tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300 
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 4, 2018 20:03:55 GMT
Does that not maybe suggest to you that you have invested beyond your risk tolerance? Probabaly. What I don’t understand is, however small loss, it warrants all future avoidance, because this loss is not caused by the underlying already high risk loans, but by platform added to the high risk, and it was in a fashion totally unmanageable. I can’t see how keeping everyone in the dark is “reputable”, and I can’t see how losing FCA IP is reputable. Even if it was reputable, it certainly lost all reputation in Feb.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 789
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Mar 4, 2018 20:37:26 GMT
The outstanding loans are not going to be "sold" because most platforms incl COL are not in the business of owning loans - that's our job. They manage them. Perhaps another platform might be interested if the spread is good enough. In any case, I definitely think its too early to be talking about going to the hairdressers. I would agree it is unlikely to happen given the nature of P2P, but if it was possible it would be preferable to paying the administration fees until the loan book is completely run of.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 4, 2018 21:06:35 GMT
The outstanding loans are not going to be "sold" because most platforms incl COL are not in the business of owning loans - that's our job. They manage them. Perhaps another platform might be interested if the spread is good enough. In any case, I definitely think its too early to be talking about going to the hairdressers. I would agree it is unlikely to happen given the nature of P2P, but if it was possible it would be preferable to paying the administration fees until the loan book is completely run of. Perhaps it would be possible for management of the loan book to be taken over by another P2P firm. But once the new company was running things, what would be the motivation for lenders to sell at a discount - or indeed at all?
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 789
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Mar 4, 2018 21:16:19 GMT
I would agree it is unlikely to happen given the nature of P2P, but if it was possible it would be preferable to paying the administration fees until the loan book is completely run of. Perhaps it would be possible for management of the loan book to be taken over by another P2P firm. But once the new company was running things, what would be the motivation for lenders to sell at a discount - or indeed at all? That would also be a good option although they would probably want to charge a fee for doing it - maybe it could be paid for in reduced interest on the loans. If the loans are fine transferring them in some way to another platform if possible is the best outcome for lenders and borrowers imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 4, 2018 21:49:06 GMT
I would agree it is unlikely to happen given the nature of P2P, but if it was possible it would be preferable to paying the administration fees until the loan book is completely run of. Perhaps it would be possible for management of the loan book to be taken over by another P2P firm. But once the new company was running things, what would be the motivation for lenders to sell at a discount - or indeed at all? The only other two platforms I know who deal with mixture of pawn and property are MT and FS. I doubt there is much probability of one of them taking over the entire Col loan book. However, it is possible that some of the loans (I'm thinking of pawn) will be refinanced through FS or MT. I'm sure we'll find out in near future about the "fate" of continuously renewed Col's pawn loans. As for property loans, I think it will be a very long wait until the loan book is cleared and we should expect some losses.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Mar 4, 2018 22:13:52 GMT
Perhaps it would be possible for management of the loan book to be taken over by another P2P firm. But once the new company was running things, what would be the motivation for lenders to sell at a discount - or indeed at all? The only other two platforms I know who deal with mixture of pawn and property are MT and FS. I doubt there is much probability of one of them taking over the entire Col loan book. However, it is possible that some of the loans (I'm thinking of pawn) will be refinanced through FS or MT. I'm sure we'll find out in near future about the "fate" of continuously renewed Col's pawn loans. As for property loans, I think it will be a very long wait until the loan book is cleared and we should expect some losses. You should expect some losses in P2P always. Why would you expect Col’s property loans to underperform?
