Peer-to-peer lending sites: MSE guide discussion

AdrianC

economic wrote: »

But Col were FCA authorized up until i think end of jan. What if others lose FCA authorization status suddenly? what then?

Collateral were operating under interim FCA authorisation. We don't (yet) know whether they were refused, failed to renew, or what.

Platforms operating under full FCA auth shouldn't get it withdrawn. There's a good status list over on P2PIF.

Fatbritabroad

They had interim authorisation as has been said above and allegedly didn't seem to understand the difference which doesnt bode well although by all accounts they came across very well to far more experienced investors than me

thenewcomer

if i do get back my money from col, i am never going to invest with them anymore.
i dont find it honest that they did not inform investors about their FCA authorisation status. only spread the fame, but hide the dirty works under the carpet.

keyboardworrier

A bit of a round up of the situation here

http://www.p2pfinancenews.co.uk/2018/03/01/p2p-lender-collateral-goes-into-administration/

All monies that are sat on the platform and are not invested are ring-fenced in a separate client account and will be returned to investors after the administrator has obtained control of the bank account and carried out a reconciliation, the update said.
The administrator is purportedly looking into the possibility of the website being opened so that customers can view the balance of their investments, although this will not happen until next week at the earliest.

economic

keyboardworrier wrote: »

A bit of a round up of the situation here

http://www.p2pfinancenews.co.uk/2018/03/01/p2p-lender-collateral-goes-into-administration/

All monies that are sat on the platform and are not invested are ring-fenced in a separate client account and will be returned to investors after the administrator has obtained control of the bank account and carried out a reconciliation, the update said.
The administrator is purportedly looking into the possibility of the website being opened so that customers can view the balance of their investments, although this will not happen until next week at the earliest.

How will the administrators get paid? Is there enough income coming in from the loans to pay them or will they also need to be paid from the cash sitting in lender accounts?

AdrianC

The administrator's fees come ONLY from the company's assets.
Money lent to borrowers is not the company's assets.
Money awaiting drawdown is not the company's assets.
Cash held by clients is not the company's assets.
The company's assets are drawn from their fees and their margin on rates.

Collateral have not been placed into administration because they are insolvent.

economic

AdrianC wrote: »

The administrator's fees come ONLY from the company's assets.
Money lent to borrowers is not the company's assets.
Money awaiting drawdown is not the company's assets.
Cash held by clients is not the company's assets.
The company's assets are drawn from their fees and their margin on rates.

Collateral have not been placed into administration because they are insolvent.

Yes but doesn't mean they are also not insolvent. Its not been confirmed yet.

what happens int he situation when there are no assets to pay administrators? Clearly no administrator will touch it in which case investors will be left waiting forever?

AdrianC

economic wrote: »

Yes but doesn't mean they are also not insolvent. Its not been confirmed yet.

Yes, it apparently has - by the administrator, in an email quoted over there.

what happens int he situation when there are no assets to pay administrators? Clearly no administrator will touch it in which case investors will be left waiting forever?

The administrator is already appointed, and is legally obliged to complete the task, AIUI. They have also confirmed that un-lent client funds are in a client account, so safe.

fun4everyone

I am curious as to exactly why they did not have FCA authorisation for the past month.

1) They removed the line about being FCA authorised from the footer of all emails dated 1st Feb 2018 or later so they definitely knew they did not have a licence.

2) Terms and conditions changed to suggest being unlicenced meant money was not segregated. More proof they knew they were operating unlicenced.

So what happened? Did they just not pay the fee? Did they "forget" to reapply? Were they non compliant and had the licence pulled?

I cant see them being non compliant and having it pulled as surely that would have been an immediate shut down, not one a month later.

I guess it will come out in the end. I am grateful despite the changes to the terms they appear to still have been compliant. People on the p2p forum reporting the administrator is saying all the cash is there and we should be getting 100p in the pound. They are also reporting that the FCA forced this administration and Collateral will be paying for it out of their loan set up fees.

Flobberchops

What a crazy few months it's been for P2P. Collateral folding, MoneyThing seemingly defaulting every other loan, two of my ReBS loans are up the swanney... thank goodness Ablrate seems to be standing strong still or I'd consider packing the whole lark in.