applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Aug 8, 2018 14:46:01 GMT
While there are many on this Board who appear to want to see the demise of FS and the involvement of the Ombudsman, FCA etc, I suspect that most would rather see FS return the money they have lent first. The involvement of the FCA in the closing down and subsequent administration of Collateral for example is not a good advert for a speedy return of lender monies in full.
Unfortunately, continuous negative sentiment from wherever it comes does not always help the situation as I am sure those who have lost money in other places will testify.
I disagree totally applets . You have to call "Stop!" at some time, you can't in all honesty allow the current situation to continue on and on. I have £13K locked into FS and much prefer a serious shivvying up. Yesterday.
Very happy for anyone to disagree with me.
For what it's worth, I don't disagree with any of the views about FS's performance expressed by other lenders based on their experience. Simply I am not convinced that speculating publicly that FS might need to cease trading and/ or the need to undertake class actions or call in the Ombudsman and the FCA are the best way to resolve things.
The FCA certainly don't have a great record elsewhere when it comes to resolving matters to the satisfaction of those who have encountered problems and looking back at the run on Halifax, Northern Rock etc when confidence in those institutions was lost also strikes me as a poor model for resolving the problems at FS.
I am sure the negativity expressed on this Board has had considerable impact on current trading on the primary and secondary markets even if it has not persuaded FS to change their business model. The aim of dissuading others from getting involved with FS may also well be laudable in the eyes of many, but I am not certain it is in the best interest of those complaining they cannot sell their loan parts. Personally, I would prefer to see any complaints that lenders have and calls for action dealt with direct with FS rather than indirectly through a Forum which FS may or may not be reading.
I should add that I do lend through FS and, probably through luck rather than judgement, I have to date not suffered any material losses. However, I accept this may change in the future, particularly if FS grinds to a halt as appears to be happening at present.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Aug 8, 2018 8:14:45 GMT
Can some more knowledgeable body please confirm that my understanding is correct - There are five (or six?) loans on art to a single borrower. The common borrower was not apparent from FS's documentation when the loans were launched. FS does not actually hold the pieces of art in question. They are held by a reputable and well-regarded company in the art storage/transport line who have no financial interest or claim apart from being paid storage fees. The loans are now significantly overdue but FS are unable to sell the items and repay lenders because what were offered as simple pawn loans have become 'complex'. This complexity arises from the fact (previously unknown to FS and to lenders) that the borrower's ownership of these pieces may not be clear cut. It has taken FS 6 months to discover this.Our hopes of seeing anything back from this lie in the borrower being from a monied family who will pay off the loans to avoid adverse publicity and spare their offspring the consequences of their actions. AFAIK the loans involved are 8: Collection of Vases - Renewal (1179005019) Auerbach Painting - Renewal (2442801065) Fine Art - Renewal (3020915407) Painting by Chagall (5073631341) Pablo Picasso Etching _1st Tranche - Renewal (1763618002) Pablo Picasso Etching _2nd Tranche - Renewal (2909973008) Pablo Picasso Etching _3rd Tranche - Renewal (1944450730) Painting by Lowry (1614460897) Some of the loans are renewals and appeared on this site in December 2016. If FS did some DD in Nov/Dec 2016, then FS took over 18 months to realise they had lent millions against a security not (directly) owned by the borrower.
This alone would warrant the removal of any FCA licence that FS might hold.
While there are many on this Board who appear to want to see the demise of FS and the involvement of the Ombudsman, FCA etc, I suspect that most would rather see FS return the money they have lent first. The involvement of the FCA in the closing down and subsequent administration of Collateral for example is not a good advert for a speedy return of lender monies in full.
Unfortunately, continuous negative sentiment from wherever it comes does not always help the situation as I am sure those who have lost money in other places will testify.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Aug 8, 2018 8:02:12 GMT
My overdue loans have significantly gone up , 23 now. Don't like it. Suppose its part of investing. Makes me nervous tho, just my personality. You are fortunate that Unbolted has a good track record of recovery. Others may have exact figures, but there are very few occasions when the PF has been called on to make good a recovery. This really is a hands off platform once you have invested your money.