|
|
hantsowl
Member of DD Central
Posts: 672
Likes: 546
|
Post by hantsowl on Mar 4, 2018 22:15:09 GMT
Regarding the bling loans, one option may be to consider a move to unbolted. They have an increasing investor base and seem to be struggling to find enough loans to satisfy the demand. From the borrower perspective, the rates are lower and loans can be renewed in a similar way to Col. It would seem to be a win-win situation for everyone if it could be facilitated somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 5, 2018 1:21:35 GMT
The only other two platforms I know who deal with mixture of pawn and property are MT and FS. I doubt there is much probability of one of them taking over the entire Col loan book. However, it is possible that some of the loans (I'm thinking of pawn) will be refinanced through FS or MT. I'm sure we'll find out in near future about the "fate" of continuously renewed Col's pawn loans. As for property loans, I think it will be a very long wait until the loan book is cleared and we should expect some losses. You should expect some losses in P2P always. Why would you expect Col’s property loans to underperform? We are in new territory here, COL is the first secured loan p2p platform to under go a forced unwind of its loan book. If COL had continued trading, there is no reason to suspect that the performance of their loanbook would over the long term have performed significantly differently to the loanbooks of L/MT/ABL/FS. All five platforms are servicing similiar borrowers, in similiar asset classes, and should over the long term have similar capital write offs as a percentage of loans written. However, I think the situation our borrowers now find themselves in has the potential to create major issues for many (most ?) of them. Loans that they had expected to roll forwards "indefinately", may now be subject to formal demand for repayment shortly after the current maturity dates. We have to face reality that p2p finance is often last chance saloon for many of our borrowers, who in some instances are now going to face a strugggle to secure alternative finance months or years before they were anticipating a refinance. It seems to me pretty intuitive that the risk of COL's loans defaulting has increased simply because of what will be an untimely need to seek refinance. Any p2p loan can default at any time, and as such the probability of loss on default on a given loan hasn't changed from last Monday morning to this Monday morning. But, I would contend that on most of COL's loans the probability of default has increased over the last seven days. It therefore seems reasonable to me to assume that on the balance of probabilities the performance of COL's loanbook will now be worse than that which could have been expected exactly 7 days ago.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 5, 2018 6:27:21 GMT
Someone asked who regulates the FCA?
This is for information purposes only - as with not bothering the administrators with micro questions, it seems reasonable to await their report to get an explanation of Coll's regulatory history before pursuing other avenues of redress.
FCA
FCA is an independent regulatory body that regulates consumer finance.
They submit an annual report to the Treasury of their progress and this is submitted to Parliament to review against their statutory objectives (protecting consumers, integrity of financial services' market, sufficient competition therein).
They also appear before Parliament's Treasury Select Committee twice a year to answer questions on all aspects of their work.
They must also investigate and report to the Treasury where there has been a major regulatory failure*, defined as:
2.6 We are required to carry out an investigation and produce a report when:
Part One
events have occurred in relation to a regulated person or others which indicated a significant failure to secure appropriate consumer protection, or had or could have had a significant adverse effect on our integrity or competition objectives; and
Part Two
the events might not have occurred or the adverse effect might have been reduced but for a serious failure in the system established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) (FSMA) or the operation of that system.
[*I'm no financial legal expert but I'm guessing Part Two would be a higher threshold to prove for a single, non-systemic financial intermediary.]
There is an online complaints' procedure for financial regulators although it seems they are the ones who decide whether there is a genuine complaint to pursue or not.
Links:-
FCA reporting requirements - www.fca.org.uk/about/reporting-treasury-parliament
Investigating and reporting on regulatory failure - www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/how-fca-will-investigate-and-report-on-regulatory-failure
Online complaints for UK financial regulators - www.fca.org.uk/about/complain-about-regulators
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 9:44:34 GMT
collateral Collateral Rep Is it possible for collateral to set up a new company with FCA approval and transfer the business? If they were granted a license tomorrow and started trading as before do you honestly think they haven't destroyed their reputation beyond all repair? Would you trust a company that made the basic mistake of letting it's licence lapse? What other mistakes or oversight's have they made? I truly truly loved COL, it had a good selection of bling loans and I could also dip my toe into the better property loans (I'm a very small scale investor). They engaged and communicated well, they were keen enough to turn away trashy loans even after initial listing on the site, but I'm not sure I could pick back up where I left off. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice... I too liked COL. To answer your question, I do not know. I think the best way to answer is to say that I feel numb, but perhaps this will be the best outcome in the short term. What I will do in the longer term is something that I will have to think about.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 9:49:56 GMT
"The Company is continuing to trade under my supervision ..." (Jessica's letter)
I can't get my pretty head round the idea that they have been so STUPID.
It is investors who have been stupid not to keep a much closer eye on all the chancers who run these outfits.And what exactly do you think that investors should have done? Go and sit in their office?
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Mar 5, 2018 10:48:47 GMT
ARROGANT, SCHEMING,.......
