Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011 
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Mar 5, 2018 15:57:16 GMT
RISK=REWARD always did always will. If you don't want rewards stick to a banks 1% APR ISA. Don't call it losses call it a reduction in overall return. Unless you are extremely lase-fair with your investments then overall you will make a profit greater than any bank is offering. FC works on this principal with more manure than a barnyard yet still returns a profit greater than the bank. AGAIN for the umpteenth time there is no indication that Col (Which had no defaults). Has done anything other than mishandled a registration issue which may well be due to outside legal advice. Then there will be those who will want us to do DD on the lawyers,accountants etc. Check how much their kids have in their ISA's , whither they shop in M&S (de-facto fleecing us) or LIDL . I take it these people are all atheists as the is no way on earth they would believe in God in any manifestation without their DD. AGAIN RISK=REWARD Relax enjoy the rewards I managed to retire 8 years early thanks to rewards no reason others can't do the same. You need a chilled approach invest what you can save by being more diligent in day to day spending that way you are only using "Free" money. Enjoy lending feel good that you are helping others stay employed and earning a crust to feed their families and making a little for yourself. what a load of tedious old sh*te You could top up your retirement funds with some freelance work for Lendy with that level of pony Don't have too happy with 18%-22% in FS FISA . You don't need to top up anything if you get enough for your needs. and after 42 years working before 60 I'm happy never to work again. I said be prudent for the price of a Starbucks Caffe Americano (Venti) and a doughnut daily if a 20 year old puts this away at 13% after 3Oyears they can retire with over £400000 in savings and £50000 a year interest, Remember even 1 coffee and doughnut adds up. Return = effort
|
|
Investboy
Member of DD Central
Trying to recover from P2P revolution
Posts: 564
Likes: 201
|
Post by Investboy on Mar 5, 2018 16:32:18 GMT
I've just read through 34 pages of comments. I'm positive and reasonably reassured.
Investing isn't without risk. If I get 100% of my capital back I'll be thrilled. If I get more that 50% I'll be ok with it.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Mar 5, 2018 16:45:22 GMT
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. Is there anything wrong about posting up which platforms you wouldn't personally invest in and why? A kind of review I suppose. As long as you stick to facts, that surely wouldn't be libelous ? Will understand if you don't want to though. I have to say I am getting a bit more concerned (hopefully without reason!) about who is running these platforms. I don't understand why insurance against mal-practice isn't mandatory. I've seen quite a few people show up on this forum saying they have a shiny new platform. Those were some good detailed questions posed above. As a nation, are we really saying that ever T, D and H should need to conduct that level of DD every time they give any money to anyone that isn't a bank? Share dealing platforms spring to mind - who has done that level of DD on them? They could also cut lose and run but nobody is concerned. I have a feeling there is a reason for that that I still don't understand. The only mandatory insurance for most companies is employers liability insurance as far as I am aware. Some professions have mandatory insurance e.g. doctors to be able to work Should p2p providers have mandatory indemnity insurance? I would be surprised if they hadn't already done this voluntarily in some form if you asked them. The FCA do mandate it for some of the companies they cover so you could ask them for their thoughts. www.fca.org.uk/firms/professional-indemnity-insurance
|
|
btc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 193
Likes: 132
|
Post by btc on Mar 5, 2018 17:38:18 GMT
So we're we scammed by Collateral who stated they had interim permission? The FCA have known about Collateral application for interim permission but have just realised that it was done incorrectly. Why didn't the FCA see this sooner? Also can the administrators run the business without being authorized by the FCA?
|
|
btc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 193
Likes: 132
|
Post by btc on Mar 5, 2018 18:12:12 GMT
Asking
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 18:47:14 GMT
I've just read through 34 pages of comments. I'm positive and reasonably reassured. Investing isn't without risk. If I get 100% of my capital back I'll be thrilled. If I get more that 50% I'll be ok with it. If we are given 100%, since you are ok with 50%, may I ask for the other 50% please? 
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 5, 2018 18:50:16 GMT
So we're we scammed by Collateral who stated they had interim permission? The FCA have known about Collateral application for interim permission but have just realised that it was done incorrectly. Why didn't the FCA see this sooner? Also can the administrators run the business without being authorized by the FCA? Can you please clarify? You said: "Collateral application for interim permission" I understand that Collateral had interim permission, which now elapsed. Is my understanding correct?
