macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by macq on Aug 27, 2020 13:33:00 GMT
i have normally called it a run-off as i assumed in a takeover that it would be a orderly(ish) process and wind down would be the bad news decision if it falls through - so kinda makes sense I suppose I meant more in the sense of that I haven't heard this phrase from RS themselves or in relevant documents etc. The Clause 20 wind-down plan would also be 'orderly' - that's sort of the whole point of it; the FCA got these platforms to put this stuff in place to avoid a messy collapse in the event that they're not viable anymore. So I'm not sure that we can say that one is 'orderly' and one is not. In any event, these aren't technical terms - so all that's important is how RS uses them, really. I've followed up asking them to confirm which sections of the T&C allow what they suggest would come with a 'run-off'. If there isn't anything, I'll be interested to know on what legal basis they believe they can ditch the formalised wind-down plan for something else. By One being orderly i was sorta referring to what you mention in your last line about formalised wind down. To me they can change to a run off in a takeover or even without as they are letting the loans run down and paying out as they are being employed/paid to still run the business as a growing concern but maybe not in the way they started. But a wind-down sounds like for whatever reason they could be in trouble or want to close the business quick or change the modal from within etc. but shutting down for good.So agree its just very loose terms/semantics but not sure RS can really claim in the T&C's as i think somebody mentioned that it would be orderly on their own as they can't really say what state the company would be at that point? As an analogy - at the end of the day we thought they were One of the big Three and in terms of money while maybe not premier league certainly championship level.But now after events this year they seem to have been sold for the price of a division Two player with the hope of an FA cup run in the next Three years for a payout at the end - so hopefully whatever its called it works
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 27, 2020 13:51:53 GMT
I suppose I meant more in the sense of that I haven't heard this phrase from RS themselves or in relevant documents etc. The Clause 20 wind-down plan would also be 'orderly' - that's sort of the whole point of it; the FCA got these platforms to put this stuff in place to avoid a messy collapse in the event that they're not viable anymore. So I'm not sure that we can say that one is 'orderly' and one is not. In any event, these aren't technical terms - so all that's important is how RS uses them, really. I've followed up asking them to confirm which sections of the T&C allow what they suggest would come with a 'run-off'. If there isn't anything, I'll be interested to know on what legal basis they believe they can ditch the formalised wind-down plan for something else. By One being orderly i was sorta referring to what you mention in your last line about formalised wind down. To me they can change to a run off in a takeover or even without as they are letting the loans run down and paying out as they are being employed/paid to still run the business as a growing concern but maybe not in the way they started. But a wind-down sounds like for whatever reason they could be in trouble or want to close the business quick or change the modal from within etc. but shutting down for good.So agree its just very loose terms/semantics but not sure RS can really claim in the T&C's as i think somebody mentioned that it would be orderly on their own as they can't really say what state the company would be at that point? As an analogy - at the end of the day we thought they were One of the big Three and in terms of money while maybe not premier league certainly championship level.But now after events this year they seem to have been sold for the price of a division Two player with the hope of an FA cup run in the next Three years for a payout at the end - so hopefully whatever its called it works Yes it is probably a tactical change of wording from Wind Down (which they have a clear(ish) written definition of how it should happen) to run off, where RS can pretty much decide how they want to continue running the platform (for as long as it lasts) as long as they stick within the T&Cs of the platform.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 15:07:40 GMT
So many responses! Apologies for the length of this. Same thing, surely? If there are no new loans then it would be dodgy to allow passive lenders to keep reinvestment turned on: and with no new loans and no reinvestment there won't be any RYI. Well, no - I guess the whole point of this discussion is that I don't see them as the same thing at all; re-investment can happen without new loans, as long as there is RYI demand (and vice versa). This is what the RS wind-down plan appears to allow (which, I believe, will also have been approved by the FCA). While you may think this is 'dodgy', they don't seem to. So the whole discussion is premised on the fact that they might allow it - it's just unknown whether they will or not. The wind down plan says no new loans. I guess lenders could continue to buy old loans from RYIs if they wanted to, but no new loans implies that existing borrowers wouldn't be able to get another tranche of funds for a development. Although maybe they wouldn't label them as new loans. All clear as mud as usual. