michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706 
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 7, 2021 13:21:00 GMT
michaelc The last time you directed a question at me I responded directly back to you and you didn’t like me answering you directly despite that fact you’d asked me directly! p2pindependentforum.com/post/420908So I’ll “largely” ignore your post. Needless to say I doubt you’ve - ever worked in a regulated financial services company in a regulated role - ever read any of the various regulatory handbooks and documentation - bothered to read or respond to any of the consultation papers on regulating crowd investing But you clearly have an opinion on regulation (as you have an opinion on most things) and that a totally new regulatory framework should be drafted and staffed with individuals trained in the new framework solely focussed on P2P lending and what michaelc wants for a nano-industry that is unlikely to exist at any scale. If you don’t like my direct responses to you michaelc when you ask a question of me directly then perhaps you should avoid asking a question of me in the first place. I suspect that’s a bit too much for you to compute! My bad if I haven’t ignored you “largely” as stated earlier. No. The last time it was initially you who replied to my post. Then I stated I didn't want to further the discussion. I'm happy to discuss other topics. Are you ok by the way?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 7, 2021 13:38:00 GMT
So a director associated with a serious failure of regulation should be punished by being allowed to work in a junior or mid ranking role within a financial services company? The FCA should do a lot more than check if a director is a fit and proper person to run such a company. For P2P they should be responsible for laying down some ground rules. e.g. What information needs to be published by the platform and how often.I thought the FCA had laid some ground rules, lenders have to declare their status and have to pass a test to 'prove' they understand the model, retail lenders should only lend 10% of their capital. Platforms have to have a wind down plan and have to publish statistics in a particular format, Client accounts ring fenced, etc, etc. Whether it's enough or whether platforms are really doing the things they should be or just paying lip service are the questions. Another skill required for P2P is common sense, if someone is offering you 12% interest in a low interest rate environment be extremely suspicious and cautious.And an oldie but goodie, don't lend more than you could afford to lose. I seem to recall you investing in The Money Platform where 12% was their target rate. I'm getting higher but mindful that anything could happen so its quite a risk for the small sum I have there. Did you you manage to avoid L, MT, COL or FS then? They all claimed to offer 12%. And yes don't invest more than you can afford to lose and don't imply that someone else has done so.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 7, 2021 14:30:32 GMT
I thought the FCA had laid some ground rules, lenders have to declare their status and have to pass a test to 'prove' they understand the model, retail lenders should only lend 10% of their capital. Platforms have to have a wind down plan and have to publish statistics in a particular format, Client accounts ring fenced, etc, etc. Whether it's enough or whether platforms are really doing the things they should be or just paying lip service are the questions. Another skill required for P2P is common sense, if someone is offering you 12% interest in a low interest rate environment be extremely suspicious and cautious.And an oldie but goodie, don't lend more than you could afford to lose. I seem to recall you investing in The Money Platform where 12% was their target rate. I'm getting higher but mindful that anything could happen so its quite a risk for the small sum I have there. Did you you manage to avoid L, MT, COL or FS then? They all claimed to offer 12%. And yes don't invest more than you can afford to lose and don't imply that someone else has done so. I put a small amount into TMP (it looked different and was worth a toe dip at that time) last time I looked I was down about £100, I may get that back eventually; I stopped lending there years ago. I haven't actually lost on L, MT, Col and FS combined as my overall gains were greater than my outstanding amounts at meltdown, again I never went in heavily, I was tempted by the rates, but not fully convinced. I didn't say don't lend just be cautious, I have at least signed up for a large number of P2P sites, gone on to lend on quite a few and discarded most of them! I don't imply that 'someone' has invested more than they can afford to lose, I know a number of people have done so just by reading the forums and the Action Group sites, people re-mortgaging their houses going back to work from retirement, lost their life savings, truly terrible stories.
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 298 
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Mar 7, 2021 18:46:52 GMT
I suspect a distinction could be drawn between the expectations of group "1", those who were in P2P before the FCA got involved and group "2" those that joined p2p after the FCA got involved.
My sense is that group "1", didn't see the FCA approvals/authorisations bringing any real additional protection or benefits (beyond ISA access). Some posters for a long time have called it the wild wild west right from the start. While somewhat harshly stated, it is a fair description.
While the FCA did get some things wrong in p2p (as they do in other more established markets), my sense is that group "2", also had unreasonable expectations about what FCA's involvement in P2P really meant in practice.
