toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 538 
Likes: 385
|
Post by toffeeboy on Nov 5, 2019 10:46:16 GMT
So there is/might be some reason/law why you can not tell me why I am not being repaid more of my own money even though the money was received and it is going to someone else who shall remain unknown to me. I would love to know what law anyone is going to quote for that one.
If the usual "it might effect future recoveries" is used then it is a joke because we are asking about money already returned.
Its called being under an NDA. Anyone in the position of members of the CC would likely want to get confirmation of what they can / can't relay as there is a good chance in a situation like this it would be pretty all encompassing other than by exception. And the onus should be on the administrators to communicate anyway - so that all lenders end up being informed.
No NDA can be written to stop anyone telling you why you aren't being returned all of your money.
Who do you think the NDA would be between because the issue isn't with the buyer of HQ becuase they have paid the money over it is with RSM/Lendy or whoever has kept a large chunk back, this isn't anything to do with an NDA it is just RSM carrying on the poor communcation that lendy had. I assume there is a valid reason for it but the reason needs communicating.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 5, 2019 11:20:04 GMT
It was noted by someone else that the Administrators are not appointed to work in the interests of us Lenders but rather they work for creditors like LB. Can we Lenders still complain about a party that isn’t working on our behalf. We are not their customer so why would they care about our complaints. My next question is, who IS working on our behalf as I believe I was promised under FCA regulation that in the case of platform failure a robust plan would be in place to ensure Lenders don’t get shafted. I don’t think we have any support at all, we’re 3rd or 4th class citizens and completely unrepresented. I disagree, RSM as administrators of Lendy are as you say working for Lendy creditors, but this isn't the administration of Lendy. The administrators of this particular loan were working for US to get OUR money back. Each loan has it's own administrators because each one is individual with different stakeholders which is why you can't just lump all of the money in together. The administrators of each loan are responsible to those who lent the money not the agent that arranged the loan which is the same reason why any NDA is irrelevant as what law can stop anyone from telling you why they aren't paying you all your money back.
Imagine selling your house and then the agent witholding some of the money but refusing to tell you why because it is the same situation. Lendy changed their involvement in loans when they brought the new terms in and now RSM seem to be choosing to ignore them and making themselves the stakeholder instead of the lenders.
I completely agree regarding the transparency. The house purchase is a great analogy. This is the administration of Lendy. RSM have taken over Lendy's role as agent and are enforcing the security on behalf of both Lendy Ltd and investors (whose money is held in SSSH). The administrators of the individual loans are answerable to RSM t/a Lendy Ltd. RSM are also legally obliged under the Insolvency Act to maximise returns for the creditors of Lendy Ltd and are (allegedly) entitled to take whatever fees and commission were contractually agreed as things stand. I fully agree that they need to tell investors where this money has gone and I hope that they will. Lendy in fact had one of the greatest business models of all time. It was a company started with 1 pound by a couple of chancers who knew lots about boats and websites but hardly anything about financial services. They also risked zero of their own money the whole time. Imagine taking 5 million quid from investors, sending only 4 million to the borrower, taking all of your fees upfront (zero risk), and then feeding the rest of retained money back to investors as "interest" which they would then pay income tax on (even though it was their own money being returned to them). Then if the loan went south you could charge extortionate rates of additional penalty fees and interest, kick the can down the road for all eternity (why rush to get paid when all those extra fees are racking up?), which would inevitably trap the borrower so that they eventually couldn't re-finance off the platform. Then you could dispose of/auction off the asset for a reduced price and take all of your fees and commission directly out of investor capital before returning whatever else is left to them. Genius really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 5, 2019 11:27:36 GMT
I disagree, RSM as administrators of Lendy are as you say working for Lendy creditors, but this isn't the administration of Lendy. The administrators of this particular loan were working for US to get OUR money back. Each loan has it's own administrators because each one is individual with different stakeholders which is why you can't just lump all of the money in together. The administrators of each loan are responsible to those who lent the money not the agent that arranged the loan which is the same reason why any NDA is irrelevant as what law can stop anyone from telling you why they aren't paying you all your money back.
Imagine selling your house and then the agent witholding some of the money but refusing to tell you why because it is the same situation. Lendy changed their involvement in loans when they brought the new terms in and now RSM seem to be choosing to ignore them and making themselves the stakeholder instead of the lenders.