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. Sorry, yes - I should've been clearer that I was only referring to the repayment part of your previous post. Completely agree with the rest of your post here. By One being orderly i was sorta referring to what you mention in your last line about formalised wind down. To me they can change to a run off in a takeover or even without as they are letting the loans run down and paying out as they are being employed/paid to still run the business as a growing concern but maybe not in the way they started. But a wind-down sounds like for whatever reason they could be in trouble or want to close the business quick or change the modal from within etc. but shutting down for good.So agree its just very loose terms/semantics but not sure RS can really claim in the T&C's as i think somebody mentioned that it would be orderly on their own as they can't really say what state the company would be at that point? As an analogy - at the end of the day we thought they were One of the big Three and in terms of money while maybe not premier league certainly championship level.But now after events this year they seem to have been sold for the price of a division Two player with the hope of an FA cup run in the next Three years for a payout at the end - so hopefully whatever its called it works I'm not sure if I entirely follow what you're saying. Have you had a look at the wind-down plan? Because it sounds like it might be a little different to how you imagine it (there is nothing rushed about it at all). All that really matters here is how RS defines these terms (and, of course, which one they choose!). With regard to the latter, I'm also interested in how this works within the T&C. As I said before, I haven't been through these yet to see if it does easily fit in - so perhaps it does - but, to my mind, there really should be some provision covering this, just like there is for a 'wind-down' under Clause 20. Yes it is probably a tactical change of wording from Wind Down (which they have a clear(ish) written definition of how it should happen) to run off, where RS can pretty much decide how they want to continue running the platform (for as long as it lasts) as long as they stick within the T&Cs of the platform. I'm also suspicious of exactly this, which is why I want clarification from them on how this fits into the T&C. We signed up to the possibility of a 'wind-down'; but did we sign up to the possibility of a 'run-off'?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 27, 2020 15:26:52 GMT
So many responses! Apologies for the length of this. Same thing, surely? If there are no new loans then it would be dodgy to allow passive lenders to keep reinvestment turned on: and with no new loans and no reinvestment there won't be any RYI. Well, no - I guess the whole point of this discussion is that I don't see them as the same thing at all; re-investment can happen without new loans, as long as there is RYI demand (and vice versa). This is what the RS wind-down plan appears to allow (which, I believe, will also have been approved by the FCA). While you may think this is 'dodgy', they don't seem to. So the whole discussion is premised on the fact that they might allow it - it's just unknown whether they will or not. The wind down plan says no new loans. I guess lenders could continue to buy old loans from RYIs if they wanted to, but no new loans implies that existing borrowers wouldn't be able to get another tranche of funds for a development. Although maybe they wouldn't label them as new loans. All clear as mud as usual. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. Sorry, yes - I should've been clearer that I was only referring to the repayment part of your previous post. Completely agree with the rest of your post here. By One being orderly i was sorta referring to what you mention in your last line about formalised wind down. To me they can change to a run off in a takeover or even without as they are letting the loans run down and paying out as they are being employed/paid to still run the business as a growing concern but maybe not in the way they started. But a wind-down sounds like for whatever reason they could be in trouble or want to close the business quick or change the modal from within etc. but shutting down for good.So agree its just very loose terms/semantics but not sure RS can really claim in the T&C's as i think somebody mentioned that it would be orderly on their own as they can't really say what state the company would be at that point? As an analogy - at the end of the day we thought they were One of the big Three and in terms of money while maybe not premier league certainly championship level.But now after events this year they seem to have been sold for the price of a division Two player with the hope of an FA cup run in the next Three years for a payout at the end - so hopefully whatever its called it works I'm not sure if I entirely follow what you're saying. Have you had a look at the wind-down plan? Because it sounds like it might be a little different to how you imagine it (there is nothing rushed about it at all). All that really matters here is how RS defines these terms (and, of course, which one they choose!). With regard to the latter, I'm also interested in how this works within the T&C. As I said before, I haven't been through these yet to see if it does easily fit in - so perhaps it does - but, to my mind, there really should be some provision covering this, just like there is for a 'wind-down' under Clause 20. Yes it is probably a tactical change of wording from Wind Down (which they have a clear(ish) written definition of how it should happen) to run off, where RS can pretty much decide how they want to continue running the platform (for as long as it lasts) as long as they stick within the T&Cs of the platform. I'm also suspicious of exactly this, which is why I want clarification from them on how this fits into the T&C. We signed up to the possibility of a 'wind-down'; but did we sign up to the possibility of a 'run-off'? RS don't need to initiate a wind down just because of a takeover, and so far they have said there is no change for lenders. If they then choose to gradually let the business decline running it under the existing T&Cs, that would just be an internal business decision for RS. I would probably prefer that anyway. It also means they don't have to panic the horses by declaring a wind down event particularly to the many lenders who don't read the forums etc.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,191
|
Post by macq on Aug 27, 2020 15:32:15 GMT
