sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 12, 2018 11:49:20 GMT
Just noticed this in the FAQs (dated 1 November, and publicly available without logging in):
"Why can't Lendy disclose any further information on loans being dealt with by our legal department?"
Interestingly the Advice also explicitly confirms that Lendy are taking action against valuers (although without stating specifically which / how many loans are affected), but that almost all details beyond that should not be disclosed until they have been said in open court before a judge.
It also seems to imply that some of the limited information Lendy already provided historically was going too far, as "advice on, amonst other things, prospects of success" is specifically highlighted as information that must be kept confidential, but Lendy has previously referred to such in its updates on some loans.
Considering the copious amounts of discussion here about ongoing litigation (and I've also been guilty of fuelling that fire, as have forum moderators with their hats off, contributing to discussion threads where such discussion is occurring), including by some parties whose immediate reaction to receiving a confidential update (e.g. by email or on parts of the website that are only available after logging in) is to copy-paste it in its entirety to this public discussion board, I think Lendy would do well to heed the advice given that "The least risky step is not to tell investors anything", and investors would do well to give Lendy the space to follow that advice rather than constantly complaining about Lendy not publishing details they would be well advised not to provide.
What would seem really useful would be for Lendy to have some information to report (such as a hearing date in court, or even better an out-of-court settlement that allows investors to be repaid in full, at which point the discussion threads would die off as nobody outside Lendy really cares about the details any more!), but I suspect that a lot of this is out of their hands, and subject to likely delays of many months as their legal team work towards a legal settlement and/or building a strong case in the event that settlement cannot be reached without involving the courts.
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Nov 12, 2018 12:39:25 GMT
Thought it was quite amusing that whoever wrote that, has had their name redacted!
Whilst I agree with the letter it just reads as if Lendy has paid someone to write that so they can point to it and say 'blame it on the lawyers'.
I think most lenders can appreciate that posting confidential information is not on and can have adverse effects, I just don't see why we should have cut and paste every month.
Other platforms seem to be able to provide a decent level of commentary without prejudicing recoveries.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Nov 12, 2018 17:24:39 GMT
This statement was referred to in an e-mail, a relative while back shortly after the London loan announcement.
I thought it was put well. There isn't an alternative to the legal system or lawyers, well if there is, I doubt it will be the created by members on the threads here.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 13, 2018 9:51:14 GMT
Other platforms seem to be able to provide a decent level of commentary without prejudicing recoveries. Other platforms have also declared losses to investors where the final update states that there is no prospect whatsoever of any further recovery. Other platforms also sometimes pull a "recovery" out of thin air when the loan had defaulted years ago and everyone forgot about it (e.g. last month Zopa provided full recovery of a loan from 2009, where the most recent comment from Sept 2016 merely stated "partial payment received", and the default had occurred years before that - Lendy doesn't even have any loans that old!). Other platforms also have far more loans under management and facilitate far greater levels of diversification, so even a very occasional update per-loan can leave individual investors feeling "swamped".
Much as some members of this forum like to mock Lendy for its refusal to declare a loss yet despite no evidence of a successful claim, the fact remains that none of the claims underway have yet proven unsuccessful either. The legal processes take a long time.
Posted on another thread, but seemed worth repeating (my bold): May I also take this opportunity, as others have attempted to stress, that it is not a good idea to disclose any information from communications sent in confidence unless said information is already available publicly. Even if you think a detail is unimportant, if the communication is in confidence, do not disclose any detail without first getting agreement to do so by the person sending you the confidential information. Think before posting. On this forum, I've become increasingly concerned over time about the sheer quantity of information which the platform(s) only make available to logged in users, but which almost routinely get copy-pasted into public view. I'm sure that most of these are indeed inconsequential, but platforms not only suspect that it may be difficult to keep information private; they know for certain that it will not be kept private.
For myself, I'd much rather be in the situation of having an "unexpected" full recovery from a complicated process that the platform kept me in the dark about, than being told all sorts of details of what processes are being taken, and finding that the platform gets outmaneuvered by a canny counterparty. Of course, it's possible I may get neither, but I also gain nothing directly (other than maybe a warm fuzzy feeling about being "included") from being informed of details that could be useful to allow others to keep one step ahead.
I neither want nor need any information that is not ALSO known by the borrower. In many ways it's better that we have less, because the resulting discussions on the forums (perhaps including comments like "that's pointless, the borrower will have done XYZ") may well give borrowers and their agents (many of whom undoubtedly read these forums) ideas about defence strategies they'd not thought of themselves when presented with the same information. Even after a full recovery is made, it's probably also worth avoiding giving us too much detailed information, as the discussion of the detailed strategy employed against borrower A could give borrowers B, C, and D ideas about how they can defend against a similar strategy employed against them.
Similarly for the "due diligence" that unearths "public" records from obscure places that show evidence of actions that platforms hadn't told us about yet.
Overall, for those of us outside the "inner core" of the legal process, it can be tough to keep secrets that you don't even realise were supposed to be secret, and the platforms have the unenviable task of trying to keep thousands of investors feeling "informed" during a long and complicated process where almost all "useful" information needs to be kept confidential. My own personal opinion is that some other platforms give too much information - for an investment of a single penny, a borrower can be informed about the entire process, and stay one step ahead - it helps with the warm fuzzy feelings about being included in the process, but IMHO has the potential to jeopardize the recovery process itself.
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 349
Likes: 438
|
Post by nyneil on Nov 13, 2018 11:14:04 GMT
Other platforms seem to be able to provide a decent level of commentary without prejudicing recoveries. Other platforms have also declared losses to investors where the final update states that there is no prospect whatsoever of any further recovery. Other platforms also sometimes pull a "recovery" out of thin air when the loan had defaulted years ago and everyone forgot about it (e.g. last month Zopa provided full recovery of a loan from 2009, where the most recent comment from Sept 2016 merely stated "partial payment received", and the default had occurred years before that - Lendy doesn't even have any loans that old!). Other platforms also have far more loans under management and facilitate far greater levels of diversification, so even a very occasional update per-loan can leave individual investors feeling "swamped".
