|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 12, 2018 11:57:40 GMT
Thanks for that reassurance SophieThing, its a world away from the NDA + additional information approach adopted by some of the other platforms, which I suspect started down this route mainly as a neccessity to attract underwriting capital.
The absense of underwriting (and the disclosure infrastructure to support it) does slightly beg the question as to how MT can manage to fill larger loans which are perceived to be higher risk whilst sentiment in the p2p sector is depressed, but that is a topic for another thread.
Of more relevance to this thread, is a suggestion that MT considers automating the alert emails from CH, and automatically suspending loans when the company status changes to Disolved or Administration or Receiver Action etc. It shouldn't be too difficult - I have set up message rules in my email client to file the alerts in one of six folders (Admin / Strike-off / Accounts / Charges / No Update / Update ) based on the content of the email. I'm quite sure any bot operators will be taking this a step further and automatically selling on such alerts.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 747
Likes: 738
|
Post by eeyore on Nov 12, 2018 12:40:38 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. 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. There was an email distributed on Friday 9th Nov at c09:56 entitled " MT Survey results are in!". It may have gone to all MT lenders or maybe only to those who responded to the survey. There were 600-odd responses. Based upon the results quoted by MT in the email, several of us on this forum expressed surprise at MT's curious interpretation of the results - but obviously we aren't privy to the full results and the comments collected. Anyway, it's MT's business and we'll have the ultimate "vote" by choosing where and when we make future investments and withdrawals.....
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Nov 12, 2018 16:09:02 GMT
Thanks for that reassurance SophieThing, its a world away from the NDA + additional information approach adopted by some of the other platforms, which I suspect started down this route mainly as a neccessity to attract underwriting capital.
The absense of underwriting (and the disclosure infrastructure to support it) does slightly beg the question as to how MT can manage to fill larger loans which are perceived to be higher risk whilst sentiment in the p2p sector is depressed, but that is a topic for another thread.
Of more relevance to this thread, is a suggestion that MT considers automating the alert emails from CH, and automatically suspending loans when the company status changes to Disolved or Administration or Receiver Action etc. It shouldn't be too difficult - I have set up message rules in my email client to file the alerts in one of six folders (Admin / Strike-off / Accounts / Charges / No Update / Update ) based on the content of the email. I'm quite sure any bot operators will be taking this a step further and automatically selling on such alerts.
I'd go so far as to say that I'd invest proportionately greater sums in platforms implementing this kind of automated suspending of loans. However, it needs to go further and monitor The Gazette where notices appear in advance of Companies House. Bot operators already monitor The Gazette.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 12, 2018 16:36:54 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. No, the argument was that it would reduce peoples's willingness to overinvest occasionally. That might be bad. It would reduce the size of the SM too, but it's not clear whether that is good, bad, or indifferent. The key concern with the SM, imo, is how liquid it is, not how much is potentially available. The stock markets of the world have a few trillion 'for sale' at any time, but that turns out not to be a problem, because i can still sell my 10 quids worth, at some price. It may also depend on whether MT plan a bid, as well as offer, system. That tends, imo, to increase liquidity.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 747
Likes: 738
|
Post by eeyore on Nov 12, 2018 17:30:40 GMT
No, the argument was that it would reduce peoples's willingness to overinvest occasionally. That might be bad. It would reduce the size of the SM too, but it's not clear whether that is good, bad, or indifferent. The key concern with the SM, imo, is how liquid it is, not how much is potentially available. The stock markets of the world have a few trillion 'for sale' at any time, but that turns out not to be a problem, because i can still sell my 10 quids worth, at some price. It may also depend on whether MT plan a bid, as well as offer, system. That tends, imo, to increase liquidity. Thanks for your response. " No, the argument was that it would reduce peoples's willingness to overinvest occasionally. That might be bad." Why? And would the corollary, increasing people's willingness to overinvest, be good? I can appreciate that from the borrower's and the platform's viewpoint getting a loan filled as quickly as possible is good, but from the retail investor's viewpoint? " The key concern with the SM, imo, is how liquid it is, not how much is potentially available." I understand the issue is being able to dispose of a loan quickly, but surely the sheer size of queue of loan parts for some loans is the problem? If I want to dispose of investment my L*** loan, I'll have to wait until the £1M in front of me has sold. If the queue was only £1k, wouldn't I have a better prospect? " The stock markets of the world have a few trillion 'for sale' at any time, but that turns out not to be a problem, because i can still sell my 10 quids worth, at some price" Not sure a comparison with stock exchanges is relevant - for the retail investor, buying and selling is done via a broker to ultimately a market-maker for that equity - it's the market-maker who effectively offers a buy/sell price, buys or sells the share and takes the risk on a sufficiently stable market to make a profit from the buy/sell margin. I doubt P2P is large enough or regulated enough to allow such a 'middle-man' sector to develop yet!