I completely agree regarding the transparency. The house purchase is a great analogy. This is the administration of Lendy. RSM have taken over Lendy's role as agent and are enforcing the security on behalf of both Lendy Ltd and investors (whose money is held in SSSH). The administrators of the individual loans are answerable to RSM t/a Lendy Ltd. RSM are also legally obliged under the Insolvency Act to maximise returns for the creditors of Lendy Ltd and are (allegedly) entitled to take whatever fees and commission were contractually agreed as things stand. I fully agree that they need to tell investors where this money has gone and I hope that they will. Lendy in fact had one of the greatest business models of all time. It was a company started with 1 pound by a couple of chancers who knew lots about boats and websites but hardly anything about financial services. They also risked zero of their own money the whole time. Imagine taking 5 million quid from investors, sending only 4 million to the borrower, taking all of your fees upfront (zero risk), and then feeding the rest of retained money back to investors as "interest" which they would then pay income tax on (even though it was their own money being returned to them). Then if the loan went south you could charge extortionate rates of additional penalty fees and interest, kick the can down the road for all eternity (why rush to get paid when all those extra fees are racking up?), which would inevitably trap the borrower so that they eventually couldn't re-finance off the platform. Then you could dispose of/auction off the asset for a reduced price and take all of your fees and commission directly out of investor capital before returning whatever else is left to them. Genius really. Brilliant. Any chance you could do a similar analysis on all other P2P platforms? or at least the ones I'm in 😉
|
|
one21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 265
|
Post by one21 on Nov 5, 2019 11:54:18 GMT
I completely agree regarding the transparency. The house purchase is a great analogy. This is the administration of Lendy. RSM have taken over Lendy's role as agent and are enforcing the security on behalf of both Lendy Ltd and investors (whose money is held in SSSH). The administrators of the individual loans are answerable to RSM t/a Lendy Ltd. RSM are also legally obliged under the Insolvency Act to maximise returns for the creditors of Lendy Ltd and are (allegedly) entitled to take whatever fees and commission were contractually agreed as things stand. I fully agree that they need to tell investors where this money has gone and I hope that they will. Lendy in fact had one of the greatest business models of all time. It was a company started with 1 pound by a couple of chancers who knew lots about boats and websites but hardly anything about financial services. They also risked zero of their own money the whole time. Imagine taking 5 million quid from investors, sending only 4 million to the borrower, taking all of your fees upfront (zero risk), and then feeding the rest of retained money back to investors as "interest" which they would then pay income tax on (even though it was their own money being returned to them). Then if the loan went south you could charge extortionate rates of additional penalty fees and interest, kick the can down the road for all eternity (why rush to get paid when all those extra fees are racking up?), which would inevitably trap the borrower so that they eventually couldn't re-finance off the platform. Then you could dispose of/auction off the asset for a reduced price and take all of your fees and commission directly out of investor capital before returning whatever else is left to them. Genius really. Many thanks for this analysis Monetus, but shouldn't this be regarded in law as embezzlement of our funds?
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Nov 5, 2019 12:22:24 GMT
I disagree, RSM as administrators of Lendy are as you say working for Lendy creditors, but this isn't the administration of Lendy. The administrators of this particular loan were working for US to get OUR money back. Each loan has it's own administrators because each one is individual with different stakeholders which is why you can't just lump all of the money in together. The administrators of each loan are responsible to those who lent the money not the agent that arranged the loan which is the same reason why any NDA is irrelevant as what law can stop anyone from telling you why they aren't paying you all your money back.
Imagine selling your house and then the agent witholding some of the money but refusing to tell you why because it is the same situation. Lendy changed their involvement in loans when they brought the new terms in and now RSM seem to be choosing to ignore them and making themselves the stakeholder instead of the lenders.
