|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Oct 2, 2020 11:00:51 GMT
We don't want the CVA to fail. I do believe this is the best option for most. Of course, we need to understand all of the dubious goings on. The goal should be to make the terms of the CVA more fair as it is so one side e.g. share any upside on the heavily discounted loan book for one. We need to unite and get as many as us together so that we have one coherent voice that Wellesley will listen to. But do answer question, DM, if we ended up down the administration route, they would be obliged to investigate what went wrong and why. This would involve looking at the transaction leading up to this fiasco. Hence why I believe that Wellesley would make a better offer to us as they really don't want anyone independent reviewing what they have been up to recently. They haven't even had a group statutory audit since 2017. That's nearly three years of no external scrutiny! What guarantees do we have that the Estimated Returns in cases of Cash/Share options, if voted in favour of CVA, would actually materialise ?
Haven't we had an original Suspended Amount, only to be told 6 months later that it would actually be much higher than the original (almost double) ? And now even before the 6 months are up and when it is time to pay the Capital and already received/accumulated Interest back, they have already Sold it to a Sister Concern @ 31% of the latest Figure ? Their FAQ and the video presentation clearly says that these are ESTIMATES and that there is NO GUARANTEE. So, I am not convinced that Voting in Favour of the CVA is the Better Option and 'We Don't want CVA to Fail and that is the Best Option' - the history certainly doesn't support this Logic.
Who knows why they didn't actually go for the other bids and offered the so called 10% on top of the so called highest bid (remember that all the bids were subject to detailed due diligence of each Loan by the Bidders - so the bidders might have unearthed things that Wellesley want to hide and might have even raised their bids. Not saying that the other option would definitely be Better, but we know the Worst Case Scenario in the other Option (Administration). Whereas, this (CVA) Option could very well Turn Out to be Worse (with their shady dealings and Hi Life Remunerations.
|
|
|
|
Post by et on Oct 2, 2020 11:34:44 GMT
We don't want the CVA to fail. I do believe this is the best option for most. Of course, we need to understand all of the dubious goings on. The goal should be to make the terms of the CVA more fair as it is so one side e.g. share any upside on the heavily discounted loan book for one. We need to unite and get as many as us together so that we have one coherent voice that Wellesley will listen to. But do answer question, DM, if we ended up down the administration route, they would be obliged to investigate what went wrong and why. This would involve looking at the transaction leading up to this fiasco. Hence why I believe that Wellesley would make a better offer to us as they really don't want anyone independent reviewing what they have been up to recently. They haven't even had a group statutory audit since 2017. That's nearly three years of no external scrutiny! What guarantees do we have that the Estimated Returns in cases of Cash/Share options, if voted in favour of CVA, would actually materialise ?
Haven't we had an original Suspended Amount, only to be told 6 months later that it would actually be much higher than the original (almost double) ? And now even before the 6 months are up and when it is time to pay the Capital and already received/accumulated Interest back, they have already Sold it to a Sister Concern @ 31% of the latest Figure ? Their FAQ and the video presentation clearly says that these are ESTIMATES and that there is NO GUARANTEE. So, I am not convinced that Voting in Favour of the CVA is the Better Option and 'We Don't want CVA to Fail and that is the Best Option' - the history certainly doesn't support this Logic.
Who knows why they didn't actually go for the other bids and offered the so called 10% on top of the so called highest bid (remember that all the bids were subject to detailed due diligence of each Loan by the Bidders - so the bidders might have unearthed things that Wellesley want to hide and might have even raised their bids. Not saying that the other option would definitely be Better, but we know the Worst Case Scenario in the other Option (Administration). Whereas, this (CVA) Option could very well Turn Out to be Worse (with their shady dealings and Hi Life Remunerations.
