p2p2p
Member of DD Central
Posts: 123
Likes: 114
|
Post by p2p2p on Feb 14, 2020 11:34:59 GMT
As the original goal was £25k, I don't like the assumption that the real goal was £75k, but it had to be presented as a stretch target to get people onboard.
|
|
TenKay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 117
|
Post by TenKay on Feb 14, 2020 13:42:59 GMT
I was an early joiner of the Equitable Members Action Group. I was approached by someone I knew who had money in Equitable Life. He asked about membership of the action group and I told him about it and said the suggested annual membership donation was £25. So he asked if any resulting returns would be conditional on membership. I said not and he replied "Well there's no point in wasting money on it then is there, if someone else is going to cover the costs and do all the work?" That's a freerider mentality which in this case luckily is only shared by a minority, probably because of the nature of the segment (people with disposable income and motivation to invest). It is worse in other cases (NHS?). freerider that anything like a freeloader ?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624 
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 14, 2020 14:23:38 GMT
That's a freerider mentality which in this case luckily is only shared by a minority, probably because of the nature of the segment (people with disposable income and motivation to invest). It is worse in other cases (NHS?). Intrigued by your bias that you think the freerider mentality is less likely to apply the richer / more disposable income someone has! On a smaller scale, in my limited experience, the richer someone is the less likely they will remember to pay you back money lent / shared in a social setting. On a more larger scale, this current fund raise is to help deal with a rich man who has some might say a free rider mentality... Probably your "limited experience" can be catalogued as anecdotal evidence? That is a classic cause of bias. I was attempting to explain the relatively high engagement in this fundraising effort. Not wanting to get into behavioral economics.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 14, 2020 14:32:01 GMT
As the original goal was £25k, I don't like the assumption that the real goal was £75k, but it had to be presented as a stretch target to get people onboard.That was not how I ever read it - if you go from the original LAG facebook page postings. My recollection of the original posting there was it was very clear. £75k was the goal, £25k was the minimum they needed before they could instruct the solicitors to start first engagement.
I do however think the pledge page words could however have been clearer on that.
I very much suspect the way it had to be setup with the £25k minimum as the original target was simply a limitation of the funding page mechanics.
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Feb 14, 2020 16:26:04 GMT
As the original goal was £25k, I don't like the assumption that the real goal was £75k, but it had to be presented as a stretch target to get people onboard. I think this is a consequence of how the funds are used. The original target allowed for funds not to be taken had it not been achieved. This original target is the minimum necessary to start with action. The stretch target is what might be though of as what is really hoped for to put up a good fight. Yes, it is not presented well on the crowdjustice website and might be seen to be misleading, however, those people involved with LAG would certainly have known that £25k was the start and £75k was what is really hoped for.
|
|
|
|
Post by loftankerman on Feb 14, 2020 18:17:42 GMT
As the original goal was £25k, I don't like the assumption that the real goal was £75k, but it had to be presented as a stretch target to get people onboard. I think this is a consequence of how the funds are used. The original target allowed for funds not to be taken had it not been achieved. This original target is the minimum necessary to start with action. The stretch target is what might be though of as what is really hoped for to put up a good fight. Yes, it is not presented well on the crowdjustice website and might be seen to be misleading, however, those people involved with LAG would certainly have known that £25k was the start and £75k was what is really hoped for. I thought £25k was what a solicitor charges you for settling down with a quick brew to contemplate whether or not they can be bothered putting some effort in and charging you much more.
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Feb 14, 2020 18:24:58 GMT
I think this is a consequence of how the funds are used. The original target allowed for funds not to be taken had it not been achieved. This original target is the minimum necessary to start with action. The stretch target is what might be though of as what is really hoped for to put up a good fight. Yes, it is not presented well on the crowdjustice website and might be seen to be misleading, however, those people involved with LAG would certainly have known that £25k was the start and £75k was what is really hoped for. I thought £25k was what a solicitor charges you for settling down with a quick brew to contemplate whether or not they can be bothered putting some effort in and charging you much more. This says it best.
There is no minimum to contribute and yes, if we fail to raise £25k all funds will be returned. If we exceed £25k then we will proceed. We can't release details but we will focus on things like: A. Reversing the waterfall B. Possibly challenging the IP/conflict admin process for SSSH C. Causing RSM to remove all conflicted parties from the process D. Getting complete status as creditors E. Anything else possible. What we can do is based on how much money we can raise.
|
|
|
|
Post by supernumerary on Feb 14, 2020 19:01:14 GMT
Just after 7pm on Friday.
14 days to go, £64,270 pledged of the £75,000 stretched target, from 1,247 pledges.
Now at 85.69% of the way, to the TARGET.
A further £10,730 needed to reach the GOAL.