Retail P2P has largely failed as a model but I am glad they had the opportunity to try. What I am not sure is how you balance allowing future nascent industries to develop and take risks while managing the expectations of people going in, without having a highly interventionists (expensive) financial regulator?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Mar 7, 2021 19:29:38 GMT
I think it's much more fundamental than that. If you're the FCA, and you consistently brag and promise to Financial Consumers that "We do this, and we do that", then it would be totally reasonable for Consumers to, errrr, expect that the FCA actually does DO this, and DO that?! Except, in FAR too many cases, they don't! And we won't talk about that absolute howler "Check the Register, it means the firm has been fully checked out & vetted by us , blah, blah", or somesuch misleading nonsense. If the FCA had to Authorise and Regulate themselves they'd have to summarily strike themselves off! Just read through the FCA's "The principles of good regulation" and ask yourself where these have even been near upheld re the failed P2P Platforms? Then read the FCA's "The principles for businesses" for another laugh. ( www.fca.org.uk/about/principles-good-regulation ) I mean, they're quasi/Government, aren't we meant to be able to trust them to do what they say they DO? Observe every time one of the FCA's Senior Management/Board speak, the arrogance and disdain for Financial Consumers is palpable, the FCA is only interested in evading culpability for their myriad gross failures and gross incompetencies, they alone in many P2P cases have singularly destroyed people's invested savings. The FCA has a LOT to answer for. |
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Mar 7, 2021 19:57:40 GMT
Thank you, but what's immediately obvious is your (deliberate?) failure to embolden 6, 7, and 8. Let the readers on here now carefully read these FCA "Principles" and decide for themselves if the FCA has upheld them re P2P Platforms?  |
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 7, 2021 20:29:24 GMT
[The principles of good regulation1. Efficiency and economy We are committed to using our resources in the most efficient and economical way. As part of this the Treasury can commission value-for-money reviews of our operations. 2. Proportionality We must ensure that any burden or restriction that we impose on a person, firm or activity is proportionate to the benefits we expect as a result. To judge this, we take into account the costs to firms and consumers. 3. Sustainable growth We must ensure there is a desire for sustainable growth in the economy of the UK in the medium or long term. 4. Consumer responsibility Consumers should take responsibility for their decisions.5. Senior management responsibility A firm’s senior management is responsible for the firm’s activities and for ensuring that its business complies with regulatory requirements. This secures an adequate but proportionate level of regulatory intervention by holding senior management responsible for the risk management and controls within firms. Firms must make it clear who has what responsibility and ensure that its business can be adequately monitored and controlled. 6. Recognising the differences in the businesses carried on by different regulated persons Where appropriate, we exercise our functions in a way that recognises differences in the nature of, and objectives of, businesses carried on by different persons subject to requirements imposed by or under FSMA. 7. Openness and disclosure We should publish relevant market information about regulated persons or require them to publish it (with appropriate safeguards). This reinforces market discipline and improves consumers’ knowledge about their financial matters. 8. Transparency We should exercise our functions as transparently as possible. It is important that we provide appropriate information on our regulatory decisions, and that we are open and accessible to the regulated community and the general public.] Ducks and takes cover before insult hurling is considered well reasoned response.
Yours
36DDeees You didn't link to the page where you copied this from: www.fca.org.uk/about/principles-good-regulationYou not only selectivey highlighted certain points but missed out entirely "The principles for business" which is states at the top of the page "regulated firms must adhere to the principles for businesses,". I'll copy them here and let others judge how good FCA regulated platforms have been at enforcing this. 1. Integrity A firm must conduct its business with integrity.
2. Skill, care and diligence A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.
3. Management and control A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.
4. Financial prudence A firm must maintain adequate financial resources.
5. Market conduct A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.
6. Customers' interests A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.
7. Communications with clients A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.
8. Conflicts of interest A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.
9. Customers: relationships of trust A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.
10. Clients' assets A firm must arrange adequate protection for clients' assets when it is responsible for them.
11. Relations with regulators A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the appropriate regulator appropriately anything relating to the firm of which that regulator would reasonably expect notice.