It is investors who have been stupid not to keep a much closer eye on all the chancers who run these outfits. And what exactly do you think that investors should have done? Go and sit in their office? As per my usual droning on about the subject, investors need to do their own DD on the platforms prior to carrying out DD on the loan offerings. It's no use hoping the FCA 'fit and proper' person test is adequate as IMO it's certainly not. I know doing DD can be time consuming but with many loans we're investing in the sub-prime market. Best to make sure the platform owners are not sub-prime as well. There's at least a couple of P2P platforms that I wouldn't loan a pencil to let alone invest my hard earned cash with.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Mar 5, 2018 10:52:45 GMT
You should expect some losses in P2P always. Why would you expect Col’s property loans to underperform? We are in new territory here, COL is the first secured loan p2p platform to under go a forced unwind its loan book. If COL had continued trading, there is no reason to suspect that the performance of their loanbook would over the long term have performed significantly differently to the loanbooks of L/MT/ABL/FS. All five platforms are servicing similiar borrowers, in similiar asset classes, and should over the long term have similar capital write offs as a percentage of loans written. However, I think the situation our borrowers now find themselves in has the potential to create major issues for many (most ?) of them. Loans that they had expected to roll forwards "indefinately", may now be subject to formal demand for repayment shortly after the current maturity dates. We have to face reality that p2p finance is often last chance saloon for many of our borrowers, who in some instances are now going to face a strugggle to secure alternative finance months or years before they were anticipating a refinance. It seems to me pretty intuitive that the risk of COL's loans defaulting has increased simply because of what will be an untimely need to seek refinance. Any p2p loan can default at any time, and as such the probability of loss on default on a given loan hasn't changed from last Monday morning to this Monday morning. But, I would contend that on most of COL's loans the probability of default has increased over the last seven days. It therefore seems reasonable to me to assume that on the balance of probabilities the performance of COL's loanbook will now be worse than that which could have been expected exactly 7 days ago. I see your point. I always invest on the basis that a loan has a moderate possibility of defaulting. I agree the chance of defaulting is possibly increased if funding can't be found with another lender, however, if they default the recovery should not be any lower.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 5, 2018 11:07:21 GMT
We are in new territory here, COL is the first secured loan p2p platform to under go a forced unwind its loan book. If COL had continued trading, there is no reason to suspect that the performance of their loanbook would over the long term have performed significantly differently to the loanbooks of L/MT/ABL/FS. All five platforms are servicing similiar borrowers, in similiar asset classes, and should over the long term have similar capital write offs as a percentage of loans written. However, I think the situation our borrowers now find themselves in has the potential to create major issues for many (most ?) of them. Loans that they had expected to roll forwards "indefinately", may now be subject to formal demand for repayment shortly after the current maturity dates. We have to face reality that p2p finance is often last chance saloon for many of our borrowers, who in some instances are now going to face a strugggle to secure alternative finance months or years before they were anticipating a refinance. It seems to me pretty intuitive that the risk of COL's loans defaulting has increased simply because of what will be an untimely need to seek refinance. Any p2p loan can default at any time, and as such the probability of loss on default on a given loan hasn't changed from last Monday morning to this Monday morning. But, I would contend that on most of COL's loans the probability of default has increased over the last seven days. It therefore seems reasonable to me to assume that on the balance of probabilities the performance of COL's loanbook will now be worse than that which could have been expected exactly 7 days ago. I see your point. I always invest on the basis that a loan has a moderate possibility of defaulting. I agree the chance of defaulting is possibly increased if funding can't be found with another lender, however, if they default the recovery should not be any lower. I thankfully avoided Col but I think the biggest risk for Col lenders will be development loans where all tranches haven't been drawn. It's likely these borrowers will not be able to source further funding so will lead to a firesafe of a partially completed site (which is unlikely to go well). I also agree with what has been said previously - bridging loans often drag on past the repayment date and platforms generally work with the borrower to get the best outcome for all parties. In this case I the administrators are likely to try and draw a line under each loan fairly quickly which may not lead to an optimal outcome for lenders.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Mar 5, 2018 11:41:37 GMT
I see your point. I always invest on the basis that a loan has a moderate possibility of defaulting. I agree the chance of defaulting is possibly increased if funding can't be found with another lender, however, if they default the recovery should not be any lower. I thankfully avoided Col but I think the biggest risk for Col lenders will be development loans where all tranches haven't been drawn. It's likely these borrowers will not be able to source further funding so will lead to a firesafe of a partially completed site (which is unlikely to go well). I also agree with what has been said previously - bridging loans often drag on past the repayment date and platforms generally work with the borrower to get the best outcome for all parties. In this case I the administrators are likely to try and draw a line under each loan fairly quickly which may not lead to an optimal outcome for lenders. One positive point is the borrower of the Lancashire loans was already looking to refinance. The student property should be able to raise finance at similar rates elsewhere (remember it was poached from MT originally, by offering a junior tranche with cashback for high amounts invested)
|
|