All very good points and fair concerns. In general, CVAs are better outcomes for creditors IF they are genuine and fair in the first place e.g. sharing in any upside in this instance. I fully accept that there is a massive trust issue and I often find myself thinking would I rather have a guaranteed amount now that was lower than run the risk of have the same people that run the company into the ground failing to deliver on another promise (remember, we are not due to see anything for at least 18 months). The current terms of the CVA are so weighted against us that even this bunch of mismanaging idiots could deliver on it. Don’t forget they have sold themselves a loan book with a supposed FV of £71m for £45m – that’s quite the buffer to work with! fundamentally, this is a cash flow issue. These developments will complete and will then be sold and loans eventually repaid. Wellesley, have mismanaged the business, made worse by the pandemic and the FCA stopping them raising further funds having over committed on what they would lend to borrowers. I doubt where we are now was the aim from the start but it does appear they are now taking advantage of the situation to take future upside leaving creditors to take the all the hit. They have stripped the company of as much cash as they can and spread it across the group (or directors' own pockets) in dubious transactions. They are still to answer the big question of how they are going to fund borrowers? They don't have £15m to pay us in Q4 but somehow they are going to magic up the £61m they claim they need for borrower drawdowns!? This is why I think CVA is correct route but with better terms for us. The first thing we would want to do is appoint an IP to replace Duff and Phelps that would have our interest at heart and not the company’s. Yes, under a CVA the directors still run the company but they are monitored by the IP who will be there to ensure no more funny business goes on. That’s why we need as many of us to unite and fight back. This isn’t a take or leave it deal as implied in the CVA proposal. For those interested in working together please contact me at following email wellesleycvacreditors@yahoo.com. the more of us we have the more power we hold which means Wellesley will have to listen. Once again, if you are undecided or feel pressured into voting in favour please don’t vote until the 13th.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark2465 on Oct 2, 2020 11:44:35 GMT
In my 40 year career I learnt never to believe anyone until it was proved to be correct. Wellesley has lied and tried to deceive us with his Wellesley brand who's parent company was governed by the FCA where in fact his similar named workhorse companies were not. How can we trust anything coming from them now??? I am not going to vote until the last day of voting so to allow any new evidence to come to light. No doubt Wellesley's decision has been long in the making with a team of lawyers and financiers onboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by dm on Oct 2, 2020 11:46:24 GMT
I hear what et is saying about the CVA, but why would Wellesley engage and offer clients a better CVA? They are clearly out to rip clients off and seemingly think they have the legal grounds to get away with it and want the CVA passed before any legal action can be taken, in which case no legal action is possible later if the CVA is accepted? How can we challenge the in-house sale or try and get a better CVA before the vote deadline?Logistically it seems impossible, notwithstanding that Wellesley has no incentive to co-operate or engage in good faith? I will not vote until the very last minute, but it seems a choice at the moment between 'the lesser of two evils' but I am not sure at the moment which option is the most evil? As things stand at the moment all 12, 000 clients are are going to be screwed by Wellesley whichever option is chosen. Wellesley has no assets now if the loan book sale cannot be legally reversed so what can an Administrator go after for the benefit of clients in the near future?
|
|
|
|
Post by et on Oct 2, 2020 12:06:16 GMT
I hear what et is saying about the CVA, but why would Wellesley engage and offer clients a better CVA? They are clearly out to rip clients off and seemingly think they have the legal grounds to get away with it and want the CVA passed before any legal action can be taken, in which case no legal action is possible later if the CVA is accepted? How can we challenge the in-house sale or try and get a better CVA before the vote deadline?Logistically it seems impossible, notwithstanding that Wellesley has no incentive to co-operate or engage in good faith? I will not vote until the very last minute, but it seems a choice at the moment between 'the lesser of two evils' but I am not sure at the moment which option is the most evil? As things stand at the moment all 12, 000 clients are are going to be screwed by Wellesley whichever option is chosen. Wellesley has no assets now if the loan book sale cannot be legally reversed so what can an Administrator go after for the benefit of clients in the near future? The way I see it, Wellesley does not want to go into administration. If people believe this was his goal all along (I don’t) then he cannot allow it to happen as he loses control of the company and all the dodgy transaction will be investigated and could be reversed as it is illegal to trade when insolent. I doubt it is legal to strip a failing company of all its assets at the expense of creditors as whilst keeping control of them as well. The timetable in the proposal states a challenge period after the vote but to be honest this is all out of my area of knowledge. I am getting advice from an expert and hope to hear back if we have a case. He acknowledged we need to act fast but seemed confident if there are dodgy goings on that we could postpone the vote to buy ourselves time to investigate. So DM, to answer your question. I don’t see it as an option of selecting from two evils but trying to get the best possible outcome from a bad situation. This is a huge ask as the odds are massively stacked against us but I for one will not give up without a fight. I am sure there are plenty of other investors in small groups debating what to do. We just need to find them and join forces. I believe Wellesley’s threat of administration is a scare tactic. He does have an incentive to negotiate. Let’s call his bluff!