Informally, a consumer clearly should not expect an FCA regulated company to be run so badly that fraud and other shadiness has apparently taken place. These things can happen anywhere - even at banks. But the fact it has occurred at so many FCA regulated p2p platforms makes the problem endemic and not one rotten apple. A consumer should expect underlying investments to be at risk but they shouldn't expect to be sued for more than the original amount they invested for example. They shouldn't expect investments labelled as a loan to entity A actually going to a director of the FCA authorised platform that facilitated the loan. They shouldn't expect a platform listed within the FCA register as being authorised to in fact not be authorised. I could go on and on but I'm getting tired of addressing so many of your posts. I can only conclude that you do in fact enjoy trolling or you are related in some way to the FCA. An employee perhaps ? Have you made any p2p investments? Which platform and how did they go?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 7, 2021 21:05:07 GMT
[The principles of good regulation1. Efficiency and economy We are committed to using our resources in the most efficient and economical way. As part of this the Treasury can commission value-for-money reviews of our operations. 2. Proportionality We must ensure that any burden or restriction that we impose on a person, firm or activity is proportionate to the benefits we expect as a result. To judge this, we take into account the costs to firms and consumers. 3. Sustainable growth We must ensure there is a desire for sustainable growth in the economy of the UK in the medium or long term. 4. Consumer responsibility Consumers should take responsibility for their decisions.5. Senior management responsibility A firm’s senior management is responsible for the firm’s activities and for ensuring that its business complies with regulatory requirements. This secures an adequate but proportionate level of regulatory intervention by holding senior management responsible for the risk management and controls within firms. Firms must make it clear who has what responsibility and ensure that its business can be adequately monitored and controlled. 6. Recognising the differences in the businesses carried on by different regulated persons Where appropriate, we exercise our functions in a way that recognises differences in the nature of, and objectives of, businesses carried on by different persons subject to requirements imposed by or under FSMA. 7. Openness and disclosure We should publish relevant market information about regulated persons or require them to publish it (with appropriate safeguards). This reinforces market discipline and improves consumers’ knowledge about their financial matters. 8. Transparency We should exercise our functions as transparently as possible. It is important that we provide appropriate information on our regulatory decisions, and that we are open and accessible to the regulated community and the general public.] Ducks and takes cover before insult hurling is considered well reasoned response.
Yours
36DDeees You didn't link to the page where you copied this from: www.fca.org.uk/about/principles-good-regulationYou not only selectivey highlighted certain points but missed out entirely "The principles for business" which is states at the top of the page "regulated firms must adhere to the principles for businesses,". I'll copy them here and let others judge how good FCA regulated platforms have been at enforcing this. 1. Integrity A firm must conduct its business with integrity.
2. Skill, care and diligence A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.
3. Management and control A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.
4. Financial prudence A firm must maintain adequate financial resources.
5. Market conduct A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.
6. Customers' interests A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.
7. Communications with clients A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.
8. Conflicts of interest A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.
9. Customers: relationships of trust A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.
10. Clients' assets A firm must arrange adequate protection for clients' assets when it is responsible for them.
11. Relations with regulators A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the appropriate regulator appropriately anything relating to the firm of which that regulator would reasonably expect notice.
Informally, a consumer clearly should not expect an FCA regulated company to be run so badly that fraud and other shadiness has apparently taken place. These things can happen anywhere - even at banks. But the fact it has occurred at so many FCA regulated p2p platforms makes the problem endemic and not one rotten apple. A consumer should expect underlying investments to be at risk but they shouldn't expect to be sued for more than the original amount they invested for example. They shouldn't expect investments labelled as a loan to entity A actually going to a director of the FCA authorised platform that facilitated the loan. They shouldn't expect a platform listed within the FCA register as being authorised to in fact not be authorised. I could go on and on but I'm getting tired of addressing so many of your posts. I can only conclude that you do in fact enjoy trolling or you are related in some way to the FCA. An employee perhaps ? Have you made any p2p investments? Which platform and how did they go? 1 to 11 are all things regulated companies should do, and at the point of regulation they probably had to show that they were complying, once the regulator is out of the door who knows what they actually do, until someone complains.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 7, 2021 21:14:19 GMT
You didn't link to the page where you copied this from: www.fca.org.uk/about/principles-good-regulationYou not only selectivey highlighted certain points but missed out entirely "The principles for business" which is states at the top of the page "regulated firms must adhere to the principles for businesses,". I'll copy them here and let others judge how good FCA regulated platforms have been at enforcing this. 1. Integrity A firm must conduct its business with integrity.
