|
Post by johnny on Aug 8, 2014 17:47:32 GMT
I have recently invested in TC and £48 fee pushed me a little having joined earlier but not invested. I did wonder if TC were trying to shake the tree and get the uncommitted to commit or is this the start of the cost of regulation, only time will tell. I would not be prepared to pay an upfront charge however I have never quibbled at paying dealing charges when buying and selling shares so it might be something we have to get used to, but £48 seems a lot of money for a AML check.
|
|
|
Post by wiseclerk on Aug 8, 2014 19:45:47 GMT
It might be worth remembering that Squirrl tried to start with imposing a similar fee on new lenders. Even though it was only £5 they had to waive it after a few weeks and discarded it altogether later as it proved to be a barrier in getting lenders signed up. For this reason I think it might be smarter to factor in any AML related costs into ongoing fees (e.g. servicing fees) instead of charging an upfront fee.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 8, 2014 20:02:22 GMT
I understand the 5000ft rationale: a no fee platform (borrower pays the fees model, but of course this is all a question of how you dress things up) but this is a lender cost so place it there. But the first question any business should ask is "What is the likely/predictable outcome of doing xxx".
unless my maths has suddenly gone banzai, £48 on the min.m of £1k = 4.8%, on £10k 0.48%. I would therefore predict that this is likely to suddenly present a significantly large barrier to those who are considering/on the edge of dipping their toe in the water. I suspect I'm not alone (or a loan) in being one of those who started out with gradual lending. Would I do that again if I was taking a 4.8% in first year decrement on my first loan: which this amounts to. No.
So the predictable outcome is that it will put off a number of potentials, but not those who have alrady decided to invest substantial sum over time. But those who start small and are not sure may form a significant portion of the potential community of TC lenders, who may grow into larger ones.l And the last thing TC needs right now is anything which restricts new blood.
Understrand what they are doing, believe it is badly thought through.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,133
Likes: 1,482
|
Post by pikestaff on Aug 8, 2014 22:05:21 GMT
I started with toe dipping but now have >£100k on TC. The fee would have been enough to put me off starting.
Having seen the posts here and on the old TC forum, I think one of the objectives may have been to push people who have joined, but not yet committed funds, into actually lending before the fee is introduced. This might even succeed. However, I do not believe that the £48 fee will be accepted by the market and I expect it to be dropped or at least changed so that it will be waived for those who commit more than a given amount.
Have to say that, as of now, it still seems like a spectacularly stupid idea.
|
|
bernard
Member of DD Central
Posts: 66
Likes: 24
|
Post by bernard on Aug 13, 2014 12:14:35 GMT
Doesn't this level of AML (and therefore fee) only apply to offshore investors, not the run-of-the-mill UK investor?
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,133
Likes: 1,482
|
Post by pikestaff on Aug 13, 2014 13:04:05 GMT
The AML rules apply to all lenders. The checks are easier to do for onshore lenders, but the proposed fee will apply to all.
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 689
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Aug 13, 2014 20:05:46 GMT
TC would have been better off charging lenders the fee out of lenders' first bunch of interest/returns, although that might be a little harder to administer. That would have shown confidence in the platform. This will just put a lot of people off (regardless of whether or not the maths means £48 is negligible - lenders want to see a return before they start being charged!). Being charged up front just reminds me of dodgy Nigerian 419 scam.
|
|
|
Post by seaninog on Aug 21, 2014 13:56:10 GMT
For what it's worth, I think they're right to charge this. I want to see the P2P concept continue and propagate. As things stand my fear is the 'price war' will put some platforms out of business if they don't start passing some of the costs of regulation on.
With no disrespect meant to fellow investors or those who have posted previously against this charge, if you are swayed by a saving of £48 then I think you may be missing the bigger picture. The real cost to you is platforms who put poor deals in front of you. To their credit, while they've had their failings, I think in general TC scores well on this front and from my point of view, the £48 is happily paid.
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Aug 21, 2014 19:37:36 GMT
To put TC's £48 AML check in perspective, scanning the internet I come up with figures around the £2.50-£5.00 per ID check for having one of the credit checking services carry out the AML checks on UK residents.
|
|
wysiati
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 86
|
Post by wysiati on Aug 22, 2014 3:17:27 GMT
To put TC's £48 AML check in perspective, scanning the internet I come up with figures around the £2.50-£5.00 per ID check for having one of the credit checking services carry out the AML checks on UK residents. Yes, but let us not forget do we not then have to factor in the special overheads involved in staff members having to manually write out each request using a quill pen on medieval parchment and then sending by page-boy on foot?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Sept 4, 2014 19:35:01 GMT
TC emailed today to say they have decided to drop the £48 charge for new lenders ("not a good marketing ploy" ) but the charge stands for anyone changing bank accounts. Some common sense has prevailed at last.
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Sept 4, 2014 19:41:41 GMT
TC emailed today to say they have decided to drop the £48 charge for new lenders ("not a good marketing ploy" ) but the charge stands for anyone changing bank accounts. Some common sense has prevailed at last. You missed he best bit: "it did result in several hundred of you giving us your bank information on time and a few extra people making the decision to sign up!"
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Sept 4, 2014 20:03:50 GMT
TC emailed today to say they have decided to drop the £48 charge for new lenders ("not a good marketing ploy" ) but the charge stands for anyone changing bank accounts. Some common sense has prevailed at last. An interesting one given that I have had several bank account changes forced upon me over the years: ING to Barclays, TSB to Lloyds, Lloyds to TSB, Abbey National to Santander to name but four. The question is would these be considered to be a bank account changes for the purposes of an AML, and if so who would be responsible for picking up TC's fees since the changes were not of my choice and not within my control.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 4, 2014 21:30:15 GMT
TC emailed today to say they have decided to drop the £48 charge for new lenders ("not a good marketing ploy" ) but the charge stands for anyone changing bank accounts. Some common sense has prevailed at last. You missed he best bit: "it did result in several hundred of you giving us your bank information on time and a few extra people making the decision to sign up!" So a kind of success for TC in a kind of double bluff sort of way....
|
|
|
Post by johnny on Sept 5, 2014 15:06:46 GMT
You missed he best bit: "it did result in several hundred of you giving us your bank information on time and a few extra people making the decision to sign up!" So a kind of success for TC in a kind of double bluff sort of way.... Shake that tree!!!!! Not the best way to run a Business.
|
|