|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 8, 2016 15:05:56 GMT
Edit: I see you have amended your original post whilst I was typing The original post was quoted by myself and adrianc so it can be seen that lb has resiled himself from his original position after seeing comments on how preposterous it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by lb on Sept 8, 2016 15:08:55 GMT
The lawyers and advisory firms that meet and speak with the FCA regularly regarding platforms' applications - the issues are not a secret otherwise how would they get resolved! it is not a guessing game Really? And you have experience of this? Because that is not how it works if they are minded not to grant authorisation. If a platform does not meet FCA requirements in a certain area the platform is not rejected it is told to fix or review it. It cant fix an issue if it doesn't know what it is that is needing fixing. I dont really know what your point is. The application does not work like a school exam where you either pass or fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by lb on Sept 8, 2016 15:10:34 GMT
Edit: I see you have amended your original post whilst I was typing The original post was quoted by myself and adrianc so it can be seen that lb has resiled himself from his original position after seeing comments on how preposterous it was. my earlier post made it clear I had amended it and that the original post was not clear. "anyway, I can see my original post was not very clear and easy to misconstrue so I have amended it"
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 8, 2016 15:10:34 GMT
Really? And you have experience of this? Because that is not how it works if they are minded not to grant authorisation. If a platform does not meet FCA requirements in a certain area the platform is not rejected it is told to fix or review it. It cant fix an issue if it doesn't know what it is that is needing fixing. I dont really know what your point is. The application does not work like a school exam where you either pass or fail. As I asked before do you have experience of this? Edit@ Are you a lawyer or other professional involved in obtaining authorisation?
|
|
|
|
Post by lb on Sept 8, 2016 15:11:57 GMT
Not quite. Interim permissions are only if a platform applied for it 2 years ago. If you want to start a platform today you don't get interim permission. You go to the back of a queue, must wait 18 months + and spend several hundred K before the FCA even glances in your direction. So dont expect many new platforms, if any, that arent already operating under interim. Maybe that is what everybody wants, judging by the comments. Thats not what you said. You said 'Please can all platforms be fully authorised immediately in the spirit of UK law of innocent until proven guilty' not can you authorise new platforms immediately And 'So platforms should be allowed to operate until such time as FCA is able to review its application.' Again no reference to new platforms being allowed to operate, so may point is correct. Here's a new platform fully authorised last month from scratch peerfunding.co.uk/I assume you also think that Atom, Mozo & Tandem have/are wasting their money getting authorisation/banking licences and should have just been allowed to open a bank. What we want is peer to peer lending properly regulated and operating as part of the mainstream financial system and not plagued by scandal and embarassment. If that takes some time so be it, its annoying when interest rates on ISA are so low but ... (NB Not saying FCA will necessarily achieve this but more likely if they take their time) Edit: I see you have amended your original post whilst I was typing my original post was unclear - I agree and I already said that. I meant to say that the FCA should give interim permissions to all new platforms whilst their applications are "in progress"
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,031 
Likes: 5,153
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 8, 2016 16:20:23 GMT
Even interim authorisation should require proof of intelligent life, good faith, and a high degree of competence. You seem to be suggesting that anybody+dog could set up as a P2P platform, with "interim authorisation", based on nothing more than saying "please" nicely. Uh, thanks but no thanks.
Interim authorisation isn't just some stopgap until applications are shuffled around and rubber-stamped. It's until the FCA figure out what shape the full hoops need to be, to cater properly for this beast they've not seen before and don't quite understand fully.
Until the hoops that the FCA have already put in place are cleared, and an interim authorisation given, a prospective platform shouldn't be able to do ANYTHING.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Sept 8, 2016 17:32:34 GMT
If a platform does not meet FCA requirements in a certain area the platform is not rejected it is told to fix or review it. It cant fix an issue if it doesn't know what it is that is needing fixing. I dont really know what your point is. The application does not work like a school exam where you either pass or fail. As I asked before do you have experience of this? Edit@ Are you a lawyer or other professional involved in obtaining authorisation? , I think you are wrong. He must be a politician.
