stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 26, 2018 10:56:39 GMT
Shouldn't this thread be deleted?
In general my preference would be for forum posts to be limited exclusively to discussion about loans, and in particular their achievable valuations (which is the bit that P2P lenders in general have been poor at)
All the other posts, moaning about platforms are a bit tedious, if you don't like a platform, stop investing.
I know it seems a bit black and white, but that's my opinion.
Agree, this thread should have never really been started and could have been answered in a PM or email to the platform directly, then a thread if not answered satisfactorily - question answered, move on - at least lock the thread if not wanting to delete
|
|
|
Post by oxford101 on Jan 26, 2018 11:08:22 GMT
I am also not an accountant and am only here to make P2P investments based upon my understanding of the loan.
Platform integrity is important, of course, but Col appears to be one of the best with regard to lender engagement.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,233
Likes: 6,038
|
Post by registerme on Jan 26, 2018 13:21:01 GMT
Collateral Rep 1. Yes, the P2PIF is independent. None of the staff are paid or receive any other compensation for their efforts in maintaining this forum. None of the staff are beholden in any way to any platform or industry body. 2. The fact that you have not received a reply to your report should not be taken as an indication that no attention has been paid to it. In this case it was felt that a public discussion of the issues raised was the correct approach. 3. The existence of DD Central, and platform rep access to it (or lack thereof), is irrelevant to the subject at hand. 4. Consideration of platform risk is an essential aspect of P2P lending. Lenders are, in every case, investing funds via what are startup businesses. Having a view on the operational risks faced by such businesses is useful, as is understanding if there is any balance sheet pressure. 5. You haven't actually addressed any of the questions raised regarding what might be a platform loan, and therefore balance sheet risk. That's your prerogative. Just as it is the prerogative of lenders to consider what that might mean. 6. You might respond to such a query were it raised privately, but were the answer to be material any response would likely have to be made public. 7. Many of the newer platforms that I can think of that have participated on the P2PIF have gone through a cycle of enjoying the exposure and the sometimes considerable flow of lender funds arising from it, and then resenting the scrutiny and the demands placed on their time as they scale. In my opinion those that continue to engage continue to benefit, but it is not a one way street, and it is not "free" to the platforms in that engagement costs staff time, and sometimes results in questions being asked that are difficult to answer. 8. Setting up Q and A functionality on your platform is an excellent idea, but nobody should be under any illusions as to any guarantees about the integrity, objectivity or independence of such a facility - vis every other platform forum or Q and A function. Equally such a step would not preclude discussion here (or on any other forum) about the loans in question or the platform in general. 9. It would be to everybody's benefit if Collateral were to address any points raised about any loan or indeed the platform itself where they feel that they are incorrect, misunderstood, based on faulty assumptions, or lacking in context.
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 654
Likes: 519
|
Post by ianj on Jan 26, 2018 19:19:25 GMT
Quite a lot that didn't directly address the post it was supposedly responding to. Collateral Rep , your only reference to the preceding post states.... I deliberately make no comment on 'other posts', only to that referenced above, nor will I express any view on matters not associated to mrclondon 's comments therein. To my eye, admittedly untrained in business analysis, I see no suggestion that anything has been done that shouldn't have been done, only that a combination of circumstances appear to exist that nobody (in this forum at any rate) had previously commented on, and that this situation might, emphasis on might, have a future bearing on platform stability. If any contributor here were to find some information, make interpretations based on a current understanding in relation to that information, then ask questions in order to either ensure their grasp of the subject was correct, or be advised where and why they were off target (all the while stressing that this was not an area of personal expertise), they would, IMO, be justified to be more than a tad miffed to be told they were making wild assumptions. Just like forum members, platforms are entitled to their opinions, but by not commenting, (presumably deliberately, and with no explanation), on the information revealed and resultant interpretations you may now be deemed by the more cynical in the lender community to have now joined the ranks of some longer-established P2P names that only appear to espouse transparency when it's to their own advantage. N.B. I have no axe to grind with Collateral (currently having c15% of my P2P investment here), just not greatly enamoured by the evasive nature of your last post, and it's personalised content. (Minor) rant over!
