foolsgold
Member of DD Central
Posts: 159
Likes: 194
|
Post by foolsgold on Dec 24, 2019 0:17:55 GMT
Is this not the current rule anyway?
|
|
|
Post by mitosan on Dec 24, 2019 0:29:00 GMT
I don't think lenders are really going to get much say, but either one vote per lender or one vote per pound invested, I would still bet that the majority would be against just selling the full book off ASAP and being done with it. This is complete speculation.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Dec 24, 2019 9:22:47 GMT
I still stand by my original thoughts that lenders would be best served by the entire book being sold off immediately and the proceeds distributed. Almost certain that this would have returned more to investors than this drawn out process where I suspect there will be disappointment at every turn. To be honest with you I don't think this is the majority opinion, there will definitely be some who just want it over and done with though and are willing to take a big hit to that end. I agree with you that my view is not the majority....yet. However I strongly believe that the outcome of the administration process will be such a big letdown that over time people may come round to my way of thinking. I hope I am proved wrong, however I still think that the recovery foreseen by some on this forum is wildly optimistic. I have been on the end of administrations before and have always ended up feeling like the administrators have done very nicely and the creditors have been screwed. I still believe that it was a mistake for lenders to even recognise the authority of the administrators to manage the loans. I think the best hope is that the FCA take control to protect investors interests.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Dec 24, 2019 9:27:19 GMT
If the entire loan book was sold off then Investors in rubbish loans that have little chance of much return would be treated the same as the investor who researched and hand picked better quality loans...hardly seems fair Slightly ironic if anybody who invested in FS loans still claims their research was flawless. I highly suspect that the proceeds of even good loans will mostly be used to fund the administrators fees rather than being returned to investors. I believe my approach would return the best outcome for everybody. If people want to sit around for 2 years hoping that this process will end well....well that’s up to you but in my opinion it won’t end well at all. And by that time nobody will care. That’s why I am going after the FCA now!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 24, 2019 12:52:13 GMT
I am with Pip 100% although happy to go with the majority (it's not like Brexit)
the below is from a fintech article in 2017
I am not convinced this is the case so if not why the hell not ?
I think it is imperative we stop the administrators holding the purse strings and effect a system which ensure they are motivated to return our money rather then collect it for their back pocket - having been a member of *otary I have seen far too many cosy friendships with backhanders all over the place.
I would say ditch the loan book and give the lenders a pro-rata return e.g. have a pot - take out the administrators fee and give good loan holders back a greater % than bad loan holders.
I see no point in winning a pyrrhic victory here - just get what we can out of this horlicks and move on - just my opinion
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,788
Likes: 11,007
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 24, 2019 13:03:24 GMT
If the entire loan book was sold off then Investors in rubbish loans that have little chance of much return would be treated the same as the investor who researched and hand picked better quality loans...hardly seems fair Slightly ironic if anybody who invested in FS loans still claims their research was flawless. I highly suspect that the proceeds of even good loans will mostly be used to fund the administrators fees rather than being returned to investors. I believe my approach would return the best outcome for everybody. If people want to sit around for 2 years hoping that this process will end well....well that’s up to you but in my opinion it won’t end well at all. And by that time nobody will care. That’s why I am going after the FCA now! Experience tells me that all youre doing is picking a different chair to sit in for two years. I'd be amazed if the FCA do anything until the administration is over. Of course,you could have a cheek on both chairs. Good luck anyway.
|
|
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 Dec 24, 2019 13:12:37 GMT
Research like the gems ( ruby) on FS put up as collateral may be flawless but we all saw the end result was less than perfect.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 2,440
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 24, 2019 17:51:32 GMT
I'm sure Pip is delighted to receive your unswerving support Oh, maybe not ... It presumably was when FS were awarded full authorisation. Problem is that the wind-down plan - and the monies required to fund it - went out the window when the administrators were called in back in October of this year and FS " consulted CG&Co regarding the financial position of the Company" How do you envisage that happening? (Paying due consideration to legal process.) From the Administrators proposals: "In these circumstances the remuneration for the Administrators is proposed to be based on
2.5% of the "defaulted" assets realised (those loans where the term has expired) and 0.125%
of the "in term" assets realised (those loans where the term has not expired) during the conduct
of the Administration (exclusive of VAT and disbursements) and the allocation of those fees,
costs and expenses on pro rata basis amongst all creditors and Investors of the Company is
considered the most appropriate method of addressing this issue on a fair and transparent
basis. "Tinker around the edges if you like, but isn't this the basis of a 'motivated' remuneration package? Having been married to a former inspector for the Audit Commission, I've seen evidence of far too many cosy relationships between property developers and members of Local Authority planning committees with backhanders all over the place. Hang on, you're a property developer, aren't you? (In case it's missed on you, my point is that Rotarians worldwide will not appreciate being tarred with the same brush.) Do you mean sell it? If so, how many pence-in-the-pound would you expect to receive from that sale? Ball park. Who decides what are good / bad loans? And to what the extent 'a greater %' is in practice? What would constitute a phyrric victory? Would you prefer the maximum financial return or a quicker return even if its a lower amount?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 24, 2019 18:20:57 GMT
this is true but highly insulting if not silly when applied to me - and here's why - I have only built one house and that was about 30 years ago - since then I concentrate on old and historic buildings as I am a property nut - in fact I have often restored when demolition would have been cheaper - my current projects include: a 16th century cottage - under restoration, a large early 19C shop under renovation - my architect said to rip out the original stairs and convert to 6 flats but I refused to do this, a 17/18th C shop which I restored with wooden frontage despite plastic being cheaper and am selling to a local charity at a loss, a large 19c house which again I was advised to convert into flats but refused ...easy to make cheap jibes isn't it?
|
|
foolsgold
Member of DD Central
Posts: 159
Likes: 194
|
Post by foolsgold on Dec 24, 2019 18:39:50 GMT
The bottom line is that everyone wants whats best for themselves regardless of the outcome for others thats just life.