|
|
|
|
Post by lb on Sept 8, 2016 19:07:38 GMT
As I asked before do you have experience of this? Edit@ Are you a lawyer or other professional involved in obtaining authorisation? , I think you are wrong. He must be a politician. There were no hoops to gain interim permission just a deadline. So If you asked you got it. If you didn't ask in time then you needed to wait for full authorisation. That deadline was around two years ago. So having interim permission means literally nothing. So if you believe what you say then you should be of the opinion that none of the interim platforms should be allowed to operate. If, however, you believe they should continue to be allowed to operate having had no FCA acceptance yet then you must accept that other platforms should have the same right.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Sept 8, 2016 19:23:06 GMT
dualinvestor , I think you are wrong. He must be a politician. There were no hoops to gain interim permission just a deadline. So If you asked you got it. If you didn't ask in time then you needed to wait for full authorisation. That deadline was around two years ago. So having interim permission means literally nothing. So if you believe what you say then you should be of the opinion that none of the interim platforms should be allowed to operate. If, however, you believe they should continue to be allowed to operate having had no FCA acceptance yet then you must accept that other platforms should have the same right. There have been various platforms mentioned in different threads in this forum which, since the deadline you mentioned, have obtained the full authorisation and are ready to offer ifISA. This is because they are new platforms. Far from going at the end of the queue.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 8, 2016 19:29:24 GMT
dualinvestor , I think you are wrong. He must be a politician. There were no hoops to gain interim permission just a deadline. So If you asked you got it. If you didn't ask in time then you needed to wait for full authorisation. That deadline was around two years ago. So having interim permission means literally nothing. So if you believe what you say then you should be of the opinion that none of the interim platforms should be allowed to operate. If, however, you believe they should continue to be allowed to operate having had no FCA acceptance yet then you must accept that other platforms should have the same right. If your question is addressed to me, I shall, like you, decline to answer it. I ask, for the third time do you have experience of this? And for the second Are you a lawyer or other professional involved in obtaining authorisation? I suspect the answer to both is an unequivocol no. And therefore you have no knowledge of either the authorisation process or how the FCA intend to deal with the matter of authorisation generally. Like the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by lb on Sept 8, 2016 20:19:00 GMT
There were no hoops to gain interim permission just a deadline. So If you asked you got it. If you didn't ask in time then you needed to wait for full authorisation. That deadline was around two years ago. So having interim permission means literally nothing. So if you believe what you say then you should be of the opinion that none of the interim platforms should be allowed to operate. If, however, you believe they should continue to be allowed to operate having had no FCA acceptance yet then you must accept that other platforms should have the same right. If your question is addressed to me, I shall, like you, decline to answer it. I ask, for the third time do you have experience of this? And for the second Are you a lawyer or other professional involved in obtaining authorisation? I suspect the answer to both is an unequivocol no. And therefore you have no knowledge of either the authorisation process or how the FCA intend to deal with the matter of authorisation generally. Like the rest of us. Chill brother no need to be so aggressive. I am not directly involved with FCA at all but I know others who are. I don't really see why this is relevant. It is quite obvious that FCA take a dialogue not exam approach My reply was actually to adrianc - apologies and good day
|
|
|
|
Post by lb on Sept 8, 2016 20:28:02 GMT
There were no hoops to gain interim permission just a deadline. So If you asked you got it. If you didn't ask in time then you needed to wait for full authorisation. That deadline was around two years ago. So having interim permission means literally nothing. So if you believe what you say then you should be of the opinion that none of the interim platforms should be allowed to operate. If, however, you believe they should continue to be allowed to operate having had no FCA acceptance yet then you must accept that other platforms should have the same right. There have been various platforms mentioned in different threads in this forum which, since the deadline you mentioned, have obtained the full authorisation and are ready to offer ifISA. This is because they are new platforms. Far from going at the end of the queue. That is a good point. However it is not as clear cut as you suggest. the FCA have been over stretched and the priority has (understandably) been the existing platforms with large existing loanbooks and not the new ones yet to start. This leaves new entrants looking at 18 months plus (after application!) which really is not a good situation for the world leader in fintech - is it?
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Sept 9, 2016 15:23:51 GMT
There were no hoops to gain interim permission just a deadline. So If you asked you got it. If you didn't ask in time then you needed to wait for full authorisation. That deadline was around two years ago. So having interim permission means literally nothing. ... Thus Bondora.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 5,153
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 9, 2016 15:39:45 GMT
There were no hoops to gain interim permission just a deadline. So If you asked you got it. If you didn't ask in time then you needed to wait for full authorisation. That deadline was around two years ago. So having interim permission means literally nothing. ... Thus Bondora. Bondora were never in the UK, so would never come under the FCA's remit anyway. Likewise Trustbuddy. They would have been regulated in their own countries - Estonia and Sweden - and were open to investors here under the EU passporting regs.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Sept 9, 2016 18:26:30 GMT
Bondora were never in the UK, so would never come under the FCA's remit anyway. Likewise Trustbuddy. They would have been regulated in their own countries - Estonia and Sweden - and were open to investors here under the EU passporting regs. But no, they ply for business in the UK and they make a big song and dance about how they ARE under the FCA
|
|
