giraffe
New Member
Posts: 5
Likes: 12
|
Post by giraffe on Jul 22, 2021 15:44:51 GMT
Could you send me some pointers /more info, please?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,214
Likes: 11,404
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 28, 2021 12:48:07 GMT
Administrators now seeking directions on where MT fees rank.
|
|
shw
Posts: 51
Likes: 90
|
Post by shw on Jul 28, 2021 13:21:48 GMT
congratulations Moorfields & MT on your detailed report on your costs incurred to date to justify probably not paying out very much to company creditors. no doubt you have some very unhappy people calling you !! you also reference the amount of work you have had to do on the loan book for both live (not many !) and the default loans. when might the LENDERS in this debacle get a detailed report on progress you have made, or not, with the BORROWERS LOANS, no doubt these shysters will be smiling to themselves having SQUANDERED OR EVEN STOLEN our hard earned cash along with the LTV valuations used to bait/catch our cash. breaking news or normal BS,the FCA are going to outlaw P2P investing in property development - what a bunch of jokers - must have crawled out of their bunkers to make that breakthrough observation. anyone new going into P2P needs to do a "sanity" check - wish I had ! regards Mushroom (awaiting next bucket of sh1t should there be some for us)
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,792
Likes: 3,213
|
Post by jonno on Jul 28, 2021 13:34:08 GMT
By Christ, I thought that now that I've read a number of these reports I would have become inured to their contents; but this one honestly made me feel literally sick to my stomach. I don't think I've ever read such a detailed, skilful and rapier-like breakdown of how my money is being stolen in the whole of my life
|
|
tony9239
Member of DD Central
Posts: 101
Likes: 202
|
Post by tony9239 on Jul 28, 2021 14:33:00 GMT
Well, unless I’m missing something, they don’t appear to have recovered any loans. Some have redeemed and a few continue to pay interest which, for the most part, is distributed. But there seems to be no progress reported on the non-performing and defaulted loans. So what do we get for the privilege of having them trouser our cash? Basically it’s just form-filling and paper shuffling for £600 an hour. Nice work if you can get it.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jul 28, 2021 16:35:38 GMT
I'd also noted a distinct slowdown in progress with recoveries and indeed any information about loans. I suspect this is tied in with the point made above by ilmoro about the administrators seeking clarification about the ranking of their fees. If they are not sure they can take the costs of loan management out of repayments then they won't want to do any work on this. Am I understanding this correctly? It's what I read into the comments made in section 2.5 of the report.
I'm curious that the Lendy administrators seem able to extract a charge of 3% of the loan value to manage the loans. I wonder why the Moneything administrators feel they need court directions. Something different in the contracts or T&Cs?
If I'm barking up the wrong tree, please would someone let me know.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,943
Likes: 4,382
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 28, 2021 18:31:10 GMT
I'd also noted a distinct slowdown in progress with recoveries and indeed any information about loans. I suspect this is tied in with the point made above by ilmoro about the administrators seeking clarification about the ranking of their fees. If they are not sure they can take the costs of loan management out of repayments then they won't want to do any work on this. Am I understanding this correctly? It's what I read into the comments made in section 2.5 of the report.
I'm curious that the Lendy administrators seem able to extract a charge of 3% of the loan value to manage the loans. I wonder why the Moneything administrators feel they need court directions. Something different in the contracts or T&Cs?
If I'm barking up the wrong tree, please would someone let me know.
Would have been nice to see a simple schedule showing where they are with each loan. I particularly liked the bit that said that anticipated recovery was as detailed in section 1, and this section says future distribution is unknown.
One thing that has become apparent is that even if a platform is run down in an 'orderly' fashion, the outcome is still a financial debacle
|
|
dh1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 392
Likes: 404
|
Post by dh1 on Jul 28, 2021 19:30:07 GMT
Whilst I'm the first to admit that I don't know much - well anything - about company administration and what not, I have been through the progress report after noting the careful caveat: "... Lenders are reminded that progress reports are prepared for the Companies’ creditors. As previously advised, Lenders are not understood to be creditors of the Companies. The progress report has been shared with Lenders for informational purposes only. ...".
