|
Post by ablrate on Dec 7, 2019 11:13:46 GMT
Well done ablrate . I logged in this morning and was surprised to see an offer at 97% (I didn't buy it, and not sure if anyone did?) with settlement due today. I understand the reasons for processing the settlement the day following the null interest/capital payments but can I suggest the loan remains paused or restricted to par trading in these circumstances? This will prevent losses/gains from prospective sellers/buyers. There are only two reasons I can fathom as to why someone would place such an offer. The first innocuous enough, because they wanted to make an alternative purchase PDQ and were unable to deposit via debit card. The second is a little more concerning, perhaps yesterdays email didn't reach them and they placed their offer in ignorance of the facts, not the sellers fault. Edit: I guess the complication is that keeping a loan paused when payments are up to date is a manual process and therefore mistakes will happen. That is very good point. A small amount did change hands in 82 before the payment. It may have been related ISA/standard, but we will take a look. The issue is that is was never paused, it was automatically paused due to missed payments. When the zero payments were made it unpaused the loan. We will update the procedure, thanks for pointing this out.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 7, 2019 11:17:01 GMT
Superb job. As many of the 12%+ return platforms fall by the wayside it would appear that Ablrate are one of the few (only?) ones who have managed to get the business model right. Yes, as I may have said before, with these high-rate loans the key is to convince the borrowers that repayment is not optional, and the model provides the resources to back that up. The 'fishwife' demonstrates the need for and the application of that pro-active curation of every loan. This loan would have failed with FS (r.i.p.). But origination is still the problem, as it always has been. It is currently made so much harder with the fallout from failures (shakeout) of other platforms, resulting in a general lack of confidence in p2p. And it is made worse at a difficult time of year by FCA actively discouraging lenders from participation. All platforms have no choice but to welcome it and appreciate the protection given to the lenders, but in my view the problem is that allowing lenders to take a risk with their own cash runs counter to the general political trend of treating the less privileged people like children who have to be kept from harming themselves, and requiring compensation if they make a mistake that involves any loss.
|
|