So many responses! Apologies for the length of this. Same thing, surely? If there are no new loans then it would be dodgy to allow passive lenders to keep reinvestment turned on: and with no new loans and no reinvestment there won't be any RYI. Well, no - I guess the whole point of this discussion is that I don't see them as the same thing at all; re-investment can happen without new loans, as long as there is RYI demand (and vice versa). This is what the RS wind-down plan appears to allow (which, I believe, will also have been approved by the FCA). While you may think this is 'dodgy', they don't seem to. So the whole discussion is premised on the fact that they might allow it - it's just unknown whether they will or not. The wind down plan says no new loans. I guess lenders could continue to buy old loans from RYIs if they wanted to, but no new loans implies that existing borrowers wouldn't be able to get another tranche of funds for a development. Although maybe they wouldn't label them as new loans. All clear as mud as usual. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. Sorry, yes - I should've been clearer that I was only referring to the repayment part of your previous post. Completely agree with the rest of your post here. By One being orderly i was sorta referring to what you mention in your last line about formalised wind down. To me they can change to a run off in a takeover or even without as they are letting the loans run down and paying out as they are being employed/paid to still run the business as a growing concern but maybe not in the way they started. But a wind-down sounds like for whatever reason they could be in trouble or want to close the business quick or change the modal from within etc. but shutting down for good.So agree its just very loose terms/semantics but not sure RS can really claim in the T&C's as i think somebody mentioned that it would be orderly on their own as they can't really say what state the company would be at that point? As an analogy - at the end of the day we thought they were One of the big Three and in terms of money while maybe not premier league certainly championship level.But now after events this year they seem to have been sold for the price of a division Two player with the hope of an FA cup run in the next Three years for a payout at the end - so hopefully whatever its called it works I'm not sure if I entirely follow what you're saying. Have you had a look at the wind-down plan? Because it sounds like it might be a little different to how you imagine it (there is nothing rushed about it at all). All that really matters here is how RS defines these terms (and, of course, which one they choose!). With regard to the latter, I'm also interested in how this works within the T&C. As I said before, I haven't been through these yet to see if it does easily fit in - so perhaps it does - but, to my mind, there really should be some provision covering this, just like there is for a 'wind-down' under Clause 20. Yes it is probably a tactical change of wording from Wind Down (which they have a clear(ish) written definition of how it should happen) to run off, where RS can pretty much decide how they want to continue running the platform (for as long as it lasts) as long as they stick within the T&Cs of the platform. I'm also suspicious of exactly this, which is why I want clarification from them on how this fits into the T&C. We signed up to the possibility of a 'wind-down'; but did we sign up to the possibility of a 'run-off'? In answer to your question - no i have not read the wind-down plan in more then a vague way (so maybe i should have not commented really ) but only because no matter who the platform & not just picking on RS i am not sure i believe any of them know what would happen and how they will cope.Why i suggested what you called "rushed" was because to me once they had entered a wind down under the T&C's there must be a reason and it would not seem like a long life would be One of them? The terms/phrase were my own so again my bad - The term run off with Metro's help would suggest a form of payment ongoing for as long as it takes but in the manner they decide can be supported by the business The term wind down suggests a form of payment in a manner they have decided first for T&C's but by the point its required may be unable to actually deliver (but hopefully can)
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 15:32:53 GMT
RS don't need to initiate a wind down just because of a takeover, and so far they have said there is no change for lenders. If they then choose to gradually let the business decline running it under the existing T&Cs, that would just be an internal business decision for RS. I would probably prefer that anyway. It also means they don't have to panic the horses by declaring a wind down event particularly to the many lenders who don't read the forums etc. If by this you mean continuing to allow re-investment and RYIs, then I completely agree. The T&C obviously allow them to just stop doing new lending but make no other changes. It's if they want to do more than that - but not under Clause 20 - that I'm suspicious of.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 15:38:38 GMT
In answer to your question - no i have not read the wind-down plan in more then a vague way (so maybe i should have not commented really ) but only because no matter who the platform & not just picking on RS i am not sure i believe any of them know what would happen and how they will cope.Why i suggested what you called "rushed" was because to me once they had entered a wind down under the T&C's there must be a reason and it would not seem like a long life would be One of them? The terms/phrase were my own so again my bad - The term run off with Metro's help would suggest a form of payment ongoing for as long as it takes but in the manner they decide can be supported by the business The term wind down suggests a form of payment in a manner they have decided first for T&C's but by the point its required may be unable to actually deliver (but hopefully can) You're allowed to post whatever you want - but I think it might indeed help if you had a look through the wind-down plan (+ Clause 20 of the T&C). It's basically identical to what the 'run-off' apparently would be, but seemingly while still allowing some re-investment + RYI; whereas the 'run-off' apparently does not. Anyway, as Greenwood2 has said, we'll just have to wait and see. But I'll let you know if/when I hear back from then regarding more detail of the 'run-off' concept.
