|
|
Post by exbanker on Sept 22, 2020 22:09:49 GMT
It appears that Shoosmiths advised Wellesley on the sale of the loan book - the docs at Companies House refer to the Loan Book Sale Agreement but don’t actually confirm the details, so we can’t see if it’s all or just part of the book. The Security Trustee was, however, party to the new security provided, so one would hope they have the best interests of the investors at the centre of everything they do, but given they are a related company, how independent and objective the Security Trustee is will only come out in time. You would imagine that a firm such as Shoosmiths would play a straight bat though even if they are ultimately transacting their clients instructions.
Covid and recent regulatory changes, aren’t the route cause of problems with the loan book, they may have hastened the eventual demise but problems have been self evident for some years now and the FCA and BDO (previous auditor) need to have a long hard look at themselves as to why they have allowed Wellesley to continue to take investors money during 2019 and 2020 and probably even earlier than that. If you haven’t already read the new auditors accounts for 2018 then they are a real horror story - not just the numbers but also the commentary. Look at the volume and scale of restated items in the accounts that BDO had previously signed off.
As well as investors there are also knock on impacts here on the other side of the coin. The market has been rife with rumour for months and months that developers were late being paid out on their monthly loan drawdowns. Whilst many people will have little sympathy perhaps for developers, they do have a lot of contractors and subbies that will be stretched to the limit now and I dare say some contractors may fall over as a consequence, with resultant job losses. Unless of course someone has been lined up to buy the loan book quickly (other than a related company).
As investors I would suggest everyone needs to make sure the FCA hear and feel your significant pain as they were too slow to the party here, indeed they may still be in the taxi on their way to the party...........
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69 
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Sept 22, 2020 22:20:41 GMT
I've been warning the FCA about this bunch of aristocratic <redacted> for the last three years and they have just stood back and watched it all unfold. It's a disgrace. I have a P2P debtgoing back three years. The recovery figure gets reduced very year and nothing ever gets paid. i wouldn't believe a single figure they put forward. I certainly won't be voting in favour of the CVA. The sooner ths company is wound up the better. The directors should be prosecuted for fraud My feelings exactly, reflected in all my posts here on Wellesley. They are offering me 10% more if the CVA is passed. The CVA offer amounts to a 69% haircut (i.e. I get back 31%). All of my money is in P2P 'Loan A' and 'Loan B', no dodgy mini bonds. The important point is the word "estimated" against all their return figures. I don't belive their estimate of the return should the CVA not be passed and the company goes into administration: They have long since dispensed with their provision fund so any return I get would come from borrower A and B, not a propped up Wellesley. So there is no advantage to me in voting for the CVA and hoping the propped up company would give me some crumbs, much better to wind the company up and get what I can from borrower A and B, even after the administrator takes a cut. Plus agreeing the CVA just rewards the <redacted>.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Sept 22, 2020 22:50:30 GMT
It appears that Shoosmiths advised Wellesley on the sale of the loan book - the docs at Companies House refer to the Loan Book Sale Agreement but don’t actually confirm the details, so we can’t see if it’s all or just part of the book. The Security Trustee was, however, party to the new security provided, so one would hope they have the best interests of the investors at the centre of everything they do, but given they are a related company, how independent and objective the Security Trustee is will only come out in time. You would imagine that a firm such as Shoosmiths would play a straight bat though even if they are ultimately transacting their clients instructions. Covid and recent regulatory changes, aren’t the route cause of problems with the loan book, they may have hastened the eventual demise but problems have been self evident for some years now and the FCA and BDO (previous auditor) need to have a long hard look at themselves as to why they have allowed Wellesley to continue to take investors money during 2019 and 2020 and probably even earlier than that. If you haven’t already read the new auditors accounts for 2018 then they are a real horror story - not just the numbers but also the commentary. Look at the volume and scale of restated items in the accounts that BDO had previously signed off. As well as investors there are also knock on impacts here on the other side of the coin. The market has been rife with rumour for months and months that developers were late being paid out on their monthly loan drawdowns. Whilst many people will have little sympathy perhaps for developers, they do have a lot of contractors and subbies that will be stretched to the limit now and I dare say some contractors may fall over as a consequence, with resultant job losses. Unless of course someone has been lined up to buy the loan book quickly (other than a related company). As investors I would suggest everyone needs to make sure the FCA hear and feel your significant pain as they were too slow to the party here, indeed they may still be in the taxi on their way to the party........... I'm not a Wellesley investor, but I support this post.
