|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 11, 2018 16:21:17 GMT
So you invested without doing research or rea ding the website then? All of the relevant statements and warnings are there and always have been. Everyone knows I am not a supporter of Lendy but by being blinded by the high returns does not mean the FCA or FOS should protect you from your own folly. Yes I researched but was lied to.
The warning statements were not always there, not in the beginning. Besides, investments were made based on the TRUE information given, this turned out to be lies.
Being blinded is not the same as accepting what was supposed to be the truth. FCA rules say that information given has to be the truth, fair, clear etc. It was not.
See the edit above. You are mistaken the warnings have always been there and although you might not like it Lendy specifically disclaim responsibility for VRs and neither they or the FCA can be held responsible for your inability to understand that.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 16:42:16 GMT
See the edit above. You are mistaken the warnings have always been there and although you might not like it Lendy specifically disclaim responsibility for VRs and neither they or the FCA can be held responsible for your inability to understand that. First of all the warnings that the information that Lendy gives may not be the truth were not there and are not there now.
Secondly, the VR is part of the information that is relied upon by the lender therefore Lendy is responsible for that. There was not a disclaimer when I lent my money.
The FCA authorised them, therefore they take responsibility. Otherwise they should confront them when they break the rules. They do not do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Mar 11, 2018 16:47:46 GMT
peterpea . SS started out in 2013 (that's when I started investing in their loans). They were under OFT supervision at that point and their interim FCA permission comes simply from being grandfathered in via that route. Their inability to get a full FCA permission after this long likely indicates that the FCA saw substantial issues. They started off with two directors, one with IT experience and the other with a very modest amount of finance experience mainly in distribution. SS clearly didn't have anything like the necessary infrastructure to manage many of the property loans they originated in 2015/16. To be fair SS has hired fairly aggressively and now looks more qualified to manage a property lending business but that legacy NPL book will remain a problem. Much of this comes down to an issue of perception versus reality. I have no liking for SS and PBL155 is clearly a very bad result, with a valuation that was way off the mark. It reminds me of AC's 2013 Anglesey bridge loan (12% 6-month, large property in NW Wales), which again had valuation that looked totally unrealistic. However, at a wider level, many investors on these platforms, it seems including yourself, don't have a realistic view of the risk factors in the product they are investing in or the platform's actual role. The platforms benefit from these misperceptions and, in some cases, actively promote them. Nonetheless, you have provided no evidence that SS gave you anything that would constitute investment advice or acted in any way other than as an intermediary. As such the responsbility for these losses lies with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 11, 2018 16:55:21 GMT
See the edit above. You are mistaken the warnings have always been there and although you might not like it Lendy specifically disclaim responsibility for VRs and neither they or the FCA can be held responsible for your inability to understand that. First of all the warnings that the information that Lendy gives may not be the truth were not there and are not there now.
Secondly, the VR is part of the information that is relied upon by the lender therefore Lendy is responsible for that. There was not a disclaimer when I lent my money.
The FCA authorised them, therefore they take responsibility. Otherwise they should confront them when they break the rules. They do not do that. If you are so sure you are correct you have the option of a judicial review. Please do not waste any more of our time claiming things that have been disproved on investigation, go to court don't keep gainsaying facts we know to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 17:01:05 GMT
peterpea . SS started out in 2013 (that's when I started investing in their loans). They were under OFT supervision at that point and their interim FCA permission comes simply from being grandfathered in via that route. Their inability to get a full FCA permission after this long likely indicates that the FCA saw substantial issues. They started off with two directors, one with IT experience and the other with a very modest amount of finance experience mainly in distribution. SS clearly didn't have anything like the necessary infrastructure to manage many of the property loans they originated in 2015/16. To be fair SS has hired fairly aggressively and now looks more qualified to manage a property lending business but that legacy NPL book will remain a problem. Much of this comes down to an issue of perception versus reality. I have no liking for SS and PBL155 is clearly a very bad result, with a valuation that was way off the mark. It reminds me of AC's 2013 Anglesey bridge loan (12% 6-month, large property in NW Wales), which again had valuation that looked totally unrealistic. However, at a wider level, many investors on these platforms, it seems including yourself, don't have a realistic view of the risk factors in the product they are investing in or the platform's actual role. The platforms benefit from these misperceptions and, in some cases, actively promote them. Nonetheless, you have provided no evidence that SS gave you anything that would constitute investment advice or acted in any way other than as an intermediary. As such the responsbility for these losses lies with you. The risk factor is based on the true information given according to FCA rules of clarity, truth etc. I have not mentioned specifics as the investigation is ongoing. The losses I may incur are not of my folly. I can only make decisions based on the true information supplied by Lendy. Lendy can`t lie and then say it is my own fault and neither can the FOS
|
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 638 
Likes: 659
|
Post by warn on Mar 11, 2018 18:17:02 GMT
... I have not mentioned specifics as the investigation is ongoing... Yes, that's fair enough. And as there is an investigation ongoing, it would be a good idea for further comment to be withheld lest the investigation be prejudiced. But when it's over, please come back and tell us how it went.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 18:33:57 GMT
... I have not mentioned specifics as the investigation is ongoing... Yes, that's fair enough. And as there is an investigation ongoing, it would be a good idea for further comment to be withheld lest the investigation be prejudiced. But when it's over, please come back and tell us how it went. I wiil.
