oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jun 11, 2018 18:20:00 GMT
You can get 1.95% FSCA backed in a bank for 1 year take this offer of 1.9% You could be locked in rolling over for 5 years. Or 2.05% at Atombank. Then there are still some decent current accounts, some with switching bonuses, and regular savers such as Virgin Money, Leeds BS etc. paying 2.00-5.00% albeit for limited sums. Accepting a tiny margin over FSCS accounts seems to make little sense given the risks.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jun 6, 2018 14:16:31 GMT
So are you saying you now cannot access those funds on that due date if you still want to? Or can you? Please do not falsely imply I have said something I have not. I'm sure you have the ability to read exactly what I have said which is that the new terms should not apply to existing contracts.
If it helps you, I understand I can apply to have contracts ended and the funds moved to my holding account: provided the loan amount can be re-assigned to another lender. As yet I have no idea of how long that might take. When that has been done then a request will need to be made to have funds transferred from the holding account to a bank account.
As under the previous terms, I expect the earliest that funds will be transferred to a bank account will be the following day; not on the Due date.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jun 6, 2018 13:22:08 GMT
What else would you like? A cherry on top? Sorry if I have missed the point which is possible but I really do not understand the massive uproar about this (from many posters) Then let me me explain to you.
Contracts placed up to a month ago, well before many people were aware of the new terms, let alone had a chance to understand how they might work, each had a "Due" date. There was an option to select having funds due either reinvested or placed in a holding account. Those who opted for having funds placed in their holding account might reasonably expect that to happen. It appears it will not.
It's normal for changes in terms to apply to contracts entered into after the change of terms, not to those entered into prior to the change. No cherry required.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jun 6, 2018 11:51:00 GMT
Based on what happened to my repayments today then no, they won't be repaid to holding. I had all my repayment settings set to holding and most of my £3k rolling repayment went straight back into rolling at market rate of 3% in the early hours today. The remaining £80 or so didn't get matched as it seems there was more money than loans today. Thanks. So the new terms, supposedly introduced today, are being applied to investments made a month ago - irrespective of the process available to get my money returned. They really are a dodgy bunch of cowboys. If a bank tried something similar they'd be front page news. Who knows what wheezes they'll pull if they get into financial problems. I'd guess that 50%+ of their customers are still unaware of the change of terms.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jun 6, 2018 10:29:41 GMT
The poin is that the terms have been applied retrospectively. Originally they stated that this would apply after June 6th. Loans made prior to that were made under the old T&C. I just think it's a dirty trick. Have I missed something? All my Rolling loans made up to Monday 4 June are still showing a "Due date" as under the previous terms. Those lent on Monday show due dates of 2 and 3 July. I assume my capital and interest will be released to my Holding account on those dates as under the terms current on the dates lent. Is there a reason to think that won't happen?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jun 5, 2018 11:10:30 GMT
Didn't work for me but it's all sorted now. I had to go into Google settings then Smart Log for Passwords. The only drawback is is that it saves passwords as well. When they prevented the email address being saved last time, the reason given was to improve security. As many will do the same as you, it, in practice, only reduces security - especially as our email address won't be a secret anyway.
Daffy if intended, incompetent if not.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on May 30, 2018 17:40:03 GMT
Three offers on the Lytham default is as exciting as it gets for me.
