bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 4, 2018 16:06:26 GMT
Being debarred from official access to DDC it would be impolitic say anything other. Inability to comment is not necessarily the same as not being aware! One of the difficulties of giving platform reps access to DDC is that no platform would want their competitors to see full details of their loanbooks (which is further complicated by many borrowers having loans on multiple p2p platforms) There's no reason for giving platform reps access to DDC. My old hobbyhorse is the solution is firmly in the hands of the platforms themselves. I can only think of one main P2P platform that presents loan opportunities in a professional manner. The others seem to be amateurish at best.
How many times has a loan been presented as 'an experienced developer, etc, etc' just to find that when carrying out DD the individual/company has a string of failed projects in their history. Are we really being asked to believe that the platform was not aware of this. If they were not aware then that smacks of incompetence. If they were then that smacks of deliberate concealment.
Just maybe, albeit sadly, as has been mentioned elsewhere on the forum, the good days of P2P are now behind us. There are obviously still opportunities to be had but unless you have both the time and inclination to carry out in-depth DD then it really comes down to whether it's worthwhile. I'd gladly accept a lower rate than 12% provided I was confident that the platform was competent in both DD and loan recovery.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 16:14:31 GMT
Further up Lucy Thing said "We have also experienced some bizarre actions from lenders who were in fact associates of borrowers, where a loan had gone into default. They registered with us in order to pass on information to the borrower and also to make spurious complaints. We need to be able to protect ourselves from these circumstances- that is not what the platform was intended for."
Very frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by westcountry on Apr 4, 2018 16:23:07 GMT
Haven't read through the new Ts & Cs, couldn't be backsided, cos Ima leavin'. I would bet London to a Brick however that there's no new Clause along the lines of :- We will require as Standard that all Valuations provide a 90 Day Distressed Sale Valuation and if any Valuer, RICS Professional or otherwise, is subsequently proven to be incompetently inaccurate we will take legal action and vigorously pursue compensation on behalf of Lenders.Won't happen of course, many Platforms and Borrowers and Valuers are all in bed together, enjoying a very cosy threesome. With Lenders the cuckolded husband. ozboy, you're correct there is no new clause like the one you mention, but on the Moneything FAQ's they explain the changes to clause 6.3 (inserting “You agree not to take unilateral or collective action against any such surveyor”) as that some valuers are afraid of doing P2P valuations, from fear that lenders may pursue valuers under their professional indemnity insurance. It rather shows where the interests of valuers/surveyors, and the interests of lenders, are ranked in relation to each other :-(
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Apr 4, 2018 16:25:13 GMT
IMHO the confidentially aspect of P2P is complex with differing requirements for borrowers and lenders. It's totally reasonable for lenders to know who they are lending to and to share and discuss relevant information which might affect the security of the loan. The issue arises when the information becomes publicly available. Anyone can join a forum and see the 'confidential' information, without having any intention of taking part in the (or any) loan; it is also easy for anyone to find information discussed on the forum just from Google. Surely borrowers also have a right (legal? or ethical) for their financial dealings to remain confidential, especially if they are commercially sensitive. I'm still considering my thoughts on the revised T&C, but expect to see most / all platforms update their T&C, as the industry and experience develops. I think that this is one issue that could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction if MT had pink pages as Assetz. MT could control that access is limited to verified MT lenders, who should all already have access to borrower details. That way there should be no bar to free and open discussion. This would allow shared DD without exposing details to a public forum.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,622
Likes: 4,193
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 4, 2018 17:09:42 GMT
On another tack, the rules regarding sight of probate and will are going to be very difficult to comply with for several reasons. most people don’t have to go to probate because their affairs are simple, small and it all goes to the spouse or civil partner so no probate form for MT. If they do go to probate, they have to surrender the will to the probate office before obtaining probate so no will there. Anyway, Most estates won’t have a will or probate so no will or probate there. MT really need to fix this section for something more flexible and more in keeping with the reality. typically, building society will provide a statement of capital and accrued interest on receipt of a death certificate. Then they may need to see a will or indemnity form for small estates or small amounts or a probate form for larger amounts before releasing the funds. Perhaps, MT could add something indicating that some or more of those documents will be asked for depending on individual circumstances. SophieThing This looks like a serious added complication. I don't know about the age span of most forumites here, but I am in the "prepare to meet thy doom" slot, Always had myself comfortably in the 'spring chicken' slot, until I read today's news of Ray Wilkins untimely demise. P2P has always been a bit of a hobby for me, but must admit that I am rapidly falling out of love with it. I've been in and out of so many different platforms that I'm getting dizzy. After the Collateral fiasco, I find I have 20% of my MT portfolio in defaults, and 50% in loans that I have no chance of selling. New T & C's get a big thumbs down from me, but like many others it will be a long time before I can get out completely.
