kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150 
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Sept 25, 2015 9:00:11 GMT
With people threatening to leave/reduce at FC, is this time for others such as Rebs to make some changes? There seems to be a hunger for competitive auctions, and personally I find the Rebs auctions stodgy and barely alive. I think a change to 0.1% increments would enliven auctions considerably, especially near the end, and would also help to revive the secondary market, especially if the over-greedy 5% premium limit is curbed back to 3%. I see that there is new interest in Lending Crowd, which has the closest model to the soon-to-change FC model, and I believe that Rebs could create new interest with such changes. What do you think?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Sept 25, 2015 9:25:05 GMT
Nooooo! It's bad enough having to log-in and wait for pages to load interminably when I'm outbid maybe once per auction. I'm not going to do it 10 times per auction!
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Sept 25, 2015 20:23:38 GMT
I'm with SteveT. ReBS would need to make major improvements to the performance and design of their platform before considering any such change, not to mention deal flow. |
|
|
|
Post by jh on Sept 26, 2015 21:11:05 GMT
A good compromise would be 0.5% increments.
On the other side of the coin, whilst we get great support from the office, speed of underwriting and turnaround of cases need to improve, get more to choose from, investors earning interest sooner and tis platform will storm ahead !
|
|
|
|
Post by edena on Sept 27, 2015 23:42:42 GMT
With people threatening to leave/reduce at FC, is this time for others such as Rebs to make some changes? There seems to be a hunger for competitive auctions, and personally I find the Rebs auctions stodgy and barely alive. I think a change to 0.1% increments would enliven auctions considerably, especially near the end, and would also help to revive the secondary market, especially if the over-greedy 5% premium limit is curbed back to 3%. I see that there is new interest in Lending Crowd, which has the closest model to the soon-to-change FC model, and I believe that Rebs could create new interest with such changes. What do you think? From an infrastructure perspective I don't think this is a good idea. I am not a lender but a borrower, but plenty of lenders have expressed concern over the performance of the site. Adding high velocity bidding will cause even worse performance issues. The site needs to be rearchitected before anything like that happens.
|
|
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 Sept 28, 2015 0:46:33 GMT
With people threatening to leave/reduce at FC, is this time for others such as Rebs to make some changes? There seems to be a hunger for competitive auctions, and personally I find the Rebs auctions stodgy and barely alive. I think a change to 0.1% increments would enliven auctions considerably, especially near the end, and would also help to revive the secondary market, especially if the over-greedy 5% premium limit is curbed back to 3%. I see that there is new interest in Lending Crowd, which has the closest model to the soon-to-change FC model, and I believe that Rebs could create new interest with such changes. What do you think? Hi, I conducted a poll 6 months ago and it's still open to voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by jh on Nov 21, 2016 10:15:38 GMT
Morning,
In simple, not a lot has changed. The quality of the "underwrite/assessment" has improved. Much more imformation is sought up front. That is the only part of the process that has improved as it is a little smoother, underwriting questions are posted on a q&a direct from the underwriter where as 18 months ago they would be asked via email and someone in the office, this meant that underwriter would ask the office, who would ask me, who would reply to the office....etc etc....If a case is chosen for listing then we agree which assessment questions are left and which are deleted.
As for the rest, it is not a platform that I would use if my clients needed money quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by jh on Nov 21, 2016 10:46:21 GMT
A difficult one, and my opinion only, but here goes : - Dedicated service standards for assessment....i.e. Acknowledgement within 3 hrs of application, and decision within 72 hours (FC is 48 hours but often get an andwer inside 24 hours)
- Controversially I would suggest ammending loan sizes - £10k- £50k
- 0.5% increments in bid rates
- Ability to chose listing schedule; i.e. 5/7 days on small loans, longer for larger loans.
- Option for immediate closure of a listing once it fills - Borrower get's their money quicker, Lender earns interest sooner, and generally at the rate originally bid
- All but the final loan contract (i.e. DD, ID, PG's etc) signed and submitted prior to listing to ensure faster drawdown.
Personally I am not a fan of fixed interest rates per risk band which is the path FC (and others) have chosen to follow as, in my humble opinion, it is not what crowd funding was set up to be. I would say, however, perhaps on higher risk small loans this could be an option for the platform to consider. i.e. £10k 24mth loan for a "c" risk with PG only is set at 20%
|
|
|
|
Post by jh on Nov 21, 2016 11:48:04 GMT
A difficult one, and my opinion only, but here goes : - Dedicated service standards for assessment....i.e. Acknowledgement within 3 hrs of application, and decision within 72 hours (FC is 48 hours but often get an andwer inside 24 hours)
- Controversially I would suggest ammending loan sizes - £10k- £50k
- 0.5% increments in bid rates
- Ability to chose listing schedule; i.e. 5/7 days on small loans, longer for larger loans.
