|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Feb 9, 2020 21:35:14 GMT
This might make some investors feel a tiny bit better;
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 31, 2020 7:26:12 GMT
All due respect, I'd rather not be tagged in relation to Funding Secure. Or use their words as a model. Look at how that worked out. Don't be suckered in by promises that guarantee safety, there's a platform or two out there now that will be gone within the year despite all the guff PR promises.
Look at actual performance, actions and the track record of the team. Are the team credit or financial services experienced. Or are they chancers out to make a buck. I've been in consumer finance for 25 years, with a bit of cynicism it's easy to spot the chancers. If the team are new to lending, what makes anyone think they have the right to learn with your money. I've warned enough times on this forum about some of the chancers that have entered the P2P sector, not least about Lendy (that was obvious years before it went into administration). Yet people still keep saying they won't invest unless they are getting double digit returns.
Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 28, 2020 9:00:19 GMT
The Money Platform pays for the wind down. There is capital set-aside to employ the skeleton employees required and maintain IT infrastructure. The precise £ amount set-aside is included in our wind-down plan that has been shared (as a regulatory requirement) with the FCA.
It's worth noting that these costs are actually quite small, you'd be surprised, in the scale of things. The platform is fully automated and as a strategic approach to building a financially sustainable platform the costs spent on employees is minimal. As a downside, it's this strict control of operating costs why perhaps the lender dashboard isn't as functional and pretty as it could be (and nor do we waste money going on stupid international trade visits, or bigging it up an conferences).
That's why in the event of wind-down (which we don't foresee), the costs of wind-down are within the capital set-aside. We do not expect any of the lenders capital or interest returned to be used for wind-down. We have planned an orderly and fully financed wind-down plan.
REMEMBER YOUR CAPITAL IS AT RISK. THE MONEY PLATFORM NEITHER PROVIDES 'FSCS' PROTECTION NOR A POOLED PROVISION FUND MODEL.
Kevin.
|
|
|
The Money Platform (TMP)
Website
Jan 28, 2020 8:53:17 GMT
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 28, 2020 8:53:17 GMT
I do agree (as a lender myself on the platform), that the dashboard is not as useful and intuitive as it should be. As a result of regulatory changes we are amending our dashboard (you will have noticed the Outcomes Statement has gone live) and we have made some changes to the Lender Wallet page. As a regulatory requirement this too resource priority. We are hoping to improve reporting but at the moment lenders need to rely on their 'Loans' section to work out the value of their outstanding portfolio whilst we get our new systems in place. I appreciate this isn't ideal as you've got to add up from the Loans page, but right now that's the only option. We are launching a test beta version of some reporting tools we are hoping to develop – would you like to be a beta tester and receive these reports for your portfolio? If so, please DM The Money PlatformKevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 27, 2020 15:49:27 GMT
Additionally, we have in line with FCA requirements updated our internal wind-down plan and put the summary on the web page. This can be found in our Terms of Service HERE, but the text reads Wind-Down Plan
The Money Platform’s strategy is to continue to grow in the P2P lending sector. As with any business, there are circumstances, such as a material change in market conditions, which could impact that strategy such that we decide, or are obliged, to stop operating our P2P platform. In this event we are required by FCA regulations to have in place a plan to manage the run off of our loan book in an orderly fashion, and this plan is called the Wind Down Plan
Details of the wind-down plan are documented internally at The Money Platform, shared with the FCA on request and include a 12-month window for the collection of all open loans. The risk to the Lender is mitigated because all loans are for a maximum of 3 months, therefore a 12-month window has been chosen to give sufficient time for loans to complete naturally or include an extended time period for collections activity or re-arranged payment schedules to complete. Internal data indicates that we usually collect >100% of the amount lent within 12 months across our whole loan book. Due to the reduced risks during wind down and the limited financial resources required, it is fully expected that the process will be orderly. It is not expected that insolvency practitioners will be required although we may outsource collection of loans to a 3rd party (we do this currently for some overdue loans, as permitted under the loan contract) in order to reduce the time and cost of collecting the final payments.
During the period of a Wind Down
A skeleton team would remain to wind the business up . There would be reduced platform functionality, for example we will not make new loans and not accept new funds from lenders . Scheduled Borrower repayments and Lender receipts will continue to be processed automatically .
