|
|
Post by closetotheedge on Oct 11, 2020 11:44:37 GMT
Hi,
Just looking at my options regarding the P2P investment I have with Wellesley and which way I should vote.
I have accounts for myself, my wife and two of my adult children which I am responsible for so four in total.
In each case the expected return is higher if I vote in favour of the CVA.
I assume that if I vote for the CVA then the predicted figure is the very best outcome, however, if I vote against for each of us is it perhaps the case that administration might possibly produce a better result or is this just wishful thinking?
Obviously I wish I had never invested any of this money with them. At the time, about five years ago, I was using RS quite heavily and just thought it would be an idea to diversify a bit and was sucked in by the sales talk of Wellesley. In hindsight, it would have been better to burn most of the money and keep whatever did not catch light in a jar under the bed.
Any thoughts from all you more knowledgeable folk would be welcome.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 11, 2020 11:59:26 GMT
Hi, Just looking at my options regarding the P2P investment I have with Wellesley and which way I should vote. I have accounts for myself, my wife and two of my adult children which I am responsible for so four in total. In each case the expected return is higher if I vote in favour of the CVA. I assume that if I vote for the CVA then the predicted figure is the very best outcome, however, if I vote against for each of us is it perhaps the case that administration might possibly produce a better result or is this just wishful thinking? Obviously I wish I had never invested any of this money with them. At the time, about five years ago, I was using RS quite heavily and just thought it would be an idea to diversify a bit and was sucked in by the sales talk of Wellesley. In hindsight, it would have been better to burn most of the money and keep whatever did not catch light in a jar under the bed. Any thoughts from all you more knowledgeable folk would be welcome. To me, the entire CVA has been set up as a "tails they win, heads we lose". The various outcomes and returns that they illustrate are just projected returns, so how accurate are they from a business that could not keep itself solvent and running? I voted against, as I see no reason they should continue to be in business after such a fiasco, but that just my personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by et on Oct 12, 2020 9:21:42 GMT
Hi, Just looking at my options regarding the P2P investment I have with Wellesley and which way I should vote. I have accounts for myself, my wife and two of my adult children which I am responsible for so four in total. In each case the expected return is higher if I vote in favour of the CVA. I assume that if I vote for the CVA then the predicted figure is the very best outcome, however, if I vote against for each of us is it perhaps the case that administration might possibly produce a better result or is this just wishful thinking? Obviously I wish I had never invested any of this money with them. At the time, about five years ago, I was using RS quite heavily and just thought it would be an idea to diversify a bit and was sucked in by the sales talk of Wellesley. In hindsight, it would have been better to burn most of the money and keep whatever did not catch light in a jar under the bed. Any thoughts from all you more knowledgeable folk would be welcome. To me, the entire CVA has been set up as a "tails they win, heads we lose". The various outcomes and returns that they illustrate are just projected returns, so how accurate are they from a business that could not keep itself solvent and running? I voted against, as I see no reason they should continue to be in business after such a fiasco, but that just my personal opinion. from my research most CVAs fail so it may be an academic question as could end up in same position further down the line. the only difference is, and I may be wrong here, there is a time limit to investigate the dodgy transactions during the months before the CVA proposal. It wouldn't surprise me if this is all setup so that the timing of the payments were determined that if they fail to achieve CVA terms that the clock will have stopped ticking on the roll back dates and directors are out of the woods. the question I ask myself is - do I trust the same management that caused this mess to get out of it? now clearly, there have stacked the odds in their favour but screwing creditors on the loan book sale. even if it wasn't at arms length I would personally take less guaranteed now then the promise of these jokers delivering 10% more in 18+ months time. another big issue I have, is that they claim they are going to change the business model and use institutional investors from now on. they may have been able to fool us but does anyone honestly believe that savvy professional investors are going to back a company that has failed so drastically. there are so many platforms out there that are struggling right not but there are still plenty that are going concerns (unlike Wellesley). from what I can gather, their USP is turning £100m+ of our cash into a pot worth just £44m. upshot is, if CVA fails there is no future business. no viable business without the loan book so they wont go into administration as they lose only asset (not to mention external scrutiny on their decision). They have to come back to the table and negotiate. that's my view for what is worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by belladog on Oct 12, 2020 10:11:51 GMT
I’'m totally bemused by all of this. They are still getting in all of the repayment from the £100 million which is out on loan, (excluding any shortfall caused by the virus). Where is that going?
It seems to me that this has always been like a <redacted> scheme whereby they relied on new money coming into the fund, as well as the repayments, to pay out to the investors.
So is the money that’s coming in now just lining the pockets of Wellesley et al?
I’ve voted NO as there's absolutely no way that I’m go to be trying to help these clowns.
