ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,163 
Likes: 4,854
|
Post by ozboy on Jul 16, 2018 14:24:09 GMT
and other matters, lincluding The Useless FCA.
Might I respectfully suggest that my Fellow Investors consider doing the same ASAP please?
Until there are Questions asked in Parliament and we get FAR wider coverage and visibility on the crookedness of P2P nothing will happen.
I thank you.
OzBoy.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Jul 16, 2018 14:28:26 GMT
What do you want them (MPs or FCA) to do?
And how much in increased fees and restricted choices are you prepared to pay?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 16, 2018 15:00:14 GMT
Hmm .... the only action that the regulator (under pressure from the government after investors have lobbied MP's or from the Treasury Select Committee) can take is to prevent some or all p2p offerings from being marketed to retail investors. With all major p2p platforms being FCA authorised now, if people believe that p2p risks are too hard to evaluate, preventing retail investors from being exposed to the risks is the only realistic option.
I've said previously I believe its inevitable that self select loans will have to be restricted to sophisticated/HNW investors as its predominately retail investors that take up the highest risk loans being offered by p2p platforms that really shouldn't be being filled at all (e.g. the COL lancs development plots).
I'm finding it hard to visualise what improvements could be forced on platforms. I would prefer more transparency before and during the loan, but the platforms argue that to do so would breach their duty of care to the borrower. I would prefer SM trading to be suspended if an update can not be made for legal reasons. I do not want to see a rigid timescale or processes for dafaulting loans as this will reduce the eventual recovery in many cases where the valuation was based on erroneous assumptions (e.g. FS Rishton).
Whilst I would prefer to see LTV's based on current estimated firesale values not residual values from a development scheme, to do so would simply make such loans unviable and quickly kill p2p as a concept.
To sum up - for me p2p is working great, over the last almost 13 years since Zopa launched I have made around 9% pa after bad debt before tax. Yes, some improvements to the p2p model would be nice, but nothing springs out as being critical to me.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,163
Likes: 4,854
|
Post by ozboy on Jul 16, 2018 16:05:13 GMT
What do you want them (MPs or FCA) to do? And how much in increased fees and restricted choices are you prepared to pay? I thought I had already made that very clear. Ask Questions in Parliament, so the problems gain more visibility. I don't profess to be the sharpest tool in the box so any more worthwhile suggested courses of action graciously accepted.  Don't understand your second point/s bigfoot12, please clarify?
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jul 16, 2018 16:05:16 GMT
I think if any call is made on the public purse for compensation would be unwise.
An MP is motivated by public opinion and surely they would see massive risks in any suggestion of help (directly or indirectly) for 'rich' (in relative terms) people who seek better returns on alternative markets.
Expecting increased regulation without some sort of levy to pay for that would be unrealistic and p2p participants may not wish to pay a levy.
Jack P
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,163
Likes: 4,854
|
Post by ozboy on Jul 16, 2018 16:07:43 GMT
Gotta disagree on that one mrclondon, P2P is NOT working great.
Far from it.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,163
Likes: 4,854
|
Post by ozboy on Jul 16, 2018 16:11:57 GMT
I think if any call is made on the public purse for compensation would be unwise. An MP is motivated by public opinion and surely they would see massive risks in any suggestion of help (directly or indirectly) for 'rich' (in relative terms) people who seek better returns on alternative markets. Expecting increased regulation without some sort of levy to pay for that would be unrealistic and p2p participants may not wish to pay a levy. Jack P Who mentioned compensation? I'm talking about cleaning up P2P and The FCA actually doing something preventative, like effective monitoring and preventative action/s, rather than being reactive after the horse has bolted, and the stable burned down, not just the door left open.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Jul 16, 2018 17:22:47 GMT
Gotta disagree on that one mrclondon, P2P is NOT working great. Far from it Many of us on this forum have handed money over to people we don't know, using tiny companies with little experience, few resources and reserves and no track record and yet most of us have positive returns on almost every platform. I think that is a remarkable success. It is amazing how few platforms have failed and I think none with full FCA permission. Some platforms claim to offer secured lending, but most of us on this platform could borrow secured at between 2% and 5%, so we shouldn't be surprised when some of those borrowing "secured" at 25%+ don't pay back. P2P isn't like a bank account, we all need a bank account, P2P is optional. I think that there are more important things to kick the FCA and MPs about.
|
|
gareot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 75
Likes: 63
|
Post by gareot on Jul 16, 2018 18:13:53 GMT
Well I for one would feel a lot happier if platforms were made to carry enough funds & be made to use them to pursue all late loans instead of leaving them on the back burner for ever and a day which, in my opinion seems to me to be happening quite frequently.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 1,464
|
Post by jlend on Jul 16, 2018 19:59:28 GMT
One thing i would like to see is some liability insurance being mandated for all p2p platforms having had some brief email exchanges with the FCA.
