Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,243
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Sept 7, 2021 11:49:25 GMT
Wasn't that delegated to the platforms? Risk warnings and lender tests, 10% limit on retail investment, etc. I can't think of any other way to reach all lenders or potential lenders. It was delegated to the platforms AFTER the Lendy and FundingSecure collapse, which was way too late for lenders in those companies. The FCA imply they have been warning lenders for a long time, hence our queries to them of "where and when?". The warning to restricted retail lenders and 10% limit was in the 'new' rules for platforms from April 2014 as far as I can see, whether it was applied to platforms under interim permission I don't know, but it looks as though it should have applied to platforms with full permission. I have no idea of the time lines for FS or L.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,846
Likes: 11,074
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 7, 2021 13:22:56 GMT
It was delegated to the platforms AFTER the Lendy and FundingSecure collapse, which was way too late for lenders in those companies. The FCA imply they have been warning lenders for a long time, hence our queries to them of "where and when?". The warning to restricted retail lenders and 10% limit was in the 'new' rules for platforms from April 2014 as far as I can see, whether it was applied to platforms under interim permission I don't know, but it looks as though it should have applied to platforms with full permission. I have no idea of the time lines for FS or L. The 10% limit & restricted investment came in with the new rules in Dec 2019 when loan based platforms were aligned with equity based platforms in being subject to COBS 4.7.7R. (19/14 2.20 onwards) requiring investor classification Responsibility for risk disclosure always lay with the platforms. Under the new rules the FCA introduced tight requirements on form & content whereas previously it had largely been down to platforms. There is considerable confusion and misunderstanding on the early regulation of peer to peer under the FCA (something FCA has done little to resolve) The FCA was not fully responsible for regulating platforms until they had received full authorisation. Platforms with interim permission were not subject to the full regulatory regime applicable to loan based crowdfunding platforms, but again it is not always possible to easily ascertain which bits they were subject to. They were subject to high level (ie general) regulations, such as fair & not misleading promotions, but it is open to interpretation whether they were subject to much of the new COBS rules, elements of SYNC in relation to winddown, CASS rules, and certainly not to prudential rules on capital requirements. (PS14/4)
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,243
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Sept 7, 2021 14:14:54 GMT
The warning to restricted retail lenders and 10% limit was in the 'new' rules for platforms from April 2014 as far as I can see, whether it was applied to platforms under interim permission I don't know, but it looks as though it should have applied to platforms with full permission. I have no idea of the time lines for FS or L. The 10% limit & restricted investment came in with the new rules in Dec 2019 when loan based platforms were aligned with equity based platforms in being subject to COBS 4.7.7R. (19/14 2.20 onwards) requiring investor classification Responsibility for risk disclosure always lay with the platforms. Under the new rules the FCA introduced tight requirements on form & content whereas previously it had largely been down to platforms. There is considerable confusion and misunderstanding on the early regulation of peer to peer under the FCA (something FCA has done little to resolve) The FCA was not fully responsible for regulating platforms until they had received full authorisation. Platforms with interim permission were not subject to the full regulatory regime applicable to loan based crowdfunding platforms, but again it is not always possible to easily ascertain which bits they were subject to. They were subject to high level (ie general) regulations, such as fair & not misleading promotions, but it is open to interpretation whether they were subject to much of the new COBS rules, elements of SYNC in relation to winddown, CASS rules, and certainly not to prudential rules on capital requirements. (PS14/4) It is all there in the 2014 amendments to COBS, but as you say how much was applicable to P2P is a bit hazy. The more I read it the less clear it becomes.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,846
Likes: 11,074
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 7, 2021 14:33:50 GMT
The 10% limit & restricted investment came in with the new rules in Dec 2019 when loan based platforms were aligned with equity based platforms in being subject to COBS 4.7.7R. (19/14 2.20 onwards) requiring investor classification Responsibility for risk disclosure always lay with the platforms. Under the new rules the FCA introduced tight requirements on form & content whereas previously it had largely been down to platforms. There is considerable confusion and misunderstanding on the early regulation of peer to peer under the FCA (something FCA has done little to resolve) The FCA was not fully responsible for regulating platforms until they had received full authorisation. Platforms with interim permission were not subject to the full regulatory regime applicable to loan based crowdfunding platforms, but again it is not always possible to easily ascertain which bits they were subject to. They were subject to high level (ie general) regulations, such as fair & not misleading promotions, but it is open to interpretation whether they were subject to much of the new COBS rules, elements of SYNC in relation to winddown, CASS rules, and certainly not to prudential rules on capital requirements. (PS14/4) It is all there in the 2014 amendments to COBS, but as you say how much was applicable to P2P is a bit hazy. The more I read it the less clear it becomes. The 2014 amendments to COBS only applies to investment based platforms (NRRS products ) and the PS is quite clear that it doesnt apply to P2P which is remain distinct from NRRS products (4.16)
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 7, 2021 15:53:10 GMT
it strikes me the FCA have blatantly failed without us getting too wrapped in the legislation
They lent our money to "borrowers" - there are already loads of rules about this not least being clear, concise and the H-word - yes honest! This does not include a "flaky" IT system where it was not obvious where our bloody money was! As I see it the whole lot should have been investigated and suspended as soon as this was known- it now looks that the IT system was not just flaky but also some or all of the directors.
The former head of the FCA is know Chairman of the B of E and according to The Economist, "He is widely seen within the bank as a safe pair of hands, an experienced technocrat who knows how to manage an organisation." or to put another way a spineless yes man who doesn't rock the boat! He is apparently on £0.5m - he is lucky he does not work for me as I would have sacked him for grossly spectacular incompetence...
To be honest I disagreed with a major banker who stated p2p was going to be a nightmare for investors - I admit it I was wrong but I am not the regulator.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,846
Likes: 11,074
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 7, 2021 16:23:27 GMT
it strikes me the FCA have blatantly failed without us getting too wrapped in the legislation They lent our money to "borrowers" - there are already loads of rules about this not least being clear, concise and the H-word - yes honest! This does not include a "flaky" IT system where it was not obvious where our bloody money was! As I see it the whole lot should have been investigate and suspended as soon as this was known- it now looks that the IT system was not just flaky but also some or all of the directors. The former head of the FCA is know Chairman of the B of E and according to The Economist, "He is widely seen within the bank as a safe pair of hands, an experienced technocrat who knows how to manage an organisation." or to put another way a spineless yes man who doesn't rock the boat! He is apparently on £0.5m - he is lucky he does not work for me as I would have sacked him for grossly spectacular incompetence... To be honest I disagreed with a major banker who stated p2p was going to be a nightmare for investors - I admit it I was wrong but I am not the regulator. Erm you mean the former chairman of FSA 2008-13 ... that regulatory titan which the FCA replaced Edit He of course subsequently said he was misquoted
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 7, 2021 17:32:52 GMT
yes well done - Adair Turner who said in Feb 2016 losses on P2P lending will “make the worst bankers look like absolute lending geniuses.” Well he got that right! He later reversed this position and also his support for the euro- - personally I think all these chaps are in the same club. The workers etc get shafted and they all feed from the same trough...
|
|