|
|
NSFW
Posts: 118
Likes: 58
|
Post by NSFW on Apr 6, 2018 21:23:55 GMT
Lendy are too fun and maverick for the FCA. I miss the days when Lendy would pay us the 1% per month even if the loan had gone tits up. Hope for the best and all that, nothing to see here. It's actually a cool thing to do. Bit negative to suspend interest payments and make people worry and have doubts. FCA are boring and miserable tossers.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Apr 6, 2018 21:33:45 GMT
Lendy are too fun and maverick for the FCA. I miss the days when Lendy would pay us the 1% per month even if the loan had gone tits up. Hope for the best and all that, nothing to see here. It's actually a cool thing to do. Bit negative to suspend interest payments and make people worry and have doubts. FCA are boring and miserable tossers. True, and I think Lendy have found it hard to follow the boring rule book. Remember INPL for SM purchases? Those were the days!
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 7, 2018 13:23:14 GMT
As we are starting to see loans leaving investors with capital losses (there’s more to come), I think it is unfair to say the blame lies entirely with investors who didn’t understand the risks and didn’t do enough of their own research. Those who have been reading these boards will see many instances of incompetence (from various parties, not only LY) which investors had no control over. It’s also not correct to say assets were sold off quickly (fire sale), some defaults are hitting the 600 days overdue mark and the assets are still unsold. I’ve never seen anyone posting on here who thinks LY is a “bank account” so why do people keep using that as a reference? When did anyone say they thought LY was a “bank account”.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Apr 8, 2018 6:17:55 GMT
As we are starting to see loans leaving investors with capital losses (there’s more to come), I think it is unfair to say the blame lies entirely with investors who didn’t understand the risks and didn’t do enough of their own research. Those who have been reading these boards will see many instances of incompetence (from various parties, not only LY) which investors had no control over. It’s also not correct to say assets were sold off quickly (fire sale), some defaults are hitting the 600 days overdue mark and the assets are still unsold. I’ve never seen anyone posting on here who thinks LY is a “bank account” so why do people keep using that as a reference? When did anyone say they thought LY was a “bank account”. Lots of people to blame! Lendy offering dodgy loans, bad valuers and naive investors. The smarter investors aided by good info on this site(and others), has dodged the worst of loans. It really was obvious that a lot of these loans were going to go bad and some of the valuations were clearly crazy. Investors do need to do a bit more research and not invest in things they don't understand, like castles and various commercial projects.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 8, 2018 8:27:40 GMT
Couldn't agree with you more but you are viewing the p to p platforms from the perspective of a battle-hardened loan warrior. A babe in arms investor coming new to the Lendy platform is greeted by "At Lendy we have a reputation for having one of the most experienced and specialist credit assessment teams in the industry, who ensure each investment loan has met our rigorous and robust lending criteria. We only offer investors loans to invest in that have been through our rigorous and streamlined due diligence, credit and legal checking." At that moment your advice to the prospective lender would be ......... take a deep breath. Stop.......think...... Do not believe anything, yes anything, appearing on this or any other platform is the truth. It may be so or it may not be so etc etc.
|
|
rs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 254
|
Post by rs on Jul 1, 2018 8:10:36 GMT
Any update on Lendy FCA registration?
After suffering Collateral situation, Could Lendy FCA registration be next?
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Jul 2, 2018 22:27:43 GMT
It could happen overnight that FCA said a p2p provider does not have permission any more, and we all find out that it was us at fault to believe the FCA register stating a provider did have IP, and it would be investors that naively believed the providers’ email and T&C stating that they have FCA IP, ... , does that sound familiar to you?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 2, 2018 22:57:02 GMT
It could happen overnight that FCA said a p2p provider does not have permission any more, and we all find out that it was us at fault to believe the FCA register stating a provider did have IP, and it would be investors that naively believed the providers’ email and T&C stating that they have FCA IP, ... , does that sound familiar to you? Quite a few differences. Lendy do have P2P interim permission unlike Collateral which didnt have even that. No other entities have ever had permission but Lendy, unlike Collateral where the permission was for another company and Collateral were tagged on. That said should the FCA refused to grant full authorisation then Lendy would have to cease lending but probably wouldnt go into administration, and theyve already got a big company to do their runoff so probably wouldnt have problems with the FCA objecting to that.
|
|
