mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 325
Likes: 363
|
Post by mah on Oct 10, 2021 18:57:51 GMT
This is very possibly a very stupid and unworkable idea but experiences with Col, Lendy, FS and now MT have shown that calling in administrators is just a way for administrators to get rich and investors to get ripped off. So, can we fight back? Maybe we, as investors, should ask the court to throw out the administrators proposals (after all it seems to me that they are asking the court if they can have our money to pay themselves exorbitant fees) and tell them to instead pass all of the details re lenders, borrowers, loan information etc over to an organisation run by the lenders. Totally agree that all Investors should respond (as Respondents) to discard both the proposals (waterfall priority & Applegate) and go to open market (like tender / bids / auction) to see if anyone else is willing to take on - have they qualified their claim that no one else is willing to do the Admin at a lower/similar cost. Also the appointment of James Money as Conflict Admin should be objected (again go to open market).
|
|
jcb208
Member of DD Central
Posts: 820
Likes: 606
|
Post by jcb208 on Oct 11, 2021 7:46:03 GMT
We may well of come off better If all the pragmatic defaulted loans were sold off to the highest bidder on all the platforms
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Oct 11, 2021 16:27:25 GMT
We may well of come off better If all the pragmatic defaulted loans were sold off to the highest bidder on all the platforms Pretty sure the FCA banned that to protect consumers.
I think this depends on the context.
As I understand it, selling default loan parts to other retail investors is not permitted to avoid "unsophisticated" investors from picking them up.
But it may be possible for the platforms/administrators to sell off entire loans to recovery companies who may be able to make something out of them by enforcing stronger recovery methods.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,849
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 11, 2021 17:36:16 GMT
Pretty sure the FCA banned that to protect consumers.
I think this depends on the context.
As I understand it, selling default loan parts to other retail investors is not permitted to avoid "unsophisticated" investors from picking them up.
But it may be possible for the platforms/administrators to sell off entire loans to recovery companies who may be able to make something out of them by enforcing stronger recovery methods.
Yes, no issue with selling off bad loans. Several platforms have done it. Technically there isn't an FCA ban on trading in default loans providing the platform has assessed the risk & pricing appropriately but most dont to protect consumers as you suggest.
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 348
Likes: 435
|
Post by nyneil on Oct 12, 2021 1:36:30 GMT
I think this depends on the context.
As I understand it, selling default loan parts to other retail investors is not permitted to avoid "unsophisticated" investors from picking them up.
But it may be possible for the platforms/administrators to sell off entire loans to recovery companies who may be able to make something out of them by enforcing stronger recovery methods.
Yes, no issue with selling off bad loans. Several platforms have done it. Technically there isn't an FCA ban on trading in default loans providing the platform has assessed the risk & pricing appropriately but most dont to protect consumers as you suggest. Yes, FC sold off defaulted loans....... for an absolute pittance!!
|
|
dh1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 373
Likes: 383
|
Post by dh1 on Oct 12, 2021 6:50:13 GMT
This is very possibly a very stupid and unworkable idea but experiences with Col, Lendy, FS and now MT have shown that calling in administrators is just a way for administrators to get rich and investors to get ripped off. So, can we fight back? Maybe we, as investors, should ask the court to throw out the administrators proposals (after all it seems to me that they are asking the court if they can have our money to pay themselves exorbitant fees) and tell them to instead pass all of the details re lenders, borrowers, loan information etc over to an organisation run by the lenders. Totally agree that all Investors should respond (as Respondents) to discard both the proposals (waterfall priority & Applegate) and go to open market (like tender / bids / auction) to see if anyone else is willing to take on - have they qualified their claim that no one else is willing to do the Admin at a lower/similar cost. Also the appointment of James Money as Conflict Admin should be objected (again go to open market).
This sounds great in principle, mah. It does, though, bring to mind a concept highlighted many years ago by the US science fiction guru, Robert Heinlein - TANSTAAFL -There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. In this case, who pays for going to the market? Further. exactly who goes to the market (needs to be an FCA approved person as mentioned above by ilmoro)? I suspect we who would have to pay; and what about the rather troublesome position when the current Administrators throw in the towel as they probably will if this Court process fails...