Personally, I am not nervous at all. However, if this number of overdue loans makes you nervous then you may wish to consider whether Unbolted, or indeed P2P in general, is the best place for your money. Peace of mind and good health is sometimes more important than a few percent extra interest!
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Aug 2, 2018 20:16:01 GMT
They have since decided to move out again, although whether there is enough cars, bling, pawn, etc to sustain a business is still to be proven. Most p2p companies tried to expand rapidly by getting into property, and most came unstuck, as cowboy developers took the money (somtimes including purchase deposits) and ran .. overseas if possible.
On this particular loan, Ed was well warned and ignored us, collecting some negative kudos along the way, imo.
Yes, they did say this, but the weekly pipeline suggests property loans are still on the way. Further, not too many loans for cars, bling etc have come along since their announcement. Either way, I have become less convinced they will continue to exist for that much longer. Hopefully, I will be proven wrong.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Aug 2, 2018 4:54:11 GMT
Given property expertise was one of the reasons MT gave for moving into property loans, the track record to date has been variable to say the least.
With continuing defaults, a reducing loan book, a pipeline that seldom sees anything reach the end, repeated warnings from lenders on this board that they are pulling out from MT..... I must admit to doubting the future of MT as a platform and wondering how long they will continue to survive (not withstanding Ed's previous assurances that the platform is well capitalised/ profitable).
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Jul 31, 2018 17:26:31 GMT
Alternatively, why don't we let Ablrate run their business as they wish with those lenders who like it continuing to lend and those who don't exercising their right to leave. If, as predicted by many in this thread, large numbers of small lenders leave and loans do not fill then Ablrate may feel the need to reconsider their business model.
Not directly comparable I know, but, as some will be aware, at Unbolted there used to be complaints that many lenders could not lend on smaller loans. The response was the system of random allocations of £5 loan parts referred to earlier in this thread. As the threshold subject to random allocations increased and the number of allocations to individual lenders reduced, so further rationing was introduced with a reduction in interest rates to dampen demand - a suggestion also made earlier for Ablrate. As a result of lower interest rates, a number of lenders said they would stop lending and for a while random allocations appeared to improve for those who remained. However, the threshold and number of random allocations now appear to be back where they started. What is noticeable though is that larger, admittedly unprotected loans are left unfilled for much longer than they were in the past suggesting that perhaps some larger lenders have been frightened away by the desire to improve access for smaller lenders.
Given the suggestions up thread, I mention the Unbolted experience as a caution to those who now seek change to Ablrate's business model.
By all means spend time coming up with alternative ideas for how you feel Ablrate can change their model to enable everyone to get what they want in every loan, but please also allow Ablrate the right to disregard these ideas if they are so minded.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Jul 26, 2018 19:02:24 GMT
Sadly Ablrate cannot win here. We have those who feel that they must be able to bid for a large enough loan part to make it worth their while and those who feel that a bid limit should be imposed that allows every lender to get a share of a loan. Of the latter, there seem to be those who feel that every member of their family should be able to obtain a loan part and those who feel it is only fair that they should get two bites of the cherry in both their ordinary account and their IFISA account.
It is very easy to complain that we didn't get what we wanted, and Abl have suggested the introduction of an auto trade option might go some way to meeting everyone's aspirations. Perhaps that may provide the answer, although lenders with Unbolted may be of the view that this will not be straight forward particularly if the number of lenders with Abl increases significantly in the future.
If the failure to participate in a loan causes the level of stress apparent in this thread, perhaps it would simply be better just to avoid the chase!
