ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168 
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Nov 21, 2019 16:38:47 GMT
"Proof Of Debt" and "Proxy Form" duly posted snail mail today by OzBoy. "We shall never give in, ............."
 |
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 21, 2019 17:34:37 GMT
That is my opinion. I thought the legal advise FSAG is seeking would help us understand how to vote during a Creditor Meeting but it seems FSAG founders made their mind how they are going to vote before they asked lawyers. The voting hasn't happened yet. I don't think there should be a problem to send a new amended proxy form if you change your mind. We don't we need to make an instant decision as FSAG. A day would be enough to use a forum poll and post-process results manually (or with a script) to take into account contributions to the war chest. The FSAG team have experience in the game, so they did know how they were going to vote before the lawyer was instructed, but the lawyer has since confirmed that they were on the right track. With regard to voting on the decisions that FSAG take, I think you are over thinking what control the CC will actually get and how difficult those decisions will be to make. First question that seems like it might come up is "Leading Counsel has advised that the loan trusts are written in favour of FS, do you vote in favour of accepting that advice or against?", next thing to come up may be that the CC (hopefully controlled by investor biased seats) will suggest that the administrator's 2.5% cut is first taken from FS's share of any recovered funds (if there is any), before it is taken from investor's recoveries, do you really think that FSAG need to refer those questions back to the membership? Secondly, you are underestimating the amount of work that the FSAG team are having to put in to all this; on top of their day jobs! Thirdly if, as we hope, the FSAG gets 3 seats on the CC, only 1 of those 3 will have been voted in by members from Facebook & the FSAG forum, so even if a vote was held via those forums any influence would be minimal. The other 2 seats BTW would, all being well, be held by one investor voted in by the size of his own investment, the other with the support of a small number of HNW investors. I'm not suggesting that a decision would never be put back to the membership for a vote if the best course of direction were every uncertain, but the basic decision you have to make at this point in time is do you want a CC controlled by Creditors or one controlled by the FSAG? As for transparency, if you want more information, I suggest you come join us on either the FSAG Facebook page or the FSAG forum, where discussions are not as public. 1) I would like to hear more what are your and lawyers' arguments investors should vote to approve the admin proposals. Sorry but an argument like "experience in the game" doesn't work with me. 2) I can come up with many pessimistic scenarios where decisions made by CC can lead to a bad outcome for investors. Interests of small and big investors are not always aligned. 3) I appreciate your work but that is no reason I should vote as you suggest. 4) what percentage of all loans are owned by a big investor and a small number of HNW investors? Do they really have 2/3 share? 5) prefer FSAG over Creditors but I also prefer FSAG fairly representing interests of all investors over FSAG representing a few big investors 6) I've checked the FSAG forum already but the amount of information there is very limited. To be clear I am not against FSAG, it is good to have some investors actively fighting for their interests. It could be used to consolidate efforts of all investors and create a powerful unified voice. At the moment however FSAG is quite opaque for me. The decisions are made by a small group people without a seeking consensus of all investors or at least explaining reasons for them. Small investors seems to be used to get one more member of CC without any guarantee their voice will be heard. I only have some leftover investments in FS, took my money over year ago as I saw how hopeless FS is. The only way to make money there was to scam other investors by selling loans before they mature. My stake in the FS administration is small, I am more concerned about other investors being taken for a ride again.