2. Skill, care and diligence A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.
3. Management and control A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.
4. Financial prudence A firm must maintain adequate financial resources.
5. Market conduct A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.
6. Customers' interests A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.
7. Communications with clients A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.
8. Conflicts of interest A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.
9. Customers: relationships of trust A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.
10. Clients' assets A firm must arrange adequate protection for clients' assets when it is responsible for them.
11. Relations with regulators A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the appropriate regulator appropriately anything relating to the firm of which that regulator would reasonably expect notice.
Informally, a consumer clearly should not expect an FCA regulated company to be run so badly that fraud and other shadiness has apparently taken place. These things can happen anywhere - even at banks. But the fact it has occurred at so many FCA regulated p2p platforms makes the problem endemic and not one rotten apple. A consumer should expect underlying investments to be at risk but they shouldn't expect to be sued for more than the original amount they invested for example. They shouldn't expect investments labelled as a loan to entity A actually going to a director of the FCA authorised platform that facilitated the loan. They shouldn't expect a platform listed within the FCA register as being authorised to in fact not be authorised. I could go on and on but I'm getting tired of addressing so many of your posts. I can only conclude that you do in fact enjoy trolling or you are related in some way to the FCA. An employee perhaps ? Have you made any p2p investments? Which platform and how did they go? 1 to 11 are all things regulated companies should do, and at the point of regulation they probably had to show that they were complying, once the regulator is out of the door who knows what they actually do, until someone complains. Indeed. Do you think that's good enough or do you think periodic inspections should take place (if indeed they don't already albeit rarely) ?
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 7, 2021 22:24:15 GMT
There are some really, REALLY pertinent points being made in this discussion but I suspect they will have been missed by many simply due to the level of dick-swinging posturing that's taking place. ...anywhoooooo... ozboy , a few posts back you stated: " the FCA is only interested in evading culpability for their myriad gross failures and gross incompetencies, they alone in many P2P cases have singularly destroyed people's invested savings." This is interesting. I'm (deeply*) aware of the CollateralUK situation, but not aware of any others. Which platforms did you have in mind and how were the FCA " alone" and " singularly" so culpable, please? * - to be honest, I'm kinda hoping the list isn't too long. It's my belief that the uniqueness of the Col situation - inasmuch as the timing and extent of the FCA's failings before, during and after the event; ie: failure to maintain a register, failure to manage the situation adequately upon discovery and also at the point of ordering the non-IP'd entity to cease trading - is in investors' favour when canvassing for the FCA to be hauled over the coals on this one and, if subsequently deemed appropriate, that compensation is awarded. (Even if the FCA subsequently chose to ignore such a determination.) Good news is this has reminded me I owe duck a PM!  |
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 8, 2021 0:16:37 GMT
There are some really, REALLY pertinent points being made in this discussion but I suspect they will have been missed by many simply due to the level of dick-swinging posturing that's taking place. ...anywhoooooo... ozboy , a few posts back you stated: " the FCA is only interested in evading culpability for their myriad gross failures and gross incompetencies, they alone in many P2P cases have singularly destroyed people's invested savings." This is interesting. I'm (deeply*) aware of the CollateralUK situation, but not aware of any others. Which platforms did you have in mind and how were the FCA " alone" and " singularly" so culpable, please? * - to be honest, I'm kinda hoping the list isn't too long. It's my belief that the uniqueness of the Col situation - inasmuch as the timing and extent of the FCA's failings before, during and after the event; ie: failure to maintain a register, failure to manage the situation adequately upon discovery and also at the point of ordering the non-IP'd entity to cease trading - is in investors' favour when canvassing for the FCA to be hauled over the coals on this one and, if subsequently deemed appropriate, that compensation is awarded. (Even if the FCA subsequently chose to ignore such a determination.) Good news is this has reminded me I owe duck a PM! If half the banks in this country were found to be involved in board level fraud which brought them all down who would you blame? Same question for share dealing platforms? Same question for spread betting companies? Same question for any other sector regulated by the FCA. Finally, why would you jump to defend them ? Do you have many investments in P2P ? Which platforms and when did you get involved ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Mar 8, 2021 7:57:35 GMT
