ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 5, 2018 10:34:17 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) "defaults are chased down", are, of course, the KEY words.
|
|
rgog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 95
Likes: 70
|
Post by rgog on Apr 5, 2018 11:19:23 GMT
Having read the answers on the site I have to admit there are areas I am still not happy with; Data protection, going to the IoM I don't have a problem with but the wording leaves it open to them to use any other jurisdiction which I do have major problems with. Perhaps if the wording restricted it to IoM but warned that it was out side the EEA? Clause 10.8 I am still concerned that they have arrogated such sweeping powers to them selves to alter fundamental terms of the contract without any consultation with the principals whose capital it is and who bear the risk. Clause 6.3 and the first sentence of 10.18 excludes us completely, while I recognise there is a need for the platform to be able to act without others interfering in the first instance once all actions they deem economically viable (which will be determined from a platform point of view not a lenders) it would be appropriate to leave open a residual right for the lenders should they so choose to act individually or collectively. Still not clarified the position re death and wills etc. MoneyThing
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 5, 2018 11:49:07 GMT
Having read the answers on the site I have to admit there are areas I am still not happy with; Data protection, going to the IoM I don't have a problem with but the wording leaves it open to them to use any other jurisdiction which I do have major problems with. Perhaps if the wording restricted it to IoM but warned that it was out side the EEA? Clause 10.8 I am still concerned that they have arrogated such sweeping powers to them selves to alter fundamental terms of the contract without any consultation with the principals whose capital it is and who bear the risk. Clause 6.3 and the first sentence of 10.18 excludes us completely, while I recognise there is a need for the platform to be able to act without others interfering in the first instance once all actions they deem economically viable (which will be determined from a platform point of view not a lenders) it would be appropriate to leave open a residual right for the lenders should they so choose to act individually or collectively. Still not clarified the position re death and wills etc. MoneyThing I’m still struggling with various aspects of the new MT T’s&C’s. Trying to avoid going over old ground, in essence we are presented with relatively shallow details regarding any loan opportunities. Irrespective as to whether there is any adverse borrower information possibly known which the platform chooses (for whatever reason) not to disclose, as an investor it is entirely my responsibility to decide whether to invest of not. The platform could have misrepresented the loan presentation either through neglect, error, or indeed deliberate omission but they take zero responsibility for this. However, whilst the platform are not in any way responsible for my decision to invest, they suddenly have the right to take control of the loan and vary at their sole discretion the original terms without any reference to investors. I’m also slightly perturbed that on the MT FAQ web site they indicate that loan opportunities have been lost - ‘We have lost good borrowers where they were not comfortable with the risk that their confidential information could be shared on the internet and our confidentiality clause is seeking to provide them some comfort around that point.’So it’s our fault that MT haven’t been able to source as many loans as they would like. Hmmm.......... I would respectfully advise that if loan opportunities were presented professionally rather than as now, then, assuming the FAQ paragraph does genuinely apply, the amount of DD required by potential investors would be minimised thereby reducing chatter. I do not believe these new T’s&C’s have been particularly well thought out. Of course any platform requires protection but so do I as an investor.
|
|
|
Post by Duane Dibley on Apr 7, 2018 11:13:23 GMT
More and more platforms seem to demand to exist (and hopefully) prosper but it’s all becoming too one sided for my liking. They forget that there exists an informal ‘partnership’ between the investor and themselves. But they seem to be going out of their way to alienate investors rather than work with them for the common good. I don't think it's a conscious decision, in my opinion it's just the natural cycle of P2P platforms. They start off with good intentions and a niche product. Investors dip their toes. Like the interest rates offered. Money trickles in. Interest gets paid on time. More investors sign up. More loans are offered. More interest paid. Even more investors sign up. Everything looks rosy. Communication is good. Money is pouring in now. Loans are snapped up in seconds. There's more money to invest than loans to invest in. Platforms are seduced my the increased profits offered by multi-million pound sub-prime property loans rather than the boring old staid products that they made their name with. The money still pours in. Everybody is happy. We're at the peak of the cycle. Then... Then rumours start that not everything is as it seems. The borrower may have previous failed projects or a criminal record or an overexuberant valuation is made. Murmerings of a possible default are heard. Questions are asked. Promised updates don't materialise. Investors start to worry. Communication starts to drop. The first default is called. Investors hesitate. Some stop investing. Some sell their existing loans. Others insist nothing is wrong and continue to invest. A second default is called. More investors sell. Fewer new investors join. There's more loan parts for sale than there are buyers. Another default is called. More investors want to sell. Nobody is buying. Other investors see the amount for sale and worry that others know something they don't. They put their loans up for sale. Platforms start to worry. Profits are going down. They need more loans to replace the defaulted loans. Communication stops. Poorer quality loans are introduced. Defaults increase. Losses are expected. More investors leave. Loans aren't filled. Platform gets desperate. Radical changes are introduced. Investors want out with whatever they can get. It's us and them now. Those out breath a sigh of release. Those still in write off their losses. Platform closes. Now I don't remember the exact time scale, but I was in at the start of both Saving Stream and MoneyThing and I would say that MT are about two years behind Lendy in the cycle. 2015 was a good year for Lendy as 2017 was for MT. If I remember rightly things started to wrong for Lendy the beginning of 2016 and by the end of 2016 I was just about out. Obviously I don't know how long either Lendy or MT have left as viable platforms but I fear for the future of both of them. Therefore these new T&C's don't really affect me as I'd be looking to be out by the end of the year anyway. Now if MT decided to concentrate in what I think they do best, the niche products, the grouped assets, the high end vehicles, then I'd stay in and accept, however reluctantly, the T&C's. As it is however I'll accept missing out on the few loans I would like, in order to remain on the old T&C's and avoid those property development loans that MT, as is their right, seem to have decided is their future.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 7, 2018 13:54:08 GMT
