|
Post by ruralres66 on Nov 2, 2016 11:50:56 GMT
Points you make are valuable and comments well made Chris. It's a case of,
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. John Lydgate of Bury (c. 1370 – c. 1451)
However, informed and interested "retail" lenders, like the ones on this forum, have every right to be suspicious and treat what they are told by "corporate" with a huge pinch of salt! It's only due diligence on their part after all.
|
|
mark123
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 120
|
Post by mark123 on Nov 2, 2016 13:47:22 GMT
Because of silence on this forum in reply to concerns over the reducing Provision Fund, I looked at other ways of communicating:
They say: "Kevin did a great job of representing RateSetter on the P2P independent forum, but this was not actually part of his formal role and we are not planning to create a new position with that responsibility. Our communications with investors will continue to be delivered via this blog, RateSetter Notices, through direct emails and our Customer Services team. As always, queries and comments can be directed to us by contacting our Customer Services at contactus@ratesetter.com or 020 3142 6226 or via the blog's comments section."
1. Blog - they post one article per week which do not address lender issues
2. Notices - last post was on 17 Aug 2016
3. Direct emails - I've received none
4. Customer service - I emailed them and got this automated response:
Thank you for your email. Due to unexpectedly high email volumes, it may take slightly longer than normal to respond to your email. A member of our Customer Service team will however respond to your query within 3 working days, or sooner if possible.
So there are no effective open communications with lenders who have concerns about how their money is handled and how the platform evolves.
It is dangerous for a business to lose touch with the people who provide the funds - they need a mechanism and ethos to listen and to communicate.
It is also ironic that a new business model, formed in the social media era, should start to cut itself off from the Peers.
Very worrying.
Best wishes, Mark
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 2, 2016 14:36:51 GMT
Much of what AC does is not transparent in the slightest - same with ratesetter - that is the reason investors want transparency and draw obvious conclusions from lack of it FC may not engage here. But their model is easy enough for a 10 year old to understand and where what you see is indeed what you get.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Nov 2, 2016 14:55:22 GMT
This is an interesting thread, and I was particularly drawn to chris' post about Assetz. As I was reading it, I couldn't help but think of MoneyThing, as a (perhaps the) clear example of a company that has completely nailed the balance between engagement, growth and forum sentiment. The reason may well be as much about Ed's engaging personality and nature as anything, but it's also I think down to the clarity of MT's customer proposition, near faultless execution, together a very favourable track record on defaults (which have often marked the transition between positive and more negative vibes on the forum).
Yes, customer comms are tricky, as usually best done by people in possession either of a "company line" or in possession of enough information and the authority to create that company line on the fly. However, opting out of customer comms is usually not a good idea - it either leaves a void for uninformed chatter (which on a respected forum like this can be damaging) or creates an opportunity for deliberate misinformation. And, as others have suggested, when your main direct customer services channels are inefficient, people will just start to make trouble on Twitter, or write to journalists...
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Nov 2, 2016 15:23:27 GMT
This along with a lot of things RS do shows hubris, they are not concerned with lenders (especially sophisticated ones) as there is currently a surplus (reflected in the rates) and prefer to think of their prime customers are the borrowers. This works great in good times with low interest rates and unsophisticated lenders but as soon as there is any trouble watch these lenders panic and disappear, as I have said before there will always be borrowers but not always lenders. Perhaps the directors of RS policy is to make as much money as possible in the good times and not worry about things turning bad as they can just retire on a nice nest egg. We as investors should hold companies to account and there will be negative comments, if a company cannot be bothered to deal with these it is ignoring it’s investors. Virtually all comments I find to have some merit, very few are negative for sake of it. RS may not now be replying but I bet they are reading the comments. Also let’s not forget that these so called negative comments changed RS policy of using the PF for it’s own loans.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 2, 2016 15:41:49 GMT