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 12, 2018 18:49:08 GMT
No, the argument was that it would reduce peoples's willingness to overinvest occasionally. That might be bad. It would reduce the size of the SM too, but it's not clear whether that is good, bad, or indifferent. The key concern with the SM, imo, is how liquid it is, not how much is potentially available. The stock markets of the world have a few trillion 'for sale' at any time, but that turns out not to be a problem, because i can still sell my 10 quids worth, at some price. It may also depend on whether MT plan a bid, as well as offer, system. That tends, imo, to increase liquidity. Thanks for your response. " No, the argument was that it would reduce peoples's willingness to overinvest occasionally. That might be bad." Why? And would the corollary, increasing people's willingness to overinvest, be good? I can appreciate that from the borrower's and the platform's viewpoint getting a loan filled as quickly as possible is good, but from the retail investor's viewpoint? Yes, I think it is of benefit to everyone, as long as it doesn't stop folks from getting what they need/want (IMO). The MT allocation system, or even the Ly one, is pretty good at that, so far. The FC one was terrible. " The key concern with the SM, imo, is how liquid it is, not how much is potentially available." I understand the issue is being able to dispose of a loan quickly, but surely the sheer size of queue of loan parts for some loans is the problem? If I want to dispose of investment my L*** loan, I'll have to wait until the £1M in front of me has sold. If the queue was only £1k, wouldn't I have a better prospect? It depends on how fast the queue moves, not how long it is. You are better off at the back of the £1m queue if it's selling at £100k a day, than the back of the £1k queue if it ain't moving. " The stock markets of the world have a few trillion 'for sale' at any time, but that turns out not to be a problem, because i can still sell my 10 quids worth, at some price" Not sure a comparison with stock exchanges is relevant - for the retail investor, buying and selling is done via a broker to ultimately a market-maker for that equity - it's the market-maker who effectively offers a buy/sell price, buys or sells the share and takes the risk on a sufficiently stable market to make a profit from the buy/sell margin. I doubt P2P is large enough or regulated enough to allow such a 'middle-man' sector to develop yet! It's already there for P2p - it's called underwriters. That's effectively what I am doing (on a minute scale) when I buy 'too much' off the ABLRate secondary market at 96%, in the hope it'll either redeem at par, or else that I can sell it for >=96% at some future time.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 713
Likes: 575
|
Post by keystone on Nov 13, 2018 12:44:27 GMT
MoneyThing for tax purposes, will the sale of a loan at a discount be treated as a capital loss and once premiums are enabled will that be treated as a capital gain?
|
|
|
Post by funkymonkey on Nov 13, 2018 13:22:46 GMT
MoneyThing for tax purposes, will the sale of a loan at a discount be treated as a capital loss and once premiums are enabled will that be treated as a capital gain? Why would it be for MT to be concerned in your CGT liability? If you were buying shares, your broker wouldn't be concerned in whether you had made capital gains or not, the onus is on you to work out any tax liability you may have.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Nov 13, 2018 14:18:47 GMT
MoneyThing for tax purposes, will the sale of a loan at a discount be treated as a capital loss and once premiums are enabled will that be treated as a capital gain? Why would it be for MT to be concerned in your CGT liability? If you were buying shares, your broker wouldn't be concerned in whether you had made capital gains or not, the onus is on you to work out any tax liability you may have. I think the questions are fair ones, or at least to my reading of them given the Moneything changes ahead. The questions were not asking whether Moneything would be keeping track of any gains or losses, but asking a tax related question. In your language if I asked my stock broker whether I would be making a capital gain if I sold shares for a profit, I am sure he would say yes. It is up to me to decide how much based on information he has supplied to me when I brought and sold.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 13, 2018 14:22:06 GMT
With the possible exception of FS (who insist their PM loans are Simple Debts), selling on a variable-price SM at a discount to the price you paid results in a capital loss, selling at a premium to the price you paid results in a capital gain.