SWS
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 12, 2020 11:00:28 GMT
I’'m totally bemused by all of this. They are still getting in all of the repayment from the £100 million which is out on loan, (excluding any shortfall caused by the virus). Where is that going? It seems to me that this has always been like a <redacted> scheme whereby they relied on new money coming into the fund, as well as the repayments, to pay out to the investors. So is the money that’s coming in now just lining the pockets of Wellesley et al?I’ve voted NO as there's absolutely no way that I’m go to be trying to help these clowns. SWS In reply to your question, most definitely YES, as I have asked Wellesley salary questions, and they have bluntly refused to reply. Hence, my belief, and there was no denying it from Wellesley, they are all on 100% salaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark2465 on Oct 12, 2020 11:21:39 GMT
My wife and I voted No to the CVA yesterday. I then queried the amount I was allegedly going to claim back via the court on there pre-filled form and had the below reply from them this morning!!!! What frustrates me it that you always deal with Wellesley & Co Ltd (FCA), you pay them your investments and then receive interest payments from them but when things go wrong they have nothing to do with any of it!!!! Thank you for your email. To confirm, you do not need to alter the claim amount. Your Total Claim (viewable on the Notice of Claim form) may differ from your ‘investment holding balance’ (viewable on the voting screen on your Wellesley Classic account) depending on the investment product you hold. This is because your claim is related to your unsecured claim against Wellesley Finance Plc. If you hold multiple investments this will show the aggregate total. This figure simply relates to this claim and does not impact your estimated returns which still reflect what Wellesley is expected to return to you across all your investments. When the loan book was sold, Wellesley Finance successfully recovered a portion of the total value you invested. This is what is now known as the ‘secured portion’ of your investment. As part of the CVA, Wellesley intends on recovering further funds which is what is now called your ‘unsecured portion’ as it is no longer directly linked to the loan book. This unsecured portion is what will display in the ‘total claim’ section as the secured portion is already accounted for via the loan book sale. Kind regards, J*** C***** Phone: 0800 888 6001 info@wellesley.co.uk www.wellesley.co.uk |
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 386
|
Post by mah on Oct 12, 2020 11:40:51 GMT
Hi, Just looking at my options regarding the P2P investment I have with Wellesley and which way I should vote. I have accounts for myself, my wife and two of my adult children which I am responsible for so four in total. In each case the expected return is higher if I vote in favour of the CVA. I assume that if I vote for the CVA then the predicted figure is the very best outcome, however, if I vote against for each of us is it perhaps the case that administration might possibly produce a better result or is this just wishful thinking? Obviously I wish I had never invested any of this money with them. At the time, about five years ago, I was using RS quite heavily and just thought it would be an idea to diversify a bit and was sucked in by the sales talk of Wellesley. In hindsight, it would have been better to burn most of the money and keep whatever did not catch light in a jar under the bed. Any thoughts from all you more knowledgeable folk would be welcome. The Predicted outcomes, if one Votes for CVA and it Wins are all Forward looking Estimates (how many of those have we had in the past ?). The whole CVA doc is littered with words like Estimates, No Warranties, Predictions, etc. as I mentioned in the following post : p2pindependentforum.com/post/405825/thread
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 386
|
Post by mah on Oct 12, 2020 11:43:01 GMT
I’'m totally bemused by all of this. They are still getting in all of the repayment from the £100 million which is out on loan, (excluding any shortfall caused by the virus). Where is that going? It seems to me that this has always been like a <redacted> scheme whereby they relied on new money coming into the fund, as well as the repayments, to pay out to the investors. So is the money that’s coming in now just lining the pockets of Wellesley et al?I’ve voted NO as there's absolutely no way that I’m go to be trying to help these clowns. SWS In reply to your question, most definitely YES, as I have asked Wellesley salary questions, and they have bluntly refused to reply. Hence, my belief, and there was no denying it from Wellesley, they are all on 100% salaries. Also, I suspect that they will have their 100% back under the 'Critically Compromised Creditors' guise, as mentioned in the CVA.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 386
|
Post by mah on Oct 12, 2020 12:19:23 GMT
FCA's priority is clear - Save Borrowers and Forget the Lenders : FCA has issued increased guidance on regulated and unregulated loans (made by a regulated entity): Firms should not commence or continue repossession proceedings against customers before 31 October 2020, given the unprecedented uncertainty and upheaval they face, and Government advice on social distancing and self-isolation. This applies irrespective of the stage that repossession proceedings have reached and to any step taken in pursuit of repossession. Where a possession order has already been obtained, firms should refrain from enforcing it.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 12, 2020 13:41:50 GMT
FCA's priority is clear - Save Borrowers and Forget the Lenders : FCA has issued increased guidance on regulated and unregulated loans (made by a regulated entity): Firms should not commence or continue repossession proceedings against customers before 31 October 2020, given the unprecedented uncertainty and upheaval they face, and Government advice on social distancing and self-isolation. This applies irrespective of the stage that repossession proceedings have reached and to any step taken in pursuit of repossession. Where a possession order has already been obtained, firms should refrain from enforcing it.