The Wind Down team will manage the collection of late Borrower payments, possibly with the assistance of an outsourced collection agent, and would implement the repayment of funds due to Lenders
We may hire a 3rd party adviser to seek a buyer for the businessFor the avoidance of doubt, we do not have any foreseeable plans to invoke the wind-down plan. But we are of course aware of the disorderly state of some other platforms and what has happened to them in administration, and so we want to provide some assurance that the same fate would not befall lenders with The Money Platform. Out product type and efficiency of costs are the primary reasons an orderly wind-down would be expected. REMEMBER YOUR CAPITAL IS AT RISK. THE MONEY PLATFORM NEITHER PROVIDES 'FSCS' PROTECTION NOR A POOLED PROVISION FUND MODEL. Kevin,
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 9, 2020 6:30:51 GMT
There is a chance that this may be written up as a civil dispute and no further action taken. Unless you can demonstrate dishonesty that will be the end of the matter. Investigators are overworked beyond belief and your allegation needs to make the first cut. If you are hoping to be persuade an officer to make a further investigation then I might be suggest evidence of repeated behaviour, or information that the funds went outside the company for a different purpose they were intended. Hi thanks for the info. I was going to ask FC whether they had reported this as a crime. Borrower needed money because he was so busy as a builder he needed to hire more staff etc and as soon as he got the money he put the business in VL and scarpered to Italy in less than a month. They think they know where he is but have not been able to serve him a couple of years on. FC say no evidence of a fraud. I see no evidence of it not being a fraud and I got to wondering why they wouldn't want the help of the police one way or another. It's not that I have a large investment, it is that the more this goes unpunished the more I think about doing it myself 😂 Anyway I looked into it and as I mentioned it seems that certainly 4/5 years ago even one of the platforms was trying to get investors to report frauds to AF as they could not act on investors behalf as it is not their loss. I wanted to know the current position because if I am going to continue investing I can stand the stress of loosing money to those who try really hard to make a business work, but not being shafted by a crook. I looked on AFs website earlier and they don't even mention p2p via a platform. I tried online chat _ she had no clue what I was talking about. I rang them, they didn't answer the phone. I emailed them.... I will post the response if I get one. Thanks again This issue you have is that this is First Party Fraud, where you know who has the money. But, they either told a fib on the application such as loan purpose or had a lack of intent. This is common in SME lending where there is no mark against the individual, as there is with the credit agencies for personal lending. Action Fraud are typically interested in impersonation or other criminal activity. Secondly, my understanding is that they were created in order to act as a comparison and tracking tool of multiple frauds that might occur across jurisdictions (especially required in the Internet age). They are looking for patterns or common data points such as IP addresses. And so if this is an isolated case AND was not impersonation, I very doubt Action Fraud would do anything for both reasons. I regret you'll be wasting your time. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 9, 2020 6:21:24 GMT
At The Money Platform we have certain fully automated controls in place that make impersonation fraud ("third party fraud") impossible to succeed. Therefore we have no requirement to use services such as Action Fraud or CIFAS. Intent fraud ("first party fraud") is a different matter, but you wouldn't typically report these externally except for SCOR reporting to the credit agencies..
However, at RateSetter (I was there 2013-2016) we did unfortunately suffer like all normal unsecured lenders from impersonation fraud. Usually, depending on circumstances, we did report these to Action Fraud. Although the numbers were very small, RateSetter was very good at stopping fraudsters successfully getting loans.
I can't comment on the question if this was allowed, as technically we were not the "owners" of the loan. But this technicality was never questioned by CIFAS or Action Fraud who happily processed our data.
That said, Action Fraud is known in the industry as "No Action Fraud", or "Inaction Fraud". They rarely seem to do anything. In my entire 25 year risk career, I've only ever had one case where something happened and an individual was found and prosecuted. And actually this was a simple and personally tragic case, that I'd rather they hadn't pursued (but that's another story).
