Dot ComUnity Credit Union - ISA

pafpcg

I too received the brochure offering a "Social Impact Community Bond" this morning in the post (franked at a cost of £1.06!) along with the long awaited letters.

The bond is a five-year subordinated loan to the credit union offering 5%pa. I'd be happy to cough up a few hundred pounds to support the credit union (as a current investor I have a vested interest in seeing it prosper), but with a minimum set at £5,000 I'm not convinced I can afford to risk that much.

As regards the letter, which says it's private and confidential and the contents are not to be publicised, I'll comment only on my reaction to it, which is that I'm not surprised by the regulator's dissatisfaction with their "creative" proposal to meet the funding gap, but I wish them well.

darren72

What annoys me most about 'the letter' is the fact they are still referring to the restrictions placed on them as 'voluntary' !

MARTYM8`

darren72 wrote: »

What annoys me most about 'the letter' is the fact they are still referring to the restrictions placed on them as 'voluntary' !

Do you mean the 'voluntary restrictions that have been imposed with the regulator'. Voluntary - but imposed.

Seems they may speaking hypothetically still be short of their capital reserves requirement - - but even if they do meet that what happens when potential mass ISA withdrawal time comes on 5 May and surely they drop below the requirements again?

Archi_Bald

I did not receive any letter. What did it say?

Archi_Bald

Steve_xx wrote: »

That's a bit curious really, since they are protected (in general) by the FSCS. So then, it seems that they as an entity can pick and choose the types if savings that are protected under the FSCS?

I believe they always had some of their accounts outside FSCS. One example are their share accounts.

It's a thoroughly shady outfit.

MARTYM8`

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I did not receive any letter. What did it say?

Last sentence says:

'You are receiving this correspondence as a shareholder of the credit union. The information is not to be publicised'

Am I allowed to say that?

I think the general gist is this saga still has a long way to go.

Archi_Bald

Was your letter in the same envelope as the brochure, or was it sent separately?

masonic

Steve_xx wrote: »

That's a bit curious really, since they are protected (in general) by the FSCS. So then, it seems that they as an entity can pick and choose the types if savings that are protected under the FSCS?

All savings would be protected, but these aren't savings. It is probably a mini bond (a corporate bond that isn't tradable on the secondary markets). Higher risk than standard corporate bonds and similar to these energy bonds.

Steve_xx

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I believe they always had some of their accounts outside FSCS. One example are their share accounts.

It's a thoroughly shady outfit.

Ah right, I see what you mean. Nobody with good sense would surely choose to invest with them without the assurance of the FSCS protection. Though it may be that some who do choose to invest will not be aware of their currect restricted status.

I think it's telling that no member of their organisation has chosen to comment here when they are fully aware of the existence of this thread. They could easily make some comment that would go some way to allaying the concerns raised here. So, one wonders why it is is that they don't, or cannot?

This is likely to be brought to a head when the first anniversary of the ISA's is due and the likelihood, in the absence of any assurances they may feel they are able to give, that huge amounts of money withdrawals are made on them.

MARTYM8`

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Was your letter in the same envelope as the brochure, or was it sent separately?

No - I didn't get any brochure just a letter.

PS You may wish to check your PMs.