- Option for immediate closure of a listing once it fills - Borrower get's their money quicker, Lender earns interest sooner, and generally at the rate originally bid
- All but the final loan contract (i.e. DD, ID, PG's etc) signed and submitted prior to listing to ensure faster drawdown.
Personally I am not a fan of fixed interest rates per risk band which is the path FC (and others) have chosen to follow as, in my humble opinion, it is not what crowd funding was set up to be. I would say, however, perhaps on higher risk small loans this could be an option for the platform to consider. i.e. £10k 24mth loan for a "c" risk with PG only is set at 20%
Hi jh , (John), please could you expand upon your thoughts for c)? Please provide a more detailed explanation. You've been approaching ReBS myself and many other fellow lenders for funding for a long time now, yesterday witnessed the closure of one such funding request; it was a successful fill and funds were provided at a generous rate. Over the years John how many of your own introductions to ReBS have achieved a successful fully funded outcome/draw down? Thank you, best regards. What I mean by c is that perhaps a wider bid rate for investors would encourage more investors to lend. i.e. on a c risk you might bid £100 at 20%, if that fills and your bid is knocked out you could re bid at 19.5% with confidence that you are still near to the return you were looking for. Does this make sense to you ? Most that I have brought to the platform have funded, the only ones that have not are those that I have withdrawn having found an anomoly during the q&a, or in one case that one of the directors had an unfavourable conviction and one that the client withdraw after his staff recieved phone calls from investors at his business premises. I don't have accurate figures, but think I am at around 40 filled and drawn down loans from approx 70 applications. In the very early days (early 2013) I had a couple of loans that did not fill but that was the early days of the platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebsrep on Nov 21, 2016 12:40:48 GMT
A difficult one, and my opinion only, but here goes : - Dedicated service standards for assessment....i.e. Acknowledgement within 3 hrs of application, and decision within 72 hours (FC is 48 hours but often get an andwer inside 24 hours)
- Controversially I would suggest ammending loan sizes - £10k- £50k
- 0.5% increments in bid rates
- Ability to chose listing schedule; i.e. 5/7 days on small loans, longer for larger loans.
- Option for immediate closure of a listing once it fills - Borrower get's their money quicker, Lender earns interest sooner, and generally at the rate originally bid
- All but the final loan contract (i.e. DD, ID, PG's etc) signed and submitted prior to listing to ensure faster drawdown.
Personally I am not a fan of fixed interest rates per risk band which is the path FC (and others) have chosen to follow as, in my humble opinion, it is not what crowd funding was set up to be. I would say, however, perhaps on higher risk small loans this could be an option for the platform to consider. i.e. £10k 24mth loan for a "c" risk with PG only is set at 20%
A: Dedicated service standards for assessment....i.e. Acknowledgement within 3 hrs of application, and decision within 72 hours (FC is 48 hours but often get an andwer inside 24 hours) - This is generally the case. We give borrowers a yes / no decision quite early on and then ask for further information to ensure the completeness of the underwriting. - Where we don’t give a computer says ‘Yes/ No’ straight away this generally works in the brokers favour as we’ll often put loans on that require an element of human judgment. jh you have been a big benefactor of this. B: Controversially I would suggest amending loan sizes - £10k- £50k Dropping the loan amount below £25k would mean more compliance, as it would be more akin to a consumer loan C: 0.5% increments in bid rates This was the original Rebuildingsociety.com model. It resulted in loans ending with a higher interest rate as bidding took longer for the borrower to realise a reduced interest rate. 0.5% bidding increments would result in an overall worse deal for the borrowers, not a better one D: Ability to chose listing schedule; i.e. 5/7 days on small loans, longer for larger loans. The brokers do have this ability. jh you have requested shorter periods in the past, which we have allowed. Generally the auction period is set following an assessment of the liquidity of the marketplace, to allow the best period for both borrowers and lenders E:Option for immediate closure of a listing once it fills - Borrower get's their money quicker, Lender earns interest sooner, and generally at the rate originally bid We allow this. See A* E*******s. We just require 24hours notice to allow lenders to bid further, which is in the best interest of the borrower as it generally sees the rate drop. F: All but the final loan contract (i.e. DD, ID, PG's etc) signed and submitted prior to listing to ensure faster drawdown This is a tricky one, as it really borders on the line of undue influence or duress. The borrowers should not sign the PG’s etc until the loan agreement is finalised. The enforceability of all security documents could be brought into question.
