jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 1,444
|
Post by jlend on May 4, 2020 11:19:57 GMT
I have just paid off a loan and credit card balance for the younger of my two brothers who is not working. At times like this I think we should all keep any eye out for others that are less fortunate. I know one of my friends has done the same for his children who are not working Nah I am keeping all my money and trying to scroung of them. jlend Your not financially very astute are you? I have a time limited life expectancy since birth due to a hereditary condition as does my brother. I have a pretty good idea of how much money I need for the rest of my life.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on May 4, 2020 11:20:48 GMT
I preferred the old rules where if the provision fund was depleted then all investments are pooled and proceeds distributed as received. The new method seems unfair on those in the 'Access' product as they no longer have Access and still have a worse rate than long term holders. At some point all P2P companies are going to have to try to do a portfolio reset. Terms for people before the dastardly COVID-19 struck and those after. We are not there yet as still to hard to predict who is/will be impacted by it. Still no. You ain't having any of my money. Which is exactly what you are asking for. I don't have any money invested in RS. I pulled out all my money when they tried to force me to declare myself as a sophisticated investor. Relax, I have no skin in the game, just giving my opinion which you are free to disagree with. All friends here
|
|
ashe
Posts: 53
Likes: 36
|
Post by ashe on May 4, 2020 11:21:14 GMT
Patronising?! I could equally say your claim that everyone is in the same position is patronising, when many people's position will be significantly determined by what rate they had paying, let alone the hugely differing release fees, particularly before the true impact was known. It *is* simplistic to ignore all that and say 'everyone should get the same returns'. You may have "no skin in the game here", that doesn't make your argument sound. Those that do have 'skin in the game' had to actually make judgements based on the factors I mentioned. What I think would be fair: Joe Bloggs - Receives 50% of average interest rate over remaining term of underlying loans - or until rates reversed back to agreed rate. Sellout fees removed. Jane Smith - Receives 50% of average interest rate over remaining term of underlying loans - or until rates reversed back to agreed rate. Sellout fees removed. If you don't think this is fair that is your prerogative. I think part of the issue here is what my problem has always been with the 'Access' or 'Monthly' and even 'Annual' products, they are essentially long term investments with a marketplace to sell them if there is sufficient liquidity, while at the same time paying short term rates of interest. Maybe my issue is that I never have liked think risk/reward of these short term products as once liquidity dries up the investor is in the same boat as everybody else. You're completely ignoring my point that people in Plus/Max/5 years may not have sold out really early on because they had to make a far tougher judgement than Access users, based on the 30 days/90 days interest fee and the interest rate. You're saying that they shouldn't carry on getting the increased benefits from those increased fees, compared to people that could have sold out without penalty. So, no, giving everyone the same returns would not be fair.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on May 4, 2020 11:23:15 GMT
Nah I am keeping all my money and trying to scroung of them. jlend Your not financially very astute are you? I have a time limited life expectancy since birth due to a hereditary condition as does my brother. I have a pretty good idea of how much money I need for the rest of my life. We all have a time limited life expectancy. And your not good at humor either.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on May 4, 2020 11:23:52 GMT
Nah I am keeping all my money and trying to scroung of them. jlend Your not financially very astute are you? I have a time limited life expectancy since birth due to a hereditary condition as does my brother. I have a pretty good idea of how much money I need for the rest of my life. SD2 - Drop the ad hominem attacks. Jlend is perfectly entitled to do as he likes with his money without you attacking him for it. If you can't debate in a pleasant and respectful manner without resorting to insults, then don't bother.
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 296
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on May 4, 2020 11:24:20 GMT
Example: Joe Bloggs - Invested £x at 6% for 5 years in March 2018 Jane Smith - Invested £x at 2% in Access account in February 2020. New outcome: Joe Bloggs - Receives 3% over remaining term - or until rates reversed back to agreed rate. Payment over original term unless defaults when full repaid from provision fund. Sellout fees to liquidate. Jane Smith - Receives 1%. No sellout fee however no idea when sellout will be processed as secondary market liquidity dried up and now will only get worse with interest rate deduction. What I think would be fair: Joe Bloggs - Receives 50% of average interest rate over remaining term of underlying loans - or until rates reversed back to agreed rate. Sellout fees removed. Jane Smith - Receives 50% of average interest rate over remaining term of underlying loans - or until rates reversed back to agreed rate. Sellout fees removed. If you don't think this is fair that is your prerogative. I think part of the issue here is what my problem has always been with the 'Access' or 'Monthly' and even 'Annual' products, they are essentially long term investments with a marketplace to sell them if there is sufficient liquidity, while at the same time paying short term rates of interest. Maybe my issue is that I never have liked think risk/reward of these short term products as once liquidity dries up the investor is in the same boat as everybody else.Many people commented on this risk at the time and for that reason choose not to join the access market but rather focused on the 1/3/5 year market. Others decided that they considered the liquidity risk small enough to stay in the access market with the lower fee. Now you are suggesting the former group should be compensated less than planned though they still have to pay a higher fee? It feels like punishing them due to hindsight...