So, what I would like is the Trustees - ie those responsible to us lenders for our funds - to provide an update in respect of each outstanding loan..... It would also be helpful if they would say specifically what if any of the costs of the administration would fall on lenders. I suspect that the answer would be "none". That wouldn't mean we'd all get all out money back but it would perhaps lend a welcome focus....
|
|
qlassa
Member of DD Central
Posts: 57
Likes: 25
|
Post by qlassa on Jul 28, 2021 22:16:29 GMT
congratulations Moorfields & MT on your detailed report on your costs incurred to date to justify probably not paying out very much to company creditors. no doubt you have some very unhappy people calling you !! you also reference the amount of work you have had to do on the loan book for both live (not many !) and the default loans. when might the LENDERS in this debacle get a detailed report on progress you have made, or not, with the BORROWERS LOANS, no doubt these shysters will be smiling to themselves having SQUANDERED OR EVEN STOLEN our hard earned cash along with the LTV valuations used to bait/catch our cash. breaking news or normal BS,the FCA are going to outlaw P2P investing in property development - what a bunch of jokers - must have crawled out of their bunkers to make that breakthrough observation. anyone new going into P2P needs to do a "sanity" check - wish I had ! regards Mushroom (awaiting next bucket of sh1t should there be some for us) I suspect anyone new will jump into P2P now given the chaos now.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jul 29, 2021 10:24:39 GMT
Whilst I'm the first to admit that I don't know much - well anything - about company administration and what not, I have been through the progress report after noting the careful caveat: "... Lenders are reminded that progress reports are prepared for the Companies’ creditors. As previously advised, Lenders are not understood to be creditors of the Companies. The progress report has been shared with Lenders for informational purposes only. ...".
So, what I would like is the Trustees - ie those responsible to us lenders for our funds - to provide an update in respect of each outstanding loan..... It would also be helpful if they would say specifically what if any of the costs of the administration would fall on lenders. I suspect that the answer would be "none". That wouldn't mean we'd all get all out money back but it would perhaps lend a welcome focus....
At the bottom of section 2.3 it says this:
"Creditors are reminded that the loan recoveries set out above do not represent assets of the Administrations."
The main point of this statement would appear to be confirmation that creditors can't get their hands on the loan recoveries. It also indicates to me that the costs of administration can't be taken from loan recoveries either.
But the further issue is that the administrators need to clarify if they can take the specific costs of administering the loans (rather than the general company administration costs) from the recoveries if there is a shortfall. It seems that they thought they could but now they're not sure.
Like you, I would very much like an update on the loans and see what progress is being made. But my fear is that there will be little progress on loan recoveries until the administrators clarify how the cost of administering the recoveries is going to be paid.
|
|
seb8072
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 99
|
Post by seb8072 on Jul 29, 2021 12:23:31 GMT
Given that the Administrator's responsibility is to the creditors and not the lenders, if costs of recoveries comes from creditors and for example it costs x to recover 10% or 2x to recover 50%, which option are they going to take?
|
|
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: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Jul 29, 2021 12:55:41 GMT
Given that the Administrator's responsibility is to the creditors and not the lenders, if costs of recoveries comes from creditors and for example it costs x to recover 10% or 2x to recover 50%, which option are they going to take? This is a fundamental failing of the FCA. The FCA has quite rightly stipulated that P2P loans operate between a lender and a borrower. The FCA has quite rightly stipulated that P2P platforms must ensure that lender money is ring-fenced. The FCA has quite rightly stipulated that P2P platforms must have a wind down policy for the loan book. The FCA has not considered what happens when a platform goes into administration. This is an enormous failure. There needs to be an insurance policy in place that allows for the platform to be wound down in an orderly way without the lenders having to pay for it. Until the FCA sorts it out they should be paying for all the loan book wind downs.
