Peer-to-peer lending sites: MSE guide discussion

takesyourchances

fun4everyone wrote: »

Yeah, speculation but could this be from loans that were partially filled but not drawn down?

The vast majority of my collateral funds were invested and drawn down thankfully (as long as that wasn't a lie/fraud). Did have a tiny amount in cash on the account.

Goodness knows, but there would of been a lot of money sitting in partly filled loans, the last lot of property loans really struggled and Bolton 15% struggled.

At one point I had maybe £5500 invested with Collateral, but as it got more property heavy I started to withdraw and I was at £4600 invested when it went pear shaped. I am near sure all of mine was in drawn down loans and had no cash and was waiting on interest to withdraw which never came that month

Going on the court feedback today it seems more will come out about the running of it. I shudder to think of single investments of £70k at the peak going through single loans from single investors. Also if I read it right was quite surprised only 300 investors if that was right?

fun4everyone

Yes it was only a small site, probably a lot of the money that came in wasn't just from individual private accounts.

As an individual I have very close to the same amount in this as you - it's a frustrating amount but there are people in this thread with more and I have been reading on p2p forum some private investors there saying they had 6 figures in collateral.

I am quite relaxed about everything going forward - the thing that actually wound me up the most about this whole situation was when they just took the platform down and we had no communication telling us what was going on for over 48 hrs. It appears now from this court case the owners took collateral offline before the FCA got involved.

takesyourchances

fun4everyone wrote: »

Yes it was only a small site, probably a lot of the money that came in wasn't just from individual private accounts.

As an individual I have very close to the same amount in this as you - it's a frustrating amount but there are people in this thread with more and I have been reading on p2p forum some private investors there saying they had 6 figures in collateral.

I am quite relaxed about everything going forward - the thing that actually wound me up the most about this whole situation was when they just took the platform down and we had no communication telling us what was going on for over 48 hrs. It appears now from this court case the owners took collateral offline before the FCA got involved.

I knew it was small, but never would of guessed just 300 to be honest,. I am just glad I reduced down a bit or it would of been around £5500 in this situation. We are similar amounts it seems and it is frustrating.

I reduced my P2P down after this and it peaked just over 17K plus overall, I must count up again but including Collateral I guess am in the 13K bracket still in P2P. So £4600 out of that is a fair bit and I agree it is frustrating when I think of it, which was avoiding for a while until today

There was some big money going in, I did see single 70k investments one point, lots of 10K etc I would not like to have 100k tied up now in this and I understand there is a lot more involved than my sums.

Yes how they took their site offline and put the server rubbish up and no communication was highly stressful before the FCA got involved. Surely they should be held accountable for their actions as this moves on. Although it may not sound it but I am more relaxed after the ruling today that something will come back, how much I don't know but anything back is better than complete loss.

thenewcomer

rubbish currie brothers.

i am glad we have a new administrator. so much lie up to this point and i wonder what else is still hidden.

masonic

takesyourchances wrote: »

I knew it was small, but never would of guessed just 300 to be honest,.

Just 300? Do you mean the number of lenders? According to Refresh Recovery, there were 1142 lenders at the time COL entered administration. That's one of the few details in their leaked report that is probably accurate.

In any case, it seems like things are finally moving in the right direction.

The court transcripts will make interesting reading. Seems likely the Currie brothers will be appearing in court again regarding this matter.

I had some misgivings about the FCA's involvement in the whole debacle, but the outcome yesterday was the best we could have hoped for.

Let's hope the FCA closes the loophole in its online system allowing firms to change their registered name without review. Without that, Collateral never could have attracted even the small number of lenders it had and would have been reported for performing regulated activities without permission much sooner.

thenewcomer

masonic- i think there is more hidden reason why collateral is in trouble, rather than just the mere fca approval saga.

investment firms do not need fca approval to run. (this is from my understanding after doing some reasearch last week). there are other platforms without fca approval.

i suspect curries brothers have been misusing lenders/ creditors money for their own benefits, rather than proper p2p. why would they shut down their company before fca got involved and then in RR letter it says fca was already invovled? why did they transferred over 400k into private accounts? (again, my speculation, i could be wrong!- i hope i am wrong)

masonic

thenewcomer wrote: »

masonic- i think there is more hidden reason why collateral is in trouble, rather than just the mere fca approval saga.

investment firms do not need fca approval to run. (this is from my understanding after doing some reasearch last week). there are other platforms without fca approval.

