|
Post by transo on Jun 6, 2016 17:52:11 GMT
I've just placed a bid on a new FC loan part and was asked to accept terms and conditions. I know that I've not placed a bid on an SME loan for a while, so I might have missed this, but there were a few things in the terms and conditions that caught my eye: 1) The borrower has to pay interest from loan close - has pre-acceptance now been implemented? 2) Repay early, but less then 8 days before the next installment is due? You owe another month 3) Once a sum has been outstanding for 7 days or more, Funding Circle will charge an administration fee of up to 15% of the overdue amount (where borrowers are 4 or pore payments late) Has anyone else who is a bit more clued up of FC terms and conditions noticed this - I had a quick scan through the T&C but the above points were the only ones of interest that I spotted I've not seen any notification of an update, though was requested to accept an update just over a month ago so it might be that one. From memory 1) This has always been true, interest has been due from the earlier of the date the loan is accepted and drawn down or the date the loan finished (i.e. reaches 0:00:00 on the counter, not when it fills) 2) Not sure about this, I thought borrowers always had to pay interest in full for the next month if they repaid early, even if it was only a day or two after their last repayment. 3) I believe this has always been the case, not that I've seen any evidence of this being applied and certainly no evidence of it benefitting anyone other than FC (which is the only party the Ts&Cs imply would benefit).
|
|
|
Post by transo on Apr 22, 2016 23:13:43 GMT
Indeed, and I don't see mention about interest on the late payment of 12170 either. Is it time to start stamping our little feet?
In short, yes. They indicate in another place that loans will need to go 14 days late and then they will charge a month. Where did we agree to that? And delays which are not caused by the borrower - bad weather etc - justify waiving interest on late payment! Stamp away and let them know who is the principal and who the agent. In the other place they seem to have finally admitted (after many meetings) that, as was obvious to anyone outside FC who'd read the loan conditions, that interest is due for every day the loan is outstanding, and are going to start some remedial work to pay the interest that has not been paid on the past property loans. That may take a month though, they say.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Apr 20, 2016 18:16:38 GMT
Yes, FCA will require them to ensure they can account for all the client money, in separate client money bank accounts. But it doesn't stop them earning the interest on that money and pocketing it if their Ts&Cs allow them to do this (which I believe they do).
|
|
|
General P2x Discussion
P2P ISA
Mar 31, 2016 10:39:42 GMT
Post by transo on Mar 31, 2016 10:39:42 GMT
So what platforms are confirmed to be offering an ISA and which ones are we waiting on? None of them are in a position to confirm a definite launch date, at least as far as I know. Plenty of them want to get going with one, but cannot until they receive full FCA and ISA Manager registration. According to this announcement ( www.fca.org.uk/news/peer-to-peer-applications-for-full-authorisation) by the FCA there are 8 platforms that have their full permissisons and so could offer an IF ISA on April 6th. There are apparently 44 firms with interim permissions who won't be able to, and between the lines I think the announcement is saying it may be a while before they get full permissions. I've done a quick search of the FCA register to try to work out who actually has full permissions, but none of the biggest I searched for appeared to have them yet.
|
|
|
Funding Circle (FC)
FC IFISA
Mar 22, 2016 14:23:46 GMT
Post by transo on Mar 22, 2016 14:23:46 GMT
From another of FC's updates (I think one of the blog articles, but can't remember which), I think the thing that's preventing them being sure of when they can launch the ISA is that they need to have obtained their full (rather than interim) FCA permissions before they can register as an ISA manager with the HMRC. Given FC's record on communications I can imagine that persuading the FCA that FC communicates with investors in a way that is "clear, fair and not misleading" could be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Mar 7, 2016 18:53:50 GMT
But maybe it wasn't really a clone... the same borrower had a loan request (20426E £50k) de-listed last week, with the comment that it would be re-listed in "two parts as the loan purpose is two-fold", so maybe Flapping Cetaceans got confused about the second part. Not seen that reasoning on re-listing a loan before.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Feb 23, 2016 8:07:18 GMT
And one of those loans - 10082 - is back to paid-up, after being almost a month late, some of which was due to an error in de-flagging it... LET ME SELL! Well they seem to have finally paid last month's repayment, and get Faintly Cumbersome to process it. Unfortunately this months repayment, which was due yesterday, is now showing as "retry"...