|
|
|
Post by Ace on May 4, 2020 11:24:49 GMT
There was no choice about whether to cut rates. There is only enough cash (including expected inflows) to pay 3/4 of the expected shortfalls this month. The T&Cs mandate an interest haircut in this scenario. I preferred the old rules where if the provision fund was depleted then all investments are pooled and proceeds distributed as received. The new method seems unfair on those in the 'Access' product as they no longer have Access and still have a worse rate than long term holders. At some point all P2P companies are going to have to try to do a portfolio reset. Terms for people before the dastardly COVID-19 struck and those after. We are not there yet as still to hard to predict who is/will be impacted by it. Not all P2P platforms will require a portfolio reset in the way you suggest, only those with pooled investments. The more straightforward platforms won't need this as they can simply issue new loans on new terms if needed. Those investing in the new loans will be unaffected by the old loans, with the proviso that the platform itself doesn't run into problems. For example, I don't see ABLrate, CrowdProperty, CapitalRise, Proplend, AxiaFunder, to name a few, needing such a reset. That's not to say that those platforms won't run into difficulties, but they won't need to segregate terms into pre and post covid cohorts as individual loans don't have any impact on each other (unless they are to the same borrower of course).
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,486
Likes: 920
|
Post by aju on May 4, 2020 11:27:01 GMT
I have a lot of respect for RS, but this is really really poor of them. As of today, if the going rate for new investors is 1.5%, 1.75% and 2%, it is quite misleading to put up headline rates of 3%, 3.5% and 4% on there. What new lenders?! Up until 2 hours ago Mrs Aju and myself were relending albeit at rates we determined and to be fair nothng was biting for the last few days. For me that either means there are lots of willing lenders/relenders taking much lower rates than we wanted. I have been lowering the rates to see if anything will bite bit no joy. Either RS is not relending money, the weekly amounts have dropped off considerably if one cares to look in the relevant place. I have set our relends at the highest I can to grab relending funds before lending further and am about to consider what we want to actually sellout at acceptable costs. I am aware that it may take some time to get the sales completing so I can cancel if things improve. Things are no better over in Zopa and the get out MRA (Market rate adjustments) are quite a hit but since we started to sell there in mid march we are now starting to make a dent since Zopa changed to a queue approach rather than LILO or FIFO approach at the start. Looking at the other threads I assume RS is still not queue sharing - yet! I'm interested what the real figures are hopefully p-p banking will have a view soon although on RS one case see the heavy reductions.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on May 4, 2020 11:27:18 GMT
What I think would be fair: Joe Bloggs - Receives 50% of average interest rate over remaining term of underlying loans - or until rates reversed back to agreed rate. Sellout fees removed. Jane Smith - Receives 50% of average interest rate over remaining term of underlying loans - or until rates reversed back to agreed rate. Sellout fees removed. If you don't think this is fair that is your prerogative. I think part of the issue here is what my problem has always been with the 'Access' or 'Monthly' and even 'Annual' products, they are essentially long term investments with a marketplace to sell them if there is sufficient liquidity, while at the same time paying short term rates of interest. Maybe my issue is that I never have liked think risk/reward of these short term products as once liquidity dries up the investor is in the same boat as everybody else. You're completely ignoring my point that people in Plus/Max/5 years may not have sold out really early on because they had to make a far tougher judgement than Access users, based on the 30 days/90 days interest fee and the interest rate. You're saying that they shouldn't carry on getting the increased benefits from those increased fees, compared to people that could have sold out without penalty. So, no, giving everyone the same returns would not be fair. I get your point but I still think my proposal is the fair one. Access users have now lost far more, the key feature of their product 'Access' has gone and now they are stuck on 50% worse interest than they expected on a short term product which is now a long term one. Look we won't agree here, I get your argument, we will just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on May 4, 2020 11:29:29 GMT
