gt94sss2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 281
Likes: 137
|
Post by gt94sss2 on Nov 10, 2018 19:14:02 GMT
I am sure you are also aware of the need now for everyone to have the same information at the same time, and of course that means you can no longer provide any updates on this forum before these are available on your web site. I believe you try to do this now, but on occasions you are fallen down, but in the future such unintentional 'slips' could cost the unwary money. I await the first threats of litigation when someone feels out of the loop. I fear it won't even be as simple as that. I suspect MT will also now be opening them up to liability if some trade in parts only to find that the platform has not informed potential investors about things like: a) this company has actually been struck off and we didn't know/notice; and b) the annual accounts, which we didn't mention to you, raises concerns about the viability of the firm as a going concern..
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 10, 2018 19:21:52 GMT
As far as I can see the platform merely provides a trading mechanism, not their job to update you on publicly available information (any more than you can expect HL to be liable for you buying BP shares when the price of oil is falling). Insider information is another issue, but it's no worse when the trade is at a premium or discount than when it is at par.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Nov 10, 2018 19:55:52 GMT
The platform isn't merely providing a trading mechanism though it's also supposedly monitoring the loans that it has sourced - which to me would also naturally include monitoring of the borrower (and their many incarnations) - tbh I have half a feeling that that is done inadequately at present by many platforms. variable pricing makes it more important to get on top of that surely. (so not at all like the HL and BP example)
the role of this any other forums will also change with an exploitable market at hand
ho hum
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Nov 10, 2018 20:25:04 GMT
the role of this any other forums will also change with an exploitable market at hand Could not agree more.... Having read how some lenders certainly believe it is their right to exploit others because it's cavate emptor, I firmly believe the unscrupulous will use posts to this forum to talk up or down a particular loan for their own ends. Certain people on here are well respected and an opinion from them will shift opinion. To those who have recently quoted publicly available information, go back and re-read my post, I clearly stated privileged information that emanated from Moneything would cause issues. Of course others will have better access to 'public information', not much that can be done about that, other that limit their advantage by not allowing premiums and discounts - oh that ship has sailed. I have no issue with others believing those who have additional time to research and monitor CH should have an advantage. My issue is with changing the playing field mid-game, I.e. Introducing something that previously did not exist. On all the new CGT complications, I am sure all the additional business Moneything will do because of the changes to their secondary market will offset this increased overhead. Hang on Moneything do not make anything on secondary market sales, maybe they should introduce a charge to cover these, so they do benefit from secondary market activity. Better still only charge for non-par transactions, i.e. the ones causing the issues.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Nov 10, 2018 20:43:23 GMT
the role of this any other forums will also change with an exploitable market at hand Could not agree more.. .Of course others will have better access to 'public information', not much that can be done about that, other that limit their advantage by not allowing premiums and discounts - oh that ship has sailed. I have no issue with others believing those who have additional time to research and monitor CH should have an advantage. Better still only charge for non-par transactions, i.e. the ones causing the issues.I don’t have the time or inclination to monitor every, potentially, value sensitive bit of information. Agree make a charge for those trying to exploit the others. However, P2P is a sideshow where I try to earn a bit extra. This change to cater, for professionals, trying to exploit the less time able means I’m out.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,906
Likes: 11,127
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 10, 2018 20:57:09 GMT
Could all the Virgil Kint's on MT raise their hands so we know who could be Keyser Soze.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Nov 10, 2018 20:59:53 GMT
I don’t have the time or inclination to monitor every, potentially, value sensitive bit of information. Agree make a charge for those trying to exploit the others. However, P2P is a sideshow where I try to earn a bit extra. This change to cater, for professionals, trying to exploit the less time able means I’m out. Earlier in this thread someone suggested that by moving to catering for the 'professional' investor would bring or retain Moneything business. Your post seems to agree with what I believe, it will keep the 'sharks' happy, the vocal majority on this forum, but in the long term whether 'smaller fish' remain happy to be exploited seems unlikely. This is probably a discussion for another thread, but I think this change signals Moneything's move away from small retail lenders to trying to attract larger lenders with deeper pockets. I cannot blame them for wanting to grow their 'family' business, there does not seem to be enough of the type of small loans they are good at. They went into property loans, defaults started happening, this caused a loss of faith, which meant the glacial secondary markets, which some see as something to exploit.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 11, 2018 8:22:01 GMT