A well thought out post Duane Dibley and I have no idea regarding the future of P2P platforms in general. Obviously many will continue but also many will just wither on the vine with possibly their platform loan offerings becoming a sideline to the owners as they seek out their next venture. Indeed more than one may just simply 'throw in the towel' and walk away with the profits they have already pocketed. The biggest problem with many platforms IMO is their fixed mindset. The investor from the 2014 era is a different individual today. No longer are many investors prepared to accept on face value what is being presented by the platforms. In many cases, this investor evolution has been brought on by the platforms themselves who in their excitement to expand have gradually but surely cut corners. Platforms have presented themselves as fully experienced professionals coupled with high standards when assessing potential borrowers. What they have failed to realise is many borrowers are far more surreptitious at extracting funds from our excited platforms who have been blinded in the early days by a lack of defaults - those chickens not having had enough time to come home and roost. They are certainly roosting now. IMO, only those platforms that are willing to devote the time and effort to rebuild investor confidence will go on and prosper. There will exist tremendous opportunities as many P2P companies will have given up so the marketplace will not be as crowded.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 7, 2018 14:09:37 GMT
It's obvious (except to many Platforms), that if you don't lie, cheat & thieve from your Investors, you will prosper. End of, really.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Apr 7, 2018 18:57:09 GMT
IMO, only those platforms that are willing to devote the time and effort to rebuild investor confidence will go on and prosper. I'd very much agree, and for that reason I'm astonished that MT now seem to go out of their way to alienate lenders. They seem to be in panic mode. Without any warning, lenders were confronted with a notice demanding that they " Confirm". The impression being given that the user wouldn't be allowed access to see his account unless they complied. Quite what they would be confirming wasn't stated. It might be the reader was to confirm that they had read the proposed new terms, or alternatively, that they were agreeing to them. Perhaps SophieThing could clarify. If the latter, then placing a "confirm" buttton at the top of the page to encourage readers to accept before having read what it is they are agreeing is a technique I've only seen used by very dodgy websites. It's not a practice I've seen on any reputable site and I'm amazed that MT should think it acceptable. Any button confirming agreement should only be at the end of the document. In reality, the notice can be ignored but, as we saw earlier in this thread, some lenders were unaware and "confirmed" believing they had no choice. Which I assume was the intention. Even then, MT seem determined to irritate non-compliant lenders as much as possible. They have ensured that they will be confronted by the same page demanding they Confirm everytime they login, and if that isn't enough, they place a very large banner across the Loans page. It seems they don't understand how subtlety and reasonable courtesy would be more persuasive than bludgeoning their customers. I think there is a future for Moneything but that will depend on regaining the confidence of lenders, and that will require treating their customers with the respect they deserve and expect.
|
|
rgog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 95
Likes: 70
|
Post by rgog on Apr 9, 2018 14:38:55 GMT
As I have stated up thread, there are certain clauses that have a potential to be quite disproportionately disadvantageous to we lenders, placing unnecessary risk on to us over and above the considerable risk we (hopefully) have calculated for in assessing the loans/platform risk. I also note with great regret a total failure of any of the platform staff to respond to the detailed concerns.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Jul 12, 2018 17:42:59 GMT
SophieThing , MoneyThing I have a question about the new T&Cs that has arisen from me discussing them elsewhere with someone else. It appears there are different interpretations of one of the clauses and I wonder if I am mistaken. I note the following from the Q&A released on 4th April: This has led me to believe that it is fine to discuss any aspect of loans (and indeed borrowers) providing borrowers are not identified. However, the letter of the T&Cs suggests some loan information is strictly private and confidential and must not be disclosed: The uncertainty is around whether the word 'and' is intended as a coordinating conjunction (with missing comma), such that the two halves of the sentence are independent (i.e. Some information about the loans is strictly private and confidential. In addition to this you must also comply with the provisions of clause 19). If this is the case, everything after the "and" is redundant and could be removed for clarity (since the requirement for privacy prevents disclosure even when complying fully with clause 19). This would also contradict (or at the very least place a significant limit on) the answer to question 4 from the FAQ as quoted above. Alternatively, and what I currently believe, is there is an error in 12.1 and the word 'private' should be omitted, since if information is private by any reasonable definition, it cannot be discussed in public, even if confidentiality is maintained. If the word 'private' is removed, 12.1 puts the condition of confidentiality on the information, with emphasis that it can be disclosed providing clause 19 is complied with and confidentiality is maintained. By way of example, the following is a hypothetical discussion. Would this discussion be in breach of the T&C's? MT_lender1: I've been thinking of buying into loan XXXX123 for a while, but I noticed today it's been marked as non-performing. Should I be worried?