There will be investors who have loans with a low chance of getting much back and they would prefer if there losses are averaged up by including good loans in the equation.
There will be investors who want there cash out that have low investments of £100 and will be prepared to get £50 back and walk away with little hassle and also investors like me who have tens of thousands invested who are prepared to play the long game.
So lets be honest everyone is in it for there own interests and there are those who want us to adhere to what we are promised by a proper wind down and those of us who are realistic and appreciate that the administrators are also out for themselves in making as much money as they can from us thats the nature of business but they also have to be controlled (by the CC committee) but also they must be incentivised to recover even the hard to recover loans .Personally I would pay more of a commission for these type loans but I understand why many investors in better quality loans are reluctant to pay anything so lets not kid ourselves on here...we all have our reasons to approach the recovery differently.
One common goal for us all is to recover as much as we can.
So lets not pretend otherwise.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 24, 2019 18:54:46 GMT
very true - sorry you have so much invested and I hope you get a reasonable amount returned - I just hope others with similar sums can afford to play the long game.
As a general point I am still a bit confused as to what the actual position is - hopefully the administrators fee is fixed as mentioned?
|
|
foolsgold
Member of DD Central
Posts: 159
Likes: 194
|
Post by foolsgold on Dec 24, 2019 19:07:10 GMT
Thanks ...More fool me in believing that FS was regulated properly by the FCA and acting in the best interests of investors to protect investors/the general publics position.
At present P2P is more like the wild west
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 2,440
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 24, 2019 20:16:44 GMT
this is true but highly insulting if not silly when applied to me - and here's why - I have only built one house and that was about 30 years ago - since then I concentrate on old and historic buildings as I am a property nut - in fact I have often restored when demolition would have been cheaper - my current projects include: a 16th century cottage - under restoration, a large early 19C shop under renovation - my architect said to rip out the original stairs and convert to 6 flats but I refused to do this, a 17/18th C shop which I restored with wooden frontage despite plastic being cheaper and am selling to a local charity at a loss, a large 19c house which again I was advised to convert into flats but refused ...easy to make cheap jibes isn't it? Wasn't a cheap jibe. Clearly my point was indeed missed on you. Any thoughts on the other points raised? I'd very much like to hear what you think - in terms of pence-in-the-pound - the loan book would fetch if, as you'd like to happen, it were to be sold off.
|
|
|
Post by sebb on Dec 26, 2019 3:11:16 GMT
The bottom line is that everyone wants whats best for themselves regardless of the outcome for others thats just life.
There will be investors who have loans with a low chance of getting much back and they would prefer if there losses are averaged up by including good loans in the equation.
There will be investors who want there cash out that have low investments of £100 and will be prepared to get £50 back and walk away with little hassle and also investors like me who have tens of thousands invested who are prepared to play the long game.
So lets be honest everyone is in it for there own interests and there are those who want us to adhere to what we are promised by a proper wind down and those of us who are realistic and appreciate that the administrators are also out for themselves in making as much money as they can from us thats the nature of business but they also have to be controlled (by the CC committee) but also they must be incentivised to recover even the hard to recover loans .Personally I would pay more of a commission for these type loans but I understand why many investors in better quality loans are reluctant to pay anything so lets not kid ourselves on here...we all have our reasons to approach the recovery differently.
One common goal for us all is to recover as much as we can.
So lets not pretend otherwise.
I wholeheartedly agree on the FCA. Like you I only invested as I trusted that the FCA had done a real check on the company and would ensure that they kept their house in order. Further, I also invested in one loan as I thought it was one loan and not tied to multiple loans to one individual. From my prespective the FCA have either displayed gross incompetence and/or been grossly negligent and should be taken to court over their handling of P2P. Personally, I think my chances of getting anything back from my loan are minimal. If I get anything over 25% back I would count that as a win from this point. However, I do feel that any recovered money should only go to the relevant investors in each loan. I say this as I would not expect anyone to cover my losses and I would be annoyed at being expected to cover others'.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,548
Likes: 5,539
|
Post by duck on Dec 26, 2019 4:48:20 GMT
I wholeheartedly agree on the FCA. Like you I only invested as I trusted that the FCA had done a real check on the company and would ensure that they kept their house in order. Further, I also invested in one loan as I thought it was one loan and not tied to multiple loans to one individual. From my prespective the FCA have either displayed gross incompetence and/or been grossly negligent and should be taken to court over their handling of P2P. ... Do not think I am sticking up for the FCA in any way in this response ......... On the instruction of politicians the FCA work on a 'light touch' policy, couple that with what I perceive to be a lack of understanding of the pitfalls and characters involved in P2P and we have the recipe for a perfect storm. The FCA have responded (late) with new requirements on both platforms and investors. The platform requirements have had some notable effect (most of which we as investors don't see) with several platforms closing doors to retail investors and possibly causing MT to call it a day. The 'checks' on retail investors are however (IMHO) laughable, for example 2 x £100 investments in the past year make you a 'sophisticated investor' On FS in particular, on reading the Administrators report I picked up on certain words and fired off a detailed FOI to the FCA. The response (20 working days) arrived some days ago with words I recognise only to well from my work on Col I now have to sit back and wait for up to a month for the FCA to reply again at which time I will find out if they are prepared to answer my questions or if they will claim Section 31/public interest. Anybody wanting to read Section 31 (and Section 30) they are available here.
|
|