|
|
sirius
Member of DD Central
Posts: 161
Likes: 141
|
Post by sirius on Nov 21, 2019 17:53:03 GMT
If any more is needed I will chip in, or do it now. I was unclear how to deal with it. Are details where to donate easy to find, or can they be entered on this thread. Not into Facebook. Facebook banned me years ago, for posting information telling people their rights as men and women and how to avoid being classed as a legal entity. (FB in bed with big brother of course). As I am not privy to the Facebook info, I would appreciate if any relevant information posted there could find its way here. I will then be aware if more money is needed and will gladly contribute. FIA
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 21, 2019 18:09:25 GMT
It is meant as in your first case, the way other fees & expenses are are to be paid is detailed in the APs; decision 1 deals with accepting or rejecting those. This should be made clearer. I don't understand how you can claim that you don't want investors to become creditors but at the same time you want to vote for the admin proposals, which seeks administrator fees to be taken directly from proceeds of selling assets in trust. They are quite clear in the last point of 8.4 this is a potential conflict of an interest between the Administrators and Investors, which could lead to a court decision if the proposals are rejected. Their proposal also significantly increases any recovery for creditors as the admin costs attributable to creditors are taken before any distributions to investors. The current waterfall 1) investors 2) FS fees a) administrator fees
b) creditors
The proposal
1) administrator fees
2) investors
3) FS fees
a) creditors
In the first case administrators fees will reduce amount distributed to creditors practically to zero, around 6mln of potential FS fees, realistically much less as more assets are not worth enough to generate any FS fees, minus around 2mln of admin fees. In the second case they will lose only 2.5% on defaulted assets and 0.125% on non-defaulted ones. It is an effective transfer of around 2mln from investors to creditors.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Nov 21, 2019 19:20:47 GMT
Sorry for my ignorance, what's the taxi reference? I believe it's:
|
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Nov 21, 2019 19:39:24 GMT
It is meant as in your first case, the way other fees & expenses are are to be paid is detailed in the APs; decision 1 deals with accepting or rejecting those. This should be made clearer. I don't understand how you can claim that you don't want investors to become creditors but at the same time you want to vote for the admin proposals, which seeks administrator fees to be taken directly from proceeds of selling assets in trust. They are quite clear in the last point of 8.4 this is a potential conflict of an interest between the Administrators and Investors, which could lead to a court decision if the proposals are rejected. Their proposal also significantly increases any recovery for creditors as the admin costs attributable to creditors are taken before any distributions to investors. The current waterfall 1) investors 2) FS fees a) administrator fees
b) creditors
The proposal
1) administrator fees
2) investors
3) FS fees
a) creditors
In the first case administrators fees will reduce amount distributed to creditors practically to zero, around 6mln of potential FS fees, realistically much less as more assets are not worth enough to generate any FS fees, minus around 2mln of admin fees. In the second case they will lose only 2.5% on defaulted assets and 0.125% on non-defaulted ones. It is an effective transfer of around 2mln from investors to creditors.
On the assumption all your figures are roughly correct I still don't follow your last sentence. Surely the creditors are going to get nothing in both cases and the effective transfer is from investors to Administrator fees?? Isn't it the case that the administrators, whoever they are, need to be paid and a percentage fee at least motivates them a little to recovering the maximum amount.
|
|
|
|
Post by FSAG Forum on Nov 21, 2019 20:22:47 GMT
The FSAG team have experience in the game, so they did know how they were going to vote before the lawyer was instructed, but the lawyer has since confirmed that they were on the right track. With regard to voting on the decisions that FSAG take, I think you are over thinking what control the CC will actually get and how difficult those decisions will be to make. First question that seems like it might come up is "Leading Counsel has advised that the loan trusts are written in favour of FS, do you vote in favour of accepting that advice or against?", next thing to come up may be that the CC (hopefully controlled by investor biased seats) will suggest that the administrator's 2.5% cut is first taken from FS's share of any recovered funds (if there is any), before it is taken from investor's recoveries, do you really think that FSAG need to refer those questions back to the membership? Secondly, you are underestimating the amount of work that the FSAG team are having to put in to all this; on top of their day jobs! Thirdly if, as we hope, the FSAG gets 3 seats on the CC, only 1 of those 3 will have been voted in by members from Facebook & the FSAG forum, so even if a vote was held via those forums any influence would be minimal. The other 2 seats BTW would, all being well, be held by one investor voted in by the size of his own investment, the other with the support of a small number of HNW investors. I'm not suggesting that a decision would never be put back to the membership for a vote if the best course of direction were every uncertain, but the basic decision you have to make at this point in time is do you want a CC controlled by Creditors or one controlled by the FSAG? As for transparency, if you want more information, I suggest you come join us on either the FSAG Facebook page or the FSAG forum, where discussions are not as public. 