TTFN,
Kevin.
|
|
|
The Money Platform (TMP)
Website
Jan 8, 2020 11:49:59 GMT
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 8, 2020 11:49:59 GMT
Hello All and WestonKevTMP I've had a smallish sum turning over for the past few months and my experience (my second attempt) seems to be going ok. Touch wood. I was wondering if there are any plans for the platform to improve its lender facing website? Also I wonder if there are any plans to provide more visibility of payment plans for customers who are late in repayment and whether you might consider passing on payments (after your fees of course) to lenders as they are received rather than the current situation where nothing is received until the payment plan finishes which could be years. Hi michaelcWe are planning to update the customer facing web-site, and your feedback is most appreciated. However, aside from improved risk modelling/decisioning (which has ensured positive returns) the reality is that our resource focus has been to satisfy the FCA requirements. This has included amending the lender customer journey to determine "sophistication" but to also meet our regulatory requirements with regard to Outcome Statement and the Wind-Down Plan. The Wind-Down Plan will be a focus for lenders due to some high profile failures, and this has also been a focus for the FCA. Our wind-down plan has always been in place (this is a large document only shared with the FCA), but the summary is outlined in our Terms of Service, segment 15 found HERE. Although we have no expectation of needing to wind-down, should it occur we expect it to be orderly (we have capital set-aside) and we believe the risk to customers (both lenders and borrowers) is relatively limited due to; • Product design - Currently the maximum loan term is 3-months. Therefore within 3-months of ongoing business operational management all performing loans would have been completed and lenders repaid. • Timing – Alongside the 3-month product design, an additional 9 months of non-performing collections period would be sufficient for all loans to be repaid or classified as a write-off • Size – The Money Platform is a small platform with the most typical product being for £250 over 12 weeks. Some existing Staff resource will be maintained for a 12-month period during wind-down. • Money - Client money is held by an outsource so no client funds could be at risk (with MangoPay). In terms of the Outcome Statement this can be found HERE. As per FCA requirements, this currently only has a forecast and will be updated as per the regulatory time-frames. That said, on this forum I have publicised IRR returns achieved in the last few years but as this is slightly different (timing wise) to the regulatory requirements. Therefore, we didn't replicate these numbers on the Outcome Statement and nor will we here in the future to avoid any confusion. Although the platform performance for lender returns has continued in the last few months positively as before. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 8, 2020 11:19:56 GMT
Just for the record it all got sorted on Monday 6 Jan. They say there was limited support over the Xmas period. Not sure if that was an offshore call centre or a computer that helped me initially... We don't use an offshore call centre. We are a small team, all based in London. The Chat box is driven by AI technology, although this obviously cannot answer specific individualised issues (at this stage....). Your issue would have been solved by Customer Services, although as the platform is largely automated this manual intervention would only have happened after a short delay because of personal holidays. But I'm glad you got it sorted. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Dec 29, 2019 19:33:40 GMT
At the new rates (that RS are targeting) I’d rather do something else with my money. I haven’t logged in to RS for weeks but I will in the New Year. Any funds not lent will be withdrawn to somewhere offering FSCS protection. Maybe even Premium Bonds and I hate Premium Bonds. All good things come to an end. gg I bought some Premium Bonds this month and last, the first time for a decade! And I also hate Premium Bonds...