There is a minimum capital requirement that each platform must hold relative to the size of their loan book that was introduced they said to go some way in covering potential issues.
I think this should be boosted with some liability insurance so that if there is a significant complaint upheld by the FOS against a platform there is a better chance of the platform surviving.
I am not suggesting any cover by the fscs and i dont think this is a material cost to any stable well run platforms.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,357
Likes: 2,765
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 16, 2018 20:08:36 GMT
We chose to invest in P2P, and we know or should know it's high risk. If we get it wrong our bad. Unfortunately a lot of people have assumed P2P is not a high risk prospect, and they think a 12% return can be expected, seems there is a reality check taking place at the minute. At the start of this boom some of the early P2P adopters tried to point out the inevitability of defaults and the pain this would bring, but until you experience it you don't really understand it. I'm not sure what regulators can do about it, banks etc have always had to deal with fraud and lower credit borrowers not paying back, P2P is also seeing the same problems, which will lead to generally lower rates if you want to avoid the worst borrowers.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 1,464
|
Post by jlend on Jul 16, 2018 20:13:11 GMT
What do you want them (MPs or FCA) to do? And how much in increased fees and restricted choices are you prepared to pay? Just a few thoughts. Fees: Is there a levy now on p2p platforms to pay for any regulatory activity that currently takes place? If so how much is the levy and what does it pay for? Then it will be easier to answer the increased fee question. Certainly the Collateral fca register issue is one area that needs tightening just as an example and will have to be paid for, although that doesnt feel like a big cost. It is a general query rather than just to the poster. Restricted Choices: I am not adverse in principle to some level of restriction, i know it is stating the obvious but it depends what it is
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jul 16, 2018 20:25:39 GMT
We chose to invest in P2P, and we know or should know it's high risk. If we get it wrong our bad. Unfortunately a lot of people have assumed P2P is not a high risk prospect, and they think a 12% return can be expected, seems there is a reality check taking place at the minute. At the start of this boom some of the early P2P adopters tried to point out the inevitability of defaults and the pain this would bring, but until you experience it you don't really understand it. I'm not sure what regulators can do about it, banks etc have always had to deal with fraud and lower credit borrowers not paying back, P2P is also seeing the same problems, which will lead to generally lower rates if you want to avoid the worst borrowers. Pretty much sums it up. As a 'retail', low net worth, unsophisticated, whatever lender I don't feel the need to be 'protected' by the government - it's my call whether I invest in a loan or not, same as it's my call if I put the money on an outsider in the 3:30 at Haydock. That said I would like to see a more vigorous recovery process by some platforms, although I can't see any way to impose/enforce this that didn't involve a much larger and very intrusive regulator.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,163
Likes: 4,854
|
Post by ozboy on Jul 16, 2018 20:47:37 GMT
It's not, and never has been, about "High Risk", "You don't get 12% for nothing" etc, etc, ad infnitum.
We all know this, it's basic, schoolboy risk/reward stuff.
It IS about making informed investment decisions based on the reasonably honest, presented facts, and when you are blatantly downright lied to, deceived, BS'd, conned, shafted and hung out to dry, it's pure appeasement to accept along the lines of "Oh well, that's the way it is, it's High Risk you know."
Do you want this industry cleaned up or not Fellow Investors?
I led the charge on The Valuations/LTV Scam and got castigated then. Until people started losing serious money and waking up.
I'm getting Deja Vu and I'm feeling The Lone Ranger all over again on this one.
This situation would not, and does not, happen in Australia and certainly wouldn't happen in the USA, Consumer Investors would be up in arms about it, wouldn't stand for it and it would be nipped in the bud. With the full support of a pro-active Government and Industry Body (Hello FCA? Wakey, wakey.)
Not here in Blighty though, being polite & accepting, and even joking, about the daily "misleadings" taking place just beggars belief.
Be a Churchill, don't be a Chamberlain.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 16, 2018 21:31:24 GMT
and other matters, lincluding The Useless FCA. Might I respectfully suggest that my Fellow Investors consider doing the same ASAP please? Until there are Questions asked in Parliament and we get FAR wider coverage and visibility on the crookedness of P2P nothing will happen. I thank you. OzBoy. Unfortunately I can't do this - I have very busy schedule and even if I had enough flexibility to make an appointment I would use this opportunity to ask him if he would consider to change his party membership to where he's truly belong... Not sure how useful FCA is (we'll know a bit more when COL disaster is done and dusted). If they are meant to be regulating something - why FCA fully authorised p2p platforms are allowed to use misleading LTV figures.
|
|
