|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Oct 30, 2021 6:51:08 GMT
Agents The Lender realisations pot,whatever that might be in value,a forecast by loan having completed a risk analysis might help determine likely outcome by loan. Hope,some hope,no hope. That is what Moorfields have probably done already to see how big the honey pot could be. If it were your cash in the pot would you want just anyone dipping in with a clock hour record and paying themselves. If the intermediary were neutral ie.not appointed by Moorfields or Lenders you might trust that service provider. Then agreement by loan might be a fees cap %,who does the work,£15 an hour clerk to chase borrowers or up to Moorfields partner rates £500+ an hour. Why would you just let an Administrator take what they want until as you quite rightly say " sorry lenders we got some cash back from the shyster who borrowed your money after being matched up by MT platform,we got 25% of your cash back but we have now spent it in fees so you have 5% back or even ZERO like some loans. Where is that boat the borrower convinced MT was moored up and a good investment for Lenders. Oh sorry it sailed off into dreamland or the Borrower did not own it or it never existed. Lenders need to trust who is dipping into the pot of depleted realisations.MRAG Lenders don't that is why we got together in a matter of days. Glad you trust Administrators or do you work for one !I would suggest the last line of your post is inappropriate. Few I suspect would disagree with your sense of injustice, many of us share it. What seems to be lacking currently is a viable alternative, if you do indeed have one you would accrue wide support including my own. Might I suggest you focus on getting that viable alternative known to us given an extension has been granted?
|
|
shw
Posts: 51
Likes: 90
|
Post by shw on Oct 30, 2021 9:33:39 GMT
If you are an MT Lender join MTAG where docs exist that will give you more info on progress to date. If not then watch and stop posting negative comment. We are half full at the moment. If some comment is not welcome grow up and ignore it just like you might advise your kids.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,627
Likes: 4,196
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 30, 2021 9:35:02 GMT
Agents The Lender realisations pot,whatever that might be in value,a forecast by loan having completed a risk analysis might help determine likely outcome by loan. Hope,some hope,no hope. That is what Moorfields have probably done already to see how big the honey pot could be. If it were your cash in the pot would you want just anyone dipping in with a clock hour record and paying themselves.If the intermediary were neutral ie.not appointed by Moorfields or Lenders you might trust that service provider. Then agreement by loan might be a fees cap %,who does the work,£15 an hour clerk to chase borrowers or up to Moorfields partner rates £500+ an hour. Why would you just let an Administrator take what they want until as you quite rightly say " sorry lenders we got some cash back from the shyster who borrowed your money after being matched up by MT platform,we got 25% of your cash back but we have now spent it in fees so you have 5% back or even ZERO like some loans. Where is that boat the borrower convinced MT was moored up and a good investment for Lenders. Oh sorry it sailed off into dreamland or the Borrower did not own it or it never existed. Lenders need to trust who is dipping into the pot of depleted realisations.MRAG Lenders don't that is why we got together in a matter of days. Glad you trust Administrators or do you work for one ! I have cash in the pot, and it isn't 'just anyone' dipping into it, it's the people who are being employed to run down the platform. I'm also mindful that the extent to which they need to dip into the pot will increase as a result of me having to partly fund the defence of this action.
The person promoting this action (investor 2155) appears to have put a large proportion of their life savings into MT, with a view to suplementing their pension, ignoring two of the most basic investment rules:
- if an offer looks too good to be true then it probably is
- never invest more in P2P than you can afford to loose
By their own admission, investor 2155 invested their money unwisely, acknowledging in their letter to the court dated 26th October that 'I agree I should not have invested heavily in P2P'. Despite the acceptance of this fundemental error, they expect somebody else to bail them out of the mess they've gotten into (which isn't going to happen). Furthermore I don't buy into their altruistic suggestion that the resaon they risked their money in P2P investment was so they 'provide for ourselves and not become a burden on State Benefits and all UK taxpayers'.