This equates to requiring approximately, an average donation rate of £766.43 per day, over the next 14 days, to get to the £75,000 OBJECTIVE.
|
|
jhamster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 107
Likes: 145
|
Post by jhamster on Feb 14, 2020 19:48:35 GMT
Even if we don't hit the full £75k, there's enough now to get the ball rolling. I think the target will be reached though.
I think they should also be challenging RSM with RSM's own money, rather than charging investors the costs of RSM's side of the court case.
We all know why RSM have suddenly doubled their fees too, because they can't even manage their own accounts and are now looking for areas to raise extra funds since their MD and FD got the sack.
Quite frankly I think RSM should be sacked, minimal Lendy staff and only have administrators on individual loans. All of OUR money that is recovered should go directly to us, this entire situation with RSM sharing our money with creditors is theft as far as I am concerned, as is spending our money on AML as if the business is still a going concern. No money is being laundered if it's going back in to the same investor's bank account it came from, ownership has already been confirmed by having control of the bank account.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Feb 14, 2020 20:36:05 GMT
i thought the FCA passed the buck onto RSM when they asked them about the legality of this waterfall and lots of other stuff and told them to go down this route.RSM should be paying for this themselves and seek reinbursment from the FCA who are doing their best to distance themselves from this mess. i think the administrators of both LY and FS cannot believe how these platforms under FCA regulation were allowed to create this mess and walk away.the directors past and present need to brought to book.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,331
Likes: 11,550
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 14, 2020 20:54:14 GMT
Even if we don't hit the full £75k, there's enough now to get the ball rolling. I think the target will be reached though. I think they should also be challenging RSM with RSM's own money, rather than charging investors the costs of RSM's side of the court case. We all know why RSM have suddenly doubled their fees too, because they can't even manage their own accounts and are now looking for areas to raise extra funds since their MD and FD got the sack. Quite frankly I think RSM should be sacked, minimal Lendy staff and only have administrators on individual loans. All of OUR money that is recovered should go directly to us, this entire situation with RSM sharing our money with creditors is theft as far as I am concerned, as is spending our money on AML as if the business is still a going concern. No money is being laundered if it's going back in to the same investor's bank account it came from, ownership has already been confirmed by having control of the bank account. Unfortunately that is a legally impossible scenario ... the company is insolvent so has to be in administration to protect it from creditors or liquidation which means the website & databases die. As to AML, if the initial checks weren't done properly then the bank account could have been laundering so merely saying nothing has changed so it's ok doesn't solve the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Feb 14, 2020 22:32:02 GMT
As the original goal was £25k, I don't like the assumption that the real goal was £75k, but it had to be presented as a stretch target to get people onboard. I think this is a consequence of how the funds are used. The original target allowed for funds not to be taken had it not been achieved. This original target is the minimum necessary to start with action. The stretch target is what might be though of as what is really hoped for to put up a good fight. Yes, it is not presented well on the crowdjustice website and might be seen to be misleading, however, those people involved with LAG would certainly have known that £25k was the start and £75k was what is really hoped for. "Misleading"... anyone fancy starting a CJAG (Crowd Justice Action Group)? …. just kidding 
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Feb 14, 2020 22:33:33 GMT
I think this is a consequence of how the funds are used. The original target allowed for funds not to be taken had it not been achieved. This original target is the minimum necessary to start with action. The stretch target is what might be though of as what is really hoped for to put up a good fight. Yes, it is not presented well on the crowdjustice website and might be seen to be misleading, however, those people involved with LAG would certainly have known that £25k was the start and £75k was what is really hoped for. I thought £25k was what a solicitor charges you for settling down with a quick brew to contemplate whether or not they can be bothered putting some effort in and charging you much more. Nah, you don't get a teabag for 25k, that only includes half a glass of water 
|
|
|
|
Post by default on Feb 14, 2020 23:56:55 GMT
I think this is a consequence of how the funds are used. The original target allowed for funds not to be taken had it not been achieved. This original target is the minimum necessary to start with action. The stretch target is what might be though of as what is really hoped for to put up a good fight. Yes, it is not presented well on the crowdjustice website and might be seen to be misleading, however, those people involved with LAG would certainly have known that £25k was the start and £75k was what is really hoped for. "Misleading"... anyone fancy starting a CJAG (Crowd Justice Action Group)? …. just kidding I had a poke about on the crowdjustice website, so I discovered the stretch target feature on other webpages. It is hard not to get the impression that it is there to reel-you-in somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by supernumerary on Feb 15, 2020 8:05:05 GMT
Just trebled ,but it hurts. ...BUT it will hurt a certain Liar(sic) 'morally' Broke(sic) & Co MUCH, MUCH more if we COLLECTIVELY win this. Second three figure pledge made by me this morning, doubling up with the same amount I gave with my first... As Travolta quite rightly says, 'it hurts'...  ...BUT it will hurt a certain Liar(sic) 'morally' Broke(sic) & Co MUCH, MUCH more if we COLLECTIVELY win this. 
|
|