Much of what AC does is not transparent in the slightest - same with ratesetter - that is the reason investors want transparency and draw obvious conclusions from lack of it FC may not engage here. But their model is easy enough for a 10 year old to understand and where what you see is indeed what you get. I fundamentally disagree with AC being less transparent as a whole than FC. If you compare like for like, which is our MLIA vs their primary / secondary market, then both are broadly comparable with their own pros and cons but similar levels of transparency. I would argue that we provide far more information about our borrowers through our credit reports, published valuations, etc. than is available on most other platforms FC included. The only area I can think of where we are markedly less transparent is that there is a black box allocation algorithm rather than listing all loan units available for sale and letting lenders pick the precise one they want. The reasoning behind that though is so that loan units are distributed more widely amongst interested lenders rather than employing fastest finger first models or those that favour the use of bots - our model is specifically designed to not hand advantage to those with greater time or resources vs the more casual or time poor investors. I've also taken the time to document the algorithm used within this forum which should have lifted the curtain to some degree. However on top of this both platforms have automated investment tools - our investment accounts which are by design relatively opaque (although that will hopefully be changing to some degree or another in coming months) vs their auto invest tool. With auto invest do you have any more idea how it works under the hood than with AC's investment tools, do you know if / how they're skewing where funds are allocated, who is given priority when supply is below demand, etc. How about how FC deals with defaults, recoveries, etc.? When things turn sour do you know with certainty how FC will handle the case? I haven't used FC in a few months and I no longer know the inner workings of their site so I'm not the best authority on how simple or not things are, and I openly accept a certain bias towards my own platform. Happy to discuss further if there are valid counterpoints.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 2, 2016 16:50:53 GMT
Even if the general context of posts are negative it shows people care. The opposite of Love is not Hate, it is Indifference. Those that ignore their customers, (even the moaney ones) are casting aside all of the people that read and don't comment, those that care about a response and indeed need a response to make them commit. Hiding away is showing indifference to the people that make their business work, or certainly made their business work.
Ratesetter is going to lose a lot of my business on account of this change. I am sure others will not be as quick to "trust" without a seemingly honest representative (official or not), helping to assist potential and current customers. If you don't fight back and help correct wrong impressions, then it's your own fault if you lose business. It won't hurt too much now but just wait until the imminent downturn kicks off (it has already in my mind), you will all be back on here hoping to convince us to invest and doing what you can to ease any concerns that knowledgeable small/medium/large investors have on here.
I know from experience that you ignore customers at your peril, word-of-mouth is very powerful and places like this forum help forge opinions, ignorance will fuel fire as there needs to be a check on misconceptions.
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 296
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Nov 2, 2016 17:36:45 GMT
... However, opting out of customer comms is usually not a good idea - it either leaves a void for uninformed chatter (which on a respected forum like this can be damaging) or creates an opportunity for deliberate misinformation.... Playing devils advocate, are we the customer or the supplier? What type of relationship do most business have with their suppliers? On the customer front, is this even true nowadays? Most companies seem to have average to poor customer comms. The view being it is too expensive / time consuming to do well with little evidence that is valued sufficiently when done well. The fact seems to be that (most) people are not willing to pay more. On this forum specifically, Zopa/FC have minimal engagement but their position in the top 3 seems fairly secure...
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 2, 2016 18:04:42 GMT
Much of what AC does is not transparent in the slightest - same with ratesetter - that is the reason investors want transparency and draw obvious conclusions from lack of it FC may not engage here. But their model is easy enough for a 10 year old to understand and where what you see is indeed what you get. I fundamentally disagree with AC being less transparent as a whole than FC. I am referring to the business model not individual loan due diligence - i.e. QAA/30DAA - so I am not sure how you can disagree with something that isn't an opinion but a fact
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 1,087
|
Post by ashtondav on Nov 2, 2016 18:54:35 GMT
Crimes! Assets can be bothered to respond on this forum but not RS. Come on, RS, communicating with investors is good, answering questions is is good, allaying fears is good. Silence is [MOD: BB: Redacted] Is that really your market positioning? Because if it is start digging that grave... ashtondav: I have moderated the above posting. If you genuinely want RS platform interaction with the forum, one might argue that is not the best way to go about it. Adhere to the rule 'Be polite...' etc.
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Nov 2, 2016 19:32:53 GMT
I fundamentally disagree with AC being less transparent as a whole than FC. I am referring to the business model not individual loan due diligence - i.e. QAA/30DAA - so I am not sure how you can disagree with something that isn't an opinion but a fact Apple and pears, I think. FC has no QAA equivalent to compare to. So the only comparison that can be judged is the primary/secondary markets on FC and the MLIA on AC. The QAA might get copied by someone else at some point, but currently I think it's unique, therefore incomparable to any other platform. So, on FC you can buy a £20 loan part, or, on AC you set a buy order for £20 via the MLIA and wait for the algorithm to fill the request. Yes it might not buy it straight away, but it gives you a chance to buy into it when someone puts some up for sale. Anyway, apologies to the RS platform rep for continuing this tangent, oh hang on...
