What if we actually believed in Ratesetter?

What about all those who have already been paid in full? And the ones who will be before the crunch?

Quite. So those that reach the front of the queue will repaid in full, even if they hold loans which are not going to repay because those loan parts are being sold to the holders of loans which have repaid (and who have not changed their required rate). We on this forum (a small minority remember) will at least get our share of loans that do repay because we have set a high required rate, but if the PF cannot cover defaults there will be no contribution from those who have already been fully repaid. This is not what I call mutualisation.

I agree, we can’t say they can’t charge the fee, based on what is out there at the moment. I’m arguing that it’s really in our interest to force the issue, because doing so might prevent that happening,

Its a legal/factual question that Metro can’t dodge. They have to answer it, yes or no, in the same way that RS were told by the FCA that it was a condition of doing business to have the plan in the first place.

Before acquisition it would be horrifically painful for them to say that the charge would apply, because that would immediately cause the FCA to come down on the acquisition like a ton of bricks. From FCA perspective, it would change the acquisition approval to “Given that Metro acquisition is going to trigger wind-down, the only way they can be allowed to proceed with it, is if the FCA have separately analysed all possible alternatives, and there is no other way in which wind-down can be avoided”. By forcing the issue, Metro really have to say “no, it won’t trigger”.

The initial statement may be just a one-liner publically, but Metro will have to back it up with detailed arguments in private to the FCA, showing how they’ve analysed it, and why that’s the case. It’s then really hard for Metro to change that position post-acquisition. Because it’s no longer a commitment to us, it’s a commitment to the FCA. 

Speak for yourself.

I'd rather have x% interest now and suffer a x% capital loss later, rather than leave that x% in the fund and pray it doesn't get siphoned off into some other pot somehow.

For example in an administration scenario - we've all seen how admin fees have a nasty habit of siphoning off capital that should belong to investors.

I'd rather have as much as possible out now thanks. A 'bird in the hand' and all that.

Indeed.

Aside from the panic, the simple fact is that x% interest paid and withdrawn now, is x% that is no longer at risk. I can park it in an FSCS protected account and forget about it.

x% left in the fund to be paid at a 'future date' is x% non-FSCS protected and subject to all kinds of unknowable risks.

From a risk perspective, it is a terrible idea. Thanks, but no thanks.

But this is my exact point - it comes down to an arbitrary (and subjective) date selection that will please some and not others.

You want that date to come right now. This works for you because the person whose investment you're looking after is right at the back of the RYI queue - so you're resigned to being in it until the bitter end. You don't care about the damage zero interest would cause to RYI processing (as re-investment would surely have to end), because you're not going to get there anyway. All you care about is bolstering the PF using the interest of people like me who are quite close to the front of the RYI queue (and might just get out), to avoid a haircut.

I, on the other hand, don't want the date to come now. I'm quite close to the front of the RYI queue and, even if things remain slow, there's a chance I could get out. If we went to zero interest, that would likely be RYI processing pretty much over and I'd be stuck in. I also share the concerns articulated in the posts above this about the other problems such a measure would cause.

We all have different interests in this. Combined with this, there isn't a single, objective measure of the exact date on which this sort of PF event should be called. It was always going to be a pretty arbitrary decision by RS themselves, and we were at the mercy of this decision - that's what we all signed up to. 

Edit: crossed posts, actually with some quite similar thinking!