ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 14, 2016 22:04:30 GMT
Some of those sums of money are like what I would like to afford. Perhaps I should sell the house and invest them in SS. A tent under a bridge should do. The problem to solve - internet connection.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 14, 2016 21:56:35 GMT
Google scrabble money. Lots of nice ideas. Alternatively you can use the avatar builder of the forum.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 14, 2016 21:14:39 GMT
=selling is not showing anything on my computer apart from "id Start Date End Date age amount interest Percentage Sold"
(I am not logged in.)
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 14, 2016 19:03:46 GMT
too late for me I'm afraid. I'm already looking a defaults which amount to 2/3 of interest earned. So I'm getting out and can't imagine coming back - not when there are at least 3 platform consistently delivering 12 per cent each and every month... You are potentially more lucky then myself. I can loose 1/3 of the money I invested in ReBS. Not a huge sum in itself but still more than I wished for. And when I think that some of that money can be recovered if and only if ReBS presses hard, I have to think, will they (ReBS) actually do it.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 14, 2016 18:53:00 GMT
I think that it all depends on who's paying the cashback/bonus - if its the platform then its tax free, if it comes from the borrower then it's not (but at the end of the day I guess it's a case of just use the figures on whatever tax statement is provided) I think when the cashback was been paid it was under the old t&c's where Saving Stream was the borrower and it was them paying the cashback. With the new t&c's when you lend directly to the borrower through Saving Stream. It's Saving stream paying the bonus so assume that wouldn't be taxable as its not the borrower paying? Having said that, it's Saving stream who pays the interest to us every month too, not the borrower but that is still taxable. Could Saving Stream give some clarity on this? Saving Stream only holds the interest paid to us every month. It is the borrower's money. (re new T&C)
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 14, 2016 16:10:06 GMT
A "Cancel" button can still be provided. It can even be more effective because it can become a tool against people with negative balance, being their "Cancel" button greyed out.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 14, 2016 6:34:04 GMT
I like to read the Q&A's on a loan before investing in it - I figure there are guys on the site who know a lot more than I do. On checking recently listed loan 21091 I found no Questions. As this is a second tranche I clicked onto the first tranche loan (21007) to read the Q&A there. MOST OF THEM HAD BEEN REMOVED and replaced with "FC Comment: This post has been removed as it does not ask a question of the borrower regarding the business. Thanks, FC" I had looked at them at the time. If memory serves, I do not recall any of them being inappropriate. Rather, they were attempting to get make FC up their game with regards to more clarity and accuracy in the Investor Report. So is the new FC moderation policy one of 'remove any comments that are critical of us'? Playing devils advocate here but it clearly states in bold that Please note this forum is not actively monitored and Funding Circle does not control the content. It should should not be used to communicate with Funding Circle. So if the questions were as you say "attempting to get make FC up their game with regards to more clarity and accuracy in the Investor Report. " then they were asking questions of FC not of the borrower. That said there is a strong case (IMHO) for added functionality that allows prospective lenders to ask questions of FC regarding a specific loan without having to email them via the 'contact us' page. I understand that this thread relates to the Q&A on FC loans, not this forum. Even if FC does not "actively monitor those Q&A", something that I dispute because they use it to communicate with the lenders, the fact that they choose to remove a question rather than answering it shows the kind of respect that they have to the lenders (to say the least).
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 14, 2016 0:00:38 GMT
Here, everyone can discuss, express opinions and share information and ideas freely. The only major rule to observe is be polite. (and do not refer to borrowers or business by their full name - use Initial followed by *** instead.)
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 13, 2016 23:34:56 GMT
cooling_dude is a great guy. As you may know, he hardly need to sleep.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 13, 2016 23:25:57 GMT
I did call HMRC and discussed this with them. Their reply in brief is that P2P is a new industry, still evolving and rules can change (if HMRC start loosing tax). An Fs ISA is potentially part of my 2016 plans. Not buying from myself though. I am not sure if you will be allowed to buy from yourself, especially in a similar situation as the SM on FS.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 13, 2016 23:24:05 GMT
Following the discussion in this thread it appears to me that this is going to be a free crowd-funding adventure rather than a p2p lending.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 13, 2016 22:47:47 GMT
Following discussions in other threads on different boards in this forum, it is clear that finally people are realising what this secondary market is really like. This is starting to have a negative reaction to the SM which might also leak to the PM. fundingsecure: time to rethink your SM.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 13, 2016 22:16:16 GMT
IMHO there isn't actually a difference -- or problem -- with the advice FS have received. The difference is that FS have chosen to pay all the interest earned over the life of a loan to the people holding the loan parts at the time the loan is closed and the interest is paid. And the tax rules seem pretty clear that whomever is paid the interest reports the income and pays any tax due. The two other platforms with SMs that I'm familiar with (AC and SS) don't do that. Instead, they calculate the amount of interest accrued up to the time the part is sold/bought on the SM and then pay that to the seller when the interest payment is received. That might happen within a month (where payments are made monthly), or at maturity (where interest is rolled up during the term of the loan and paid at maturity), or even well after maturity if the borrower doesn't repay on time. In that case, everyone who held parts of a loan over its life will receive their share of the interest, and pay any tax due on that income. The key point is that the difference in tax treatment is purely the result of the difference in the way FS decided to pay the interest. They didn't have to do it that way -- they could have done it the way other platforms do -- but that's what they decided to do. ISTM that the FS method is a lot easier to implement from a platform's point of view and that maybe why FS set up their SM that way. Other platforms may have looked at the results for investors of that method and concluded that they'd rather use a different method that didn't have the same consequences, even though it meant they have to keep track of who is owed how much accrued interest. And when loan parts can be bought and sold multiple times before interest is paid, that has to require a fair amount of record keeping. I'm sure that is why FS have tried to make the consequences of SM purchases clearer with the "CAUTION" that caveman38 quoted a bit earlier in this thread, though they didn't do that at first and added that note only after there was a lot of discussion of those consequences here in the forum. They might have done it without needing our prompting -- who knows? An unanswerable question is whether all buyers fully understand the consequences. I suspect there will be some who don't. If that's the case, some will be surprised later. And some of those will complain. How big a stink will result from that is another good question, and that will test the adequacy of the cautionary note. Unfortunately, the result of that will be negative PR for FS even if the cautionary note is held to be adequate in the end. Could give some interesting results if the buyer is investing via an IF ISA? now there's something to ponder ... Can't imagine HMRC being too happy with some of the implications that could occur? Brian I did call HMRC and discussed this with them. Their reply in brief is that P2P is a new industry, still evolving and rules can change (if HMRC start loosing tax).
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 13, 2016 22:05:26 GMT
I have been very vocal about this tax trap that exists on FS' SM. Their view is that they are covered since they put up a notice about this. My view is that they are still responsible. I personally do not use FS SM neither to buy nor to sell. For me FS' SM does not exist.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Rebuilding Society
La D*I* Ltd
Mar 13, 2016 21:58:56 GMT
Post by ablender on Mar 13, 2016 21:58:56 GMT
rebsrepMy sympathies for the directors for this sad and difficult moment in their lives. What you have described makes things a bit clearer. I do not find the threads on the discussion pages of the loans very easy to follow. Related to this, can you please tell me in which thread you have posted "a clear and detailed descriptin of what we are going to do after March 15th ie. Wednesday"? What is the date of the post?
|
|