So to summarise (using whichever euphemism you prefer), the horse has already bolted, the ship has already sailed and the sticky brown stuff has already hit the fan. We all know that administration of P2P platforms is a sh*t business, unfortunately we all have to live with that. Having given the matter further thought, I believe my previous statement that there were only two options available was incorrect. There is fact only one option, and it's called Hobson's choice.
|
|
7d7
Member of DD Central
Posts: 134
Likes: 205
|
Post by 7d7 on Oct 30, 2021 10:46:40 GMT
There seems to be 2 camps on this forum. Camp A acquiesce to the JA's proposals to distribute whatever scraps remain after their massive fees (we have been advised it will be in excess of the most recent fee structure i.e. 2% p.a. of the principal beginning at some arbitrary date) are deducted. Camp B disapprove and are prepared to participate in a process leading to a settlement. If I were the JA/MT, I would grant the wishes of both camps. Gather the user IDs of camp A and raid their pot for my fees prior to allocating any leftovers. I would then negotiate with Camp B with the aim of attaining an amicable solution for my monitoring costs. A win-win situation for all and sundry!
|
|
shw
Posts: 51
Likes: 90
|
Post by shw on Oct 30, 2021 10:50:17 GMT
I agree with you on 2115,even if they were mis sold a loan investment in the first place,"too good to be true" prevails.But I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion,just like you. The Solicitors were having to go through this process anyway as directed by the hearing.(funded by MT lenders). Probably because the outcome of this P2P case will set precident for future cases,might be wrong, but it smells like it. Whether you are losing a £100 or £10000 it's the issue,as you say Lenders have been and are being rinsed. Hope your not in Lendy and Funding Secure as well. Now that would be a bugger.
|
|
shw
Posts: 51
Likes: 90
|
Post by shw on Oct 30, 2021 11:24:13 GMT
I think 7d7 makes a good proposition but no doubt you don't. I will exit this ping pong game now as I better things to do,it's sunny here.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,574
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 30, 2021 12:17:41 GMT
Without Prejudice. Mousy assuming you are on David's side V Goliath why did you omit to say clearly. 1.extended time to respond to Application probably with a strong witness statement ? 2.ability given to contact 2494 Lenders who make up the loanbook thro MT platform ? 3.NO LEGAL support despite the Applicant being fully represented,probably to cost Lenders from loan realisations ? That is the outcome for Lenders at this point in time. Hi shw, I'm not actually on anyone's side and strive to produce fair and accurate reporting across all my subject matter.
1. [some investors] "made an informal application for a 6-week-extension to enable legal advice to be taken and further submissions to be made" ... "a proposition that HHJ Cawson QC agreed with" 2. There was some discussion on this but as far as I'm aware the court didn't actually order anything to occur as there was uncertainty as to the best method.
3. There is an entire section concerning how the FCA offered to step up in the Lendy case but hasn't for MT. The FCA have been contacted through their press desk for a comment and haven't replied. This was also made clear in a publication on twitter:
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 30, 2021 13:24:00 GMT
Since the whole team of administrators involved in this court appearance will return in February - I wonder how much the barrister's aborted appearance yesterday will cost? - so already there are additional costs. Meanwhile, will the process of recovery slow down whilst the administrators await the judge's decision? Another six weeks of delay? [Update: Sorry, I misread Mousey's report - it's now more like 12 weeks!] Correct me if I am wrong, but this was Not an Aborted or redundant Hearing.
This was a Directions Hearing for the Final Hearing in Feb '22, so this had to happen.
Granting an extension to file/serve Objection or Witness Statement has neither cost more, nor delayed the proceedings (Feb anyway) or Recovery (Distribution had to wait till Feb Judgement anyway, due to Admins & not due to Lenders) - as these would all be done electronically, without needing a further hearing.
All that happened were :
1) Lenders who wanted to serve/file further Objections/Evidence got an extension without delaying the Feb Hearing - Win
2) Admins agreed to send emails to every Active Investor on the MT Platform informing them of the existence of MTAG and MTAG's invitation to join the Group - Big Win
3) The costs (for Lenders) were Reserved - meaning, not yet decided. But the Judge did say that it was possible to Grant/Allow the Fees from the Trust Assets (although Not certain), but that depends on what Evidence is provided and what Legal Support is considered, how much would it cost, etc. - So neither a Win, nor a Loss at this stage (I'd say slight Win as the Judge made it clear that it Was Possible).
