|
Post by danraj on Dec 6, 2019 11:52:20 GMT
This isnt really a fair poll, with 3 options relating to reduction of lending and one poorly worded positive option. Do you mind revising it to be more balanced?
Its a pity that Funding Secure didnt work out.
I empathise with lenders who suffered losses. When lending at higher interest rates, it can work well if you're selective and use some judgement about which businesses you think are better than others. I believe that most family run SMEs can adapt and be resourceful during uncertain economic times. The best managed businesses will survive, though they may need support. At rebuildingsociety, we don't list many loans, and we receive many applications from businesses that are finding it tough, but those that are growing and finding opportunities are worth backing.
We have many lenders that have enjoyed higher rates of return and while the defaults will erode some of these profits, you can now mitigate some risk with the BuyBack Guarantee. This is like a provision fund, that funded by antother lender who buys back the microloan if it falls 61 days overdue.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Dec 10, 2019 12:32:21 GMT
This isnt really a fair poll, with 3 options relating to reduction of lending and one poorly worded positive option. Do you mind revising it to be more balanced? Its a pity that Funding Secure didnt work out. I empathise with lenders who suffered losses. When lending at higher interest rates, it can work well if you're selective and use some judgement about which businesses you think are better than others. I believe that most family run SMEs can adapt and be resourceful during uncertain economic times. The best managed businesses will survive, though they may need support. At rebuildingsociety, we don't list many loans, and we receive many applications from businesses that are finding it tough, but those that are growing and finding opportunities are worth backing. We have many lenders that have enjoyed higher rates of return and while the defaults will erode some of these profits, you can now mitigate some risk with the BuyBack Guarantee. This is like a provision fund, that funded by antother lender who buys back the microloan if it falls 61 days overdue. I personally don't think the poll is unfair, although like all polls one may not like the wording questions. To me the outcome is clear, after multiple platform failures investors can no longer rely on FCA approval or company words to demonstrate that they have effective controls. The honest answer is the public have no idea now what controls a company has. In a sense I feel sorry for genuinely well controlled P2P companies who have properly segregated funds, have wind down plans and whose loan documentation has investors as the beneficiary of loans. Until we have an effective mechanism to independently monitor this (and make no mistake this is clearly not the FCA!) then all that work can give investors no comfort at all. The blunt reality is that if somebody invests in 5 P2P companies, four could be great with good controls and provide the expected return if the fifth one was a basketcase which promptly goes bust with no sign of any returns, then the whole sector should be given a large bargepole. Finally I disagree that investors can make an informed decision about what platform or loans they invest in. There quite simply isn't enough reliable information available to investors to make this call. All it can be is a speculative hunch at best.
|
|
|
Post by danraj on Dec 12, 2019 23:07:01 GMT
I think you underrate the FCA.
I appreciate that the handling of Collateral and Lendy could have been better, but the new standards introduced will substantially protect lenders.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 970
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Dec 13, 2019 10:28:55 GMT
I think you underrate the FCA. I appreciate that the handling of Collateral and Lendy could have been better, but the new standards introduced will substantially protect lenders. I don't think that underrating the FCA is even possible. Their handling of Col was catastrophic, and I don't see any "substantial protection" for lenders in any of the new standards. (That doesn't mean that I think the new standards are a bad thing, but "protection" they are not).