the role of this any other forums will also change with an exploitable market at hand Could not agree more.... Having read how some lenders certainly believe it is their right to exploit others because it's cavate emptor, I firmly believe the unscrupulous will use posts to this forum to talk up or down a particular loan for their own ends. Certain people on here are well respected and an opinion from them will shift opinion. To those who have recently quoted publicly available information, go back and re-read my post, I clearly stated privileged information that emanated from Moneything would cause issues. Of course others will have better access to 'public information', not much that can be done about that, other that limit their advantage by not allowing premiums and discounts - oh that ship has sailed. I have no issue with others believing those who have additional time to research and monitor CH should have an advantage. My issue is with changing the playing field mid-game, I.e. Introducing something that previously did not exist. On all the new CGT complications, I am sure all the additional business Moneything will do because of the changes to their secondary market will offset this increased overhead. Hang on Moneything do not make anything on secondary market sales, maybe they should introduce a charge to cover these, so they do benefit from secondary market activity. Better still only charge for non-par transactions, i.e. the ones causing the issues. I'm not sure how allowing trading only at par limits the advantage of inside info. If i know the loan is a dud, dumping it at par rather than a discount seems like an upside to me. Seeing it at a fat discount would be more likely to give the buyers a hint all is not well .. right now they just look at the volume. Charging for non par sales sounds like more book keepng work for all parties.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Nov 11, 2018 8:46:50 GMT
Charging for non par sales sounds like more book keepng work for all parties. But at least Moneything would be getting something for the work involved, unlike the current situation.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 11, 2018 14:09:47 GMT
Charging for any/all SM sales would get them more. However any charging runs up the book-keeping (for them, and for the sellers) and probably damps down the SM to just people desperate to sell at any cost. On ABL (for instance) I often have stuff listed which I am willing, but not desperate, to sell (typically pretty close to par). If there was any significant cost associated with that I wouldn't list it, and thus I'd probably buy less in the first place.
I personally run a two tier 'want' list - how much I actually want-want (and might pay extra for) and some higher amount I am willing to buy/hold for a while (and how much may depend on what the price looks like). The difference between the two is a trade-able buffer.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 747
Likes: 738
|
Post by eeyore on Nov 12, 2018 9:25:39 GMT
Charging for any/all SM sales would get them more. However any charging runs up the book-keeping (for them, and for the sellers) and probably damps down the SM to just people desperate to sell at any cost. On ABL (for instance) I often have stuff listed which I am willing, but not desperate, to sell (typically pretty close to par). If there was any significant cost associated with that I wouldn't list it, and thus I'd probably buy less in the first place.
So the argument is that MT charging a fee for selling a loan part would reduce the size of the for-sale queue? Isn't that the primary objective of the proposed solution for the perceived problem? A charge, after all, would be an automatic discount-price for the seller. Have I missed the discussion of this option and are there good reasons for its rejection? I can see that it would decrease the profits to be made by traders but would improve MT's income.
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Nov 12, 2018 9:45:40 GMT
Credit to MT for asking what the lenders want.
At present returns on our capital earn us interest, but once premiums are introduced some of the profits earned on the platform will go to traders and the rest will remain as interest. Whilst some investors have the cash on hand, time and most importantly expertise, to trade, and may find that worthwhile, the reduction in effective returns for the non-trading retail market will certainly limit the appeal to those providing the capital.
For MT to be a success it needs to make an acceptable margin of profit, charging borrowers a fair amount of interest/fees for access to capital, and offering lenders sufficient interest to attract their capital. Introducing premiums will facilitate trading and reduce the return of capital from lending, so undermines MT's basic business model.
|
|
andy1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 103
Likes: 107
|
Post by andy1 on Nov 12, 2018 10:32:41 GMT
Credit to MT for asking what the lenders want. But I think they would have had a different result if they had polled lenders for a vote, possibly weighted by account holdings, rather than asking the forum. Erm - they didn't ask the forum; they sent out an email survey to all lenders. The poll here is nothing to do with MT.