|
|
|
|
Post by dm on Oct 2, 2020 12:08:07 GMT
Currently the choice between Administration and the CVA is like being given the dessert choice of:
Horse manure or horse manure with a little whipped cream on top? Only if an Administrator could prosecute Wellesley Directors, expose criminal or other illegal wrongdoings, or reverse the loan book sale or make Cloverleaf pay fair value would that seem the best option? Wellesley 'gave away' a £100 million asset for £50 million and deferred payments. So the £50 million payments are the only asset as things stand now?
|
|
|
|
Post by et on Oct 2, 2020 12:17:56 GMT
Good to see you have managed to keep your sense of humour about this. As dirty as it is I like the analogy!
once again, I am not expert but I would expect that Wellesley have spent a lot of our cash on getting advice to protect his interests so you may be right. But the fact remains, he will be investigated under an administration so could be found guilty of a crime. Surely he cant take that risk so there must be room for negotiating. I go back to the headroom from selling the loan book for significantly below FV. Give us a few more million and share in upside or take the risk of jail?
|
|
|
|
Post by dm on Oct 2, 2020 12:19:30 GMT
Et, Please do not misinterpret that I am giving up. No way! I just hope over the coming week we can all more clearly see what we should collectively do to optimise/mitigate the current situation for clients. I have also been liaising extensively with a high profile newspaper on this story so hope the cat will shortly be put amongst the pigeons.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 2, 2020 13:26:14 GMT
G W cut his teeth in the forex and derivatives market, the dirtiest of all financial markets, be prepared for the unexpected with him and his goons. They all had a long time to plan various outcomes and strategize accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark2465 on Oct 2, 2020 15:04:44 GMT
.
|
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Oct 2, 2020 16:01:12 GMT
One thing that I'm still unsure of :
Weren't the Legacy P2P Investments (offered in 2014 & 2015) purely Offered and Administered by Wellesley & Co Ltd (WCL) that was regulated by OFT/FCA and NOT by Wellesley Finance Ltd (WFP) ? As far as I can remember, they started offering Bonds via Wellesley Finance Ltd and that was the reason I stayed clear of these Bonds. Can someone correct me or confirm pls ?
|
|
|
|
Post by m1kehunt on Oct 2, 2020 16:26:54 GMT
I still don't understand why the estimated P2P returns are so low, 44p/£ non CVA and 48p/£ seems pretty extreme? My "suspended balance", realized recovery/loss was nowhere near this figure? although I have no idea what happened with the other loans as they've now been sold off!
Come on Wellesley/Andrew Turnbull, If you're reading this - do the right thing and pay your investors a fair amount.. We have stood by you for 5 years and deserve better. I'm happy to take a loss but this just isn't cricket!
|
|
|
|
Post by m1kehunt on Oct 2, 2020 16:28:45 GMT
One thing that I'm still unsure of :
Weren't the Legacy P2P Investments (offered in 2014 & 2015) purely Offered and Administered by Wellesley & Co Ltd (WCL) that was regulated by OFT/FCA and NOT by Wellesley Finance Ltd (WFP) ? As far as I can remember, they started offering Bonds via Wellesley Finance Ltd and that was the reason I stayed clear of these Bonds. Can someone correct me or confirm pls ?
Doesn't seem to matter if you're FCA regulated or not, the regulators are about as useful as a chocolate teapot!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mark2465 on Oct 2, 2020 18:47:02 GMT
I have looked through my records and it appears I had to pay my minibond investments into Wellesley & Co Limited (which is governed by FCA) Their bank details are
Account WELLESLEY & CO LTD, Sort code 20-00-00, Account number 93497275. What about anyone else? I think I will inform the FCA in case it makes a difference (grasping at straws!!!).
IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY MY BANK THAT I PAID MY FUNDS INTO WELLESLEY & CO LTD AND RECEIVED PAYMENTS BACK FROM THEM.
|
|
|
|
Post by exbanker on Oct 2, 2020 18:56:59 GMT
I have looked through my records and it appears I had to pay my minibond investments into Wellesley & Co Limited (which is governed by FCA) Their bank details are Account WELLESLEY & CO LTD, Sort code 20-00-00, Account number 93497275. What about anyone else? I think I will inform the FCA in case it makes a difference (grasping at straws!!!). Not sure what date these T&Cs originate from but just googled for T&Cs and the link below popped up, but they are definitely in the name of WCL as the mini bond platform operator and also interesting to note the definition of the Client Money Account on page 4. www.wellesley.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Platform-Terms-And-Conditions.pdfAs an aside, if you want a measure of the man google how GW treated his sister following the death of their father. If that’s how he treats his family. The only thing he will take any notice of is if it hits him in the pocket.
|
|