There clearly is more to this story, which was alluded to by the FCA when they suggested to those who attended proceedings that they ought to obtain the court transcripts, which apparently contain a lot more than was actually said in court.

I'd be interested in the sources that led you to the conclusion that investment firms do not need FCA approval to run. Section 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 sets out a very simple definition of what constitutes a regulated activity and Schedule 2 of the same act lists the following as specific examples: Dealing in investments, Deposit taking, Safekeeping and administration of assets, Managing investments, Using computer-based systems for giving investment instructions. Each of those activities is described in a bit more detail and would appear applicable to COL's business activities, as they would be to any well known investment firm all of which are authorised and regulated by the FCA.

There are unregulated types of investments, such as mini-bonds, but P2P investments, equities listed on recognised exchanges and most collective investment funds are covered.

I don't think there is any remaining doubt about either of the following facts:
- Collateral (UK) Limited never had Interim Permission from the FCA
- Collateral (UK) Limited was carrying out a regulated activity without FCA authorisation, which is unlawful

So I'd invite any evidence to the contrary.

i suspect curries brothers have been misusing lenders/ creditors money for their own benefits, rather than proper p2p. why would they shut down their company before fca got involved and then in RR letter it says fca was already invovled? why did they transferred over 400k into private accounts? (again, my speculation, i could be wrong!- i hope i am wrong)

Early on there was reference made by GC to them having to act quickly owing to a legal case about to be brought against them. At the time, it was assumed this was being brought by the FCA, but it's clear the FCA was unaware of the situation at that time, suggesting another party was taking action - perhaps a big hitter lender, or perhaps that was misinformation.

The £400k being removed shortly before taking the platform offline could be the first/only money siphoned out of the clients account, but there is £1.4m in funds currently unaccounted for and finding these monies will be a priority for BDO.

fun4everyone

shady af..

takesyourchances

masonic wrote: »

Just 300? Do you mean the number of lenders? According to Refresh Recovery, there were 1142 lenders at the time COL entered administration. That's one of the few details in their leaked report that is probably accurate.

In any case, it seems like things are finally moving in the right direction.

The court transcripts will make interesting reading. Seems likely the Currie brothers will be appearing in court again regarding this matter.

I had some misgivings about the FCA's involvement in the whole debacle, but the outcome yesterday was the best we could have hoped for.

Let's hope the FCA closes the loophole in its online system allowing firms to change their registered name without review. Without that, Collateral never could have attracted even the small number of lenders it had and would have been reported for performing regulated activities without permission much sooner.

I read on a forum post somewhere on maybe the P2P forum someone said 300 lenders, it most likely is not right and I was shocked at the thought of just 300. 1142 sounds much more like it.

Yes finally it seems to be moving in the right direction which is good news for everyone and hopefully in due course we will get a good update and a process of return.

I would be very interested in the findings of the court transcripts what was not spoke about on the day, it seems there is more to the Currie brothers activities than we all though and guess it will be a matter of time before it reaches the forums.

It seems we were played by wolfes in sheep's clothing into this reputation they built up last year for the platform and any wrong doing's rightly so they should be held to account in court.

Hopefully the FCA has learnt from this too and as you said closes that loophole.

keepingitfrank

Hi Guys

I've had a couple of messages thanking me for attending the Court yesterday. I would like to clarify that I am not the member that attended court, just pointing everyone in the right direction (as FRANK is not as known yet as the other forum)

Full gratitude should go to Panther on p2pfrankdiscussion.freeforums.net

:-)