I completely agree regarding the transparency. The house purchase is a great analogy. This is the administration of Lendy. RSM have taken over Lendy's role as agent and are enforcing the security on behalf of both Lendy Ltd and investors (whose money is held in SSSH). The administrators of the individual loans are answerable to RSM t/a Lendy Ltd. RSM are also legally obliged under the Insolvency Act to maximise returns for the creditors of Lendy Ltd and are (allegedly) entitled to take whatever fees and commission were contractually agreed as things stand. I fully agree that they need to tell investors where this money has gone and I hope that they will. Lendy in fact had one of the greatest business models of all time. It was a company started with 1 pound by a couple of chancers who knew lots about boats and websites but hardly anything about financial services. They also risked zero of their own money the whole time. Imagine taking 5 million quid from investors, sending only 4 million to the borrower, taking all of your fees upfront (zero risk), and then feeding the rest of retained money back to investors as "interest" which they would then pay income tax on (even though it was their own money being returned to them). Then if the loan went south you could charge extortionate rates of additional penalty fees and interest, kick the can down the road for all eternity (why rush to get paid when all those extra fees are racking up?), which would inevitably trap the borrower so that they eventually couldn't re-finance off the platform. Then you could dispose of/auction off the asset for a reduced price and take all of your fees and commission directly out of investor capital before returning whatever else is left to them. Genius really. Fantastic summary. My follow up question would be which regulatory body charged with protecting consumers from shysters like LB would review this business model and give it a green light.
|
|
tony
Posts: 136
Likes: 91
|
Post by tony on Nov 5, 2019 15:16:21 GMT
45.5% and no explanation or breakdown. Pretty pathetic return! and very poor information from the administrators. Is this the original "INTERIM PAYMENT" Lendy advised us off - or is this all of it??? Who do we contact to complain??? If you trawl through the last 50 pages or so of this thread you'll get some ideas. As the balance left, after withdrawing the now available funds, shows the reduced investment does this not mean that returns so far are an interim payment and that the loan is not closed but still active albeit very much in default.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 5, 2019 15:28:35 GMT
Can we buy Lendy from the administrators?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 5, 2019 16:16:05 GMT
Can we buy Lendy from the administrators? Do you have deep pockets and FCA approval to run a P2P company? Probably easier to buy out individual loans (cheap) and hope to run them to a positive conclusion, but again deep pockets, development experience and a huge risk. Might be worth some big lenders getting together to discuss.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 5, 2019 19:37:12 GMT
Can we buy Lendy from the administrators? Do you have deep pockets and FCA approval to run a P2P company? Probably easier to buy out individual loans (cheap) and hope to run them to a positive conclusion, but again deep pockets, development experience and a huge risk. Might be worth some big lenders getting together to discuss. The company has negative net assets, so it shouldn't be expensive. Model 1 investors could swap a part of 6mm debt for equity. We could hire someone to run down the 150mm loan book, which most likely would be cheaper than using administrators with an additional benefit that those people would work for us.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 5, 2019 20:22:55 GMT
Do you have deep pockets and FCA approval to run a P2P company? Probably easier to buy out individual loans (cheap) and hope to run them to a positive conclusion, but again deep pockets, development experience and a huge risk. Might be worth some big lenders getting together to discuss. The company has negative net assets, so it shouldn't be expensive. Model 1 investors could swap a part of 6mm debt for equity. We could hire someone to run down the 150mm loan book, which most likely would be cheaper than using administrators with an additional benefit that those people would work for us. And P2P FCA permission to run the company? I guess you may be able to sidestep if you are not issuing new loans... Also if you buy Lendy you are probably not buying the loans which are between lenders and borrowers, just a company with very little assets.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Nov 5, 2019 20:32:17 GMT
The company has negative net assets, so it shouldn't be expensive. Model 1 investors could swap a part of 6mm debt for equity. We could hire someone to run down the 150mm loan book, which most likely would be cheaper than using administrators with an additional benefit that those people would work for us. I guess you may be able to sidestep if you are not issuing new loans... Also if you buy Lendy you are probably not buying the loans which are between lenders and borrowers, just a company with very little assets. Maybe 'rent' from a platform that is? eg Huddle are Appointed Representatives of ReBS.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 5, 2019 20:38:41 GMT
The company has negative net assets, so it shouldn't be expensive. Model 1 investors could swap a part of 6mm debt for equity. We could hire someone to run down the 150mm loan book, which most likely would be cheaper than using administrators with an additional benefit that those people would work for us. And P2P FCA permission to run the company? I guess you may be able to sidestep if you are not issuing new loans... Also if you buy Lendy you are probably not buying the loans which are between lenders and borrowers, just a company with very little assets. Youre buying the agent who seem to have cast iron contracts to manage the loan book. Might have negative assets on paper but seem to have a decent income stream if they can lose their liabilities via flat pack.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 5, 2019 20:53:36 GMT
