|
Post by misotu on Jul 8, 2016 12:07:39 GMT
Received an email from Zopa saying that they have updated their tax statements to reflect the fact that we are now able to claim tax relief on bad debt. They also say: If you’ve already used the old ones for 2015/16, don’t worry: they were accurate. The key difference is we’ve split recoveries into two categories: those eligible for tax relief and those which aren’t. In your tax statements we’ve only included recoveries which are considered taxable income.
So I've opened the new one and compared it with the old and after some juggling around with a calculator I can see where some of the amounts in the original have been bundled together in the new. But it looks to me like my net taxable income on the new statement is nearly £25 different.
Is anyone else seeing the same, or am I having yet another senile moment?
|
|
|
Post by misotu on May 25, 2016 18:25:55 GMT
Apologies again, as I'm sure this is an inane question. But I've been away a while, and the Zopa web-site is full of mystery and not so very full of answers.
I'm quite old and probably a bit thick, but I can't see anywhere what is the current expected rate for, say, Zopa Classic. Or in fact any of the products.
I can see what I have lent at. And that has just declined, which suggests that the latest rate ain't so hot.
But for the life of me, in the "Lending Summary" thing, I can't see what I can expect my money to earn if it gets lent out today. If I'm failing to see the big red button marked "See current rates" then I apologise profusely. But seriously, where do I find this information?
|
|
|
Post by misotu on May 25, 2016 17:14:31 GMT
After a long hiatus I've decided to start reinvesting in Zopa to diversify my P2P investments and I'm a bit out of touch. Their reporting has changed a lot and while I've been able to hunt down a lot of the info they try to hide (for example, the rate at which I lent out last week) I've not been able to find out where I am in the queue for relending or new lending. I can sometimes see how big the queue is - but where I am in it appears to be classified. Sorry if this has been answered a zillion times before. I'm sure it has and, honestly, I'm sorry but on the other hand this is a forum and you have a choice If this question irritates you, please feel free to ignore me. Anyone with a few moments to spare and a generous heart, I'd appreciate an explanation of the queue system and where the info is available. Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by misotu on May 25, 2016 17:05:17 GMT
I've had an email from RS saying that the P2P ISA is not exactly on the horizon yet.
They are suggesting that people either invest in their Rolling market with an eye on transferring or invest in an easy-access ISA with a view to transferring in the minute P2P ISAs are finally approved.
This is all really unsatisfactory and, while I understand that the FCA has to do its job, it seems absolutely astonishing that it is taking so long to do it, given that the P2P platforms must be absolutely desperate to satisfy any and all conditions as swiftly as possible.
It all looks remarkably amateur from where I'm standing. And, you see, thing is, I could be *absolutely remarkably amateur on a big fat salary* for slightly less of a big fat salary than these goons. In fact, there are probably a bunch of people out there who are sharp, qualified and could get this turned around on a sixpence for a lot less dosh. That's the scandal.
In the meantime, I either take a laughable rate tax-free ... or I carry on paying tax. Not what I thought we were promised and not at all impressive for a country that prides itself on "The City" and its "world class" financial products.
|
|
|
RateSetter (RS)
Rolling...