What I think would be fair: Joe Bloggs - Receives 50% of average interest rate over remaining term of underlying loans - or until rates reversed back to agreed rate. Sellout fees removed. Jane Smith - Receives 50% of average interest rate over remaining term of underlying loans - or until rates reversed back to agreed rate. Sellout fees removed. If you don't think this is fair that is your prerogative. I think part of the issue here is what my problem has always been with the 'Access' or 'Monthly' and even 'Annual' products, they are essentially long term investments with a marketplace to sell them if there is sufficient liquidity, while at the same time paying short term rates of interest. Maybe my issue is that I never have liked think risk/reward of these short term products as once liquidity dries up the investor is in the same boat as everybody else. You're completely ignoring my point that people in Plus/Max/5 years may not have sold out really early on because they had to make a far tougher judgement than Access users, based on the 30 days/90 days interest fee and the interest rate. You're saying that they shouldn't carry on getting the increased benefits from those increased fees, compared to people that could have sold out without penalty. So, no, giving everyone the same returns would not be fair. I set to sell out on access on the 15th and the 5 year on the 27th. Because I would have loose money on the 5 year so I held back on that. Furthermore I see no reason why I should subsidise pip decision to accept lower interest rates to reduce risk.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on May 4, 2020 11:31:15 GMT
Nothing against supporting RS. What I don't grasp is how specifically the cut would help? Other than having more free money in the coffers for RS to re/act. Why specifically do they need it now and until 'at least' the end of the year? And why is a definite loss of interest now, better than a possible loss of capital at a later time? Sure, there would be a risk in running the PF at it's limits, but the interest haircut crystalises part of that risk. I have the feeling I am missing something. The reduction will not be repaid in the future, will it? There was no choice about whether to cut rates. There is only enough cash (including expected inflows) to pay 3/4 of the expected shortfalls this month. The T&Cs mandate an interest haircut in this scenario. So, it's basically a requirement of the T&Cs. Good with me, possibly even a good sign. There should have been reasons for RS to make the decision as they have. It could have been worse.
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,486
Likes: 920
|
Post by aju on May 4, 2020 11:33:15 GMT
Nah I am keeping all my money and trying to scroung of them. jlend Your not financially very astute are you? I have a time limited life expectancy since birth due to a hereditary condition as does my brother. I have a pretty good idea of how much money I need for the rest of my life. Oops - may I wish you and your brother well if it's not too forward of me. I assume sd2 has their tongue firmly embedded in their cheek there. I keep Mrs Aju inline as best I can with me in charge of the financial planning etc. I assume i'll be the first to go so am training her as best I can - when she is not dragging me round the shops - this isolation/distancing milarky is definitely good for our finances in many respects. I'm dreading when she can spend again shes already planning the next trips, thankfully she can;t book anything!.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on May 4, 2020 11:34:00 GMT
You're completely ignoring my point that people in Plus/Max/5 years may not have sold out really early on because they had to make a far tougher judgement than Access users, based on the 30 days/90 days interest fee and the interest rate. You're saying that they shouldn't carry on getting the increased benefits from those increased fees, compared to people that could have sold out without penalty. So, no, giving everyone the same returns would not be fair. I set to sell out on access on the 15th and the 5 year on the 27th. Because I would have loose money on the 5 year so I held back on that. Furthermore I see no reason why I should subsidise @1 pip decision to accept lower interest rates to reduce risk. I have no money in Ratesetter. I sold out all my holdings when they tried to force me to declare as a sophisticated investor. As I made it clear to them I am not 'Sophisticated' in any way and need protecting from myself and others.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on May 4, 2020 11:35:02 GMT
I have a time limited life expectancy since birth due to a hereditary condition as does my brother. I have a pretty good idea of how much money I need for the rest of my life. SD2 - Drop the ad hominem attacks. Jlend is perfectly entitled to do as he likes with his money without you attacking him for it. If you can't debate in a pleasant and respectful manner without resorting to insults, then don't bother. Another person who has humor limited mental capacity......It was a joke
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,486
Likes: 920
|
Post by aju on May 4, 2020 11:36:01 GMT
SD2 - Drop the ad hominem attacks. Jlend is perfectly entitled to do as he likes with his money without you attacking him for it. If you can't debate in a pleasant and respectful manner without resorting to insults, then don't bother. Another person who has humor limit mental capacity......I was a joke I thought so I just tried not to laugh too much
|
|