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Dec 16, 2019 9:03:20 GMT
Comrades (although perhaps after this weekends political results I should use another greeting...) Each month I've been reported here our lender portfolio performance. I last reported this in October 2019 when I said, " the IRR as at 1st October 2019 is 13.6% (all loans from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019). The period is always chosen so that all loans have reached maturity and therefore defaults have peaked, in theory returns can only increase from here as a result of recoveries". The subsequent performance has been just as strong, notably because July 2019 continued to see bad debt well within tolerance. However we will no longer report performance on this forum because we now have an Outcome Statement on the website: themoneyplatform.com/outcomes-statementThis is as a result of recent FCA changes (such as the classification of lender type, you sophisticates.....), and follows a very prescribed format. Therefore it wouldn't be appropriate to have a different and inconsistent metric here, even if it is our preferred reporting metric suitable for the short-term lending product. We must be consistent with the P2P sector as a whole. The outcome forecasts are lower than we've achieved historically. But when it comes to regulation, it's always better to "under promise...". REMEMBER YOUR CAPITAL IS AT RISK. THE MONEY PLATFORM NEITHER PROVIDES 'FSCS' PROTECTION NOR A POOLED PROVISION FUND MODEL. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Dec 5, 2019 15:10:25 GMT
I'm a dividend lover, combined with a more segmented preference for the energy sector. Of course on the day of ex-Div the share price drops by the dividend amount. But the prospective yield increases accordingly. So all else being equal by that time next year if the yield remains constant the share price will grow to the previous level. So the share price will remain flat, but you have the dividend. There are a multitude of studies that typically compare non-divi growth stocks against dividend payers (and of course there are combinations), but typically companies that pay a steady stream of dividends out perform as long as the cash is reinvested. Tax implications aside (I use ISAs), dividends also keep a company honest and imply true cash profitability. I also enjoy recieving them and choosing where to reinvest thereby naturally recalibration of portfolio with reduced dealing costs. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Nov 19, 2019 20:56:59 GMT
The bank part would be FSCS protected - otherwise there'd be little point in them going through all the setting it up. I just wonder whether they will raise the investment. I've had losses two consecutive months, and other individual months in the last year. I wonder what the whole loan book is looking like. Made my first Zopa lend in August 2007 and benefit from the early adopter bonus. September 2019 was my first ever month where I suffered a loss. Part of me thinks I've had great performance for over a decade through the credit crisis. Part part of me thinks they've chased growth and are dropping the P2P philosophy to become a bank. And that this is the start of the end.... Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Oct 18, 2019 15:29:52 GMT
You'll have seen from previous threads with explanations that we calculate an IRR every month, for an annual cohort of loans written up to 3 months previously.
By way of an update and including the most recent monthly loan cohorts performance, the IRR as at 1st October 2019 is 13.6% (all loans from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019). The period is always chosen so that all loans have reached maturity and therefore defaults have peaked, in theory returns can only increase from here as a result of recoveries. It's jumped up to 13.6% from the last reported IRR of 10.7% as loans written since the summer of 2018 have performed significantly better than before, largely due to optimised credit policies and mix of customer sources.
That said, 13.6% is in my opinion too high and I expect it to reduce in the future. We don't state a target annualised return on the web-site, but probably something closer to <10% is where I'm thinking (I posted my thoughts on target returns on the Lending Works thread on the subject).
As per recently introduced FCA requirements, we will be enhancing our IRR reporting on the web-site before Christmas.
Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Oct 13, 2019 19:26:36 GMT
Hi folks Interesting points here and thanks for posting. This forum is extremely useful for personal investors like me who want to manage return and risk, say with a medium profile. I've invested in LW since 2017 and have been very happy with their ISA product. Tax savings have been pleasing if you are working. I notice however the queue lag is long. That does impact your projected return. Existing investors are however prioritised. LW is a FinTech and like most others in peer2peer lending are loss making at present. This is not unusual but is something to watch. Their plan to profitability is encouraging. If I was the bossman running LW I would seriously look at reducing my rates. 6.5% for us investors is jolly nice but 1.5% above RateSetter on the 5 year product. It would help them with profitability and their cash reserves, if it would make me poorer so perhaps I should shut up and not say 0.5% haircut. What do others think? One reason I loved RateSetter more than any other P2P platform was the markets. It was just so democratic and disavowed meddling. For all other platforms, what AER to offer lenders is really interesting. There's a strong element of reverse psychology at play. It seems obvious to offer a higher return to entice lenders, and this has certainly worked for those pesky 12%er platforms (don't say I didn't warn you, " the drunks have joined the party"!). However, many lenders take the AER as a simple short hand for the level of platform risk. Where Zopa and RateSetter can get away with 5%, that makes them the safest? Lending Works in my opinion used to be a low risk platform, and I was happy with 5%. Yes offering 6.5% might seem enticing and attract lenders, however I think the reverse actually happens and it puts seeds of platform risk doubt in lenders minds, thus reducing inflows. And you also have the problem of having to make those returns generally through higher APRs and increased borrower risk. Which is not an easy segment to move into when your background is prime homeowner low risk. So personally I was more comfortable earning a fair 5-5.5% low to medium risk return. At TMP we are currently delivering 11% in a high risk lending segment, but in reality I expect and hope this to reduce as the platform grows. I've no particular insight at LW, I'm sure those clever LW folks have done their analysis and forecasts. Kevin.
|
|