Still peeved that I went into a loan without really checking what a decrepit old house in Lytham might be worth. Not as much as an optimistic valuer who was under the impression it was freehold apparently. Still, he was able to tell us that it was near the job centre and that St Annes was a highly regarded area.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on May 18, 2018 11:28:09 GMT
And they are now looking for a cleaner for two hours per week. I'd rather they put those funds towards servicing interest payments. Two hours a week. So they aren't expecting too much cleaning to be necessary after the hoards visit their Antiques Centre when it opens later this month?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
Well done MT
May 6, 2018 12:50:36 GMT
will likes this
Post by oik on May 6, 2018 12:50:36 GMT
I might be struck by lightning but I'm not going to stay indoors just in case. No need to stay indoors but sensible to stop flying your kite during storms for a bit.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on May 6, 2018 12:42:01 GMT
Until they use that clause against lenders interests I'll keep investing. Bit late then perhaps? I assume MT didn't think they would need those terms until now.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on May 6, 2018 11:12:55 GMT
Given that the SM only appears to have gone down by about £250k, most of the £1.8m appears to have moved off platform Perhaps not surprising, as those who refused to be coerced into agreeing to the new terms demanded by MT have been banned from buying in the SM even had they wanted to. Terms where the platform takes the right to change existing loan contracts pretty much in any way that suits them, including reducing the agreed rate of interest and indefinitely extending the term "without seeking the consent of, or entering into consultation with, you or the other Lenders". Understandable that older investors in particular should be very reluctant to be locked in to an indeterminate contract with a very small, IoM-based, company.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on May 1, 2018 11:43:09 GMT
If the principals have taken client money it is theft regardless of whether Collateral was regulated or claimed to be so. I've no real idea of how the law defines "fraud", "deception", or "theft" but, as merely a simple man on the Clapham omnibus, for someone to obtain money by falsely claiming that "Collateral (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)" when that claim was untrue, and to continue obtaining money when they had every reason to know that it was untrue, would seem to be a criminal act. If the law doesn't share that view then there would appear to be very little protection from mal-practice for unsophisticated investors.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Apr 16, 2018 12:56:02 GMT
There are agony aunts and other places to get self help . Speculation only increases the fears of those who have that type of personality. This is a serious forum to assist those who invest or wish to invest in P2P. Only verified or at least correct information should be posted. I have 10's of thousands in Coll and 100s of thousands in P2P and don't have to worry that Aliens will come and steal it (probably listed here as a possibility). As with all investments only invest what you can risk loosing. I say risk rather than afford as the two are not the same for everyone. Again I repeat the greater the risk the greater the reward. The greater the effort ie. DD and diversification the less the Risk. A good combination of both results in a healthy return. P2P is not for the feckless or fearful. . Those posts are obviously causing you a great deal of unhappiness. A trick I learned was that if I don't want to read something, I don't look. Works for me.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Apr 10, 2018 13:14:08 GMT
There are lies and lies and more damm lies.Just hope they are not doing what a certain political party did and leaving a note "saying sorry no money left" Which one do you mean? Reggie Maudling started the tradition after being Tory Chancellor by leaving a note for the incoming Chancellor Jim Callaghan saying: "Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess." Others repeated the "joke" over the years with similar messages on leaving office as did Liam Byrne, Labour's chief secretary to the Treasury (but is likely to have been the last given the way it was used by the Daily Mail).
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Apr 7, 2018 18:57:09 GMT
IMO, only those platforms that are willing to devote the time and effort to rebuild investor confidence will go on and prosper. I'd very much agree, and for that reason I'm astonished that MT now seem to go out of their way to alienate lenders. They seem to be in panic mode. Without any warning, lenders were confronted with a notice demanding that they " Confirm". The impression being given that the user wouldn't be allowed access to see his account unless they complied. Quite what they would be confirming wasn't stated. It might be the reader was to confirm that they had read the proposed new terms, or alternatively, that they were agreeing to them. Perhaps SophieThing could clarify. If the latter, then placing a "confirm" buttton at the top of the page to encourage readers to accept before having read what it is they are agreeing is a technique I've only seen used by very dodgy websites. It's not a practice I've seen on any reputable site and I'm amazed that MT should think it acceptable. Any button confirming agreement should only be at the end of the document. In reality, the notice can be ignored but, as we saw earlier in this thread, some lenders were unaware and "confirmed" believing they had no choice. Which I assume was the intention. Even then, MT seem determined to irritate non-compliant lenders as much as possible. They have ensured that they will be confronted by the same page demanding they Confirm everytime they login, and if that isn't enough, they place a very large banner across the Loans page. It seems they don't understand how subtlety and reasonable courtesy would be more persuasive than bludgeoning their customers. I think there is a future for Moneything but that will depend on regaining the confidence of lenders, and that will require treating their customers with the respect they deserve and expect.
|
|