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 5, 2018 18:53:19 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? 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. Unfortunately, the loans are set up with a 6 month term (in most cases), so the average remaining term would be 3 months. It seems very unlikely that costs could be taken from interest and leave enough on the table for anyone to want to invest in the loans under the new terms (and those terms probably couldn't be imposed on existing lenders unilaterally). So most likely, the refinance route would be the way to go, and the receiving platform can take its fee via its usual mechanisms. Providing some of the loans are attractive to another platform.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 5, 2018 19:00:43 GMT
RISK=REWARD always did always will. If you don't want rewards stick to a banks 1% APR ISA. Don't call it losses call it a reduction in overall return. Unless you are extremely lase-fair with your investments then overall you will make a profit greater than any bank is offering. FC works on this principal with more manure than a barnyard yet still returns a profit greater than the bank. AGAIN for the umpteenth time there is no indication that Col (Which had no defaults). Has done anything other than mishandled a registration issue which may well be due to outside legal advice. Then there will be those who will want us to do DD on the lawyers,accountants etc. Check how much their kids have in their ISA's , whither they shop in M&S (de-facto fleecing us) or LIDL . <snip theological ramblings> Actually, RISK=REWARD in only some instances. Most of the time RISK > REWARD Some of the time RISK = REWARD Occasionally RISK < REWARD It's often quite difficult to determine RISK:REWARD, but if you avoid the obvious instances of RISK > REWARD and reduce your exposure to the instances where the RISK side is relatively high, then you tip the balances somewhat into your favour.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 5, 2018 19:07:48 GMT
So we're we scammed by Collateral who stated they had interim permission? The FCA have known about Collateral application for interim permission but have just realised that it was done incorrectly. Why didn't the FCA see this sooner? Also can the administrators run the business without being authorized by the FCA? You probably mean Collateral's application for full authorisation. Interim Permissions were granted automatically to qualifying organisations (those who held a consumer credit licence from the OFT when the FCA took over as regulator). I posted the conditions under which they could expire some pages ago in this thread.
|
|
btc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 193
Likes: 132
|
Post by btc on Mar 5, 2018 19:09:51 GMT
So we're we scammed by Collateral who stated they had interim permission? The FCA have known about Collateral application for interim permission but have just realised that it was done incorrectly. Why didn't the FCA see this sooner? Also can the administrators run the business without being authorized by the FCA? Can you please clarify? You said: "Collateral application for interim permission" I understand that Collateral had interim permission, which now elapsed. Is my understanding correct? Collateral never had interim permission. IP656714 belonged to Regal Pawnbroker
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 5, 2018 19:26:17 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. The reason I didn't mention Unbolted is the difference in average LTV. I might be wrong, but off the top of my head most UB's loans have much lower LTV than Col's and I think UB's valuations are more conservative than Col's. But it could be that some loans will be refinanced by Unbolted (I hope they will).
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Mar 5, 2018 19:57:05 GMT
Can you please clarify? You said: "Collateral application for interim permission" I understand that Collateral had interim permission, which now elapsed. Is my understanding correct? Collateral never had interim permission. IP656714 belonged to Regal Pawnbroker Good point, P2P is clearly not the FCA's top priority. Remember they are also responsible for £multi-billion banks, etc. This is a side show by comparison.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 5, 2018 19:58:50 GMT
So we're we scammed by Collateral who stated they had interim permission? ... I know this thread is long, but it says that C had had proper legal advice to say that their permissions were correct (ie ther permission for the Regal P business was applicable to C). After a while the FCA said that they didn't. I'm not sure the word scammed is fair, there is as yet no hint of any thievery
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 5, 2018 20:10:09 GMT
Can you please clarify? You said: "Collateral application for interim permission" I understand that Collateral had interim permission, which now elapsed. Is my understanding correct? Collateral never had interim permission. IP656714 belonged to Regal Pawnbroker The closest we've had to information from an authoritative source (i.e. a statement made by the administrator) is summed up by shimself above. It seems highly unlikely that this information is false and Collateral was trading for three years under the nose of the FCA without them noticing earlier.
|
|