(ie. if you sell a part bought at 2% discount to someone else at 1% discount, you’ve made a capital gain, not a loss)
|
|
|
Post by slender on Nov 13, 2018 14:41:08 GMT
Now there's no longer a guaranteed exit route when a MT loan reaches its term, and long slow-moving queues have formed on many of the larger MT loans, it seems worthwhile to revisit the question of how MT lenders feel about introducing discounting to help SM liquidity. Same question and answer choices as before, to permit a direct comparison with last timeI wonder if MT have picked up on the change in voting between this poll and the previous one.
The visually apparent switch from 60% No : 34% Yes to an outcome now of 37% No : 60% Yes is obvious enough. What is less notable is the 25% reduction in participants.
If that translates to an equivalent reduction in platform participants now, with a significant number those remaining looking to leave via a discounted SM (as possibly suggested by the reversal in No : Yes ratio, not to mention the unquestionable lack of interest in MTBJ96), I wonder how many are simply voting for a set of keys to the exit now (knowing there will be a cost to themselves), rather than the creation of any 'market' to be used in the future.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 713
Likes: 575
|
Post by keystone on Nov 13, 2018 14:47:38 GMT
MoneyThing for tax purposes, will the sale of a loan at a discount be treated as a capital loss and once premiums are enabled will that be treated as a capital gain? Why would it be for MT to be concerned in your CGT liability? If you were buying shares, your broker wouldn't be concerned in whether you had made capital gains or not, the onus is on you to work out any tax liability you may have. I think the questions are fair ones, or at least to my reading of them given the Moneything changes ahead. The questions were not asking whether Moneything would be keeping track of any gains or losses, but asking a tax related question. In your language if I asked my stock broker whether I would be making a capital gain if I sold shares for a profit, I am sure he would say yes. It is up to me to decide how much based on information he has supplied to me when I brought and sold. MoneyThing SophieThing As Moneything's lender terms and conditions under section 20.2 TAX mention "tax liabilities which you incur though interest earned through Loans placed on the Platform" but make no mention of any tax liabilities which may be incured through purchases/sales at discounts/premiums through loans placed on the platform, please can you provide a response to whether the changes that you have announced that you will be introducing in the new year will result in any potential change of the tax liability to lenders?
|
|
|
Post by SophieThing on Nov 13, 2018 15:12:48 GMT
Hi keystone, The first stage was to get feedback from lenders as to whether or not there is demand for change. We haven't as yet sought advice or decided on formats for reporting on the tax statement. I would expect there to be tax implications if you're making a capital gain of course and we'll need to consider this in the design of the reports etc. We will also need to update our T&C's to cover the new service. Kind regards, Sophie
|
|
|
Post by df on Nov 13, 2018 15:53:27 GMT
Now there's no longer a guaranteed exit route when a MT loan reaches its term, and long slow-moving queues have formed on many of the larger MT loans, it seems worthwhile to revisit the question of how MT lenders feel about introducing discounting to help SM liquidity. Same question and answer choices as before, to permit a direct comparison with last timeI wonder if MT have picked up on the change in voting between this poll and the previous one.
The visually apparent switch from 60% No : 34% Yes to an outcome now of 37% No : 60% Yes is obvious enough. What is less notable is the 25% reduction in participants.
If that translates to an equivalent reduction in platform participants now, with a significant number those remaining looking to leave via a discounted SM (as possibly suggested by the reversal in No : Yes ratio, not to mention the unquestionable lack of interest in MTBJ96), I wonder how many are simply voting for a set of keys to the exit now (knowing there will be a cost to themselves), rather than the creation of any 'market' to be used in the future. I voted YES for the future. The loans I want to exit are unlikely to be sellable even with discount and by the time this feature will take place they will probably be far too close to maturity date or completed or defaulted.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 13, 2018 16:53:30 GMT
I voted for the long term too. Having an ISA with MT, capital gain or loss is not an issue, taxwise, and jumping ship is altogether more hassle than I am ready for at the moment. Hopefully the changes will make the platform even more attractive .. if not, they will not be irreversible. Pretty easy to restrict, or withdraw, the facilities.
|
|