adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 26, 2021 15:52:36 GMT
exactly - you me it is very simple - the FCA have failed us all big time- just another useless quango set up by the boys for the boys for failed individuals to get their snout in the trough of the gravy train that keeps on giving.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,726
|
Post by duck on Mar 26, 2021 17:05:42 GMT
Indeed it has in the relevant Col thread but just a quick point. In the reply to Lord Myners (who we owe a debt of gratitude for asking the questions) the FC forgot to say between discovering the false IP entry and Col closing they instructed Col to quietly remove 'FCA authorised' from all their documentation/website and changed the register themselves back to Regal Pawnbroker. You would almost think they were trying to cover their tracks. Never once did they 'protect consumers' one of their core remits, not even an obscure warning hidden away on their website. As for the 'to avoid a disorderly collapse' well that happened anyway made worse by the FCA not protecting the data (which they could have done) which has cost investors even more money.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on Mar 26, 2021 18:50:31 GMT
Indeed it has in the relevant Col thread but just a quick point. In the reply to Lord Myners (who we owe a debt of gratitude for asking the questions) the FC forgot to say between discovering the false IP entry and Col closing they instructed Col to quietly remove 'FCA authorised' from all their documentation/website and changed the register themselves back to Regal Pawnbroker. You would almost think they were trying to cover their tracks. Never once did they 'protect consumers' one of their core remits, not even an obscure warning hidden away on their website. As for the 'to avoid a disorderly collapse' well that happened anyway made worse by the FCA not protecting the data (which they could have done) which has cost investors even more money. Thank you Duck
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 26, 2021 20:09:02 GMT
exactly - you me it is very simple - the FCA have failed us all big time- just another useless quango set up by the boys for the boys for failed individuals to get their snout in the trough of the gravy train that keeps on giving. That notwithstanding the FCA exist and their role or purported role has to be taken on board. That is not taking the FCA side nor even of explaining their viewpoint but a courtesy being shown to a poster struggling to understand the FCA position in relation to the Funding Secure situation.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,726
|
Post by duck on Mar 27, 2021 1:31:23 GMT
That notwithstanding the FCA exist and their role or purported role has to be taken on board. .... Indeed it does which is why I have been following the LC&F hearings with keen interest. I'm not sure if all reading here will know that some months ago the FCA listed P2P in the 'High Risk' category along with cryptocurrencies and mini bonds (now banned from sale to retail customers) among others. This is in marked contrast to some years ago where the Government and Treasury were openly championing P2P. The FCAs reaction in putting P2P in the high risk category was IMHO a knee jerk reaction to the problems they have run into. By calling P2P high risk they are essentially saying 'you have been warned', over to you at your risk. The FCA are currently running campaigns to try to stop retail investors investing in 'high risk' products and letting them know if they do it is their risk and they could loose all their money. The move by the FCA to list P2P as high risk was however neglecting one major point. Mini bonds and crypto currencies are not regulated business ('outside the perimeter' in FCA terminology) P2P is firmly inside the perimeter so regulation of P2P is firmly in the FCAs remit. What the Gloster report has shown in the case of LC&F is that the FCA were just not up to the job, there was systematic and systemic failures. With LC&F the business was regulated but the mini bonds they were selling were not. As Dame Gloster said LC&F used the 'regulated by the FCA' badge to enhance their selling of their non regulated bonds, the 'Halo Effect'. LC&F had the badge but in reality they did not carry out any regulated activities. LC&F is more nuanced than the 'simple' cases of P2P regulation failure that we have experienced. FS, LY are further examples of poor/inadequate/'light touch' regulation. Col remains unique since it illustrates serious failures by the FCA from the day that the Part 4A application was lodged by the brothers right through to the day when the FCA had BDO appointed.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Apr 6, 2021 11:06:28 GMT
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 6, 2021 12:06:05 GMT
In so many cases of collapse where the clients lose money, its fraud that is primarily or partly the root cause, and as is now coming to light, the FCA are inadequate at identifying existing fraud at companies or avenues where Directors can perpetrate fraud with client’s monies.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 6, 2021 14:13:44 GMT
wise words- I have read press reports about this one which I assume is the FX company based in Portugal - I am very concerned just how little the police are bothered and appalled by the total lack of FCA control - I mean this bloke said he was covered by the FSA - well how difficult was it for them to check that!