|
|
|
Post by transo on Dec 14, 2015 23:37:16 GMT
Anyone understand why 18316 is rated D ? Well it was rated as an E when they previously applied (and then didn't take the loan for "unforeseen reasons" according to the latest Q&A) in October.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Dec 12, 2015 23:11:29 GMT
According to my notes (which weren't very assiduously kept back then) 5726 had 1% cashback. No record of cashback on 5737. I never held either so can't check transaction statements to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Dec 1, 2015 17:15:36 GMT
Looked today and I have gone from X loan with comments, Y of them downgraded, to X-7 loans with comments, Y-7 of them downgraded. Not sure what prompted the elimination of 7 loans .. as far as I can see from the 'loan parts' reports they are all still mine (and still bad debts). I assume everyone else is seeing the same? Early repayments? Annoyingly these get a comment (if FC can be bothered) about the potential for early repayment, but on the day they repay they just up and disappear from the list entirely.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Nov 25, 2015 19:00:44 GMT
Any ideas why 17694 (a perfectly normal A+ 60k SME loan) has 1% cash-back applied? I can't see any other loans by this borrower and it doesn't look to be having any difficulty filling (not that I'll bid at 6% for a 12 month loan, cash-back or no). Any ideas, or is it just a "technical error" - shortly to cause another "technical error" and re-listing, followed by complaints and re-instatement!?
|
|
|
Post by transo on Nov 12, 2015 23:32:30 GMT
Well, here's a new one. Some of my very early 2011 defaults have now had "a final distribution made as the borrower's cash account held a small cash balance". They note that the balance is small and because they can't distribute < 1p not all lenders in the loan will have received a payment. However looks like on at least one of them I have now (a mere 3 and half years after it stopped paying) received a 1p recovery of the £16 odd lost! In all cases this is a year or two after bankruptcy or similar processes appear to have been exhausted.
Contrasts quite strongly with the breezy graphs FC have been publishing about recoveries on their blog today. In fact I wonder if that's prompted them to do the final distribution - they cunningly graphed "%age of defaulted loans on which a partial or whole recovery has been made", which would be helpful flattered by adding a single 1p recovery to a few early loans.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Oct 8, 2015 7:50:30 GMT
You can tell after the event from the loan book. The rejected WLs have "WL" in the whole_loan column and a number rather bigger than 1 in the num_loan_parts column I'd rather like to know before I bid on it. Sadly it's probably too early to tell whether rejected WLs have a higher than average rate of default. I asked that when they first introduced whole loans. I was assured that this would be made clear to all investors before they bid; which gets added to the long list of commitments that they failed to honour.
|
|
|
Post by transo on Sept 29, 2015 15:55:12 GMT
Yes, it would appear that the technical fault was to accidentally list it with cashback. If there was any justice in this world it wouldn't fill... but it will. I don't wish them any ill will, but they should have taken the "fault" on the chin and left the CB in place, rather than wasting everyone's time and losing some more goodwill. Couldn't agree more. I've not been too critical of FC through all this transition as I can accept they have to do what they think is best for their business, but this sort of thing just p*****s me off. I didn't bid (rate was unattractive, even with CB) so it doesn't impact me, but if I had I'd definitely be complaining. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable in a regulated financial services businesses. They are expected to take their mistakes on the chin (possibly unless its such an egregious mistake the customer couldn't have been expected to believe it). Paying everyone 1% cashback on a £150k loan would only be marginally more expensive than if two or three customers take complaints to the FOS if FC don't find in their favour immediately. (As I didn't bid I can't see the original loan request to compare against the new one, so can't rule out that there was some other mistake and FC conveniently took the opportunity to remove CB as they corrected that mistake.)
|
|
|
Post by transo on Sept 18, 2015 21:27:50 GMT
Yes, the original Ts&Cs on selling loan parts said you couldn't do it if the loan "had changed by more than one risk band" (presumably up or down), but in practice I think loans only ever moved in/out of "Risk Band Removed"; I don't think I've ever seen a loan change from one risk band to another.
|
|