Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 1, 2020 17:20:53 GMT
G. Wellesley lived the highlife on lenders cash, I would not dream of approving his CVA. Who needs shares in a "new Wellesley" that they can not convert to liquid cash? That is even more useless than some of the bonds that can only be partly converted to cash upon administration. I have written to Wellesley last week, with queries that were not addressed in the 300 odd pages of documents that were sent along to lenders. Todate, no response! Go figure. I think we need a Facebook Group like Facebook Funding Secure Group. Anyone volunteering to set up one - muchop2p ? (I know u r busy with that). We might need to go the FS way if it goes into admin and need a Creditors Committee. In the meantime, I have some response back from FCA, which I shall post soon.
I would set up, as I am also an investor in Wellesley, but I am neck deep in both FS work atm and also my own work. I am in comms with a person who might be interested in setting up such a project for Wellesley, and would be willing to offer advice + guidance to him. If anything goes ahead, I/he will let everyone know in this thread. For the record, I personally voted AGAINST the proposal. I could find no reason to support it.
|
|
69m
Member of DD Central
Posts: 122 
Likes: 215
|
Post by 69m on Oct 1, 2020 17:20:57 GMT
According to the following from FCA, if I am not wrong :
Only Wellesley & Co Limited (WCL) is an authorised firm. Originally regulated by the Office of Fair Trading to provide a platform for Peer to Peer investors, the firm was granted interim consumer credit permissions on 01/4/2014 when the regulation of consumer credit activity transferred to the FCA. It became directly authorised by the FCA in February 2019 when it was granted permissions to promote and arrange investments from retail customers into the WSFP listed bonds, hold and safeguard client money and manage the winddown, under limited permission, of the Group’s existing peer-to-peer investments.
On Thursday 10th September 2020, the FCA imposed a voluntary requirement (VREQ) on Wellesley & Co Limited (WCL) which prevents WCL from approving and publishing any new financial promotions and arranging any new investments. It also prevents WCL disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value or any of its assets without the prior written consent of the FCA. A link to the entry register on our Financial Services Register can be found here. Please note that most of Wellesley's assets and liabilities are in companies outside the regulated firm and we have no formal powers over them.
We will continue where we can to secure the best possible outcome for investors in our role as regulator or Wellesley & Co Limited and are prepared to take such further action as is required. However, as mentioned above the companies in the group that issued the bonds, including WFP which is proposing the CVA, are not regulated by the FCA.
Wellesley & Co Limited (WCL) is still Authorised by FCA and are not allowed to dispose of, dealwith or diminish the value or any of its assets without the prior written consent of the FCA.
This only applies to P2P investments (not Bonds). Am I right or missing something ?
According to the CVA proposal, Wellesley & Co. Limited (WACL) operated the P2P and held client monies. Wellesley Finance PLC (WFP) originated and serviced the underlying loans. Therefore, the above-mentioned VREQ might have been pointless, because WACL was merely an agent and so it did not have any loan assets to dispose of. I'm happy to be corrected on my interpretation of this arrangement.
The complex relationship between WACL, WFP and Wellesley Security Trustees Limited detailed on page 19 of the proposal document certainly rings alarm bells, especially regarding delegated obligations. That same page also states how many P2P investors there are: hopefully the number is big enough for the FCA to wake up.
It's also worth bearing in mind the future plans for WACL if the WFP CVA is passed (see page 25).
|
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Oct 1, 2020 17:23:47 GMT
It says “PARTICIPATING CREDITORS”, not participating VOTERS. So I think you’ll find that by not voting it’s the same as a NO vote. sws i think the Relevant/Important bit here is PARTICIPATING, so those who don't Participate in Voting, won't Count (how else would one participate ?)
|
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Oct 1, 2020 17:31:26 GMT
I am still unclear as to whether the heavily discounted in house loan book sale to Cloverleaf would still be valid if the CVA fails and the company is purposefully put into administration? I get the sense that Graham Wellesley created a deceitful Group structure that would be optimal for him in the event of a contrived insolvency. It was probably his intention from the getgo. Looks like there will be little or no support from FCA either. I just got it clarified from Wellesley that the Sale has already happened and is Not Dependent on the outcome of the Vote.
Whether we can legally challenge it or not (in the Court where CVA has been filed, as suggested by FCA) is a different matter, which would require someone contesting that in the Court or a CrowdFunded Class Action.
|
|
|
|
Post by dm on Oct 1, 2020 17:55:50 GMT
To me the Cloverleaf deal is key. If that rotten deal remains and the company is put into administration then what is left for Wellesley clients? Administration would clearly be worse than the CVA in those circumstances? I have a horrible feeling Wellesley has its clients 'over a barrel' and the Directors of Cloverleaf are 'licking their lips' regardless of whether Wellesley is put into administration or the CVA passes as they win either way if the deal cannot be overturned? I really think this whole affair has been pre-meditated. The only route forward I can see is for all Wellesley clients to come together and jointly fund some kind of legal challenge if there is a legal basis for doing so and it could be coordinated across so many clients.
|
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Oct 1, 2020 18:36:22 GMT
Quite agree. Not sure if it is 100% Legal.