Out of interest, does anybody out there have a potential Administrator lined up? If so, it would be a good idea to get them to have a chat with the current incumbents - quickly!
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,977
Likes: 4,803
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 12, 2021 10:09:19 GMT
Yes, no issue with selling off bad loans. Several platforms have done it. Technically there isn't an FCA ban on trading in default loans providing the platform has assessed the risk & pricing appropriately but most dont to protect consumers as you suggest. Yes, FC sold off defaulted loans....... for an absolute pittance!! They sold them for the most anybody would pay. Think about it from the buyer's PoV... They're taking on the costs of managing a defaulted loan, for what realistic chance of return...?
|
|
huxs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 218
|
Post by huxs on Oct 12, 2021 11:31:21 GMT
So what I didn't understand and maybe I misread something or missed a link was how you actually respond to the options being presented ? If I do nothing does that assume I am happy for the court to decide - which I assume if no lenders replied would be to allow the waterfall to change ? Also do lenders responses get weighted as I can see lenders with less to loss sticking to their principles just to prove a point ?
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Oct 12, 2021 12:10:51 GMT
So what I didn't understand and maybe I misread something or missed a link was how you actually respond to the options being presented ? If I do nothing does that assume I am happy for the court to decide - which I assume if no lenders replied would be to allow the waterfall to change ? Also do lenders responses get weighted as I can see lenders with less to loss sticking to their principles just to prove a point ? I will Pass on the first question The second would seem to be that having been 'joined' the courts decision is binding regardless off taking or not taking any action (For disclosure, I am taking the doing nothing route. Because I guess ill considered responses will simply add costs). The third one is interesting, there seems to be no suggestion off weighting but possibly there should be. I suspect the position you are in would very much influence how you viewed it, my biggest concern would be it may become more attractive to them to default the two live loans that seem to at least have a viable future if given time. The other two seem to be functioning and if the ones that do still have a pulse get successfully concluded I would not have a direct loss. Not my original plan but I would take that right now. Yes clearly those already doomed may have a sink the ship attitude as a form of anger release. Rock and a hard place option really.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2021 15:30:45 GMT
Yes clearly those already doomed may have a sink the ship attitude as a form of anger release. When I started in P2P, I understood default risk, borrower risk, platform risk, interest rate risk etc I did NOT understand the risk that I might end up trapped in a collective bargaining situation with fellow bargainers who would behave emotionally and/or irrationally. That came as a nasty surprise.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,849
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 12, 2021 17:41:15 GMT
So what I didn't understand and maybe I misread something or missed a link was how you actually respond to the options being presented ? If I do nothing does that assume I am happy for the court to decide - which I assume if no lenders replied would be to allow the waterfall to change ? Also do lenders responses get weighted as I can see lenders with less to loss sticking to their principles just to prove a point ? Details are in the letter to lenders, document 7 attached to the support update, last paragraph. The court will make a decision based on the evidence & the arguments presented. The administrators will present all evidence and arguments but they have indicated that a nominated spokesperson may be asked to present a co-ordinated position on lenders behalf. There may be other respondents, The FCA is entitled to be represented and other creditors may seek to be join to protect their interests though the judge may not permit the latter (as happened with Lendy) No, there shouldnt be any weighting. It will be determined on the evidence & arguments and the law... if one person is able to argue a convincing legal case with evidence then nothing to prevent that position from 'winning'
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 13, 2021 10:07:52 GMT
Does anyone have a source for how many investors were active on the platform at the date of administration?
|
|
|
Post by wiseclerk on Oct 13, 2021 11:48:24 GMT
Moneything showed 5404 when I checked on Dec. 1st 2019. As too how 'active' these were, I have no idea. There might be investors included with zero balance and zero loans in that figure.
|
|
huxs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 218
|
Post by huxs on Oct 13, 2021 12:10:29 GMT
Moneything showed 5404 when I checked on Dec. 1st 2019. As too how 'active' these were, I have no idea. There might be investors included with zero balance and zero loans in that figure.
I wish I had zero balance and zero loans, unfortunately my wish may come true !!
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Oct 13, 2021 14:46:59 GMT
Does anyone have a source for how many investors were active on the platform at the date of administration?
Tom Straw's witness statement, paragraph 49: "In total the Moneything Platform records 2,494 lenders with a live investment."
|
|