|
Post by transo on Sept 25, 2017 19:53:46 GMT
Well I managed to sell almost all my remaining book (couple of hundred loan parts) in about an hour this evening, which is far faster than I expected. Of course, being FC not everything could work smoothly, and the promised e-mail when my sell order was completed hasn't materialised.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Sept 19, 2017 13:56:55 GMT
Ah yes, as predicted by others...
Anyone want to bet whether which week will see a significant pick-up in lending speed?
|
|
|
Post by transo on Sept 19, 2017 6:59:05 GMT
Still apparently I managed to sell a few more loan parts at a premium in the small hours, so someone was up late trying to grab a bargain. How were you able to sell at a premium ? I thought everything was par from the 18th. I'd listed them earlier in the week and they hadn't yet sold; looks like FC didn't flip the switch until some time after midnight.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Sept 18, 2017 21:28:52 GMT
Looking at the loan book they managed to get three loans through the big cheese today (plus 66 (!) whole loans, but presumably the software (API!?) for that hasn't changed). The total value of them was £304k with an average part size of about £60. Looking at the loan book its clear they basically turned off the primary market for us punters (or the volume of selling soaked up all available cash) for most of last week.
Still apparently I managed to sell a few more loan parts at a premium in the small hours, so someone was up late trying to grab a bargain.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Aug 30, 2017 16:21:19 GMT
Looking at the FCA's client money rules I think FC might be right on this one. It looks like the rules allow them to pay the money over to charity if (i) it's a minimal (<£25) amount or (ii) they just can't track you down after lots of trying, but in any case only after "six years following the last movement on the client's account", which I think recoveries etc. would count as.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Aug 7, 2017 7:27:00 GMT
Has anyone else noticed problems viewing loans linked to loans they hold?
I used to be able to see loans linked to ones I hold (or held), but now it seems very hit and miss (more miss) whether I can or not. This makes it very difficult to see what's going on with companies I'm exposed to.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Jul 6, 2017 7:25:02 GMT
Something looks really odd here. This loan shows as A+ currently, but the rate is 13.5% and their credit score fr the past year was in the teens. Could this possibly have been a C or D and some bright spark at FC have made a hash of the downgrade and instead re-rated it A+. It's only a theory on my part, I have nothing solid. Can anyone cloud the issue with facts? Yep, it was originally a C-rated loan, so FC appear to have got themselves into a spot of bother here; unwinding any loan part purchases done while it claimed to be A+ (clearly not a communication the FCA would consider "fair, clear and not misleading").
|
|
|
Post by transo on Mar 1, 2017 9:57:21 GMT
Yes, don't know why they've changed the dates in the repayment tab to just show in "MMM dd" format rather than the much more sensible "dd/mm/yyyy". With loans running nearly a year late it's useless even for normal users, leave alone bots. Have e-mailed them but sadly don't expect a response, though if others want to mail on the same issue that might help.
As compensation they have finally added the year into the date shown in comments, so you can see just how long some of the sagas have been running.
What other changes have you noticed?
|
|
|
Post by transo on Feb 14, 2017 11:57:07 GMT
A+, although their earlier loan taken out in July 2015 (which was repaid by the new loan) was only rated as a C.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Jan 6, 2017 8:44:03 GMT
I missed seeing that. My guess is that the C should be A+, like everything else in post-truth Funding Charitably. Yes, I expect so! Anyway, it seems to have gone now, presumably reincarnated under a different number. Yep, miraculously improved to the A+ rated 30633, which was fully funded yesterday evening.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Jan 3, 2017 23:09:08 GMT
Not sure if anyone bothers flagging questions on loans as inappropriate these days (or even asking them), but it appears FC would never know as they don't work.
Tried to report FC's own question on loan request 30599, where they use a question to state there's an all asset security, despite the loan listing saying there isn't one. Someone has asked for clarification in another question and the borrower states there isn't one. Tried to flag FC's "question" as misleading, but clicking the "submit" button on my report does nothing at all!
Oh well, another loan they'll probably have to withdraw and relist!
|
|
|
Post by transo on Dec 27, 2016 23:55:12 GMT
D to a is a big leap but we are dealing with an algorithm here. Company could have moved down a band by borrowing reduced funds, add in a possible cleanup of credit file, a filing of better results and a Christmas suspension of reality and there we are! Agreed it is rediculous. I wonder if the lights are on but no one is at home in fact towers! The bots have taken over! Whether it's the algorithm or a change in the company's fortunes it's been more of a roller-coaster than that. Over their 7 previous loans they've ranged from C (initially) up to A+ in 2015, then down to a D in July 2016. What I don't get is why they paid off the A+ loans (8%) over a year early using a D loan at 13.8%!?
|
|
|
Post by transo on Oct 18, 2016 20:50:49 GMT
However when 12170 repaid 3 months late on 19th July, the extra interest was paid 23 days later (appearing exactly the same as any other interest payment on the transaction statement, i.e. Interest repayment for loan part XXXXXX). If it takes that long you should certainly complain to FC pointing out it's a clear breach of CASS 7.13.36 [R] to take more than 10 business days to allocate client money a P2P platform holds to the underlying lenders. The rules (unsurprisingly) don't allow people longer just because their systems weren't designed to cope with it or some other excuse. (Of course it's possible that FC didn't actually have the interest at the point they claimed the loan had been repaid in full - in which case their statements about repayment status are misleading.)
|
|
|
Post by transo on Jul 13, 2016 7:14:44 GMT
So, North Devon 9 has now been relisted on the same terms at which it failed dismally to fund a week ago. I wonder why FC think it will fund this time - must be a whole lot more Autobodge money about, or perhaps they've worked out a different Autobodge algorithm that will ensure this gets the maximum attention. No sign of it, it's first overnight funding run got it to basically the same state of the previous attempt at North Devon 9 - about 15%. Be interesting to see how it pans out but I can't see FC getting this away and even if they do they've still got to find lots more to complete the development. The questions being asked (and, of course, not answered) don't indicate much enthusiasm for it amongst active bidders.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Jul 4, 2016 7:47:17 GMT
My bank doesn't include the address, but I sent it to FC with a note explaining this and they accepted it within the hour; though it was for the account I'd used for withdrawals since (literally) the dawn of FC.
|
|