The company has negative net assets, so it shouldn't be expensive. Model 1 investors could swap a part of 6mm debt for equity. We could hire someone to run down the 150mm loan book, which most likely would be cheaper than using administrators with an additional benefit that those people would work for us. And P2P FCA permission to run the company? I guess you may be able to sidestep if you are not issuing new loans... Also if you buy Lendy you are probably not buying the loans which are between lenders and borrowers, just a company with very little assets. We would be owners (shareholders). The company would be run by someone with a proper authorisation we would hire. I wonder if AC would be interested to do this for some fee. I have to admit I know very little about FCA requirements. It could be the case that you don't need to meet any special requirements if you running down a loan book without any new loans and investors. You don't buy investors loans, Lendy assets are mostly future fees for managing loans on our behalf plus some cash in their bank account.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 6, 2019 0:57:41 GMT
I completely agree regarding the transparency. The house purchase is a great analogy. This is the administration of Lendy. RSM have taken over Lendy's role as agent and are enforcing the security on behalf of both Lendy Ltd and investors (whose money is held in SSSH). The administrators of the individual loans are answerable to RSM t/a Lendy Ltd. RSM are also legally obliged under the Insolvency Act to maximise returns for the creditors of Lendy Ltd and are (allegedly) entitled to take whatever fees and commission were contractually agreed as things stand. I fully agree that they need to tell investors where this money has gone and I hope that they will. Lendy in fact had one of the greatest business models of all time. It was a company started with 1 pound by a couple of chancers who knew lots about boats and websites but hardly anything about financial services. They also risked zero of their own money the whole time. Imagine taking 5 million quid from investors, sending only 4 million to the borrower, taking all of your fees upfront (zero risk), and then feeding the rest of retained money back to investors as "interest" which they would then pay income tax on (even though it was their own money being returned to them). Then if the loan went south you could charge extortionate rates of additional penalty fees and interest, kick the can down the road for all eternity (why rush to get paid when all those extra fees are racking up?), which would inevitably trap the borrower so that they eventually couldn't re-finance off the platform. Then you could dispose of/auction off the asset for a reduced price and take all of your fees and commission directly out of investor capital before returning whatever else is left to them. Genius really. Fantastic summary. My follow up question would be which regulatory body charged with protecting consumers from shysters like LB would review this business model and give it a green light. The FCA frankly don’t care whether a business model or investment is shitty or has a fundamental conflict of interest. FCA regulation and “protecting consumers” within the P2P sector was essentially a very limited box ticking exercise for the most part. As samford71 eloquently put: “the FCA does not exist to ensure a retail investor's investments make a profit, nor is the FCA there to ensure that financial service business doesn't fail or that the business plan is sound. It could be a rubbish investment; it could be a rubbish business model. P2P as a concept may be fundamentally flawed. Not their problem. The only question for the FCA is does it meet the regulations. In the case of P2P, the government's requirement for 'light touch' regulation ensured the regulations were far less stringent that for any other part of the financial services sector. Capital requirements for P2P platforms were minimal. Operational controls were light. Directors and employees prior experience could be limited or non-existent. As "FinTechs", the business model focussed on maximizing origination volumes over loan quality. This helped them secure equity capital and gave them upfront fees but also ensured downstream issues with large NPL portfolios. Regulation taken from the bilateral lending market ensured the "treating your customer fairly" meant treating the borrower too easily and not giving a damn about the lender. Lenders are just capital providers; they were never the clients.”
Unfortunately FCA “regulation” offers a veneer of credibility to the wider public (when in reality it means very little) but the FCA are also just enforcers of wider governmental policy. The real mistake in my eyes was the governments decision to lump P2P into the “light touch” regime in the first place due to the UK’s apparent wish to not stifle “FinTech” innovation and assuming that there wouldn’t be any bad actors. Doing so has allowed incompetent, unqualified and unethical people to roam free with hundreds of millions of pounds of other people’s money, without real checks or supervision, for principally their own benefit and in direct conflict with the interests of investors. If there had been stricter requirements on P2P businesses from the outset (similar to those placed on challenger banks like Monzo or Starling who are also entrusted to manage hundreds of millions of third-party capital) the P2P industry as a whole would be in a much better place than it is currently.
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Nov 6, 2019 7:22:29 GMT
We're screwed then.
|
|
