merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902 
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Jul 3, 2014 9:57:17 GMT
Just read the article and must say I thought it was not all bad but it was not all good either. Only reviewed Ratesetter, Zopa & Funding Circle with no mention as far as I can see of other providers in the market. Overall I think it played too hard on the risk factor compared with putting your money in a savings account and failed to extol the higher rates of return achievable with P2P.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Jul 3, 2014 10:36:23 GMT
I agree, I've noticed a similarly shallow understanding with other subjects they've investigated.
Maybe they should stick to comparing toasters. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jul 3, 2014 12:47:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by westonkevRS on Jul 3, 2014 21:00:18 GMT
I agree, I've noticed a similarly shallow understanding with other subjects they've investigated. Maybe they should stick to comparing toasters. :-) I was half annoyed. The summary rated RateSetter very highly due to Customer Service, safety, etc. However when comparing rates of return they compared the RateSetter monthly market returns to the 3-yr products elsewhere. Hardly like for like comparisons that Which should consider fundamental in their unbiased reporting? And poor old Funding Circle who I love and get good returns, just because Which lent a small undiversified amount they showed negative returns. Ridiculous reporting of such an esteemed magazine.... IMHO. Kevin.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Jul 3, 2014 21:13:25 GMT
I've stopped paying attention to what Which say a long time ago. I find their reporting headline grabbing fodder half the time. With the internet these days one can easily find real-life reviews of things & experiences of products shared over a length of time which I find more accurately reflective to what I'm looking for. imho
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Jul 4, 2014 6:15:54 GMT
I've stopped paying attention to what Which say a long time ago. I find their reporting headline grabbing fodder half the time. With the internet these days one can easily find real-life reviews of things & experiences of products shared over a length of time which I find more accurately reflective to what I'm looking for. imho j, whilst I largely agree with you, Which still has a lot of influence in the wider market and still has the ability to get lots of publicity for its surveys. Like you I feel that perhaps Which is past its sell by date and has also become more political in what it does in some of the recent campaigns it has conducted.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Jul 4, 2014 17:16:47 GMT
And poor old Funding Circle who I love and get good returns, just because Which lent a small undiversified amount they showed negative returns. Ridiculous reporting of such an esteemed magazine.... IMHO. Kevin. Who told you Which? was an "esteemed magazine"  Was it a long time ago, when it might have been true? If it's a subject you know anything about, and read a Which? report, you get the idea that they may not be the most accurate and impartial source of info. As usual, this makes you wonder about their abilities on subjects you *don't* know much about.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 4, 2014 19:13:43 GMT
But that's true of journalism in general .. any time I read a trade mag report (or was involved in / quoted by one) there were at least half a dozen glaring errors of fact in the average page. Like you say, you then begin to suspect this is true of the other 99% of the articles that you have no inside information about.
"Which" do (or used to) do OK on toasters, and white goods, but there are better / specialist magazines or websites for most of the other stuff (cameras, hifi, video, phones, computers, and yeah, even financial products). I guess part of the problem is that I rarely have the same set of wish list items as joe-average-which-reader (OK, so I'm weird .. if I can't field-replace my camera batteries, ideally with something standard like AAs, I'm not buying).
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Jul 6, 2014 17:12:38 GMT
But that's true of journalism in general .. any time I read a trade mag report (or was involved in / quoted by one) there were at least half a dozen glaring errors of fact in the average page. Like you say, you then begin to suspect this is true of the other 99% of the articles that you have no inside information about. "Which" do (or used to) do OK on toasters, and white goods, but there are better / specialist magazines or websites for most of the other stuff (cameras, hifi, video, phones, computers, and yeah, even financial products). I guess part of the problem is that I rarely have the same set of wish list items as joe-average-which-reader (OK, so I'm weird .. if I can't field-replace my camera batteries, ideally with something standard like AAs, I'm not buying). I also notice that the article didn't mention this forum. If they'd been serious about long term testing and 'expert' opinion they could have referred their readers here. They might also have directed their readers to www.lendgrade.com and www.p2pmoney.co.uk
|
|
|
|
Post by westonkevRS on Nov 19, 2015 18:36:09 GMT
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 19, 2015 18:40:36 GMT
Which? really pushed the boundaries with their P2P platform comparison study, didn't they?!
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Nov 19, 2015 19:58:41 GMT
Changed my mind about this reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by westonkevRS on Nov 21, 2015 9:40:03 GMT
Which? really pushed the boundaries with their P2P platform comparison study, didn't they?! Very true. But they are an extremely prudent magazine. Despite the knowledgable forumites knowing there are probably some very safe other platforms, Which! Is unlikely to want to be seen to be promoting them in case of failure. Perhaps a small risk, but their audience is typically very risk adverse. Personally I'm surprised they cover P2P at all. For example, The Daily Telegraph is constantly negative. Kevin
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 21, 2015 9:51:31 GMT
Which? really pushed the boundaries with their P2P platform comparison study, didn't they?! Very true. But they are an extremely prudent magazine. Despite the knowledgable forumites knowing there are probably some very safe other platforms, Which! Is unlikely to want to be seen to be promoting them in case of failure. Perhaps a small risk, but their audience is typically very risk adverse. Personally I'm surprised they cover P2P at all. For example, The Daily Telegraph is constantly negative. Kevin ... and not just about Jeremy Corbyn 
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Nov 21, 2015 10:43:34 GMT
Hard to say what they dislike most, p2p lending, windmills, immigrants, non-dom taxation.
Well, what they would hate most would be a full UK tax paying immigrant investing in a windmill through a p2p platform. On the BBC.
|
|
Was it a long time ago, when it might have been true?