Much as some members of this forum like to mock Lendy for its refusal to declare a loss yet despite no evidence of a successful claim, the fact remains that none of the claims underway have yet proven unsuccessful either. The legal processes take a long time.
Posted on another thread, but seemed worth repeating (my bold): May I also take this opportunity, as others have attempted to stress, that it is not a good idea to disclose any information from communications sent in confidence unless said information is already available publicly. Even if you think a detail is unimportant, if the communication is in confidence, do not disclose any detail without first getting agreement to do so by the person sending you the confidential information. Think before posting. On this forum, I've become increasingly concerned over time about the sheer quantity of information which the platform(s) only make available to logged in users, but which almost routinely get copy-pasted into public view. I'm sure that most of these are indeed inconsequential, but platforms not only suspect that it may be difficult to keep information private; they know for certain that it will not be kept private.
For myself, I'd much rather be in the situation of having an "unexpected" full recovery from a complicated process that the platform kept me in the dark about, than being told all sorts of details of what processes are being taken, and finding that the platform gets outmaneuvered by a canny counterparty. Of course, it's possible I may get neither, but I also gain nothing directly (other than maybe a warm fuzzy feeling about being "included") from being informed of details that could be useful to allow others to keep one step ahead.
I neither want nor need any information that is not ALSO known by the borrower. In many ways it's better that we have less, because the resulting discussions on the forums (perhaps including comments like "that's pointless, the borrower will have done XYZ") may well give borrowers and their agents (many of whom undoubtedly read these forums) ideas about defence strategies they'd not thought of themselves when presented with the same information. Even after a full recovery is made, it's probably also worth avoiding giving us too much detailed information, as the discussion of the detailed strategy employed against borrower A could give borrowers B, C, and D ideas about how they can defend against a similar strategy employed against them.
Similarly for the "due diligence" that unearths "public" records from obscure places that show evidence of actions that platforms hadn't told us about yet.
Overall, for those of us outside the "inner core" of the legal process, it can be tough to keep secrets that you don't even realise were supposed to be secret, and the platforms have the unenviable task of trying to keep thousands of investors feeling "informed" during a long and complicated process where almost all "useful" information needs to be kept confidential. My own personal opinion is that some other platforms give too much information - for an investment of a single penny, a borrower can be informed about the entire process, and stay one step ahead - it helps with the warm fuzzy feelings about being included in the process, but IMHO has the potential to jeopardize the recovery process itself.
Very sound words sl75. I mainly agree and feel that, providing it's not abused by the platform,we should be prepared to accept something along the lines of, " While we cannot comment, as it might jeopardise the legal process, we can confirm that our legal representatives are working to achieve the best outcome possible. Please be patient as this could take some time" Of course, this requires an element of trust and confidence in the platform itself! You don't actually work for L do you? (said slightly tongue in cheek).
|
|
p2p2p
Member of DD Central
Posts: 123
Likes: 114
|
Post by p2p2p on Nov 13, 2018 11:31:09 GMT
I'm becoming disillusioned with the p2p process, as on one side it seems that without due diligence the platform can lead you into the mire (being sued!), but you can't do DD properly anyway with the information supplied, and if more were provided it would just take too long for as part of a diversified portfolio.
And once things go wrong, its in the interest of the borrower and platform to reduce information flow because of reputational damage, and even if they provided full details it would be too much work to analyze it all for the scale of investment.
I think I yearn for "better bank" that provides proper returns but hides the messy reality of lending, but was tempted too much by headline returns and the idea that if even if loans failed it would be a clean failure, not a legal morass. Even if you don't you can act on extra information, its too tempting to read it and get emotionally invested.
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 349
Likes: 438
|
Post by nyneil on Nov 13, 2018 16:14:05 GMT
I'm becoming disillusioned with the p2p process, as on one side it seems that without due diligence the platform can lead you into the mire (being sued!), but you can't do DD properly anyway with the information supplied, and if more were provided it would just take too long for as part of a diversified portfolio. And once things go wrong, its in the interest of the borrower and platform to reduce information flow because of reputational damage, and even if they provided full details it would be too much work to analyze it all for the scale of investment. I think I yearn for "better bank" that provides proper returns but hides the messy reality of lending, but was tempted too much by headline returns and the idea that if even if loans failed it would be a clean failure, not a legal morass. Even if you don't you can act on extra information, its too tempting to read it and get emotionally invested. I certainly see where you are coming from. My own p2p pot is spread thinly over a very large number of small loans and 12 platforms, so as to diversify as much as possible, so i agree doing much in-depth DD on this scale is just not possible; that's the value of this forum, where knowledge can be shared (along with much opinion). While there are some 'high maintenance' platforms like, Lendy, FS, ABL (and Col  ) which also 'potentially' offer higher returns, about half of my funds are in lower return / lower maintenance platforms like: Assetz; Ratesetter; Unbolted; Growth Street, Kuflink, where you have the option to set auto-invest parameters and then leave them to it. Less hassle even if stuff is going on behind the scenes, less return but still much better than a cash ISA! Before anyone comments - No i don't think they are a safe as FSCS cash isas, but they are not a bad compromise.
|
|
) which also 'potentially' offer higher returns, about half of my funds are in lower return / lower maintenance platforms like: Assetz; Ratesetter; Unbolted; Growth Street, Kuflink, where you have the option to set auto-invest parameters and then leave them to it. Less hassle even if stuff is going on behind the scenes, less return but still much better than a cash ISA!