Apr 15, 2016 11:02:38 GMT
Post by misotu on Apr 15, 2016 11:02:38 GMT
Actually, re-reading the rolling market information, I have another question and I hope westonkev will have something to say on the matter. If I'm right in thinking that there may be a bit of a cashflow problem in the newly-named "Rolling" market when P2P ISAs arrive then I would like to be very clear about what will happen. I would have thought that the funds would remain on loan pending funds being available and that a repayment "queue" (effectively) would be formed which would gradually be dealt with as new money arrives. But the information seems to suggest that if there aren't sufficient funds then that's it ... you have to lend that money until the loan is repaid which might be 5 years! So just the one shot - and if the timing isn't right you're stuffed? Surely that can't be right. I can understand that there might be a delay. But I don't understand why someone lending in Rolling *after* me might get their funds out on time while I languish for up to five years. If that's the case then I'm first out the door and off to the BS until P2P ISAs appear. Clarification please? It does read like that, it's true. And I suppose that is to manage lenders expectations that in the worse scenario they would be locked in. But my understanding is that monies would be released across all rolling loans once sufficient liquidity has returned. If this happens in one block or piecemeal based on shortest term is clearly left to discretion within the terms above, but in reality hopefully common sense will prevail and rolling funds released. If RateSetter did tie in loans permanently, then the reputational impact would inevitably lead to the platform collapse through lack of new lender funds. So I'm sure they would prefer to revert to a new normal as soon as possible. Kevin. Thanks for this Kevin and what you say makes sense. It's good that people are aware of the worst that can happen of course, and I was aware of this from the start. But if what you believe to be the case in the event of temporary liquidity issues is accurate then the picture is being painted far more bleakly than is justified, which doesn't help RS. The wording could be changed to be much clearer and more reassuring, while making plain the ultimate downside. In fact, I think a lot of information on the site needs an overhaul (see james' post above about conflicting definitions of how the Rolling market works). The information on the lending screen for Rolling is incredibly vague and really needs tightening up and more detail specific to the product. "Rolling" is either a monthly term with conditions or some other kind of term which needs to be clearly defined and this isn't the case at the moment. This was my original point and you haven't addressed this so far. I know you have found some of the comments on here quite frustrating but you surely understand that logging in to find the product renamed and references to the 1 month term removed is a bit of a shock! Add to this conflicting information about how it works and obviously people are going to have concerns.
|
|
|
RateSetter (RS)
Rolling...
Apr 14, 2016 22:02:29 GMT
Post by misotu on Apr 14, 2016 22:02:29 GMT
The no fee for withdrawals is key but I hadn't heard anything about that until I came to this board and it took a while for it to sink in because I was somewhat taken aback by the stealth renaming operation Funny, I have very little money in RS and thus pay little attention to the site or even their communications, but I was aware of the name change so i guess I read that email. Not as stealthy as they thought PS I didnt read the one about the drinks, but then it had already been posted here. What email? Neither I nor my husband received an email on the renaming thing so I guess you must be a Very Special Customer. PS They didn't invite us for drinks, either. Not that we're feeling picked on, you understand
|
|
|
Post by misotu on Apr 14, 2016 21:59:00 GMT
Cross-post with westonkev I was aware that this might happen, but assumed it was a fairly remote possibility historically and thought the risk was worth it. But I'm not convinced that's the case now, because of liquidity pressure as a result of the new ISA. OK, so basically I might end up lending for five years at 3-3.5% at recent rates. However, you haven't addressed my main point which is that the web site information on the rolling lending page does not say when you get your money back if there's no issue. ISTM that if there is no issue you get your money back when either a) your loans are repaid by the borrower b) you request a withdrawal (which is of course subject to new investors, rate premiums etc)
I was confused when james was differentiating between Zopa Access and RS Rolling - and perhaps I still have it wrong - but they both seem to me almost the same with the only real difference being that on RS all your funds could be in one loan whereas on Zopa your funds will be in multiple loans so in effect you have less chance of getting screwed unlucky on Zopa
No, this isn't correct. You get your money back as follows: a) after a month (subject to lender funds availability etc) or if this fails b) when your loans are repaid by the borrower or c) when you request a withdrawal (which is of course subject to new investors, rate premiums etc). It currently works quite differently to Zopa Access. If I look at my portfolio the Rolling (formerly Monthly) contracts are all shown to be maturing 31 days (give or take weekends) after they began and also shown in my Repayments schedule. This is how it has always worked and according to the specific portfolio info (which is headed up "Your Rolling Money" so it should be current) this is how it still works. So this *is* a monthly term product, according to current RS account info, subject to certain conditions. What I don't understand is why this is not made clear to a lender checking out the "Rolling" lending pages. I can't see any mention of the term and clearly people here are understanding it quite differently. If it's just my old loans that have a 31-day (in March) term and RS propose to change this along the lines you describe then this would be a really fundamental change to the operation of the account. But if it's just the same Monthly product re-badged, why not make it clear that the funds will be returned to you in exactly one month, funds permitting? I agree with oik: more nannying please, RS!
|
|
|
RateSetter (RS)
Rolling...
