sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jul 26, 2022 16:58:04 GMT
Er yes! But he did wait until his main loan (65% of his total investment) repaid before deciding to stab us. I have avoided this question for fear of offending people genuinely working hard on our behalf (here and on other failed platforms) and to whom I am grateful, but the question was, given the secrecy involved - how do we know that those people are truly looking after our best interests and are not looking after their own interests and to hell with anyone else? I didn't want to ask the question for fear of look like a paranoid fool. Not so paranoid after all. These platforms failed because of dishonesty and greed, it's not gone away and the secrecy is enabling it to continue. I am damned sure this is the tip of an iceberg and nobody can be trusted. The bloody wild west while the FCA turn a blind eye. When the Credit Committee was formed in Nov 2019 it was based on the 5 largest investors. In order to achieve a majority of lenders rather than creditors on the CC, most lenders gave a proxy to one of 4 persons. That worked and meant the CC was formed in favour of lenders 4 against 1. I believe Spencer Tarring had just enough invested to get elected to the CC without any proxies. If lenders had distributed their proxies more evenly we may have been able to get a 5-0 result. What then happened was unforeseen. The administrators forced a blanket ban on the CC, preventing any discussion to lenders. I've never understood why and how it has stuck. One thing is for sure, administration of P2P platforms is not suited to normal company administration and the FCA should step in to cover the outrageous costs of administrations and receiverships.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Jul 26, 2022 17:11:39 GMT
Er yes! But he did wait until his main loan (65% of his total investment) repaid before deciding to stab us. I have avoided this question for fear of offending people genuinely working hard on our behalf (here and on other failed platforms) and to whom I am grateful, but the question was, given the secrecy involved - how do we know that those people are truly looking after our best interests and are not looking after their own interests and to hell with anyone else? I didn't want to ask the question for fear of look like a paranoid fool. Not so paranoid after all. These platforms failed because of dishonesty and greed, it's not gone away and the secrecy is enabling it to continue. I am damned sure this is the tip of an iceberg and nobody can be trusted. The bloody wild west while the FCA turn a blind eye. I don't think your question is offensive in any way whatsoever. The folks working behind the scenes I have no doubt have lender's interests at heart and like yourself I am grateful. However, I do not feel it is correct that an individual should continue to remain when it is now obvious there could be a potential conflict of interest. Now that person has been named, they should step aside with immediate effect although as they would have been fully aware that eventually their name would 'hit' the public domain that will happen voluntarily. I would however propose that the CC agree to a vote as to their continued suitability but I do not expect that to happen either.
The FCA did not turn a blind eye - you are being too kind. The simple fact is they were out of their depth (again) and had no idea, probably through laziness on their part, to get to grips with what they were meant to be regulating. A total bunch of failures who no doubt have been promoted elsewhere.
|
|
merlin99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 269
|
Post by merlin99 on Jul 26, 2022 17:11:53 GMT
r1200gs IMHO you are definitely not paranoid and I happen to be qualified to make that judgement. Further more you are not any more a fool than I think anyone else is on here. We were all taken for a ride largely because we all thought the FSA would safeguard us.
Incidentally if this was the wild west we would all be equipped with a six gun on our hip and a Winchester in our hand and by now there would be corpses all over the place in the FSA and among the directors of the various P2P platforms.
Bang bang bang and that would be real justice!!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 26, 2022 18:12:06 GMT
I am just puzzled as to what the hell is going on here - have looked into this bloke's background - not convinced he is still wealthy - accorded to my searches his nightclub in China mysteriously closed. What the hell is a crypto dealer doing with FS ?What the hell is NH doing with him? What, if any, is the connection between Pulsant (IT company) and FS ? Just what did JCSD lend this money against and why the hell was this not disclosed to us - I really wonder what is happening here - to think I was criticised and accused of being negative towards FS - criticise me by all means but please do the decent thing and apologise when I am proven correct. I did state some of the property deals were fanciful -well I really underestimated how bad things were.
This is such a mess it is worse than my worst nightmare - I do wonder if we have scammers scamming scammers (and we lenders) and how expert (not my first choice of word!) some of these scammers are...
Can't wait to see who the directors of JCSH in th BVI are - that will be interesting!
If only I had listened to Sir Ozboy OBE earlier - that said my losses are going to me minimal compared to others
I hate to think how much the administrators are going to make out of this - it should have been a simple case of winding down a loan book!
I need a drink now!