MT_lender2: I wouldn't worry too much, it seems to happen most months, but only for a few days
MT_lender3: That borrower has a couple of other loans on the platform and it happens with those too. I was a bit worried about cashflows so reduced my holding a bit.
MT_lender4: I've been maintaining a spreadsheet tracking loan performance for the past 6 months and this loan is nowhere near the worst performing, having only had a total of 8 days in non-performance over the last quarter.
MT_lender1: Ok, thanks, that's reassuring.
|
|
|
Post by SophieThing on Aug 3, 2018 6:28:59 GMT
Hi mason, I don't have a problem with your example. Anyone not registered as an MT lender would not be able to put the comments into context and so I can't see any issue with this. I think this is pretty much how the forum has been working in any case. Kind regards Sophie
|
|
insideout
Member of DD Central
Posts: 55
Likes: 99
|
Post by insideout on Aug 3, 2018 7:56:21 GMT
If the MT platform doesn’t like discussion, go elsewhere. They can elect to close your account of course, but paying full capital and interest to date, quite a good deal given the prospects for many of their loans. Please form an orderly queue for full redemption.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Oct 30, 2018 10:05:03 GMT
We have added a General Update regarding lender liabilities to the platform. Kind regards Sophie SophieThing , thanks for the helpful update and clarification on this matter. I've just had a quick look through and it seems that investors who have not signed up to the April 2018 terms and conditions are in the same position as those who have in respect to this particular issue, but not being a legal expert, it would be helpful if you could confirm that.
|
|
|
Post by lendinglawyer on Oct 30, 2018 10:38:29 GMT
We have added a General Update regarding lender liabilities to the platform. Kind regards Sophie SophieThing , thanks for the helpful update and clarification on this matter. I've just had a quick look through and it seems that investors who have not signed up to the April 2018 terms and conditions are in the same position as those who have in respect to this particular issue, but not being a legal expert, it would be helpful if you could confirm that. While the update is clearly welcome (and it's good to see platforms refreshing their advice in light of ongoing cases against others), I would just like to point out that from where I sit Lendy and MT's structures are EXACTLY the same in substance (OK there are some minor differences around the edges, but they're very much differences of degree rather than in kind). So while I can see why MT felt they should put out an update to reassure people, and don't for a second accuse MT of having done anything "wrong" or malicious in what they wrote, I don't think they needed to adopt quite the "rubbing of salt into Lendy's wounds" tone that they did. Because what is playing out at Lendy could just as easily happen to them one day...
|
|
|
Post by SophieThing on Oct 30, 2018 11:14:29 GMT
We have added a General Update regarding lender liabilities to the platform. Kind regards Sophie SophieThing , thanks for the helpful update and clarification on this matter. I've just had a quick look through and it seems that investors who have not signed up to the April 2018 terms and conditions are in the same position as those who have in respect to this particular issue, but not being a legal expert, it would be helpful if you could confirm that. Hi Stardust, Yes that's correct, our comments regarding lender liability apply to all our lenders. Kind regards Sophie
|
|
|
Post by SophieThing on Oct 30, 2018 11:39:34 GMT
SophieThing , thanks for the helpful update and clarification on this matter. I've just had a quick look through and it seems that investors who have not signed up to the April 2018 terms and conditions are in the same position as those who have in respect to this particular issue, but not being a legal expert, it would be helpful if you could confirm that. While the update is clearly welcome (and it's good to see platforms refreshing their advice in light of ongoing cases against others), I would just like to point out that from where I sit Lendy and MT's structures are EXACTLY the same in substance (OK there are some minor differences around the edges, but they're very much differences of degree rather than in kind). So while I can see why MT felt they should put out an update to reassure people, and don't for a second accuse MT of having done anything "wrong" or malicious in what they wrote, I don't think they needed to adopt quite the "rubbing of salt into Lendy's wounds" tone that they did. Because what is playing out at Lendy could just as easily happen to them one day... Hi Lendinglawyer, Our comments necessarily referred to Lendy's issues to put our comments into context. However our comments were not intended to be read as a criticism of them. Rather, we are seeking to reassure our lenders of the steps we have taken to put certain protections in place. This is directly in response to concerned lenders who have contacted us as a result of their experience with Lendy. I'm not going to comment on anyone else's particular legal agreements. I agree that in some respects you are correct and there are similarities between the structure of all peer-to-peer agreements. In general terms, it is common for platforms to use a 'security trustee' structure and for the agreements to be drafted as bi-lateral loan agreements in order to meet the definition of P2P. However, I would suggest that the difference in the detail is perhaps more important than your post suggests. As you point out, no one can stop a vexatious claim, but we have mitigated the grounds for claims as much as we can. Kind regards Sophie
|
|