Apr 14, 2016 21:40:40 GMT
Post by misotu on Apr 14, 2016 21:40:40 GMT
That's in part easy: I wrongly believed that RateSetter's Monthly product was a monthly term product and welcome the changed name and enhanced clarification about the underlying terms and risks involved. Assuming that is so, the RateSetter product will still probably beat the Zopa product due to the lower of interest rate risk in the RateSetter version. What RateSetter loses compared to my earlier wrong understanding is the guarantee of an exit at the end of a month term. So definitely a double take needed by me later and kudos to RateSetter for clarifying things. So after the double-take I now say: "RateSetter have now renamed their Monthly product to Rolling and made it more clear that the terms are not monthly but instead can be up to five years for the underlying investments. No fee for exiting but if no buyer is available at your lending rate your money might be locked in until the end of the terms of the underlying loans. Provided interest rates change slowly the RateSeter product seems like the winner in access terms but if there is a large rate shift there might be no way to get all of the money out, so in such adverse circumstances it might lock you in. in a corresponding situation with Zopa you'd take a capital loss instead of a lock in. Neither product appears suitable for those who want easy regular access to their funds or occasional access to the money because neither provides a cost free assured access to it."Provided you only expect slow rate changes the RateSetter product looks like the better deal between the two. Neither looks like a product I'd choose if I wanted regular or occasional access in the face of possible significant rate changes, there are better alternatives out there for that. OK, well sign me up for the Financially Naive Collective, because with a product called "Monthly" and a significantly lower typical rate than the 1, 3 and 5 year products, I very much believed it to be, effectively, a monthly term product, with the proviso that the funds could only in fact be returned after a month *if* there were sufficient lender funds on offer, at that point and at a sufficient rate, to make it feasible. And that was fine, I've always thought the monthly product was very clever of RS. But now I'm perplexed. We have 1 year, 3 year and 5 year products. And we used to have monthly which apparently isn't monthly and has been renamed "rolling". Except that "rolling" isn't a length of time. So all I'm asking is how long I'm notionally committing my money for and when I can expect to see the capital, plus interest, arrive in my holding account subject to fund availability etc etc etc without me having to do anything. I assume it's still monthly. But it doesn't say so.All the information on the RS site about repayments and getting funds out refers to "the term you selected". All of it. But "rolling" is not a meaningful term so the information is now impossible to comprehend, whereas "monthly" was comprehensible. The no fee for withdrawals is key but I hadn't heard anything about that until I came to this board and it took a while for it to sink in because I was somewhat taken aback by the stealth renaming operation
|
|
|
RateSetter (RS)
Rolling...
Apr 14, 2016 18:19:36 GMT
Post by misotu on Apr 14, 2016 18:19:36 GMT
Cross-post with westonkev I was aware that this might happen, but assumed it was a fairly remote possibility historically and thought the risk was worth it. But I'm not convinced that's the case now, because of liquidity pressure as a result of the new ISA. OK, so basically I might end up lending for five years at 3-3.5% at recent rates. However, you haven't addressed my main point which is that the web site information on the rolling lending page does not say when you get your money back if there's no issue.
|
|
|
RateSetter (RS)
Rolling...
Apr 14, 2016 18:15:31 GMT
Post by misotu on Apr 14, 2016 18:15:31 GMT
Actually, re-reading the rolling market information, I have another question and I hope westonkev will have something to say on the matter.