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 2, 2016 20:12:30 GMT
I am referring to the business model not individual loan due diligence - i.e. QAA/30DAA - so I am not sure how you can disagree with something that isn't an opinion but a fact Apple and pears, I think. FC has no QAA equivalent to compare to. So the only comparison that can be judged is the primary/secondary markets on FC and the MLIA on AC. The QAA might get copied by someone else at some point, but currently I think it's unique, therefore incomparable to any other platform. So, on FC you can buy a £20 loan part, or, on AC you set a buy order for £20 via the MLIA and wait for the algorithm to fill the request. Yes it might not buy it straight away, but it gives you a chance to buy into it when someone puts some up for sale. Anyway, apologies to the RS platform rep for continuing this tangent, oh hang on... Precisely what I was trying to convey. There's some differences between FC and our MLIA but it's not accurate to compare alternative methods of investing with FC's only option.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Nov 2, 2016 23:58:05 GMT
Interesting analysis, have you any idea of the numbers of people viewing the platform who are not logged in. These can either be members not logged in or non members, I think we can assume that virtually everyone viewing (with the exception of members of P2P companies) are either active or potential P2P investors.
|
|
|
Post by bricktop on Nov 3, 2016 7:49:15 GMT
Points you make are valuable and comments well made Chris. It's a case of, “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.
John Lydgate of Bury (c. 1370 – c. 1451) However, informed and interested "retail" lenders, like the ones on this forum, have every right to be suspicious and treat what they are told by "corporate" with a huge pinch of salt! It's only due diligence on their part after all. I would argue most people on here are filled with self importance. Agree it's nice to have a company rep but it's not legal requirement. Kevin did a great job too, but just because they don't respond to an unofficial forum does not bother me one iota.I've been to lender drinks, rung and emailed RS over the years and have been surprised to how candid they are. Many of you have clearly broken the golden rule of unsecured investment in not keeping to what you can afford to lose! I've been with RS for 2 years as lender and borrower and am very pleased lending mid 5 figures.
|
|
mark123
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 120
|
Post by mark123 on Nov 3, 2016 9:31:39 GMT
/mod hat off I think posters need to be realistic with platform engagement. This forum has 2400+ members, of which, perhaps 40% log in regularly (so active members) and just 10% post regularly. If each active member has say £50k in P2P investments, that's around £50mm in capital. For start-ups or small platforms, printing say less than £50mm/annum in loans (like MT, Abl, FS, Col etc), the forum is a great way to obtain an initial seed lender base, free marketing, and to obtain feedback about the product, how it can be improved etc. It makes complete sense for these platforms to be highly engaged with posters. This doesn't really apply to the biggest platforms. The top 4 platforms (Zopa, RS, FC, LI) have originated, YTD, around £2bn in loans, with sizeable proportions of that going to insto clients, rather than retail clients. So for them, the forum really isn't relevant to their scale and perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that engagement is correspondingly lower. Of course, that doesn't mean the forum can't punch greater than it's weight with them (example: when RS was investing its provision fund in it's own loans or the FCA asking us for views). I'd also say that as someone who owns part of an FCA regulated financial services business, the idea of allowing any employee to enter into free form discussion on a board than can be viewed by anyone would give my head of compliance a fit! The risk-reward would be so skewed against that proposition as to make it a non-starter. The moment you engage directly with retail clients (whether HNW or not) you normally add serious liability risks and sizeable costs. It's much easier for most financial firms to deal just with professional clients from a regulatory and logistical perspective. Thanks for presenting the other viewpoint - the first on this thread to do so - it is valuable to hear both sides of the issue. 1. RS puts itself forward as an innovative finance P2P business. Giving this up in exchange for "dealing with professional clients" and matching institutional lenders to commercial borrowers puts it in direct competition with traditional "FCA regulated financial services". If it gives up its distinctive P2P engagement, it loses its unique selling proposition and, sooner or later, the traditional market will catch up and out compete them. 2. A previous poster suggested that businesses don't engage with their customers. Successful ones do. Good businesses invest seriously in social media engagement as a modern, cost-effective way of staying in touch. 3. I guess that posts in this forum are a valuable input to RS which have helped them forge their business model and avoid serious mistakes - whether they recognise this or not. 4. You make a good point about compliance. You can't let any employee enter free discussions ...so give up on customer engagement and broadcast silence? ...or work hard to find a workable way to engage? Regards, Mark
|
|