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 348
Likes: 435
|
Post by nyneil on Apr 4, 2018 17:14:50 GMT
IMHO the confidentially aspect of P2P is complex with differing requirements for borrowers and lenders. It's totally reasonable for lenders to know who they are lending to and to share and discuss relevant information which might affect the security of the loan. The issue arises when the information becomes publicly available. Anyone can join a forum and see the 'confidential' information, without having any intention of taking part in the (or any) loan; it is also easy for anyone to find information discussed on the forum just from Google. Surely borrowers also have a right (legal? or ethical) for their financial dealings to remain confidential, especially if they are commercially sensitive. I'm still considering my thoughts on the revised T&C, but expect to see most / all platforms update their T&C, as the industry and experience develops. I think that this is one issue that could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction if MT had pink pages as Assetz. MT could control that access is limited to verified MT lenders, who should all already have access to borrower details. That way there should be no bar to free and open discussion. This would allow shared DD without exposing details to a public forum. An excellent idea. What about it Sophiething?
|
|
|
Post by marcusponds on Apr 4, 2018 17:41:17 GMT
The confidentiality clause is the nail in the coffin for me. What dark secrets do MT want to hide about their borrowers? Being able find info on these forum's about the borrow's background and the asset borrowed against is great DD. What information do MoneyThing want their investors to rely on when deciding whether to invest in a loan? There are things that Moneything's DD miss. Crowd sourced DD is an absolute must. I can see the borrowers perspective on this as well. An honest borrower with 'nothing to hide' may still perfectly reasonably object to a horde of lenders plastering his/her personal details all over public forums. This is a nightmare for things like fraud, identity theft and the like. Agree @eurasian69- i am not sure how this is different from what already exists - at least as moderated good practise, though perhaps not legally - on forums like this one?
|
|
johni
Member of DD Central
Posts: 365
Likes: 327
|
Post by johni on Apr 4, 2018 19:10:59 GMT
Which platforms are the ones that are quoting the information. I do not see Moneything any different to the rest The confidentiality clause is the nail in the coffin for me. What dark secrets do MT want to hide about their borrowers? Being able find info on these forum's about the borrow's background and the asset borrowed against is great DD. What information do MoneyThing want their investors to rely on when deciding whether to invest in a loan? There are things that Moneything's DD miss. Crowd sourced DD is an absolute must. I'd suggest there would be little need for shared DD if MT themselves could be relied upon to do reliable DD and to bring to the attention of lenders everything they needed to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, they've too often fallen short. We've now had a number of MT borrowers who were only discovered to have criminal records or to be the subjects of allegations of fraud following the effort of members here. It was only after MT's now multiple defaulter applied for a further loan on another platform that we learned of an incidence of arson to an earlier stalled development. Often there appears to be unrevealed linkage between borrowers and companies. Either MT failed to discover these histories, or they knew and failed to tell us. With the very limited information MT provides to lenders it would be incredibly time consuming, if not impossible, for most lenders to independently find the information they need. So MT have a choice: to carry out effective DD and make relevent facts known to lenders, as do the best platforms, or they have to accept that lenders will need to do their own DD in whatever way they can. We can't simply dole out our money while being blindfolded by the platform from reasonably assessing the risks.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 4, 2018 20:11:46 GMT
We will, collectively, vote with our £££s. Or not with our £££s, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 22:34:22 GMT
At the end of the day, the P2P lending market is already crowded in terms of platforms and will become even more so as there are many other operations either starting to come up or are in their pre-launch phases. Lenders will have an ever increasing selection of platforms to choose from in the future. At that point, some of the platforms will learn the hard commercial lesson that lenders are customers and need to be treated with respect and not kept in the dark or treated like idiots because they can lend elsewhere. The lesson for lenders will be that an ever increasing pool of platforms will lead to more platforms chasing business with the potential for the quality of loans to deteriorate. The well resourced platforms which have the best quality of management will be the ones that come out on top and there are likely to be business failures amongst the platforms that do not have such good quality management.