There are some really, REALLY pertinent points being made in this discussion but I suspect they will have been missed by many simply due to the level of dick-swinging posturing that's taking place. ...anywhoooooo... ozboy , a few posts back you stated: " the FCA is only interested in evading culpability for their myriad gross failures and gross incompetencies, they alone in many P2P cases have singularly destroyed people's invested savings." This is interesting. I'm (deeply*) aware of the CollateralUK situation, but not aware of any others. Which platforms did you have in mind and how were the FCA " alone" and " singularly" so culpable, please? * - to be honest, I'm kinda hoping the list isn't too long. It's my belief that the uniqueness of the Col situation - inasmuch as the timing and extent of the FCA's failings before, during and after the event; ie: failure to maintain a register, failure to manage the situation adequately upon discovery and also at the point of ordering the non-IP'd entity to cease trading - is in investors' favour when canvassing for the FCA to be hauled over the coals on this one and, if subsequently deemed appropriate, that compensation is awarded. (Even if the FCA subsequently chose to ignore such a determination.) Good news is this has reminded me I owe duck a PM! If half the banks in this country were found to be involved in board level fraud which brought them all down who would you blame? Same question for share dealing platforms? Same question for spread betting companies? Same question for any other sector regulated by the FCA. Finally, why would you jump to defend them ? Do you have many investments in P2P ? Which platforms and when did you get involved ? Just on your last line. You are seeking politeness and respect for others views elsewhere on the forum. Not sure you are leading by example here.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 8, 2021 13:01:14 GMT
If half the banks in this country were found to be involved in board level fraud which brought them all down who would you blame? Same question for share dealing platforms? Same question for spread betting companies? Same question for any other sector regulated by the FCA. I would 'blame' the Justice system on the basis that no amount of regulation and monitoring will prevent fraud if there is criminal intent to commit fraud; any more than no amount of legislation or (achievable levels of) policing will prevent burglary. If the nation's judiciary were to prosecute more white-collar criminals and hand out actual jail-time and/or seizure of personal assets (rather than company fines and, typical worst-case, directorial bans) then the amount of fraud would substantially decrease. Unfortunately, 'white-collar' crime is often regarded as 'victimless', and when prosecutions and and custodial sentencing is paid for out of the public purse, the appetite for trials and imprisonment diminishes. Therefore, to answer your question, my view is that in the scenario you presented, the problem wouldn't intrinsically be one of regulation and monitoring but rather a lack of a tangible deterrent. I wasn't aware I was defending the FCA. Why do you perceive that I am? Certainly my activities wrt Col are not aligned with defending the FCA! (On that one, the difficulties aren't defining the FCA's failings, but instead making them accountable for them. As for the comment made by ozboy which lead me to ask for more details, I'll take a view on that once details are received.) Yes / No / Maybe. Not sure what constitutes 'many' and the amount I currently have invested in P2P is down by c. 60% from its peak and continues to diminish. Over time, I've dabbled with all the usual suspects: FS, SS/Ly, MT, Abl, AC, etc as well as some of the lesser discussed ones: BC/SoMo, PropertyCrowd, BLend. First investment was made in 2015.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Mar 8, 2021 14:20:01 GMT
There are some really, REALLY pertinent points being made in this discussion but I suspect they will have been missed by many simply due to the level of dick-swinging posturing that's taking place. ...anywhoooooo... ozboy , a few posts back you stated: " the FCA is only interested in evading culpability for their myriad gross failures and gross incompetencies, they alone in many P2P cases have singularly destroyed people's invested savings." This is interesting. I'm (deeply*) aware of the CollateralUK situation, but not aware of any others. Which platforms did you have in mind and how were the FCA " alone" and " singularly" so culpable, please? * - to be honest, I'm kinda hoping the list isn't too long. It's my belief that the uniqueness of the Col situation - inasmuch as the timing and extent of the FCA's failings before, during and after the event; ie: failure to maintain a register, failure to manage the situation adequately upon discovery and also at the point of ordering the non-IP'd entity to cease trading - is in investors' favour when canvassing for the FCA to be hauled over the coals on this one and, if subsequently deemed appropriate, that compensation is awarded. (Even if the FCA subsequently chose to ignore such a determination.) Good news is this has reminded me I owe duck a PM! No help, but I can't comment at this juncture iRobot.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,706
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 8, 2021 15:57:05 GMT
If half the banks in this country were found to be involved in board level fraud which brought them all down who would you blame? Same question for share dealing platforms? Same question for spread betting companies? Same question for any other sector regulated by the FCA. Finally, why would you jump to defend them ? Do you have many investments in P2P ? Which platforms and when did you get involved ? Just on your last line. You are seeking politeness and respect for others views elsewhere on the forum. Not sure you are leading by example here. Yes thats a fair point. When you've lost a chunk of cash it is annoying and you speak with conviction which can overboil. Point taken and thanks for making it.
|
|