As of today the money can't be traced and also his reported death is disputed - reads like a Frederick Forthsyth saga
I wonder just what redress we are going to get against the former directors I suspect none butI hope at least one ends up doing time although sadly I doubt it
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 6, 2021 15:41:28 GMT
The FCA is for the high jump, it's only a matter of time, their gross incompetence has been on a monumental scale, and gets worse every new week.
Unfortunately, after the "New, Improved! It's different this time!" reassuring fanfare BS from Government, (as with FSA, LAUTRO, etc etc before) the same ole pink gin swilling, trough snouting, couldn't give a fornication, lazy & grossly incompetent, commercial sector reject tossers will be rehired and the merry go round will continue.
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 348
Likes: 435
|
Post by nyneil on Apr 6, 2021 18:40:58 GMT
The FCA is for the high jump, it's only a matter of time, their gross incompetence has been on a monumental scale, and gets worse every new week. Unfortunately, after the "New, Improved! It's different this time!" reassuring fanfare BS from Government, (as with FSA, LAUTRO, etc etc before) the same ole pink gin swilling, trough snouting, couldn't give a fornication, lazy & grossly incompetent, commercial sector reject tossers will be rehired and the merry go round will continue. I take it they're out of favour with you
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 6, 2021 19:16:14 GMT
The FCA is for the high jump, it's only a matter of time, their gross incompetence has been on a monumental scale, and gets worse every new week. Unfortunately, after the "New, Improved! It's different this time!" reassuring fanfare BS from Government, (as with FSA, LAUTRO, etc etc before) the same ole pink gin swilling, trough snouting, couldn't give a fornication, lazy & grossly incompetent, commercial sector reject tossers will be rehired and the merry go round will continue. I take it they're out of favour with you He's joking. In reality he's known to pop in for a pink gin on a regular basis
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,726
|
Post by duck on Apr 7, 2021 9:25:39 GMT
In so many cases of collapse where the clients lose money, its fraud that is primarily or partly the root cause, and as is now coming to light, the FCA are inadequate at identifying existing fraud at companies or avenues where Directors can perpetrate fraud with client’s monies. But the problem goes deeper than that, when the FCA investigates it does not look at 'causation' which of course is reflected in the low ex-gratia payments that they occasionally make (other times nothing). I found this recently released Complaints Commissioners ruling particularly interesting considering the FCAs lack of action when presented with evidence in good time. and Causation has been central to my and 'the lings' work on Col for the last 3 years .....
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Apr 7, 2021 10:34:45 GMT
Well..I can't tell you how encouraging a read that was
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 7, 2021 10:40:50 GMT
In so many cases of collapse where the clients lose money, its fraud that is primarily or partly the root cause, and as is now coming to light, the FCA are inadequate at identifying existing fraud at companies or avenues where Directors can perpetrate fraud with client’s monies. But the problem goes deeper than that, when the FCA investigates it does not look at 'causation' which of course is reflected in the low ex-gratia payments that they occasionally make (other times nothing). I found this recently released Complaints Commissioners ruling particularly interesting considering the FCAs lack of action when presented with evidence in good time. and Causation has been central to my and 'the lings' work on Col for the last 3 years ..... In the case of FundingSecure, it was not a case of 1 or 2 of the Supervisory actions that the FCA overlooked, but the majority of their own mandated supervisory criteria that were overlooked. I stress strongly “majority”, and that is before we even get to the alleged ***** and ********* that took place.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,726
|
Post by duck on Apr 7, 2021 11:29:00 GMT
In the case of FundingSecure, it was not a case of 1 or 2 of the Supervisory actions that the FCA overlooked, but the majority of their own mandated supervisory criteria that were overlooked. I stress strongly “majority”, and that is before we even get to the alleged ***** and ********* that took place. Indeed but my point remains. With FS (and Col with which I am far more in touch with, sorry I don't have the time to spend on FS Mucho) it is necessary to prove causation for the losses. Pinning these losses directly to the FCA's actions/inactions is shall we say 'difficult'. How do you prove that if the FCA had taken a certain action investors would not have lost £X's? The FCA need it to be proved that they are the primary reason why money was lost. Their default position will always be that the actions of the Company/Directors is the primary reason ..... and their part was only contributory to the losses which usually results in an ex-gratia payment of £150 for 'distress and inconvenience'. This isn't helped by the system where the FCA examine themselves and they don't specifically look at causation of the losses seen by investors. The Complaints Commissioner should provide the balance but I have to say I have far less confidence in Amerdeep Somal than I did in Anthony Townsend. Edit I am not doubting or posting against anything you are saying Mucho P2P merely pointing out the barriers that are put in our ways.
|
|