carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Sept 1, 2018 11:06:25 GMT
Like $2.3 trillion dollars missing just before the event of 9/11. [citation needed]
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Aug 29, 2018 12:23:05 GMT
Hi folks just found this thread. If you are just looking for small return risk free then there are a few ways with little or no investment 1 open a spare current account switch it every year M&S pays £120 to switch then £5 a month first direct £100+ and £125 if you transfer within the year. Unfortunately I don't think the information about First Direct is correct anymore. They stopped the cash bonus a few months ago, and are currently offering a choice of various things (mostly things like headphones, speakers, or expedia gift cards). The stuff they're offering is still valuable, but not really as simple as just getting cash.
Beyond the £125+60 gift voucher from M&S, the only cash bonuses remaining at the moment are Nationwide (£100 with a referral) and Halifax (£75). The whole area seems to have slowed down in the last six months or so, sadly. Here's hoping it picks up again soon.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Aug 28, 2018 13:09:28 GMT
One thing that occurs to me - once this conversion happens, will that be the end of the "Property Moose" brand as a platform?
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Aug 2, 2018 13:34:24 GMT
They are licensed by the Gambling Comission, not by the FCA. That, to me, seems a clear indication that they should be treated as a gambling platform and not some sort of investment provider. They are offering bonuses to encourage people to gamble on their site. I'm with r00lish67 on this. If the t&cs are such that they can be profited from, it is not reasonable to expect that I would hold back out of the goodness of my heart. You appear to have a rather rosy view of how these companies operate, which I'm afraid I do not share. I do not for one second believe that any of these companies would help me out in such a situation. The reality is that these promotions come from specific marketing schemes that they have costed and accepted that they will lose out on. I also challenge the portrayal of them as a fledgling business. As far as I can tell they were operating at least as far back as April 2016.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jul 28, 2018 12:25:25 GMT
According to the FCA’s website they are there to provide appropriate safeguards for investors against fraud or misconduct, recklessness, negligence or incompetence by users of its facilities; I think moneything’s behaviour could be regarded as incompetent (definitely), negligent (probably) and reckless (possibly). Am I being too harsh on them? Can you provide some details of exactly which behaviour you think falls into each of these categories?
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Property Moose
Spv 81
Jul 20, 2018 17:17:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by carolus on Jul 20, 2018 17:17:48 GMT
Any more news on SPV81? I'm getting a little bit annoyed with all this lack of info and transparency... I suspect that they are taking the opportunity of the big vote to take a break after all their hard work so far.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 21, 2018 20:39:07 GMT
Thread to discuss options, none of which sound appealing. Also, face palm at PM costing every vote at 500 - 1000 pounds to process. I am a long term investor, but just want out of PM forever. Happy to take a 20-30% haircut to do so. Problem is I don’t trust PM to carry through with any of the options competently. Sorry. What are we discussing? Has there been some email that I havent received?
Edit crossed with the email posting. So apparently, yes there has
Yes, seems that I've missed out too. Not very impressed.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 13, 2018 16:17:45 GMT
Oh dear
As far as I can tell you're right.
Collateral Agent Limited
Company status Active
First accounts made up to 30 September 2017 due by 22 June 2018So the company that holds the legal interest in the loans technically appear to be outside the admins reach for some reason - or BDO have dropped the ball and missed this - or CH is just wrong and status should show In Administration. Strange. BDO and the FCA both provide a specific list of three companies (Collateral (UK) Ltd, Collateral Security Trustee Ltd and Collateral Sales Ltd) placed into administration, none of which are Collateral Agent limited.
That said, the CH listings for all three of those companies seem a bit of a mess - Collateral (UK) have had the registered address changed to what I assume is BDO's, whilst the other two still list RR's. Additionally the administrator on all three is still listed as RR.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 13, 2018 11:19:54 GMT
This is news to me. Is this another unsecured creditor for unpaid rent? I wonder whether this is in fact Bridge Lending Limited, which has a registered address in Blackpool and whose director is A Currie, and an ex-director, as of 5 March (interesting timeing!) is P Currie.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 12, 2018 23:08:41 GMT
The parties to the security agreements are the borrower, the Security Trustee (Collateral Security Trustee) and the lender Collateral Agent Limited (on whose behalf the ST holds the security). Collateral Agent Limited is not subject to the administration of BDO AFAIA.
Erm!!
Oh dear
As far as I can tell you're right.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 12, 2018 17:38:18 GMT
Admittedly I have not seen any documentation. Just maybe it refers only to Collateral as lender (incorrectly), in which case I could see how the documents would be valid and enforceable, but only in favour of Collateral, leaving investors as creditors. So what we need to know is - just what do those loan documents say? Another possibility which may explain the inconsistency between the two statements is that the loan security is unenforceable because the underlying loan has been made via an unauthorised platform and therefore illegal. In that case I can see how only the second statement could be correct. The first of these feels very plausible to me, and I think would explain a lot of the current situation. I also note the slightly strange mention that the security documentation was prepared by Collateral's lawyers. I'm not sure why this would be specifically mentioned, unless perhaps it might be a suggestion that the documents have been prepared in favour of Collateral rather than investors. I am perhaps speculating now, but further if we were in fact lending to Collateral then that might mean keeping lender records with multiple backups less important, and making it easier for them to encounter some sort of "accident"
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 11, 2018 13:26:21 GMT
Do you really believe this, given all the evidence of what the people running the show have been up to? I'm fairly sure we also saw a statement somewhere that in fact the FCA only became involved once they were alerted by investor contact *after* the directors claimed to appoint administrators. Not supported by the FCA official statement which clearly indicates involvement prior to the appointment of administrators. Yes, you're right. I must be misremembering that part. Nevertheless, I think my first point still stands - the fact that the situation is as it is surely says a lot about the people behind Collateral, and possibly at RR. Knowing what we know now, I can't imagine that everything would have been fine had the FCA not taken action.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 11, 2018 12:45:57 GMT
Agree ilmoro. If the FCA had not got involved at all what would be happening now. My guess is Collateral would still be running, paying interest and receiving repayments. Do you really believe this, given all the evidence of what the people running the show have been up to? I'm fairly sure we also saw a statement somewhere that in fact the FCA only became involved once they were alerted by investor contact *after* the directors claimed to appoint administrators.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 11, 2018 11:51:17 GMT
It seems like the sort of thing that a certain *other* set of administrators might have been expected to pick up on in their couple of months of appointment. Might not have been deleted then Well, either a) it was deleted before RR were appointed and they failed to notice or b) it was deleted after RR were appointed.
I'm not sure which is worse!
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 11, 2018 11:45:13 GMT
It seems bizarre that they just de-commissioned everything like that don't you think? Potentially done out of spite or to cover their tracks? Well quite. Deliberate sabotage for whatever reason. It seems like the sort of thing that a certain *other* set of administrators might have been expected to pick up on in their couple of months of appointment.
|
|