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 26, 2022 18:47:10 GMT
I have avoided this question for fear of offending people genuinely working hard on our behalf (here and on other failed platforms) and to whom I am grateful, but the question was, given the secrecy involved - how do we know that those people are truly looking after our best interests and are not looking after their own interests and to hell with anyone else? I didn't want to ask the question for fear of look like a paranoid fool. Not so paranoid after all. These platforms failed because of dishonesty and greed, it's not gone away and the secrecy is enabling it to continue. I am damned sure this is the tip of an iceberg and nobody can be trusted. The bloody wild west while the FCA turn a blind eye. I don't think your question is offensive in any way whatsoever. The folks working behind the scenes I have no doubt have lender's interests at heart and like yourself I am grateful. However, I do not feel it is correct that an individual should continue to remain when it is now obvious there could be a potential conflict of interest. Now that person has been named, they should step aside with immediate effect although as they would have been fully aware that eventually their name would 'hit' the public domain that will happen voluntarily. I would however propose that the CC agree to a vote as to their continued suitability but I do not expect that to happen either.
The FCA did not turn a blind eye - you are being too kind. The simple fact is they were out of their depth (again) and had no idea, probably through laziness on their part, to get to grips with what they were meant to be regulating. A total bunch of failures who no doubt have been promoted elsewhere.
I believe it is imperative that the lenders are aware, the person in question has for some time been omitted from any CC meetings, whereby his presence (and vote) could be considered a conflict of interest.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 26, 2022 18:53:34 GMT
I have avoided this question for fear of offending people genuinely working hard on our behalf (here and on other failed platforms) and to whom I am grateful, but the question was, given the secrecy involved - how do we know that those people are truly looking after our best interests and are not looking after their own interests and to hell with anyone else? I didn't want to ask the question for fear of look like a paranoid fool. Not so paranoid after all. These platforms failed because of dishonesty and greed, it's not gone away and the secrecy is enabling it to continue. I am damned sure this is the tip of an iceberg and nobody can be trusted. The bloody wild west while the FCA turn a blind eye. When the Credit Committee was formed in Nov 2019 it was based on the 5 largest investors. In order to achieve a majority of lenders rather than creditors on the CC, most lenders gave a proxy to one of 4 persons. That worked and meant the CC was formed in favour of lenders 4 against 1. I believe Spencer Tarring had just enough invested to get elected to the CC without any proxies. If lenders had distributed their proxies more evenly we may have been able to get a 5-0 result. What then happened was unforeseen. The administrators forced a blanket ban on the CC, preventing any discussion to lenders. I've never understood why and how it has stuck. One thing is for sure, administration of P2P platforms is not suited to normal company administration and the FCA should step in to cover the outrageous costs of administrations and receiverships. The person in question was the largest unsecured creditor, and as such, obtained his seat on the CC due to that fact. How the lenders voted would not have made any difference in keeping him off the CC.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,879
Likes: 11,104
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 26, 2022 19:20:57 GMT
Seems to be a general misunderstanding of the role of a creditors committee which is to assist the administrator in discharging his functions and agreeing their remuneration. It is not per se to represent specific interests though inevitably there is some scope to do this if the administrators allow it. The function of administration is to achieve a specific objective - a better distribution to creditors than winding up - and the role of the committee and how it can represent interests will be determined by that. In nearly all P2P administrations, and in line with FCA guidance for administrations relating to regulated activities, administrators have treated lenders as contingent creditors and invited their participation in creditors committees as a result. In the case of Lendy that participation is solely as representatives of creditors, not trust asset beneficiaries, to avoid the clear conflict between lender & creditor interests. FS have been more accommodating it seems to me.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,879
Likes: 11,104
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 26, 2022 19:42:45 GMT
r1200gs IMHO you are definitely not paranoid and I happen to be qualified to make that judgement. Further more you are not any more a fool than I think anyone else is on here. We were all taken for a ride largely because we all thought the FSA would safeguard us. Incidentally if this was the wild west we would all be equipped with a six gun or a Winchester and by now there would be corpses all over the place in the FSA and among the directors of the various P2P platforms. Bang bang!! If you were relying on the FSA to safeguard you unless you were planning to eat your money you were always going to be disappointed. There would be a lot of corpses with confused looks on their faces Flan Flan!!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,879
Likes: 11,104
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 26, 2022 20:42:24 GMT
When the Credit Committee was formed in Nov 2019 it was based on the 5 largest investors. In order to achieve a majority of lenders rather than creditors on the CC, most lenders gave a proxy to one of 4 persons. That worked and meant the CC was formed in favour of lenders 4 against 1. I believe Spencer Tarring had just enough invested to get elected to the CC without any proxies. If lenders had distributed their proxies more evenly we may have been able to get a 5-0 result. What then happened was unforeseen. The administrators forced a blanket ban on the CC, preventing any discussion to lenders. I've never understood why and how it has stuck. One thing is for sure, administration of P2P platforms is not suited to normal company administration and the FCA should step in to cover the outrageous costs of administrations and receiverships. The person in question was the largest unsecured creditor, and as such, obtained his seat on the CC due to that fact. How the lenders voted would not have made any difference in keeping him off the CC. Interestingly, ISTM that if the claimants claim is correct he would be ineligible for the CC as his £500k unsecured debt wouldnt count
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Jul 26, 2022 21:24:19 GMT
The person in question was the largest unsecured creditor, and as such, obtained his seat on the CC due to that fact. How the lenders voted would not have made any difference in keeping him off the CC. Interestingly, ISTM that if the claimants claim is correct he would be ineligible for the CC as his £500k unsecured debt wouldnt count If you are correct, then it follows the constituent members making up the CC is not accurate. Whilst I do not expect personally to see the return of more than a few pennies in the pound I do believe in transparency.
