ERUDIO student loans help

erudioed

Great research Mr Mcguffin, it certainly does look like an even more acute stitch up/coup by these organisations/individuals. In fact, it isnt the correct term, but it looks like the stock market equivalent of insider trading.

erudioed

It does make one wonder if the UK makes money or loses from this deal involving shell companies. Assuming most of the profits flow back out to the US or end up at some non-english tax-haven, any profit on the loans (and i would assume them to make at least double their money) made by the Arrow Global consortium would result in a net loss to the english economy. For example, the government makes £160 million for the sale, and some cash in tax on what Arrow collect and other small costs, whilst watching £320 million flow out of the country. I would say that leads to a net loss of £100 odd million and rubbishing the argument that the loan sale is good for the economy. It would have been better to actually wait for the loans in deferment to pass the 25 year mark, whilst collecting from those still paying and hiring a company to track those who had done a runner or defaulted. Still im not a business person, nor do i understand how allowing a Shell Company to be a legal entity ever became legal in the eyes of the law, so what do i know.
Concerning Titlos Plc, which i believe is another Wilmington Trust shell company, it just goes to show how few scrupples these kinds of companies have. How watching a nation go from having the largest middle class to one impoverished, via their role in the looting of Greece, is probably a feather in the Wilmington Trust cap at make such a large profit and then getting the hell out of Greece. However, getting out is an overstatement, and on the back of such a European collapse, companies like Arrow Global have now expanded their reach, moving into Portugal and other countries that have been impoverished in recent times, seeing the consumer debt market as an opportunity. The morality of identifying a business opportunity in a place that has had its economy destroyed and in those people at the bottom who are now unable to maintain previous small debt payments is one of profound horror. These people really are as low as it gets, but conversely deemed some of the 'cleverest, most astute business minds of the day.

Brooker_Dave

Parasites out to make a quick (tax free) buck at the expense of the rest of us.

Mr_McGuffin

From the BIS accounts 2013-14:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329057/BIS_annual_report_and_accounts_2013_-_2014.pdf

This explains the continuing costs of the first loan sales in 1998 and 1999. Under thirty year 'non-cancellable contracts', BIS continues to pay £5 to £6 million pounds a year as subsidies to the purchasers of each of the two tranches of loans sold in 1998 and 1999. See pages 146 158 200.

Student loan debt sale subsidy

'The student debt sale subsidy is the additional cost to the Core Department arising from the Government subsidising the purchaser of the debts beyond the cost that the Government would have incurred had the debts remained in the public sector. This liability arose from loan sales in 1998 and 1999. The subsidy will continue until all the loans are extinguished which is expected to be no earlier than 2028, which is the 30 year duration of the first debt sale agreement.

The annual debt sale subsidy payments are calculated according to a formula set out in the debt sale contracts signed in 1998 and 1999. The subsidy consists of two elements. The interest subsidy element of the payment is calculated as LIBOR plus margin less RPI...

The other key element relates to compensation payable by the Core Department for loan repayments which are deferred or written off, under the terms of the original loan contracts with borrowers.' p 200

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0.

Brooker_Dave

From Mark Filer's handy guide to setting up SPVs in tax havens:

"The Purchase and Sale Agreement
Often running into 150 pages or more, this contract contains
the terms and conditions of the sale by the originator to the
SPV of the assets to be securitised."

Has anyone done a FOI request to get a copy of this?

Brooker_Dave

Mr_McGuffin wrote: »

As I understand it, the use of a trustee of a 'charitable trust' is the usual mechanism by which SPVs ensure the separation of the vehicle and manage the appearance of accounts.

So if Erudio does not actually exist, how do Arrow manage to take people to court?

You would think that anyone taken to court by Arrow Guernsey over an Erudio "debt" would be able to get the case thrown out given it's not Arrow's debt but Erudio's?

Seems like one way traffic, Eurdio's shareholders in their respective tax havens are insulated from legal action, but they can instigate legal action on behalf of Erudio?

anna2007

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

From Mark Filer's handy guide to setting up SPVs in tax havens:

"The Purchase and Sale Agreement
Often running into 150 pages or more, this contract contains
the terms and conditions of the sale by the originator to the
SPV of the assets to be securitised."

Has anyone done a FOI request to get a copy of this?

I did, it was refused again at internal review stage on Thursday, and escalated with ICO the same day. If ICO side with BIS, I can take it to tribunal stage, where ICO decisions can be overturned.

It's not mentioned in the FOI, but I did make the additional point to ICO that the purchase and sales agreements from the two previous sales are publicly available in the Parliamentary Archives, so there's no reason this one shouldn't be available to the public... unless BIS have something to hide (such as less protection for this last tranche of deferred borrowers, for example)!

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sale_of_mortgage_style_student_l_2#comment-58348

Brooker_Dave

anna2007 wrote: »

It's not mentioned in the FOI, but I did make the additional point to ICO that the purchase and sales agreements from the two previous sales are publicly available in the Parliamentary Archives, so there's no reason this one shouldn't be available to the public... unless BIS have something to hide (such as less protection for this last tranche of deferred borrowers, for example)

If one were planning to take Eurdio to court for breach of contract (or some other reason) would it be possible to demand a copy to help prepare for trial given the untransparent nature of Erudio's structure?

gardenia101

Excellent research Mr McGuffin & Anna :beer:

but also quite disheartening as none of the grown ups seem to give a t o s s about how we're being treated.

Having my own struggles with FOS - I'm supposed to make a decision whether to accept my adjudicator's findings before the end of the week, yet she still has to clarify some points she has made, & tell me why she's completely ignored other points. I'm hoping that some are just simple misunderstandings - I've said I didn't think it was helpful that Erudio quoted the 97 regs, yet she says they've quoted the correct ones, so either we're talking about different letters from Erudio (hoping so) or else, well, I'm scuppered if she doesn't undersatnd which regs apply :rotfl:

As she's explained other points well, I'm going with the misunderstanding reason for now...

The leaving out of some of my concerns (mainly the FPN & "payment holidays", both of which she's just ignored ) makes me more convinced that FOS are following some kind of party line - or am I just being paranoid?

Very unimpressed with Erudio hiding the FPN on their website rather than containing it on their DAF. Not that Erudio have impressed me in any way but that seems very sneaky. And why a full & condensed FPN? If it's important enough to form part of the conditions that we're expected to sign, then shouldn't there just be one version?

Could this work in practice? I'm assuming not & that Erudio have an ulterior motive that will only be beneficial to them, based on my personal dealings with them (& this thread) but if I were to suspend reality for a moment & toe that party line - can somebody make an argument for it being a positive thing? I'm not seeing any.

zombi

Funny you should say that about the FOS adjudicator. Mine seemed to completely ignore several of the points I raised also. Not least the one about the unauthorised money taken from my account...