Its simple maths from the FCA, there are many borrowers and few lenders. Not talking about property loans in P2P, but most other areas of lending, borrowers outnumber lenders by a considerable ratio.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,384
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 12, 2020 14:09:48 GMT
FCA's priority is clear - Save Borrowers and Forget the Lenders : FCA has issued increased guidance on regulated and unregulated loans (made by a regulated entity): Firms should not commence or continue repossession proceedings against customers before 31 October 2020, given the unprecedented uncertainty and upheaval they face, and Government advice on social distancing and self-isolation. This applies irrespective of the stage that repossession proceedings have reached and to any step taken in pursuit of repossession. Where a possession order has already been obtained, firms should refrain from enforcing it.
Its simple maths from the FCA, there are many borrowers and few lenders. Not talking about property loans in P2P, but most other areas of lending, borrowers outnumber lenders by a considerable ratio. Also in general borrowers are more obvious consumers (who need protecting!) P2P lenders are apparently these days investors who are assumed to be able to look after themselves. 
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 12, 2020 14:27:17 GMT
Its simple maths from the FCA, there are many borrowers and few lenders. Not talking about property loans in P2P, but most other areas of lending, borrowers outnumber lenders by a considerable ratio. Also in general borrowers are more obvious consumers (who need protecting!) P2P lenders are apparently these days investors who are assumed to be able to look after themselves. I know where you are coming from here, but the FCA must have known yonks ago that many P2P lenders were only "retail" clients and not all were flush with cash to get involved in such speculation. They would have known that when Collateral went down at the latest, and how long did it take them to react, about 2 years before they imposed the 10% limit and questionnaire for lenders to be asked!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Oct 12, 2020 17:38:33 GMT
Also in general borrowers are more obvious consumers (who need protecting!) P2P lenders are apparently these days investors who are assumed to be able to look after themselves. I know where you are coming from here, but the FCA must have known yonks ago that many P2P lenders were only "retail" clients and not all were flush with cash to get involved in such speculation. They would have known that when Collateral went down at the latest, and how long did it take them to react, about 2 years before they imposed the 10% limit and questionnaire for lenders to be asked!
I'm not fully up to speed on all the "ins and outs" of this, but given that the FCA effectively pulled the plug on W by disallowing adverts for minibonds. Isn't there some moral duty here that the FCA should come up to? )
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Oct 12, 2020 20:30:01 GMT
I know where you are coming from here, but the FCA must have known yonks ago that many P2P lenders were only "retail" clients and not all were flush with cash to get involved in such speculation. They would have known that when Collateral went down at the latest, and how long did it take them to react, about 2 years before they imposed the 10% limit and questionnaire for lenders to be asked!
I'm not fully up to speed on all the "ins and outs" of this, but given that the FCA effectively pulled the plug on W by disallowing adverts for minibonds. Isn't there some moral duty here that the FCA should come up to? )
Most definitely moral duty, but the FCA can impose virtually whatever T&C they wish on regulated firms, and is tough luck for the firm. Usually the various new regs entail higher expenditure on compliance by the firm, and this is especially difficult for the firm when its a start up without much capital backup to implement the new directives. Other P2P firms who also relied on issuing Bonds have also shut shop due to that directive by the FCA.
|
|
|
|
Post by dm on Oct 13, 2020 10:30:29 GMT
Today is vote deadline day unless events dictate otherwise. Wellesley Directors are incompetent shameless charlatans who want to steal your money and get themselves off a serious financial and legal hook by YOU allowing this to happen if you vote 'Yes' for the CVA. Their estimates are, in any case, worthless as there are no warranties offered. If you vote 'Yes' you will undoubtedly feel disgusted with yourself down the line when you may, or may not, get 'pence in the pound' back whilst Wellesley Directors take the lion's share of the cash that should have been yours from the massively discounted illegal loan book sale to themselves, Director loan write-offs, drawing exorbitant salaries for themselves [despite appalling performance] and using many other immoral and likely illegal measures to suck cash and assets out of Wellesley Finance plc. 'NO' is the only vote to get a better outcome and preserve your self respect.
Knowing that you have been taken for a mug by <redacted>, and actively voted for it, would be a bitter pill to swallow, very hard to forget and dwell on your mind for years to come.
|
|