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Sept 22, 2020 22:56:26 GMT
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,138
Likes: 1,962
|
Post by rocky1 on Sept 23, 2020 10:44:47 GMT
come on CS. thank you for calling wellesley your call will be answered shortly. twice i have waited nearly an hour in a queue this morning after reaching number 1 and then getting that message before being cut off.
|
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Sept 23, 2020 11:20:20 GMT
It's a quandary....To vote for Administration or CVA! At least with administration we're not reliant on Wellesley overseeing proceedings, i find it hard to believe, and frankly just distrust, that they would actually return the funds they 'estimate' via the CVA agreement, they have already failed to deliver on their promise, by cocking up the return of my original capital and interest, i was expecting from my original 2 year mini bond.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,138
Likes: 1,962
|
Post by rocky1 on Sept 23, 2020 11:34:14 GMT
the new company set up by our 2 directors who i presume now own the loan book with a charge to their other company as secured creditors.who are the secured creditors in this scheme and where do we fit in as unsecured creditors and will our votes really count for anything anyway as it seems everything is being set up for this vote to go the way the wellesley directors are scheming in the background here.
|
|
up
Posts: 59
Likes: 62
|
Post by up on Sept 23, 2020 11:49:51 GMT
Minor notes re earlier points:
our 'estimate' are to be firmed up to a 'final expected' return tomorrow with the publication of the CVA offer.
the glossary states sale was of entire loan book after lower external bids, forecast milestone payments total £44m with final 55% not until Dec 2021.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMS Ardent on Sept 23, 2020 12:59:20 GMT
It's a quandary....To vote for Administration or CVA! At least with administration we're not reliant on Wellesley overseeing proceedings, i find it hard to believe, and frankly just distrust, that they would actually return the funds they 'estimate' via the CVA agreement, they have already failed to deliver on their promise, by cocking up the return of my original capital and interest, i was expecting from my original 2 year mini bond. Hi Mark, I'm not sure administration wouldn't be reliant on Wellesley overseeing proceedings!! I'm absolutely certain I read somewhere Wellesley would use their own "in house" administrators! In which case they can make any "wind-down" as disorderly as they like. Wellesley seem to have it all sewn up. Perhaps somebody can enlighten us if this is the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Sept 23, 2020 21:25:52 GMT
It's a quandary....To vote for Administration or CVA! At least with administration we're not reliant on Wellesley overseeing proceedings, i find it hard to believe, and frankly just distrust, that they would actually return the funds they 'estimate' via the CVA agreement, they have already failed to deliver on their promise, by cocking up the return of my original capital and interest, i was expecting from my original 2 year mini bond. Hi Mark, I'm not sure administration wouldn't be reliant on Wellesley overseeing proceedings!! I'm absolutely certain I read somewhere Wellesley would use their own "in house" administrators! In which case they can make any "wind-down" as disorderly as they like. Wellesley seem to have it all sewn up. Perhaps somebody can enlighten us if this is the case.
This may not count for much but normally the FCA would have to have agreed to these "in house" administrators.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcams11 on Sept 24, 2020 4:32:31 GMT
I can't believe it. My 5 year 5.5% wco p2p holding of £12000 was due to expire yesterday. The day they sent the email.
Anybody know what will happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by HMS Ardent on Sept 24, 2020 9:36:20 GMT
Hi Mark, I'm not sure administration wouldn't be reliant on Wellesley overseeing proceedings!! I'm absolutely certain I read somewhere Wellesley would use their own "in house" administrators! In which case they can make any "wind-down" as disorderly as they like. Wellesley seem to have it all sewn up. Perhaps somebody can enlighten us if this is the case.
This may not count for much but normally the FCA would have to have agreed to these "in house" administrators.
Our problem is some parts of Wellesley are not FCA authorised.
|
|
mogish
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,105
Likes: 527
|
Post by mogish on Sept 24, 2020 11:44:23 GMT
I thought voting was opening today? I've no intention of providing a vote for gauging however I thought the actual vote " opens when cva launches on 24 sept?"
|
|
|
|
Post by inva on Sept 24, 2020 15:48:32 GMT
Minor notes re earlier points: our 'estimate' are to be firmed up to a 'final expected' return tomorrow with the publication of the CVA offer. the glossary states sale was of entire loan book after lower external bids, forecast milestone payments total £44m with final 55% not until Dec 2021. The estimated figures on the CVA document are very different from the estimated figures when you log in to the 'classic' web site. The document states that for Series 1 mini bonds the estimated cash value is 58 pence in the pound. Whereas when I look at the estimated return on the website, it's showing only 1% as if they were series 2 or 3. I've double checked the bond certs and they clearly state they are series 1. Anybody else seeing this? it's no wonder they've run into problems with calculations like this! EDIT : Never received a reply from Wellesley but unbelievably they've now altered my certificates online so that they read Series 2 instead of Series 1!! Are they allowed to do that??? Fortunately I have the original certificates stored away before they changed them.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,138
Likes: 1,962
|
Post by rocky1 on Sept 25, 2020 8:44:58 GMT
this will be just like a lendy vote. the CVA will be going ahead regardless of whatever W say.they seem to be already in advanced stages to implement it as soon as this little marketing exercise is over.
|
|
