Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 20, 2019 16:16:04 GMT
As a forever optimist.... at least this is an already cleared development site/piece of land (allegedly) with approved planning consent (allegedly) and not another half-finished development that's been abandoned halfway-through and mothballed mid-construction (allegedly). It should be valuable to someone (allegedly).
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 20, 2019 15:34:44 GMT
So we’re selling the site to someone else now?
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 17, 2019 21:11:06 GMT
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 16, 2019 17:25:34 GMT
There's nothing else to pursue. The borrower refinanced this loan at an acceptable level for RSM so there will be no further avenues of recovery. Perhaps. We've not seen the paperwork, of course. Perhaps there's still PI. I have. There isn't. No issues with the valuation.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 13, 2019 6:03:17 GMT
Very concerning that ex-Directors rather than investors may be predominantly making up the creditors committee.
How close are these administrators to the previous owners? Shades of Gordon Craig?
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 13, 2019 3:40:08 GMT
I decided to stop posting my personal opinion regarding this administration a while ago as unfortunately a small minority on the forums seem to feel the need to passively/aggressively pick apart every word and I have been blamed in the past when "Monetus said X but actually Y happened" so I’ve decided not to comment with any further personal opinion from now on as it’s often misinterpreted. I guess it’s probably the same reason that a lot of platform reps don't really engage with this forum that much anymore and it’s likely that I will also be taking a step back myself. However I’ve posted a few things about Collateral lately: p2pindependentforum.com/post/353040/threadp2pindependentforum.com/post/352992/threadp2pindependentforum.com/post/354088/threadMy final thoughts on the subject.... There are legitimate reasons for the delay in disposing of the property and chattel assets but they cannot be disclosed so unfortunately you’ll have to use your imagination. This is as frustrating for me as it is for you but it is also unrealistic for either myself or BDO to release information publically that could affect recoveries and result in a poorer outcome for investors. This includes true valuations of assets, estimated outcomes, whether there are any legal issues in certain loans or why it's taking so long to dispose of certain assets. It is not the role of the creditors committee to act as a communications mouthpiece for the administrators providing a blow-by-blow account of the administration (which isn’t possible anyway due to NDA) or also to come on here to support/defend/attack them. I can assure you that BDO are being monitored and scrutinised by the five representatives on the Committee. Our role is to hold BDO accountable, act as a general sounding board and assist them with their function of achieving the best outcome for creditors/investors during committee meetings. I am of the personal belief that these functions are being achieved and unless I have judged the sentiment of committee meetings totally incorrectly I'm not seeing the other four committee members clamouring for BDO to be replaced or to act much differently than they are currently given the circumstances they are facing. The fact that RSM have finally chucked investors a few quid from a loan repayment that’s been sat in their bank account for over six months and sent various “announcements of announcements” via email which probably cost a couple of grand each to put together also seems to have raised expectations that BDO should somehow be doing the same by now. Once again - the two situations aren't in any way comparable and just because you haven't got any money back yet isn't necessarily down to the performance of the administrators. Collateral is also a much smaller platform so the cost of more regular and frequent updates would be deducted from capital and result in a significant financial hit to investors when funds are eventually returned to them. I can confirm however that progress is being made. As we all know P2P recoveries can sometimes move at a glacial pace (see Lendy, MT, FS, AC for countless examples). There are various loans live on other platforms which aren't even in administration (both chattel and property) that have taken longer than eighteen months to resolve and you can be certain that the administrators are facing the same issues with borrowers and assets that are encountered on other platforms. Administration doesn't change that. The issues with the database have also caused a lot of issues so I am pleased that they are now resolved and I am hoping that progress with accelerate accordingly from here on in. In regards to other matters I have been assisting some other investors with the FCA/regulatory side of things and will continue to do so as I am determined to get as much of our money back as possible in any way that we can. If you are truly unhappy about BDO’s communication or have another issue with them by all means take it up with them and I am also happy to take feedback back to meetings. Several major questions from this forum were asked at the previous meeting. As previously mentioned there is also a complaints process you can follow here: www.gov.uk/complain-about-insolvency-practitioner however please be aware that BDO are carrying out all of their statutory reporting functions under the Insolvency Act (initially every six months and now every twelve) so any information received over and above this should be treated as a "bonus" in all honesty. I believe the next report is due at the end of April 2020.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 12, 2019 13:04:14 GMT
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 12, 2019 12:53:44 GMT
It's certainly relevant as far as I am concerned. Here we have administrators charging investors (well who else will be footing the bill) £1000+ a day so it seems legitimate to want to understand why it has taken them in excess of 18 months to appoint receivers or get properties on the market for quite a number of loans, or take in excess of a year to value the bling, never mind dispose of it. It seems even the complaints commissioner has suggested that dissatisfaction with the process should be taken up with the CC, Administrators, and the Insolvency Service, and from where I’m sitting there seems to be a hell of a lot to be dissatisfied about. Who knows whether that knowledge will help us "get our money back", but more detailed information may certainly help in holding the players to account. Welcome to insolvency.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 12, 2019 1:14:47 GMT
Begs the question why has it taken so long? Was there a question over title? It’s questions like these that answers via the cc should be forthcoming To quote the NDA which I signed: “No aspect of the loan books (including the property schedule) should be disclosed to anyone.” so even though I know the answer I am unable to assist. However if there was a problem with the title (not saying that there is) do you think it would be wise to make that public knowledge anyway? Is that going to help you get your money back?
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 11, 2019 16:27:49 GMT
The conflict arises as RSM are administrators of both companies and the interests of both platform and investors were fundamentally conflicted when the platform was up and running (so it’s not any different in administration)
RSM as administrators have a statutory obligation to maximise returns for creditors of Lendy Ltd (including Lendy Group Ltd and Liam Brooke for example) under the insolvency act. i.e charging all contractually-owed fees etc.
However RSM are also administrators of SSSH which holds all of the Model 2 security on trust for the benefit of both investors and Lendy Ltd. Clearly investors want as much of their money back as possible which means the lowest possible fees charged by Lendy Ltd (their agent).
Hence Grant Thornton are acting as “conflicts administrator” for SSSH to review the business relationship and fee structure between the two entities and in carrying out their work have suggested the creation of the CLB to assist them with this role.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 11, 2019 10:51:30 GMT
If we accept the premise that the CLB's interests may diverge from the CC's interests [hence barring people from being members of both groups], which side of that divide will the LAG be on (presumably the CC side, given that the CC consists mostly of members of the LAG), and what equivalent group might need to exist for the other side? Is this even a real question? Trolling surely.... We welcome the creation of the CLB and look forward to working with its members to achieve the best result for investors.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 9, 2019 13:51:12 GMT
So 6 town houses on the upper level (assumed complete?) at about £250k each, and £400k for the lower undeveloped plot.
Total value about £1.9m, compared to a loan of £1.998m? Plus the build out costs etc £1m plus; cant remember I believe the estimated outcome statement originally suggested between 61% and 82% recovery based on both the upper and lower site being built out and all finished within 14 months from July 2018. As the lower site hasn’t even started yet and the upper site build was significantly delayed (additional finance and build costs etc) I am expecting the final outcome to be worse than the “likely worst case” scenario anticipated previously.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 8, 2019 23:30:33 GMT
This is excellent news.
A sensible move given the circumstances.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|