|
|
|
|
Post by jh on Nov 21, 2016 13:26:37 GMT
A difficult one, and my opinion only, but here goes : - Dedicated service standards for assessment....i.e. Acknowledgement within 3 hrs of application, and decision within 72 hours (FC is 48 hours but often get an andwer inside 24 hours)
- Controversially I would suggest ammending loan sizes - £10k- £50k
- 0.5% increments in bid rates
- Ability to chose listing schedule; i.e. 5/7 days on small loans, longer for larger loans.
- Option for immediate closure of a listing once it fills - Borrower get's their money quicker, Lender earns interest sooner, and generally at the rate originally bid
- All but the final loan contract (i.e. DD, ID, PG's etc) signed and submitted prior to listing to ensure faster drawdown.
Personally I am not a fan of fixed interest rates per risk band which is the path FC (and others) have chosen to follow as, in my humble opinion, it is not what crowd funding was set up to be. I would say, however, perhaps on higher risk small loans this could be an option for the platform to consider. i.e. £10k 24mth loan for a "c" risk with PG only is set at 20%
A: Dedicated service standards for assessment....i.e. Acknowledgement within 3 hrs of application, and decision within 72 hours (FC is 48 hours but often get an andwer inside 24 hours) - This is generally the case. We give borrowers a yes / no decision quite early on and then ask for further information to ensure the completeness of the underwriting. - Where we don’t give a computer says ‘Yes/ No’ straight away this generally works in the brokers favour as we’ll often put loans on that require an element of human judgment. jh you have been a big benefactor of this. understood, this is not meant to have a dig, it is generally discussion, the point is, that if a client requires a quick answer, there are other places we can go. I am a huge supporter of the platform. B: Controversially I would suggest amending loan sizes - £10k- £50k Dropping the loan amount below £25k would mean more compliance, as it would be more akin to a consumer loan others already do this, my interpretation is that as long as the lending is to a Ltd company the "compliance" is the same. C: 0.5% increments in bid rates This was the original Rebuildingsociety.com model. It resulted in loans ending with a higher interest rate as bidding took longer for the borrower to realise a reduced interest rate. 0.5% bidding increments would result in an overall worse deal for the borrowers, not a better one D: Ability to chose listing schedule; i.e. 5/7 days on small loans, longer for larger loans. The brokers do have this ability. jh you have requested shorter periods in the past, which we have allowed. Generally the auction period is set following an assessment of the liquidity of the marketplace, to allow the best period for both borrowers and lenders understood, this was posted with an "investor" hat onE:Option for immediate closure of a listing once it fills - Borrower get's their money quicker, Lender earns interest sooner, and generally at the rate originally bid We allow this. See A* E*******s. We just require 24hours notice to allow lenders to bid further, which is in the best interest of the borrower as it generally sees the rate drop. understood, but again, thinking of the investors, not the borrowers, it would be good if they were able to have an option for immediate acceptance, as do other platforms.F: All but the final loan contract (i.e. DD, ID, PG's etc) signed and submitted prior to listing to ensure faster drawdown This is a tricky one, as it really borders on the line of undue influence or duress. The borrowers should not sign the PG’s etc until the loan agreement is finalised. The enforceability of all security documents could be brought into question. Rebs and Funding Knight have been doing this for some time, FK since inception, FC since they introduced set rates
|
|
|
|
Post by jh on Nov 21, 2016 13:38:29 GMT
What I mean by c is that perhaps a wider bid rate for investors would encourage more investors to lend. i.e. on a c risk you might bid £100 at 20%, if that fills and your bid is knocked out you could re bid at 19.5% with confidence that you are still near to the return you were looking for. Does this make sense to you ? Most that I have brought to the platform have funded, the only ones that have not are those that I have withdrawn having found an anomoly during the q&a, or in one case that one of the directors had an unfavourable conviction and one that the client withdraw after his staff recieved phone calls from investors at his business premises. I don't have accurate figures, but think I am at around 40 filled and drawn down loans from approx 70 applications. In the very early days (early 2013) I had a couple of loans that did not fill but that was the early days of the platform. Hi jh (John), I'm not so sure that your idea for c) would assist too much, the issue is one of confidence (matters well documented elsewhere). I do subscribe to plan touted by Rebuilding Society.com to attract more applications with a more robust Security package, I genuinely like the idea of those offered rate discounts. Applications carrying entry level PG's and weaker Securities would continued to be welcomed but these would fall under Rebuilding Society.com's existing rating scales. As a lender John I