The failure of the platform software to cope with periods of high demand is a separate issue and one which I am sure there is a solution to be found albeit perhaps at some additional cost to Abl.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Apr 28, 2018 5:12:23 GMT
Evenings are welcome by some people who are sometimes "excluded" from daytime offerings due to work commitments. A mixture of launch timings does not seem too unreasonable to me.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Apr 12, 2018 5:35:00 GMT
Can I suggest you read clause 4.5 of the terms and conditions and clause 4.8 of the loan agreement that you agreed to enter into by "investing" in the loan. You will see that you agreed that the borrower would not be pursued for any shortfall where the proceeds are less than the amount owed.
Both the terms and conditions and the loan agreement can be viewed via the links at the bottom of each page of the FS website.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Mar 7, 2018 11:42:45 GMT
I have had a similar product for my own property requiring confidentiality, so am not surprised to hear of the requirement with this loan. It is presumably a fairly standard practice therefore. In itself, I do not think it should be a reason for avoiding the loan. However, a blanket restriction on confidentiality on the loan does seem OTT and unnecessary.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Mar 3, 2018 11:12:18 GMT
I had emailed the recovery company just to verify that the administrator in chief G*** C*** was not the same G*** C*** as used to be a boss at Collateral. Amazingly he phoned me a couple of hours later to confirm that he wasn't. He also said that he is a touchy feely sort of guy, not remote, willing to answer questions that it looks to him like the money is safe (quote). I mentioned that I thought that probably depended on borrowers keeping paying up but didn't really get a reply that the company and C****e (directors) acted in good faith and had had legal advice that the state of the FCA permissions was ok, but now they have been told it isn't, and there may (will I think he said) be a legal case, so they had to act quickly to keep the vultures off. I know we will all have what are important questions to each of us and the quickest way to get an answer is to either telephone or email the Administrator. The Administrator also appears to have indicated to you that he is very willing to answer questions. However, while we do not yet know for certain whether any of the costs of administration will have to be met by lenders at some point, it may be useful to consider that on the assumption the Administrator is charging around £150 per hour, every 10 minutes spent on the phone/ composing an email to each lender is probably costing around £25. There is also an opportunity cost whereby if the Administrator is talking to lenders he is not engaged in the work of recovery.
Just something to think about before everyone starts telephoning or emailing the Administrator.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Mar 1, 2018 7:48:30 GMT
"• In particular you should note that if Collateral was to become insolvent then any money held by it would not be held in accordance with the FCA’s client money rules"The one ray of light here is that Collateral aren't insolvent. Before reaching any conclusions about this, I would suggest you read (if you haven't already) the info on the KPMG site in the link provided up thread by eurasian69. While we would all like immediate reassurance about our loans and monies, we are going to have to wait to see how the administration progresses. Unlike speculation, administrations are never quick!
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Feb 28, 2018 9:10:48 GMT
Thanks Filip.
Looks like the warning has gone now so may simply have been a problem at my end.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Feb 28, 2018 8:39:10 GMT
Hi all, Just a quick update that we will make the Essex bridging loan (mentioned in earlier threads) available for review on the platform next Monday and will open it for investment the day after. We are also targeting to make another loan available (for review and investment the day after) next Wednesday. In total, two loans should go live next week unless there are any unforeseen issues. I wish everyone a good weekend. Regards, Filip Hi Filip
Are you still aiming to make another loan available today?
Also, I might be alone but, when I attempt to log in to the site I get a Microsoft warning page with the message that the site has been reported as unsafe.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Feb 27, 2018 22:23:46 GMT
Assuming we are talking about hypothetical platform failure next and that fraud hasn’t been committed... what happens next? Presumably administrators would step in and manage the loans that have drawndown? What about funds that have got into the latest tranches of the Bolton loans and haven’t drawn down yet? These funds are sat in Collateral’s bank account so would presumably be lost or would they be OK as it’s a ring fenced client account? Client account I am not so sure. The cached terms and conditions on Google suggest
"•In particular you should note that if Collateral was to become insolvent then any money held by it would not be held in accordance with the FCA’s client money rules, which require in particular that client money is held separately from a firm’s own money, and it is likely you would rank as an ordinary unsecured creditor. Ordinary unsecured creditors rarely make any recovery on insolvency."
|
|