If I'm right in thinking that there may be a bit of a cashflow problem in the newly-named "Rolling" market when P2P ISAs arrive then I would like to be very clear about what will happen. I would have thought that the funds would remain on loan pending funds being available and that a repayment "queue" (effectively) would be formed which would gradually be dealt with as new money arrives. But the information seems to suggest that if there aren't sufficient funds then that's it ... you have to lend that money until the loan is repaid which might be 5 years!
So just the one shot - and if the timing isn't right you're stuffed? Surely that can't be right.
I can understand that there might be a delay. But I don't understand why someone lending in Rolling *after* me might get their funds out on time while I languish for up to five years. If that's the case then I'm first out the door and off to the BS until P2P ISAs appear.
Clarification please?
|
|
|
RateSetter (RS)
Rolling...
Apr 14, 2016 17:59:59 GMT
Post by misotu on Apr 14, 2016 17:59:59 GMT
I have managed to get in excess of £48,000 and rising in 3% to 5% in a single name (no joint acounts) all protected by the FSCS, all not time limited and all can be accesed in a few minites to two hours via faster payments, you must be very rich if this is chicken sh*t. Impressive. Where is this marvellous account alender? The best I've managed is 3% with Santander so I would be very happy indeed to find an additional provider at decent rates!
|
|
|
Post by misotu on Apr 14, 2016 17:50:10 GMT
I've just logged in to find this change. The problem for me is that there is no indication when the money will be returned, assuming funds are available. Which seems like a big hole in the information. Where does it say "In the rolling market, your invested funds plus interest are generally returned after one month subject to there being sufficient replacement funds from other investors" ?
If it's there somewhere, then fine but for the life of me I can't see it on the relevant (ie rolling lending) page. It needs to be right at the top and very obvious.
A courtesy email to lenders regarding the change would have been polite. Those new to RS have no memory of what has gone before so the fact that it used to be called "Rolling" is irrelevant. A change like this is concerning - perhaps needlessly, but it's not good for RS and that's why companies usually try to engage in professional, informative and timely communications with their customers.
Cynically, I assume that RS think there won't be sufficient funds shortly, because there's a lot of money piling into the monthly market waiting for the advent of the P2P ISA. They reckon, probably correctly, that a lot of that monthly market money will disappear when those ISAs are finally available.
|
|
|
Post by misotu on Mar 12, 2016 10:18:42 GMT
I had been recycling my Zopa repayments to maintain my investment level recently, but gave up this week. My money is just sitting there, I've lent nothing at all recently. I am interested in opening a Zopa ISA this year ... but unless funds are lent out considerably more swiftly than at present this is not looking like a good decision.
|
|
|
Post by misotu on Feb 17, 2016 19:23:37 GMT
As a postscript, I also take issue with the use of the word "momentary" in their response to me. It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "momentary". The error persisted for an extended period of time and if I weren't used to Zopa's constant errors and problems I would have been very alarmed indeed.
|
|
|
Post by misotu on Feb 17, 2016 19:21:23 GMT
I emailed them to complain that, while I realised it was probably a processing run taking a while, there was no flag to indicate that the balance shown was incorrect.
They replied as follows:
"Thank you for your email. I can confirm the reason for the momentary drop in your total figure was caused by a repayment processing issue we experienced on Monday night, which meant that those repayments were actually processed on Tuesday afternoon. This meant that some lending accounts were effected (sic) in a very similar manner to the repayment run delay that you mentioned.
Having looked at your account, I can see that the £xxx has been reinstated and everything is operating as it should. Due to the relatively short time period the issue existed for, Zopa didn't implement the customary repayment run discrepancy alert as the problem was resolved later that day.
I apologise for any inconvenience that was caused during this time, but once again I can confirm that everything on your account is operating correctly and your repayments are up to date."
I have replied to say, categorically, that if the balance isn't in fact the balance the "customary repayment run discrepancy alert" should of course be displayed no matter how short-lived the discrepancy, since we rely on the balance shown when managing funds and if the balance shown is incorrect, we need to know.
I have absolutely no idea why Zopa would think the explanation highlighted in red is satisfactory or any kind of explanation at all, frankly.
|
|