|
|
dawn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 308
Likes: 275
|
Post by dawn on Nov 12, 2018 10:33:21 GMT
Credit to MT for asking what the lenders want. But I think they would have had a different result if they had polled lenders for a vote, possibly weighted by account holdings, rather than asking the forum. The forum is full of investors with a lot of time on their hand and interest and expertise, compared to the average retail investor. At present returns on our capital earn us interest, but once premiums are introduced some of the profits earned on the platform will go to traders and the rest will remain as interest. Whilst some investors have the cash on hand, time and most importantly expertise, to trade, and may find that worthwhile, the reduction in effective returns for the non-trading retail market will certainly limit the appeal to those providing the capital. For MT to be a success it needs to make an acceptable margin of profit, charging borrowers a fair amount of interest/fees for access to capital, and offering lenders sufficient interest to attract their capital. Introducing premiums will facilitate trading and reduce the return of capital from lending, so undermines MT's basic business model. Moneything sent out the survey via email so all lenders should have received it. They didn't ask here on the forum - although it has been discussed in depth here. Whether they weighted the responses by account holdings - only they know. Edit - crossed with andy1
|
|
|
Post by SophieThing on Nov 12, 2018 11:33:49 GMT
To Moneything..... Now the decision has been made to allow variable pricing, I hope you are going to stop having 'private' chats with privileged lenders over the telephone. You have talked to me in the past, but I have never attempted to elicit anything which may now be price sensitive information. I have read that others have acknowledged your previous unintentional slips. I am sure you are also aware of the need now for everyone to have the same information at the same time, and of course that means you can no longer provide any updates on this forum before these are available on your web site. I believe you try to do this now, but on occasions you are fallen down, but in the future such unintentional 'slips' could cost the unwary money. I await the first threats of litigation when someone feels out of the loop. A lot of the advocates of variable pricing have used the stock market as an example of why variable pricing works - supply and demand etc. I am sure everyone is aware of the strict information and disclosure rules which govern those companies whose stock is publicly traded on the stock exchange. As I wrote above I sincerely hope Moneything will now only release information to everyone at the same time - no favourites, just because they call in a lot. Now onto what I think, from your (Moneything's) point of view will be an unfortunate effect of your move to variable pricing, those people who scream for information about their loans now, will cry every harder in the future, as information could mean profit, or less of a loss. There are people on this forum who diarise every comment you make and demand you provide the update you suggested you would. If you find this demand for information annoying now, just watch what happens in the future. We have discussed what P2P ought to be in a 'perfect' world, one where lenders do their DD on a loan, and if they invest do not chase you for monitoring, trusting that you will do a professional job. You have, in my opinion, created a situation where information will be 'king' and everyone will expect it fairly, I predict you will find silence the fairest information distribution. I will not blame you for this but others will! Overly dramatic it may prove to be, but just a I said the test of your platform would be when you started having defaults, I believe you will come to rue the decision to bring a whole new information handling regime on yourself. I do not believe I will be alone in being willing to consider action if I am disadvantaged because some lenders seem to have better access to information that comes from you as the source. Good luck in the brave new world you have taken Moneything into. Hi cedarcourtcapital, We don’t treat any of our lenders differently and we have no privileged club. That would go against the FCA principle of ‘treating customers fairly’. We actually very seldom receive calls from lenders. In the early days, we thought it was good customer service to be helpful and answer lender questions. I think we had one or two lenders who called us regularly to ask questions. We realised the possible issues around this and for quite some time it has been our policy not to give out any information to lenders over the phone about loans. We don’t discuss loans at all on the phone and our customer service is restricted only to answering general questions about MoneyThing, the market in general, or tech support on how to use the platform. If someone calls to ask for an update, they are either directed to the platform to read it, or we tell them what the update says. Sometimes we take their question and answer it in the next update to all lenders. This approach is also covered on our T&C’s: 9.4 We provide telephone and email support to provide assistance with the general administration of your MoneyThing account and to provide information about MoneyThing. We do not discuss Lending Opportunities, Borrowers or updates relating to Loans with individual Lender Members via telephone and email support, as we are not regulated to provide investment advice and to do so would not be treating all our customers fairly. cedarcourtcapital- I think I may know who you are from your comments. I’ve not given you any privileged information on the phone and I’ve also explained why I haven’t done so. Any lender can call us at any time- some choose to and others don’t. None are privileged just because they call. We do like talking with our customers, as you know since you’ve given me your views on lots of topics. You’re not privileged as a result; we’ll talk to everyone (just not about loans). In regards to updates- we don’t regret introducing updates. It makes things easier from an information flow perspective as lenders know what to expect from us. OK it’s not perfect- borrowers don’t always get back to us, updates are sometimes later than expected. Sometimes lenders want a ‘non-update’ just to say we are still on top of things, others hate ‘non-updates’…. you can’t please everyone. However, the system is fair. Everyone has the same information at the same time. Kind regards Sophie
|
|