As posted by Mucho P2P - 'I believe it is imperative that the lenders are aware, the person in question has for some time been omitted from any CC meetings, whereby his presence (and vote) could be considered a conflict of interest.' - it follows that the CC has often been unrepresented and he should therefore step aside and allow the admittance of a replacement.
This whole Quistclose Trust issue has left a nasty taste in the mouth to put it mildly and even more so now that lenders are aware he is also a member of the CC irrespective as to whether he is influential or not.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 26, 2022 22:00:48 GMT
well this is a right mess...I agree this debt looks unsecured to me although I may be wrong.
If it is unsecured then why did he lend (or give?) the money to FS - would I invest £0.5m in a company as unsecured debt - 3 guesses!
So we (possibly) have £0.5m as unsecured debt but on the other hand instruction/guidance for how the money is to be invested?
Doesn't exactly ring true to me but this is such a farce I just don't yet know what to make of this...
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,879
Likes: 11,104
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 26, 2022 22:53:52 GMT
Interestingly, ISTM that if the claimants claim is correct he would be ineligible for the CC as his £500k unsecured debt wouldnt count If you are correct, then it follows the constituent members making up the CC is not accurate. Whilst I do not expect personally to see the return of more than a few pennies in the pound I do believe in transparency.
As posted by Mucho P2P - 'I believe it is imperative that the lenders are aware, the person in question has for some time been omitted from any CC meetings, whereby his presence (and vote) could be considered a conflict of interest.' - it follows that the CC has often been unrepresented and he should therefore step aside and allow the admittance of a replacement.
This whole Quistclose Trust issue has left a nasty taste in the mouth to put it mildly and even more so now that lenders are aware he is also a member of the CC irrespective as to whether he is influential or not. If you cease to be or are found to never have been an (unsecured) creditor then you become ineligible. However, if he was also a platform lender and therefore a contingent creditor for £1 he would actually still be eligible. You also cease to be a member if you miss 3 meetings but that rule can be resolved not to apply. We can also vote him off but I guess he has the votes to block that. No requirement for a replacement. You only need 2 for a CC to be quorate. Both Collateral & Lendy have been running one short since Monetus stepped back. At the discretion of the committee & admin if they replace a member Currently on paper he still qualifies as the debt remains valid until determined otherwise
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 27, 2022 6:24:46 GMT
The person in question was the largest unsecured creditor, and as such, obtained his seat on the CC due to that fact. How the lenders voted would not have made any difference in keeping him off the CC. Interestingly, ISTM that if the claimants claim is correct he would be ineligible for the CC as his £500k unsecured debt wouldnt count At the outset, the joint administrators allocated 1 seat on the CC for all the unsecured creditors of FS.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 830
|
Post by 11025 on Jul 28, 2022 7:36:44 GMT
Oh the irony to hear "unsecured creditors" of "Funding Secure"
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Jul 28, 2022 9:02:52 GMT
how many p2p loans have been as simple as if loan defaults we have first charge and asset will be sold and capital plus interest will be returned.why are lenders not secured creditors in the first instance? the borrowers set up SPVs for each loan for a reason.as said before p2p once your money is lent it becomes many other peoples money.
|
|