More radical action is needed

I disagree .....

I disagree with you, disagreeing with him, who disagrees with me.......... 😇
A “dislike” that reduces “likes” gets personal, a disagree should be to a view on ‘that’ idea/view only!

Mr_N .........Besides the "rough % of your investable assets" I can not fathom what other parts of jjc queries are objectionable? 

I for one would be very happy to see Lendy offer an addition to the secondary market whereby I might purchase parts of the so-called distressed/late loans at a sizeable discount from people effectively tied up in them, allowing them an exit.    I have no idea why L does not offer this option to the HNW/professional investors to alleviate the discomfort from the retail investor.

Companies purchase distressed debt, so maybe it would be a good idea for Lendy to at least offer the option for anyone who operates an FCA registered company to purchase the distressed debt?

It seems to be slightly oxymoronic that the FCA do not allow HNW individuals to purchase distressed debt, but they seem to have no major concerns with retail customers being lumbered with distressed debt as in L case!    Anyone who can shed some light on this conundrum, please PM me.

i agree

mind your own business

Well, seeing as he’s put it so eloquently, I’m going to go to the trouble of explaining to Mr_N why those questions might not be my, but the business of all of us here.

At a guess I’d say there’s at least a 9 fig sum (£100m+ it’s not loose change) invested by forumites across the various p2p platforms. The vast majority I’d wager have taken losses on their investments to one extent or another (some heavily), & there will be many of us with their money tied up in non-performing & otherwise troubled loans (LY/Coll/FS/MT/AC/TC just some examples). And many of us, with greater or lesser reason, will feel that the platform in question on loan X or Y will have been partly or greatly to blame for the reasons why we have our money tied up, or already lost it, on those loans. I doubt there’s anyone here who hasn’t sympathised with other investors when they’ve made losses (on at least some of the loans).

Whilst people will have different opinions on whether forumite A or B has made good investment decisions, done the necessary research into a loan before investing, complains about the platform too much or otoh is probably being fairly reasonable etc etc I personally think that the vast majority of members here are now (if they weren’t before) keenly aware that investing in p2p is high-risk, these are not liquid loans, & when they go into recovery we cannot expect to get our money back in short order. These are points which widely respected people like mrclondon (& many more) have been warning us all about for many years.

And yet we seem to have here a case of someone rocking up out of nowhere, canvassing to pull the roof down on a platform & go on nationwide TV (with who knows what knock-on effects not only on fellow LY investors but other P2P platforms too) without so much as the briefest of explanations as to how he got into this muddle & why we should support him.

That hasn’t stopped him making questionable allegations (eg that, it seems, he thought LY was a 12% instant access savings account) or show a troubling misunderstanding on some concepts (how administration works, LY’s loan structure & fees, that valuations can’t always be relied on, that risk warnings are there for a reason, that LY at last filed accounts had £5.5m in cash aside from the PF etc etc) but heck since when has freedom of speech meant what you say doesn’t not have to be nonsense.

I will ignore the somewhat condescending “boys & girls” from someone that seems to display a measure of ignorance on some fairly basic points, & simply point out that if Mr N is trying to get our support he’s going about it in a strange way. The questions posed were simply to get an understanding into how he got to the position of asking us to pull the roof down to protect his investments.

As to his net investable assets this would not, in the ordinary state of affairs, be of the slightest interest to me – & was mentioned solely on the basis that it’s a salient point (from the FCA’s own perspective) on how to best regulate P2P.

So, whilst inviting him once again (& politely) to answer the questions, I’d reiterate that I think it is very much our business to understand why supporting him on his mission to (as he sees it) better protect his money, we might be concerned that it doesn’t lead to other investors losing their money.


edit: small disclosure: I have very modest sums invested on LY. This is not about my money, it's about ours.

I agree