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Dec 13, 2019 11:01:46 GMT
I think you underrate the FCA. I appreciate that the handling of Collateral and Lendy could have been better, but the new standards introduced will substantially protect lenders. I don't think that underrating the FCA is even possible. Their handling of Col was catastrophic, and I don't see any "substantial protection" for lenders in any of the new standards. (That doesn't mean that I think the new standards are a bad thing, but "protection" they are not). Fully concur. There is no evidence to date that "standards" have ever been enforced other than in hand wringing retrospect. Where is the assurance that when wrong-doing by a platform occurs leading to investor loss that there is any mechanism for restitution or any pot of money to make that repayment. Where is there sign of 'policing' of standards. From the evidence anyone believing that the FCA is anything other than a feeble sticking plaster to provide shelter for legislators is sooner or later likely to suffer a rude awakening.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Dec 13, 2019 15:39:16 GMT
I think you underrate the FCA. I appreciate that the handling of Collateral and Lendy could have been better, but the new standards introduced will substantially protect lenders. I hope you won’t take offence but please don’t tell me I underrate the FCA when I invested in a firm regulated by them and now it turns out that their controls were awful, no winding up mechanism and were allowed to accept investor deposits for a year after the FCA should have known of the failings. I really don’t think the industry understands that people are investing real money, which people have worked hard to accrue. The oversight by the FCA is not fit for purpose and until that changes the sector is the Wild West of investing.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,787
Likes: 11,004
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 13, 2019 20:39:22 GMT
Im not sure its possible to underrate the FCA. Probably harder to list all the scandals & failures on their watch.
|
|
|
Post by df on Dec 13, 2019 23:23:01 GMT
I think you underrate the FCA. I appreciate that the handling of Collateral and Lendy could have been better, but the new standards introduced will substantially protect lenders. I hope you won’t take offence but please don’t tell me I underrate the FCA when I invested in a firm regulated by them and now it turns out that their controls were awful, no winding up mechanism and were allowed to accept investor deposits for a year after the FCA should have known of the failings. I really don’t think the industry understands that people are investing real money, which people have worked hard to accrue. The oversight by the FCA is not fit for purpose and until that changes the sector is the Wild West of investing. Makes me think of FO... It's obvious that something is going very wrong with the platform for about 8 months now. FCA was very productive at authorising, but doesn't seem to be capable of effective policing of p2p platforms they've approved.
|
|
|
Post by timm2006 on Dec 15, 2019 0:21:16 GMT
The experience of Funding Secure (FS) to me was a real eye opener. The FCA's regulation seems to be in practice useless and FS' backup plans appeared to be non existent. In a sector where retail investors have next to no visibility of whats under the bonnet, I have now no confidence of what other problems are lurking. Some industry people say platforms failing is a natural process is a new sector. That may be fine in sectors where people are not depositing their cash, but I don't fancy my money going up in smoke every time I make the wrong call on a platforms health. Totally agree with all the comments on the thread - after being caught out by FS, COL, LE and now MT - I'm out of P2P. There may be some good platforms around, but for me, the damage to my confidence in the industry has been done and I'm busy pulling out all the funds from all platforms as and when I am able.
|
|
jj
Member of DD Central
Jolly Jammy
Posts: 320
Likes: 357
|
Post by jj on Dec 15, 2019 6:43:10 GMT
I would like to know how much money these owner have made over the course of the life of their platforms? I do get the impression that they have made alot money.
And how feasible is it to claw back this money ? I am specifically pointing to the legal obligations they did not partake in.
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Dec 15, 2019 21:17:37 GMT
I think you underrate the FCA. I appreciate that the handling of Collateral and Lendy could have been better, but the new standards introduced will substantially protect lenders. The new standards are principally designed to protect the FCA itself (from future comeback from lenders).
|
|
|
Post by Proptechfish on Dec 15, 2019 22:52:45 GMT
I started winding down all my p2p holdings some months ago, prior to the collapse of FS, even those that remain profitable. I think the landscape of P2P has fundamentally changed, with the tightening of regulation platforms are being drawn towards less onerous institutional investors (reinforced by Landbays recent decision to drop retail Investors). So my interpretation would be a much narrower market of opportunities available for retail investors, many of these opportunities would have fallen short of the bar for institutional investment. So while P2P was relatively exciting and buoyant for most of the last decade, for me the level of work now required to seek out a reducing number of potentially positive opportunities vs a reducing level of reward, it's just not worth it anymore. That's just my opinion, but I'm retreating with eyes open for the next innervation/industry opportunity.
|
|