nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 349
Likes: 438
|
Post by nyneil on Feb 11, 2020 12:13:50 GMT
I have no professional knowledge in the legal or financial industries, but as an investor through many p2p platforms, including Col, L & FS, It has become apparent that the current administration / insolvency practice has failed to keep up with the rapidly changing financial landscape. The situation has changed from the time when the only concerns were to obtain the best outcome for creditors, as this now disadvantages those with most to lose - us p2p lenders.
Insolvency practitioners are bound by the current set of regulations which act in favour of 'creditors', so it seems to me, this is what needs to change, as a matter of urgency.
It will be interesting to hear the opinions of those with more knowledge / experience. Do you agree? What can we do? Who is responsible for setting, monitoring and updating the rules? Is this another 'write to your MP & Finance Committee' letter?
We should do something to raise awareness that this is not just an issue of of a few discredited p2p platforms; there is an intrinsic problem in the current, outdated, system . The FCA, bless em, are finally tightening the regulation of 'functioning' p2p platforms, but the process around what to do when they fail also needs a major overhaul.
Just my two penneth.
|
|
|
Post by mattygroves on Feb 11, 2020 16:52:46 GMT
Whilst I agree there is a potential problem with the lack of clarity of how investors are treated in an insolvency I doubt you’ll get the insolvency laws changed.
P2P is a tiny part of the economy and as such you are unlikely to get changes made that clearly deal with the investor position. The creditors of a company will always be the ones the liquidators work for and they usually get nothing.
The LAG action to take the issue to court is the easiest way to get change if that can generate a judgement that is then used as precedence.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Feb 11, 2020 19:26:37 GMT
The problem was the individuals running the platforms rather than their debt chasing abilities. Such individuals can lack the skill set to run investor operations turning over hundreds of millions of pounds. Legislators and FCA regulators have been made to look both stupid and uncaring with the result that the p to p industry is not in a good place.
|
|
|
Post by danraj on Feb 16, 2020 10:45:23 GMT
The wind-down plans are intended to facilitate the graceful runoff of a loanbook. It should make life easier for administrators.
FWIW my view is that the "execution of a wind-down plan" should itself be a regulated activity.
It's a pity the FCA took so long over the post implementation review, which came too late for many lenders.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Feb 17, 2020 16:13:08 GMT
I think the problem is too broad T&Cs of the P2P companies. A liquidator is obliged to get as much out as possible for the company. If the T&Cs allow an unlimited charge for their administration, the liquidators will increase fees. If the rules specified the amounts and only allowed increases on new loans, correctly constituted P2P platforms should provide agreed returns under their run off plans.
|
|