1) I would like to hear more what are your and lawyers' arguments investors should vote to approve the admin proposals. Sorry but an argument like "experience in the game" doesn't work with me. 2) I can come up with many pessimistic scenarios where decisions made by CC can lead to a bad outcome for investors. Interests of small and big investors are not always aligned. 3) I appreciate your work but that is no reason I should vote as you suggest. 4) what percentage of all loans are owned by a big investor and a small number of HNW investors? Do they really have 2/3 share? 5) prefer FSAG over Creditors but I also prefer FSAG fairly representing interests of all investors over FSAG representing a few big investors 6) I've checked the FSAG forum already but the amount of information there is very limited. To be clear I am not against FSAG, it is good to have some investors actively fighting for their interests. It could be used to consolidate efforts of all investors and create a powerful unified voice. At the moment however FSAG is quite opaque for me. The decisions are made by a small group people without a seeking consensus of all investors or at least explaining reasons for them. Small investors seems to be used to get one more member of CC without any guarantee their voice will be heard. I only have some leftover investments in FS, took my money over year ago as I saw how hopeless FS is. The only way to make money there was to scam other investors by selling loans before they mature. My stake in the FS administration is small, I am more concerned about other investors being taken for a ride again. 1) I am not going to divulge specific information on a public forum, please ask the same question on the FSAG forum. 2) Please explain why you think there are any difference in the in the interests of investors large & small? Any recoveries will be paid out on a pro-rata basis, just the same as they would have been under FS. That will remain the same whatever the outcome with regard to the state of the loan trusts. 3) I wasn't suggesting that you vote for us because we're busy, I was saying that we won't have time to refer back to the membership on every single little decision. 4) Straight answer; we don't know, apart from the fact that £80m is apparently held by 3.5k investors. It's just easier to collect the value of votes from a dozen really large investors than hundreds of smaller ones & some of the FSAG team already know some of the HNWs due to their line of business. 5) As 2) all investor interests are the same, with the exception of those that are also direct investors in FS, namely 2 ex directors + the other £500k unseured investor; those are the ones that we need to try to outvote/out number on the CC. 6) There is more discussion on the FSAG Facebook page than the forum ATM, but mainly because you're asking questions in the wrong place! 
|
|
|
|
Post by FSAG Forum on Nov 21, 2019 20:31:09 GMT
It is meant as in your first case, the way other fees & expenses are are to be paid is detailed in the APs; decision 1 deals with accepting or rejecting those. This should be made clearer. I don't understand how you can claim that you don't want investors to become creditors but at the same time you want to vote for the admin proposals, which seeks administrator fees to be taken directly from proceeds of selling assets in trust. They are quite clear in the last point of 8.4 this is a potential conflict of an interest between the Administrators and Investors, which could lead to a court decision if the proposals are rejected. Their proposal also significantly increases any recovery for creditors as the admin costs attributable to creditors are taken before any distributions to investors. The current waterfall 1) investors 2) FS fees a) administrator fees
b) creditors
The proposal
1) administrator fees
2) investors
3) FS fees
a) creditors
In the first case administrators fees will reduce amount distributed to creditors practically to zero, around 6mln of potential FS fees, realistically much less as more assets are not worth enough to generate any FS fees, minus around 2mln of admin fees. In the second case they will lose only 2.5% on defaulted assets and 0.125% on non-defaulted ones. It is an effective transfer of around 2mln from investors to creditors.
The Administrators Proposals are by no means ideal, but we have to make the best of a bad situation. One of the first things that we would be doing, if we gained atleast 3 seats, is to try to renegotiate the fact that the 2.5% fees be taken, in the first instance from any FS fees recovered from loans, but we have to be realistic here, many of the loans aren't going to fully repay capital let alone interest or FS fees, why do you think FS never dealt with them? The Administrators are not going to do the job for free and there is no other, realistic option available.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 21, 2019 21:20:53 GMT
This should be made clearer. I don't understand how you can claim that you don't want investors to become creditors but at the same time you want to vote for the admin proposals, which seeks administrator fees to be taken directly from proceeds of selling assets in trust. They are quite clear in the last point of 8.4 this is a potential conflict of an interest between the Administrators and Investors, which could lead to a court decision if the proposals are rejected. Their proposal also significantly increases any recovery for creditors as the admin costs attributable to creditors are taken before any distributions to investors. The current waterfall 1) investors 2) FS fees a) administrator fees
b) creditors
The proposal
1) administrator fees
2) investors
3) FS fees
a) creditors
In the first case administrators fees will reduce amount distributed to creditors practically to zero, around 6mln of potential FS fees, realistically much less as more assets are not worth enough to generate any FS fees, minus around 2mln of admin fees. In the second case they will lose only 2.5% on defaulted assets and 0.125% on non-defaulted ones. It is an effective transfer of around 2mln from investors to creditors.