really do see the need for greater balance in our loan book, greater strength; I have seen too many suffer to witness further wholesale repetition. John I would seek your help to bring applications fitting into both applicant groupings, ask you colleague Geoff to do the same and through the grapevine let others know too that all viable lending options are on the table thereby creating greater diversity for our lenders to serve all risk appetites... (Please discuss these matters in greater detail with our Office) With your help and that of your peers let's deliver a way in which everyone choosing to continue at ReBS can feel comfortable to lend again. Thank you John. Best regards. Speaking for myself only, if my clients have good security to offer and good ltv's I will take them to alternative lenders at much lower rates. (A recent application discussed with REBS achieved £280k at 7.1% with 1st charge against a property elsewhere ) We will consider each case on its own merits and bring it to the platform should we feel it fits and would be successful. I am sure you would agree, if we did not think there was a positive chance of a loan filling there would be little point in having it listed and spending the many hours monitoring and answering the Q&A 
|
|
|
|
Post by rebsrep on Nov 23, 2016 17:33:06 GMT
Following our quick response above, please find below our official response to the points raised: A: Dedicated service standards for assessment....i.e. Acknowledgement within 3 hrs of application, and decision within 72 hours (FC is 48 hours but often get an andwer inside 24 hours) This is something we have aimed to tighten up significantly over the last 18 months and we have internal SLAs which we now work to and a review system in place to follow up on any failures We do have a review system which will take longer if the outcome of the lending decision is ambiguous, but we have found this more rigorous approach to the decision making process has resulted in more robust decisions being made, which in turn should benefit the lenders. B: Controversially I would suggest amending loan sizes - £10k- £50k We'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this one jh, as this does come up regularly on our internal reviews. For the time being we have chosen to hold off on this level of loan as it would fall under consumer credit and we are not currently set up to handle the additional compliance that would be required. C: 0.5% increments in bid rates This was the original Rebuildingsociety.com model and we found that it resulted in loans ending with a higher interest rate, as bidding took longer for the borrower to realise a reduced rate. It is still a concern that 0.5% bidding increments would result in an overall worse deal for the borrowers, but if we could find evidence to the contrary this would definitely come up for review again. D: Ability to chose listing schedule; i.e. 5/7 days on small loans, longer for larger loans. Generally the auction period is set on a case by case basis following an assessment of the liquidity of the marketplace and loan amount requested. We aim to find the premium duration for both borrowers and lenders. If a loan outperforms our expectations then we also allow brokers and clients to close a loan with 24 hours’ notice. E: Option for immediate closure of a listing once it fills - Borrower get's their money quicker, Lender earns interest sooner, and generally at the rate originally bid When we first began closing loans early, we did have this as an option however it was unpopular among some of our lenders who like to watch the performance of a loan before bidding. As a result, we found that the 24 hours’ notice was the best way to compromise between enabling a quicker draw down and a happy lender base. F: All but the final loan contract (i.e. DD, ID, PG's etc) signed and submitted prior to listing to ensure faster drawdown This is an interesting suggestion and we are always looking at ways to ensure a smooth and speedy drawdown once the auction completes. In terms of our non-legal completion documents, we have recently moved to put some of these in place during the underwriting process so that their submission does not hold up the loan completion. Unfortunately, we are somewhat less flexible on the legal security documentation. We have to ensure that the prospective borrower is in possession of all of this information before they provide their consent to a Personal Guarantee to secure the loan. Because the final interest rate (and thus repayment amount and total repayable) are decided by the auction, we need to wait until the auction has closed before we send the legal documents for signing. As a final note, we thank you for your feedback and suggestions and encourage all users to please continue to keep future suggestions and feedback coming. We are constantly looking for areas in which we can improve and feedback from valued users of our platform is absolutely invaluable to help us achieve this. |
|
|
|
Post by rebsrep on Nov 23, 2016 20:41:48 GMT
rebsrep , welcome. I don't recognise your written style, it's a new one on me, please could you introduce yourself to the Forum? Best regards. I'm the same rebsrep, the above is the official response from the office having been through compliance and legal, which obviously takes out the personal style.
|
|