If anybody does not like the new terms and conditions or the attitude of Moneything, one option is to move away from Moneything and lend elsewhere where there is a different attitude towards lending customers. Moneything do not have a business without us so it will be their loss.
Moneything must surely be in the running for having the record of the worst loss for a P2P secured loan when they lost 51% on a secured property loan that was months old. I have seen no sight at all of any kind of apology from Moneything for such a large loss. Not unreasonable to wonder how many more repeat performances there might be in the future with lenders firmly shut out of the decision making process about how best to proceed as dictated by the updated terms and conditions.
|
|
woodie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 120
Likes: 78
|
Post by woodie on Apr 4, 2018 22:56:49 GMT
Hi cpalw
As far as I'm aware Moneything lenders haven't been subject to an 'official/actual' loss yet (plenty pending). As regards the 51%, to which loan are you referring ? Thanks.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 5, 2018 6:09:54 GMT
I presume @robertlondon is referring to the Lytham St Annes bridging loan, but he's messed up his calculations. According to the 12th Jan update, the predicted return of capital on that loan following sale is 70%, not 49%.
What I think he's done is taken 70% of the £455k loan (£318.5k) and divided this by the original valuation (£650k), ignoring both the 70% LTV and also the recovery costs. It also ignores the potential for subsequent further recoveries via the borrower's PG and/or any claim against the valuer.
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Apr 5, 2018 6:37:05 GMT
I hope people will read the FAQ on the changes and also see the version which shows the changes highlighted. These are in different updates in the General Updates section. To me the T&Cs seem well written, a sensible update. It is good practice to ask people to consent to new T&Cs as has been done here. It seems with hindsight the introduction of the new T&Cs could have been done a bit better with an explanation at the start, but I saw no reason not to accept them once I had chance to understand them. There is no need to accept them straight away anyhow.
|
|
snowmobile
Member of DD Central
Posts: 230
Likes: 448
|
Post by snowmobile on Apr 5, 2018 7:50:37 GMT
The timing of these changes is somewhat unfortunate for MT. Lenders are understandably a bit touchy on this subject at the moment, as we've recently been made aware of the sly, unannounced changes at Col. I suspect that the timing of it was strongly related to the launch of the IFISA. Lenders need to be fully aware of the terms they are signing up to before committing their precious ISA allowance to MT. These changes popped up with very little notice or explanation. It all seemed a bit Lendy-esque for my liking (an arrogant take it or leave it attitude). I'm not suggesting that MT have been arrogant, just that communication could have been better at the outset, explaining why these changes were needed. I even started to wonder is this the beginning of the end for MT If so many lenders, as the poll suggests, decide to run down their accounts how are new loans supposed to be filled? Lender confidence appears to be at an all time low and we are needed now more than ever. Having now had time to consider the changes, in particular the answers by MT providing a little insight into the reasons behind the changes, I am minded to accept them.
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Apr 5, 2018 10:22:40 GMT
A lot of posters here are saying they are running down their portfolio at MT.
Similarly, if you read threads on other P2P platforms, people are running down Lendy, FC, RS etc etc.
It's going to be interesting to see where all the cash is coming from to fill all these gaps.
As far as I'm concerned. as long as repayments continue, interest is paid, and defaults are chased down, then I'm still in. (that's all the 9 platforms I've invested in)
|
|