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jan 26, 2018 22:42:32 GMT
I have not had time to read the entire contents of this thread and some of the lengthy posts which have been made since my earlier and very brief contribution.
I would add only a few points which I consider to be salient.
1. Mr C London has obviously invested a lot of his time and knowledge into providing very helpful information on this forum both as a poster and as an administrator. Being an administrator of an internet forum is a rather thankless task for which there is no pay and I would personally like to thank him for all his efforts which have been of great benefit to me personally and I am sure all other forum users. Therefore I think it is a little harsh to criticise him personally for raising an issue which he obviously thought was worth raising.
2. I have great faith in the collateral platform and the people who run it and the way they communicate with us and they have established a good level of trust with me as an investor and I believe the information they passed on to me.
3. While I have had my disagreements with cooling dude over certain posts on this forum I do not dispute the fact that he is a very well informed investor and somebody who does a lot of leg work that some others are too lazy to do. He seems to be satisfied on this subject and feels that given the information that has been made public and the information confirmed by Collateral, that the thread should perhaps be altered or perhaps even removed. I will not argue with him on that point because I think it is very important that a forum such as this allows no content that could damage the reputation of a platform and, through that, damage the interests of all us investors.
4. I would just say again a point that has been made by others which is that anybody can submit a planning application in respect of any land or property and you do not have to be the legal owner of said land or property in order to do as much. I believe there is a requirement to send a notice to the legal owner in such a situation but no requirement for the applicant to be the legal owner.
|
|
keith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 118
Likes: 72
|
Post by keith on Jan 27, 2018 5:32:48 GMT
Just a small example of the PP/Ownership thing. I am in the process of selling a house. The sale has been agreed in principle although no contracts exchanged. I discovered to my amusement the other day that the prospective buyer had applied for (and has now obtained) planning permission to do some alterations. On the form lodged with the council it does indeed state that only the owner can apply for PP. However, I suspect this is a condition that is often breached and should not necessarily carry any negative connotations. Now to get other issues solved and sell the damned house
|
|
7d7
Member of DD Central
Posts: 134
Likes: 205
|
Post by 7d7 on Jan 28, 2018 13:49:11 GMT
It is of no surprise that this thread has come to a standstill. Neutral questioning would have achieved the desired result. I trust engagement with lenders remains unchanged as that is what makes a platform quite appealing.
|
|
empirica
Member of DD Central
Posts: 326
Likes: 235
|
Post by empirica on Jan 28, 2018 21:56:27 GMT
I'm fairly new to all platforms but Collateral are one of my largest and growing. What am I missing here? As the title says "Are Collateral (UK) Ltd undertaking developments themselves?" An answer to this is... "probably not". The land in question is owned by a company that is not COL, but COL is the lender (not a loan on the currently on the platform). The company did have connections to COL, but this is no longer true. COL has submitted some PP; they have addressed this quite nicely in their above post (they have done so on behalf of the borrower - and we have seen other platforms do the same), but as MrC has pointed out (on DD-C) the PP was signed off with some small print indicating that this should be done by the owner of the land. This looks like an admin error, probably the agent not COL. Let's be clear; you don't have to be the owner of any land to submit PP - I have lost count of the number of times that the PP applicant is not the owner. In any case, a PP application is not proof of ownership. Only the Land Registry can tell you that. Thank you. That's made things a bit clearer.
|
|
empirica
Member of DD Central
Posts: 326
Likes: 235
|
Post by empirica on Jan 28, 2018 22:09:13 GMT
I'm fairly new to all platforms but Collateral are one of my largest and growing. What am I missing here? I'm currently drafting a post to pull together the strands, in which I will seek further clarification from COL on a couple of areas. It may be tomorrow before I get it posted on here. (The thread title may no longer be the best, but I'm lacking clarity at present as to what question it should be asking instead) Might I be correct in thinking that the concern was whether Collateral had acted within the rules and regulations for a P2P company? If so, has it been demonstrated as to whether they have or not? Some posts suggests what they done isn't unheard and is generally considered OK. However actions (and standards) that I and other individuals may observe and adopt presumably need to be elevated a notch or two when considering a financial organization dealing with public funds. At least these are actions and circumstances (land ownership, planning submissions etc) that are in the public domain, so nothing underhand has been attempted?
|
|