The House Crowd has gone bust.

masonic

metamin said:

According to some news outlets, the administrators are claiming, "[They said] it is not expected to have a material impact on investors."
I don't understand how this would be the case - although the properties are ringfenced in separate entities from THC, surely there's little chance that the winding down of the company within a year or so by selling assets fairly quickly via auctions etc. won't lead to a loss of potential earnings investors could have earned if they stayed in business, and/or interest or interest on interest promised, or in the worst case, capital.

I have seen such statements made in relation to other failed P2P providers, those who suffered the outcome first hand would beg to differ. Just looking at one aspect that will adversely impact investors, the administrators will charge fees against asset realisations that would not have been there otherwise, and said fees are by no means insignificant. Meanwhile the creditors of the company will still be entitled to any service fees the provider normally charges (and these typically rank ahead of distributions to investors).

DontReuseUserNamesAcrossSites

This seems like a learning experience for p2p investment. The ringfencing doesn't work in practice. This needs to be improved. I think it can be improved, somehow. I'd like to know how.

As an aside, This renews my concern about banks and brokers whereby your money with a subsidiary bank is only as safe as the bank that owns it.