|
|
Post by peerlessperil on Nov 7, 2017 8:04:36 GMT
mikes1531, GSV3MIaCI think it is important to remember that andrewholgate's response in this instance was specifically regarding "connected parties", not "borrowers". Legally a borrower is under little obligation to disclose anything about what a spouse, relative, associate or fellow director at a previous company might have got up to in the past, provided they were not directly involved. There are shades of grey here - we wouldn't necessarily wish to penalise a child for a parent with a criminal record, but we are likely to look less kindly upon situations such as a disqualified director transferring his assets to a spouse and then potentially continuing as a shadow director. Assetz live in a competitive world and there are other peer-2-peer platforms who will step in to take the business if they are too high-minded on these matters. If all p2p platforms could agree to maintain a common standard then maybe disclosure could be enforced, but I suspect the need to achieve profitability is the overriding priority at present. Hence why I believe Andrew's response was sufficient given the commercial environment that AC operates in.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414 
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 7, 2017 13:13:36 GMT
Upcoming loan 572 a similar story. In this case it’s the borrower, & if a Lancashire Post article is the one referred to in the CR (the dates & names fit in) appears to relate to 4 counts of theft (for £34k) from his employer. This appears to have been found by AC’s dd (which is encouraging) & included in the CR together with at least some points addressed by the borrower (also encouraging). Slightly confused as to the relevance of the claimed return to work with the Armed Forces (which, according to the press article, was not who he worked for at the time of the reported incidents.) On andrewholgate ’s comment & the standard opening CR note as to AC’s disclosure policy, & mikes1531 ’s (imv fair) related concerns I would hope that, if implemented rigorously, this disclosure policy should be enough. If the adverse info is offered voluntarily by the borrower (& AC commits to disclosing this – that’s the key point) then the borrower is committing to the info being “complete, accurate & correct”. If the info has been uncovered by AC’s duedil (& again, crucially, AC commits to disclosing this in some shape or form) then lenders again should have enough to be able assess things properly, though the word “complete” is one AC & the borrower will need to keep an eye on. There are many ways disclosure can be made whilst remaining within bounds of reasonableness that anyone except the most recalcitrant of borrowers would surely find acceptable. I am less convinced as to the commercial environment argument which, whilst a reality, omits to mention AC are already profitable, claim to have monthly loan enquiries & pipeline in the hundreds & tens of millions of £ respectively, are iws well on their way to squeezing much more profitability out of their business model in future, offering secured loans at 5-7% (to lenders in any case) below most of the competition, & last but not least surely have an interest in maintaining their good name as a platform dealing with (largely) lower-risk borrowers. Like (I expect) many lenders here I personally don’t have an issue with lending to borrowers with prior adverse history, as long as I feel I am being provided with sufficient information to be able to assess things properly. Assetz have been better than most/everyone at that so far & I expect them to keep to these higher standards. jestful (temp) tagline in modest tribute to peerlessperil's (usually) more sensible advice |
|
|
|
Post by peerlessperil on Nov 7, 2017 14:07:03 GMT
I am less convinced as to the commercial environment argument which, whilst a reality, omits to mention AC are already profitable, claim to have monthly loan enquiries & pipeline in the hundreds & tens of millions of £ respectively, are iws well on their way to squeezing much more profitability out of their business model in future, offering secured loans at 5-7% (to lenders in any case) below most of the competition, & last but not least surely have an interest in maintaining their good name as a platform dealing with (largely) lower-risk borrowers. Mostly agreed & I too have been reading the Lancashire press, but it wasn't AC's profitability I was referring to. One of the AC loans that triggered this discussion on connected parties has just refinanced across to another platform....and there is plenty of discussion regarding that elsewhere on the forum which I will not repeat here. Suffice to say the up-front fee on the re-fi was significant relative to the finances of the platform involved, and no mention was made of the connected parties issue by the platform despite the platform being made fully aware (which I can say with 100% certainty). Some platforms will be in the situation of needing to survive this year before they can afford to worry about their reputation next year.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 8, 2017 22:45:13 GMT
One of the AC loans that triggered this discussion on connected parties has just refinanced across to another platform....and there is plenty of discussion regarding that elsewhere on the forum which I will not repeat here. Can someone please indicate which platform has taken on this loan? I'd like to see the discussion, but I need a pointer to the right general area as I don't follow all of the platforms. Thanks.
|
|