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 30, 2021 19:32:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Oct 30, 2021 21:42:40 GMT
If you are an MT Lender join MTAG where docs exist that will give you more info on progress to date. If not then watch and stop posting negative comment. We are half full at the moment. If some comment is not welcome grow up and ignore it just like you might advise your kids. Is half full indicative that you are over a 1000 members strong? or meaningless. I offered no negative comment, simply a request for clarification, do you not have any to offer? I am grown up, and perfectly happy to point out when others post childish contents to others. Also big enough to take fair comments if I receive one and consider its merits, yours I have dismissed as a defensive air shot. Maybe a bit of basic research on the forum may give you a clue to peoples investment status, but arguably not give them reason to join MTAG as a default position. As I said earlier you would be better served building bridges than looking for 'fights' with other investors.
|
|
shw
Posts: 51
Likes: 90
|
Post by shw on Oct 30, 2021 22:37:10 GMT
I agree. The Action Group needs lenders who have a Moneything account,not just any P2P investor who made or lost money. Further progress will be made as new members join and have the opportunity to try to influence how much money they get back from their informed decision they made to invest in loans some 3 or 4 years ago. That is simply it for now. Single lenders might just get a collective voice that will be considered rather than just getting "rinsed".
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 31, 2021 8:51:12 GMT
There seems to be 2 camps on this forum. Camp A acquiesce to the JA's proposals to distribute whatever scraps remain after their massive fees ( we have been advised it will be in excess of the most recent fee structure i.e. 2% p.a. of the principal beginning at some arbitrary date) are deducted. Camp B disapprove and are prepared to participate in a process leading to a settlement. If the administrators do not get paid, who does the work? If nobody does the work, what is there to be paid? Administrator's fees are in line with other corporate professional services. It's not as if a particularly expensive administrator was appointed - they all charge similar rates. Is that some kind of a cartel, or simply the appropriate rate for the job? If cheaper rates were possible profitably, why has nobody set a company up charging those rates, and cornered the market?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,627
Likes: 4,196
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 31, 2021 10:06:42 GMT
There seems to be 2 camps on this forum. Camp A acquiesce to the JA's proposals to distribute whatever scraps remain after their massive fees ( we have been advised it will be in excess of the most recent fee structure i.e. 2% p.a. of the principal beginning at some arbitrary date) are deducted. Camp B disapprove and are prepared to participate in a process leading to a settlement. If I were the JA/MT, I would grant the wishes of both camps. Gather the user IDs of camp A and raid their pot for my fees prior to allocating any leftovers. I would then negotiate with Camp B with the aim of attaining an amicable solution for my monitoring costs. A win-win situation for all and sundry! I'm not invested in Lendy so never joined LAG, but always kept an eye on how things were progressing. From the start LAG came across as a reasonably professional set up with a clearly identified objective and a rational plan to achieve that. When I look at MTAG (which at the the time the skeleton argument was posted accounted for less than 0.5% of MT investors) I see a lot of emotive waffle, and very little fact. For example if you look at the letter of 26th October from lender 2155:
- they claim that the administrators costs too date are 'unreasonably high', but offer no evidence to justify that statement, or state what the costs should be
- they enter into a lengthy moan about the Scottish holiday park development loan, which is irrelevant to the matter at hand
- they complain that 'the Applicant has an unfair advantage by having a solicitor and barrister defend their prepared case'. I assume that there was nothing preventing MTAG having similar representation if they had the money to pay for it
- they object to the administrator dipping into the lender pot to cover his costs, but suggest they should be allowed to dip into that same pot to cover their costs.