This has been set up from the onset with a plan to deceive Investors and Pocket all the Money. He formed a complex web of Companies, only 1 of which is regulated by FCA and then did all his Shady delaings via the other unregulated ones. He also slipped in a clause that he can sell the LoanBook to anyone he wants to at whatever price he wants and the LoanBook is actually held by the unregulated Wellesley Finance. So, now he has invoked this Clause to Sell the LoanBook at 50% Discount to another sister Company recently formed by him (same owner). Genius, my Lord !
|
|
wh
New Member
Posts: 3
Likes: 2
|
Post by wh on Oct 1, 2020 20:01:57 GMT
Questions emailed to W yesterday, no reply yet. Will post here if I get a response:
"With regard to the CVA, please could you provide me with the cash flows and proforma accounts which support the outcomes referenced in the CVA proposal and details of how it is proposed that the company will be run going forward?
Can the directors explain why they think that they are the best people to run any post CVA company going forward? Has alternative management been considered? If the current directors intend to stay on, what is the remuneration that they propose taking?
With regard to the transfer of the loan book, please can you explain why this was transferred at such a large discount to book value and why it needed to be transferred inter-group, and therefore the write down crystallised, if it wasn't being sold to a third party?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 1, 2020 21:31:58 GMT
Questions emailed to W yesterday, no reply yet. Will post here if I get a response: "With regard to the CVA, please could you provide me with the cash flows and proforma accounts which support the outcomes referenced in the CVA proposal and details of how it is proposed that the company will be run going forward? Can the directors explain why they think that they are the best people to run any post CVA company going forward? Has alternative management been considered? If the current directors intend to stay on, what is the remuneration that they propose taking? With regard to the transfer of the loan book, please can you explain why this was transferred at such a large discount to book value and why it needed to be transferred inter-group, and therefore the write down crystallised, if it wasn't being sold to a third party? Similar to my questions to them a few days ago, they wont answer. Any questions involving salaries are never responded to in administration queries, nor are cash flow queries, nor are questions on the suitability of existing Directors who have failed at one company yet are proposing to run another company ever responded to either. If they can not respond, I see no point in voting as to how they suggest. One way or another, we are screwed. I see no reason to let them continue the process with the remainder of my funds.
|
|
jaswells
Member of DD Central
Posts: 255
Likes: 184
|
Post by jaswells on Oct 1, 2020 23:27:04 GMT
A couple of years ago I was in communication with Wellesley and somehow dug up that each director was on about 400k per annum. It seemed bizarre at the time that a blatantly unprofitable company was siphoning off so much money to its directors. I feel disgusted now that I defended this bunch online as they hid behind their image and good customer services instilling false confidence in joe public.
|
|
|
|
Post by dm on Oct 2, 2020 6:49:28 GMT
Anyone with Wellesley legacy P2P has a 'Suspended Balance' [SB] and a 'Forecast Recovery Estimate' [FRE] which was ~50% of the SB and due to recovered by the end of 2020. I notice that this SM has now been factored into the CVA @ 31p in the pound [i.e. 31%]. I am certain the FRE will be recovered and Wellesley will just pocket the difference. The contemptuous and arrogant behaviour of Wellesley is beyond the belief.
I cannot help thinking that a company that is brazenly behaving so badly either feels it has all the legal bases covered through the Terms and Conditions or is playing a big game of 'chicken' with its clients? Also in hindsight I wonder if Wellesley was strategically set up to purposefully fail from the start and be pushed into Administration after the Directors had milked it for all it was worth? I often wondered how a company could be so utterly incompetent and badly run in a flourishing property market? All the analogies with a quasi Ponzi scheme seem to fit?
|
|
jaswells
Member of DD Central
Posts: 255
Likes: 184
|
Post by jaswells on Oct 2, 2020 7:04:16 GMT
I agree, everything from the huge marketing budget, the customer services and the financial chicanery at every juncture, appear to have been desgned to maximise theri returns in a pre-planned sequence of events. If not, certainly a scheme that developed over time. There is no integrity here, none.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 2, 2020 8:46:51 GMT
I have been running the few figures (that I have available), and bearing in mind I have have had an account at Wellesley since 2013, It is likely that the losses that lenders will suffer are to be larger than FundingSecure, and possibly equal or even surpass Lendy losses (without taking pending legal action into consideration). This is mainly due to their interest rates being lower than both FS and Lendy, hence the past repayments from Wellesley offset losses to a lesser extent than FS and Lendy! This one was a real theft crash. Will I vote for the CVA, NOT in a million years, give me back whatever little cash there will be to return, I do NOT want promissory notes/shares in a future Wellesley company that I cannot liquidate to cash. www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvKQ3BLSBr8 " Do something with your money, discover the Wellesley Way"..............never again! |
|
|
|
Post by mark2465 on Oct 2, 2020 9:18:09 GMT
I don't know if I missed it but has anyone had an official reply from the Serious Fraud Office yet as I am still awaiting my reply from them.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 2, 2020 9:26:37 GMT
I don't know if I missed it but has anyone had an official reply from the Serious Fraud Office yet as I am still awaiting my reply from them. It will be interesting if they reply anything other than "Contact Action Fraud". Please keep us updated in any case, thx.
|
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Oct 2, 2020 10:43:03 GMT
Questions emailed to W yesterday, no reply yet. Will post here if I get a response: "With regard to the CVA, please could you provide me with the cash flows and proforma accounts which support the outcomes referenced in the CVA proposal and details of how it is proposed that the company will be run going forward? Can the directors explain why they think that they are the best people to run any post CVA company going forward? Has alternative management been considered? If the current directors intend to stay on, what is the remuneration that they propose taking? With regard to the transfer of the loan book, please can you explain why this was transferred at such a large discount to book value and why it needed to be transferred inter-group, and therefore the write down crystallised, if it wasn't being sold to a third party? Try the chat service, they respond - but not sure if you would get an answer.
|
|