On the assumption all your figures are roughly correct I still don't follow your last sentence. Surely the creditors are going to get nothing in both cases and the effective transfer is from investors to Administrator fees?? Isn't it the case that the administrators, whoever they are, need to be paid and a percentage fee at least motivates them a little to recovering the maximum amount. Let assume that FS fees are 2mln (amount left in some loans after paying investors) , the Administrators costs 2mln The current situation Creditors: 0 Administrators: 2mln Investors: X The proposal Creditors: between 0 and 2mln (for loans that pay a FS fee admin costs are paid by creditors, for loans that there is not enough money to pay a FS fee investors pay admin costs) Administrators: 2mln Investors: X - Creditors' amount Total amounts in both cases are the same. proceeds from selling securities
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Nov 21, 2019 21:56:20 GMT
<snip> but mainly because you're asking questions in the wrong place! If this is the "wrong place" then perhaps you could explain why someone totally anonymous who has only just opened a P2PIF forum account and thus has made no past contribution to the years of debate, discussion and information on FS or it's loans on the P2PIF yet claims "experience in the game" is here trying to persuade other P2PIF members to sign up to an alternative forum, vote for you and your mates to gain control of a Creditors Committee and contribute to legal costs that only those that do will benefit from?
|
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Nov 21, 2019 21:58:01 GMT
On the assumption all your figures are roughly correct I still don't follow your last sentence. Surely the creditors are going to get nothing in both cases and the effective transfer is from investors to Administrator fees?? Isn't it the case that the administrators, whoever they are, need to be paid and a percentage fee at least motivates them a little to recovering the maximum amount. Let assume that FS fees are 2mln (amount left in some loans after paying investors) , the Administrators costs 2mln The current situation Creditors: 0 Administrators: 2mln Investors: X The proposal Creditors: between 0 and 2mln (for loans that pay a FS fee admin costs are paid by creditors, for loans that there is not enough money to pay a FS fee investors pay admin costs) Administrators: 2mln Investors: X - Creditors' amount Total amounts in both cases are the same. proceeds from selling securities I am having an issue with understanding your terminology and logic. By "creditors" do you mean the things like wages owed and so on? That's what I understand by creditors. If so how can admin costs be paid by creditors? I suggest you post with a full account showing example figures and percentages and outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Nov 22, 2019 1:55:51 GMT
<snip> but mainly because you're asking questions in the wrong place! If this is the "wrong place" then perhaps you could explain why someone totally anonymous who has only just opened a P2PIF forum account and thus has made no past contribution to the years of debate, discussion and information on FS or it's loans on the P2PIF yet claims "experience in the game" is here trying to persuade other P2PIF members to sign up to an alternative forum, vote for you and your mates to gain control of a Creditors Committee and contribute to legal costs that only those that do will benefit from? 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.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Nov 22, 2019 9:24:52 GMT
If this is the "wrong place" then perhaps you could explain why someone totally anonymous who has only just opened a P2PIF forum account and thus has made no past contribution to the years of debate, discussion and information on FS or it's loans on the P2PIF yet claims "experience in the game" is here trying to persuade other P2PIF members to sign up to an alternative forum, vote for you and your mates to gain control of a Creditors Committee and contribute to legal costs that only those that do will benefit from? 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. Whatever action they take can be open to criticism, but surely leaving an open request for funding without a defined service/product the funds are to be used for would appear much more suspicious than raising the immediate fund requirement then closing it until it is clear further funding is necessary. None of us are required to vote for them, but I don't see any other action being organised by the members of this forum so our choice is join their action or go our own way. The choice is ours.
|
|
Garage246
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 209
|
Post by Garage246 on Nov 22, 2019 10:00:01 GMT
If this is the "wrong place" then perhaps you could explain why someone totally anonymous who has only just opened a P2PIF forum account and thus has made no past contribution to the years of debate, discussion and information on FS or it's loans on the P2PIF yet claims "experience in the game" is here trying to persuade other P2PIF members to sign up to an alternative forum, vote for you and your mates to gain control of a Creditors Committee and contribute to legal costs that only those that do will benefit from? 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!
|
|
Garage246
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 209
|
Post by Garage246 on Nov 22, 2019 10:09:48 GMT
Also to add for transparency, I will be voting to accept the administrators proposal to get things moving, but as I am also standing for Creditors Committee, if I get voted on I will be challenging aspects of this, including trying to ensure that administrator fees are taken from FS pot first and foremost and that they are at a fair rate (noting though that the administrators have to be paid or work stops). I will also not be supporting the dissolution of the trust assets, but will push the point that lenders are unsecured creditors for their losses after recoveries from the trust assets.
Those are my cards on the table!
|
|