Even your post above is unduly emotive. Would you care to quantify the size of the 'scraps', or an outturn figure for the 'massive' fees? When a loan repays, investors will be reimbursed on a prorata basis. Any suggestion that one group will receive more than others because they have beek kicking up a fuss is just fanciful alarmist nonsense.
|
|
shw
Posts: 51
Likes: 90
|
Post by shw on Oct 31, 2021 10:58:36 GMT
Well done,pick on the Pensioner (assumed) who wrote to the Judge to share their experience.It got read,a win, amongst the emotive waffle some key issue were highlighted. Assuming you have sight of the objections to the notice the issues are well documented by a collective group of informed members. I did not agree with everything 2115 said in hearing but it looks like 2 out of 3 outcomes that the individual Respondents wanted they got. The fees are the core issue.
What about if the loanbook were categorised,by an independent auditor who is neutral,completes risk assessment.
Objective = close MTCL (Moorfields & red tag fees) and orderly quick wind down (FCA approved) of MSTL by:
Live loans = sell on,if they are saleable!
Default loans :
Green = sell on like live loans (doubt they are really live as C19 has screwed them up,look at the business they are in)
Amber = sell to debt collector (like Zopa do now)
Red = close it now,crystalise loss,lenders use in tax returns.
Therefore stopping the endless rinsing of the depleted (potential only,no guarantee)realisations pot by Moorfields (the grinder),Red Tag(MT founders),new Conflict Mediator JM (excellent reputation in IP circles !). Or go through the Collateral,Funding Secure,Lendy 3/4 year experience with no payouts and frustrated lenders left hanging. Above is just an opinion,like yours,with my final goal of exit P2P "wild west" debacle where everybody is swimming in sh1t. I was thinking of gifting my realisations to charities,but they probably don't want to touch it with barge pole.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 31, 2021 11:21:36 GMT
Well done,pick on the Pensioner (assumed) who wrote to the Judge to share their experience.It got read,a win, amongst the emotive waffle some key issue were highlighted. Assuming you have sight of the objections to the notice the issues are well documented by a collective group of informed members. I did not agree with everything 2115 said in hearing but it looks like 2 out of 3 outcomes that the individual Respondents wanted they got. The fees are the core issue. What about if the loanbook were categorised,by an independent auditor who is neutral,completes risk assessment. Objective = close MTCL (Moorfields & red tag fees) and orderly quick wind down (FCA approved) of MSTL by: Live loans = sell on,if they are saleable! Default loans : Green = sell on like live loans (doubt they are really live as C19 has screwed them up,look at the business they are in) Amber = sell to debt collector (like Zopa do now) Red = close it now,crystalise loss,lenders use in tax returns. Therefore stopping the endless rinsing of the depleted (potential only,no guarantee)realisations pot by Moorfields (the grinder),Red Tag(MT founders),new Conflict Mediator JM (excellent reputation in IP circles !). Or go through the Collateral,Funding Secure,Lendy 3/4 year experience with no payouts and frustrated lenders left hanging. Above is just an opinion,like yours,with my final goal of exit P2P "wild west" debacle where everybody is swimming in sh1t. I was thinking of gifting my realisations to charities,but they probably don't want to touch it with barge pole. It depends on whether you want maximum return or quick exit. Remember, the administrators have a legal duty to maximise the return for creditors. If selling or writing-off everything now brought that best return, they would be doing it. If you are suggesting the administrators are deliberately prolonging administration in order to maximise their own return, then you are suggesting they are breaking the law. www.thegazette.co.uk/insolvency/content/100592For a business to go into administration, it must achieve at least one of these three objectives: * save or rescue the business as a going concern * give a better outcome than it being in liquidation * repay a secured creditor, such as a bank or factoring companyThe second is the aim here. You are suggesting at this is impossible, and that liquidation will give the better outcome. www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/articles/rescue-options/what-duties-does-an-administrator-have-to-creditors-in-a-formal-insolvency-procedureAdministrator duties to creditors Although unsecured creditors rank low for payment in insolvency, they should not be placed at a disadvantage unnecessarily because of administrator actions.
In general, administrators must:
* Act in the best interests of creditors as a whole * Be impartial during their time in control of the company * Act in good faith, and with reasonable care and skill * Take reasonable action to achieve the best price on realisation of assets * Carry out the insolvency process as quickly and efficiently as is practicable
|
|