coogaruk
Hello everyone! Anyone remember me?
Posts: 705
Likes: 464
|
Post by coogaruk on Oct 17, 2017 11:54:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Oct 17, 2017 12:41:15 GMT
Loved the comments about transparency
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 18, 2017 20:45:54 GMT
Looks like somehow you manage to link back to your own post rather than the article 
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Oct 18, 2017 21:12:44 GMT
|
|
coogaruk
Hello everyone! Anyone remember me?
Posts: 705
Likes: 464
|
Post by coogaruk on Oct 19, 2017 17:06:41 GMT
Looks like somehow you manage to link back to your own post rather than the article Oops, not sure how that happened. Seemed to be working fine before. Have now edited original post to 'correct' it.
|
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Oct 20, 2017 6:41:31 GMT
And they've done that without having to ditch the provision fund and loss-sharing mechanism?
Great if so.
|
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Oct 20, 2017 9:03:10 GMT
The Provision Fund must have taken the FCA some time to get their head around because it could make RS look like a collective investment scheme. That probably explains the delay in authorisation. Very attractive now that's it's confirmed, esp with the current interest rates I'm not sure that's true. RateSetter has the largest Provision Fund, and was also the original and most prominent. However there are other sites with a fund that have been authorised before, including Lending Works that was the first P2P site to be authorised, and a host of smaller platforms. The delay was predominantly linked to their wholesale lending, which the FCA didn't think was transparent or in the spirit of P2P... I think and hope that Provision Funds will be here to stay. I personally think I know the risks, and appreciate the spreading of risk and fixed expected returns they allow. Even if in theory this comes at a cost of lower returns. Kevin.
|
|
|
|
Post by propman on Oct 20, 2017 15:31:28 GMT
I would like to have been a fly on the wall re the discussions of:
1) No restriction on who they lend to and only giving the outline after the loans have been made: 2) Fee structure on sellout (looks like they lost that one!) 3) Not so much a PF being available, but the right of the company to reduce interest and potentially capital if needed to ensure the provision fund remained solvent. 4) Ability to change the rules in their favour without consultation (eg abolishing the limit on individual loans, starting wholesale lending, changing the PF so that surplus was due to it not lenders, changing the fee from sellouts from PF contribution to one due to them). 5) Use of Market Rate and the default new lending rate for "non-experts" to reduce rates for lenders. 6) Implications of agreeing rates before they are matched and RS bearing matching / rollover risk. 7) Apparent anomalies between reported PF / Default values.
- PM
|
|