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Aug 27, 2020 16:47:02 GMT
In answer to your question - no i have not read the wind-down plan in more then a vague way (so maybe i should have not commented really ) but only because no matter who the platform & not just picking on RS i am not sure i believe any of them know what would happen and how they will cope.Why i suggested what you called "rushed" was because to me once they had entered a wind down under the T&C's there must be a reason and it would not seem like a long life would be One of them? The terms/phrase were my own so again my bad - The term run off with Metro's help would suggest a form of payment ongoing for as long as it takes but in the manner they decide can be supported by the business The term wind down suggests a form of payment in a manner they have decided first for T&C's but by the point its required may be unable to actually deliver (but hopefully can) You're allowed to post whatever you want - but I think it might indeed help if you had a look through the wind-down plan (+ Clause 20 of the T&C). It's basically identical to what the 'run-off' apparently would be, but seemingly while still allowing some re-investment + RYI; whereas the 'run-off' apparently does not. Anyway, as Greenwood2 has said, we'll just have to wait and see. But I'll let you know if/when I hear back from then regarding more detail of the 'run-off' concept. you might want to escalate it and ask for reply from someone more senior than agents. Might get a more insightful reply.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 16:59:36 GMT
you might want to escalate it and ask for reply from someone more senior than agents. Might get a more insightful reply. Thanks - there was already a long pause before their response, and a (seeming) escalation on their end from a CS agent to the Investor Services Team Leader (not sure how senior that is?), who took over to provide the answer I wrote about here. I’ll see what the next response brings.
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Aug 27, 2020 17:22:13 GMT
you might want to escalate it and ask for reply from someone more senior than agents. Might get a more insightful reply. Thanks - there was already a long pause before their response, and a (seeming) escalation on their end from a CS agent to the Investor Services Team Leader (not sure how senior that is?), who took over to provide the answer I wrote about here. I’ll see what the next response brings. They kept you on the line and passed it over? thought they emailed you ? I have spoken to the head of dept and he has gone into great detail for me a few times
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 27, 2020 17:24:24 GMT
Thanks - there was already a long pause before their response, and a (seeming) escalation on their end from a CS agent to the Investor Services Team Leader (not sure how senior that is?), who took over to provide the answer I wrote about here. I’ll see what the next response brings. They kept you on the line and passed it over? thought they emailed you ? I have spoken to the head of dept and he has gone into great detail for me a few timesPlease tell.
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Aug 27, 2020 17:29:02 GMT
They kept you on the line and passed it over? thought they emailed you ? I have spoken to the head of dept and he has gone into great detail for me a few timesPlease tell. Apologies I mean in general (not this exact subject matter). I am happy to call about this but he is not always readily available (obviously). However, if you really want someone who will take time to walk through things with you he has done for me before.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 17:46:02 GMT
They kept you on the line and passed it over? thought they emailed you ? No, I didn't mention any phones. I had some pretty rapid back-and-forth with a CS agent which was all pretty coy; then I asked the more specific question about the T&C and there was a gap of almost 72 hours before this more senior person replied saying they were 'taking over' from the previous person in the correspondence. Is that all okay, Detective Beagle?
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Aug 27, 2020 17:49:59 GMT
They kept you on the line and passed it over? thought they emailed you ? No, I didn't mention any phones. I had some pretty rapid back-and-forth with a CS agent which was all pretty coy; then I asked the more specific question about the T&C and there was a gap of almost 72 hours before this more senior person replied saying they were 'taking over' from the previous person in the correspondence. Is that all okay, Detective Beagle? Lol that is ok sergeant Chris - i just thought if there was a pause they tried to transfer you. Delay in email is probably pretty standard no? I would imagine there are tonnes of these emails pouring in. I have had delays of 5 days before. Irrespective - I would ask for it to be pushed up, you may well get more for your time
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 27, 2020 17:51:40 GMT
No, I didn't mention any phones. I had some pretty rapid back-and-forth with a CS agent which was all pretty coy; then I asked the more specific question about the T&C and there was a gap of almost 72 hours before this more senior person replied saying they were 'taking over' from the previous person in the correspondence. Is that all okay, Detective Beagle? Lol that is ok sergeant Chris - i just thought if there was a pause they tried to transfer you. Delay in email is probably pretty standard no? I would imagine there are tonnes of these emails pouring in. I have had delays of 5 days before. Irrespective - I would ask for it to be pushed up, you may well get more for your time Right, but as my posts have now clearly said more than once, the initial back and forth was very rapid; so the then delay of 3 days was rather noticeable! I think we can stop talking about the timeline of my emails now...
|
|