|
Post by mattygroves on Oct 24, 2019 13:41:36 GMT
Couldn’t that be said about all P2P though ? The platforms can only make money and keep themselves afloat by funding new loans which means new investors. Particularly true of the self select development loan platforms. being a bit of a devil’s advocate I would say that an outsider would see investors seeking a return that looks too good to be true and then whinging when it goes wrong even though they’ve been warned their capital is at risk. Your argument was applied for several years to Berni Madoff's operation which allowed him to keep raking it in. In the case of Collateral, the FCA new that there were irregularities in its approval but the Regulatory door was left open for investors to commit. An investment offering a return of 12% on capital is always going to be high risk but complete platform failure with no failsafe mechanisms did come as a bit of a surprise. I’m not in COL but I can say that I’ve never checked the register for any of my P2P platforms (or indeed any bank or S+S platform I’ve ever used) so I don’t rely on the FCA for anything.in fact I think all the platforms I am in started with interim permissions which I understood to mean no FCA checks had been carried out - maybe I’m just more suspicious than most but I have only invested money in P2P that I could afford to lose.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 829
|
Post by 11025 on Oct 24, 2019 13:51:08 GMT
"being a bit of a devil’s advocate I would say that an outsider would see investors seeking a return that looks too good to be true and then whinging when it goes wrong even though they’ve been warned their capital is at risk" So if money was lost as a result of lies , deception , incorrect valuations and general malpractice on an investment offering 4% , should there be more support and help given than one offering higher rates but suffering the same destruction ? I think the general public would have more sympathy particularly if there was no warning that capital was at risk. There was little sympathy for the shareholders who lost out when RBS was rescued - that will have ruined many retirement plans as they were a highly touted income bearing share at the time. Property valuations are to a certain extent subjective and when done on the residual basis it will only take small variations in assumptions to make the outcome very different. In any case they will never give a true view of what you’d get for a part finished project. I’ve always worked on the basis that I’m lending at about 140% LTV for a supposed 70% LTV and expect defaults and losses. The fact that almost all projects are set up as SPVs indicates the borrowers aren’t sure about the outcomes - they are making sure they can walk away without damaging their main business. Malpractice happens in all businesses and P2P is full of small newly formed companies which are always more likely to fail. I’m not sure self select property loan platforms should be open to retail investors - but that is easy to say with hindsight. I do see the point you are making , but as we know now and as I have stated there is much , much more than general malpractice and subjective valuations here (many loans concerned are not property and should be easier to value) , the behaviour that has gone on was not to be anticipated and should not be tolerated in any business and certainly not in a financial one that is FCA regulated . So do folks think professional or institutional investors would or should be able to spot lies and deceit better than regular retail Investors ?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 623
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Oct 24, 2019 13:59:31 GMT
Got response from ASA. They won’t be investigating further as this matter is at “statutory level”.
|
|
|
Post by mattygroves on Oct 24, 2019 15:33:44 GMT
I think the general public would have more sympathy particularly if there was no warning that capital was at risk. There was little sympathy for the shareholders who lost out when RBS was rescued - that will have ruined many retirement plans as they were a highly touted income bearing share at the time. Property valuations are to a certain extent subjective and when done on the residual basis it will only take small variations in assumptions to make the outcome very different. In any case they will never give a true view of what you’d get for a part finished project. I’ve always worked on the basis that I’m lending at about 140% LTV for a supposed 70% LTV and expect defaults and losses. The fact that almost all projects are set up as SPVs indicates the borrowers aren’t sure about the outcomes - they are making sure they can walk away without damaging their main business. Malpractice happens in all businesses and P2P is full of small newly formed companies which are always more likely to fail. I’m not sure self select property loan platforms should be open to retail investors - but that is easy to say with hindsight. I do see the point you are making , but as we know now and as I have stated there is much , much more than general malpractice and subjective valuations here (many loans concerned are not property and should be easier to value) , the behaviour that has gone on was not to be anticipated and should not be tolerated in any business and certainly not in a financial one that is FCA regulated . So do folks think professional or institutional investors would or should be able to spot lies and deceit better than regular retail Investors ? I’ve always steered clear of the pawn type loans because I don’t trust those valuations either and know from the classic car market how things can change quickly. I wasn’t aware there were major problems here with the other assets. I thought the problem was that COL wasn’t FCA regulated and they weren’t willing to work to get accredited - I may be wrong though as I’ve only followed from afar. I’m sure that the investors in Woodford’s two funds which are now in administration also feel that some dodgy practices have been going on but again I can’t see much sympathy there amongst the general public. Proving criminal activity or intent is far harder though. Businesses fail because they are badly run with slightly dodgy directors all the time. the reason I say I don’t retail investors should be involved in P2P is that it seems clear that some have become over exposed. The sector is too complex for the FCA to do anything more than have a light touch approach and try to ensure the risk statements are there. So, in my view, it is better suited to HNW or sophisticated investors who are happy to sign away any FCA rights. There is a reason you can’t get an IFA to recommend P2P in anything other than as an interesting small fun part of a portfolio - and it isn’t because they can’t claim commission. the same thing applies within SiPPs where certain types of asset are restricted your invest knowing they are considered high risk. Maybe making people acknowledge that it is do risky they can’t expect to be bailed out will make some people think twice. I’ve always acted as though that was the case with P2P.
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Oct 31, 2019 18:15:43 GMT
Worth noting that companies legitimately on the accredited list were the biggest scams of all, FS and LY #aidingandabetting.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 12, 2019 11:12:12 GMT
|
|
brianlom1
Member of DD Central
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Posts: 386
Likes: 387
|
Post by brianlom1 on Nov 12, 2019 17:58:08 GMT
Got response from ASA. They won’t be investigating further as this matter is at “statutory level”. I received the same response so when I was asked to provide feedback on my customer experience I immediately responded - it was difficult keeping my response down to the maximum number of permitted characters but I finally managed it.
|
|
|
Post by northender on Nov 12, 2019 19:47:17 GMT
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Nov 12, 2019 20:07:57 GMT
I received the same response so when I was asked to provide feedback on my customer experience I immediately responded - it was difficult keeping my response down to the maximum number of permitted characters but I finally managed it. Well done brianlom1 . Today I did the same. I remember watching Andrew F... Bailley being interviewed and he said that we can trust the FCA register. "If a company is on the FCA register it means the FCA have checked them out and theyre safe...". I cannot locate the clip now, but if anyone can, please post up a link so I can forward that to ASA Complaints too. Ah yes, Mr Teflon-Bailey, the c*** also said that what happened to Collateral Investor/Lenders was ............. "unfortunate."Again, for general delectation - m.youtube.com/watch?v=iAAmts-TdGg&t=11m46s ( <- as recently reminded by northender )
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jul 9, 2021 9:32:19 GMT
This advert has resurfaced this week on ITV4 Tour De France highlights. 19:00hrs www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFvYtCaykII have submitted another complaint www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.htmlIf you are also owed money from the Collateral debacle please complain, it is quite simple. My complaint text: " I find the advertisement by the FCA offensive. This advert was removed but has recently resurfaced. I am one of several lenders/investors who checked the FCA register in 2017 before investing in a company called Collateral (UK). That company was approved by the FCA, but in Jan 2018 the FCA realised they had made a terrible mistake and the register was wrong. Collateral (UK) should never have been on the register. We are now 3 years on from the mistake and the FCA keep delaying compensation for their mistake, currently delayed until September. Please ban the FCA from advertising until they provide recompense for their mistake."
|
|