|
|
huxs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 218
|
Post by huxs on Jul 29, 2021 13:05:24 GMT
Given that the Administrator's responsibility is to the creditors and not the lenders, if costs of recoveries comes from creditors and for example it costs x to recover 10% or 2x to recover 50%, which option are they going to take? This is a fundamental failing of the FCA. The FCA has quite rightly stipulated that P2P loans operate between a lender and a borrower. The FCA has quite rightly stipulated that P2P platforms must ensure that lender money is ring-fenced. The FCA has quite rightly stipulated that P2P platforms must have a wind down policy for the loan book. The FCA has not considered what happens when a platform goes into administration. This is an enormous failure. There needs to be an insurance policy in place that allows for the platform to be wound down in an orderly way without the lenders having to pay for it. Until the FCA sorts it out they should be paying for all the loan book wind downs. It astounds me (well it doesn't actually because how can you be surprised about anything that happens in P2P) that the administration cost of winding down the company has to be borne by the lenders. I accept that the cost of administrating the loan book to closure has to be covered and ultimately that money has to come from the loan book but the fact that we have to pay for the full admin costs of winding up a company part of which has nothing to do with the loan book is plain wrong.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,214
Likes: 11,404
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 29, 2021 20:30:07 GMT
This is a fundamental failing of the FCA. The FCA has quite rightly stipulated that P2P loans operate between a lender and a borrower. The FCA has quite rightly stipulated that P2P platforms must ensure that lender money is ring-fenced. The FCA has quite rightly stipulated that P2P platforms must have a wind down policy for the loan book. The FCA has not considered what happens when a platform goes into administration. This is an enormous failure. There needs to be an insurance policy in place that allows for the platform to be wound down in an orderly way without the lenders having to pay for it. Until the FCA sorts it out they should be paying for all the loan book wind downs. It astounds me (well it doesn't actually because how can you be surprised about anything that happens in P2P) that the administration cost of winding down the company has to be borne by the lenders. I accept that the cost of administrating the loan book to closure has to be covered and ultimately that money has to come from the loan book but the fact that we have to pay for the full admin costs of winding up a company part of which has nothing to do with the loan book is plain wrong. The costs of winding down the company arent born by the lenders nor are the costs of winding down the loanbook. What is born by the lenders is the costs of managing and recovering defaulted loans. The problem is that when the platfrom has gone bust this is pretty much all the costs. Somebody has to do the work of recovery and somebody has to pay for it. The only source of money is the recovered funds. The question is whether the costs are exaggerated by the administrators doing the work rather than platform staff. Why are administrators having to deal with the loan book? That should be done by normal staff as it would be if the platform was solvent and the basic cost of doing that charged from recoveries as normal. Most of the work of recovery is done by the specific IP appointed on the individual loan anyway. The way it being done creates a conflict of interest between the interests of creditors for whom the administrators work but derive no benefit from the recoveries and the lenders who derive the benefit from the work but arent represented by the administrators. Fundamentally flawed system which the FCA failed to consider.
|
|
wuzimu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 735
|
Post by wuzimu on Jul 30, 2021 10:49:10 GMT
Yes ilmoro is spot on in describing that unresolved tension with P2P failure
I would add that at some point Moorfields will probably apply for a Berkeley Applegate order - IE court sanction to raid the trust assets for their fees.
Also in a number of loans it appears to me MT made misrepresentations in the loan promotion and therefore owe lenders a civil liability. That would make lenders creditors to the extent of their loss.
The is no MT action group so such claims have not been articulated as a group.IMO, MT weren't as bad as Lendy or FS, but I can easily see a range of failings that should make lenders creditors, and that would resolve a little the tension described by ilmoro.
Anybody fancy starting MTAG?
I can't as I'm fully committed on Lendy... And while there's a vocal faction on this site who say ....lender action is a waste if time, leave it to the experts..... They are so wrong. The CC and LAG at Lendy has already saved lenders £ms in fees and are effective in steering the course of the administration to a better end for lenders by a very long way, compared to if we were not there.
I don't mind helping those who would like to start MTAG and engage with the administrators. The offer is there.... W
|
|