Manchester. I am a FS investor, probably like the majority here. I just want to make sure that I am not missing out on any claim as I was not planning to complete and return the 'Proof of Debt form' they have sent, as my understanding is that it needs only to be completed by creditors. Furthermore, I do believe the sole purpose of completing the form is to be eligible to vote at the 28th Nov meeting. Can somebody please confirm that all of the above is correct.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 13, 2019 12:42:04 GMT
Hi having read through all the posts on the above and not having and to access the Administrators report. I am an individual invested in various P2P for many years now (basically trying to leave a legacy for my kids). I believe you are both in the same position rogerthat; steve11 correct me if I'm wrong (although maybe not for your kids) We all are aware of the risks but surely if loans are secured on property we stand a chance of recouping some of our money. I don't care about the interest accrued which currently sits on mine at just over £9000. Any friendly incites would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance Sorry to any of the larger investors but us small investors need all the help we can get. 😊 Can somebody please give me some guidance about the email sent today by CG and Co regarding the meeting taking place on 28th Nov in Manchester. I am a FS investor, probably like the majority here. I just want to make sure that I am not missing out on any claim as I was not planning to complete and return the 'Proof of Debt form' they have sent, as my understanding is that it needs only to be completed by creditors. Furthermore, I do believe the sole purpose of completing the form is to be eligible to vote at the 28th Nov meeting. Can somebody please confirm that all of the above is correct. Molly - remember that the security on many loans was not appropriately obtained or were well over-valued. Add to that that a lot of the borrowers seem to be connected and potential fraud and suddenly that security doesn't seem so good. And then throw into that that the loan agreements do not have investors as the beneficiary of the loan, there is no mechanism for the loan book to be wound down and if we accept the administrators proposals other creditors may have more right to the proceeds than investors then the whole thing looks a right royal mess. My view, and it is just my view is that the administrators proposal are a folly, will deliver investors next to no returns and I will be opposing. I expect the FCA to take control to ensure matters are settled in the interest of retail investors.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 13, 2019 13:01:16 GMT
reference this email regarding the proposals. who has that been sent to ? I am a lender on FS and have not received any email regarding.
|
|
