|
|
Post by overthehill on Dec 22, 2021 18:10:35 GMT
I had it my mind the minimum was £500 but seemingly not. I don't see any advantage or requirement for a p2p company to set a high minimum investment. A higher minimum investment makes a P2P company appear more exclusive and attractive to HNW lenders and even possibly safer. Maybe they think lenders who can only invest at lower amounts are more likely to be troublesome and less likely to understand legalities and non-disclosure.
Even if I was HNW , I wouldn't be investing at minimums of 5k in loans through P2P companies who mostly have very little executional or reputational history. Spread it across the 80 baillie gifford inv. trusts and funds !
"AxiaFunder has no minimum investment size requirement from its investors and relatively low operational costs.
We are therefore able to fund legal cases on the lower end of the legal market typically requiring less than £1 million of funding.
AxiaFunder can also bundle several smaller cases into one investment offer."
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 617
|
Post by dave4 on Dec 22, 2021 18:30:31 GMT
I had it my mind the minimum was £500 but seemingly not. I don't see any advantage or requirement for a p2p company to set a high minimum investment. A higher minimum investment makes a P2P company appear more exclusive and attractive to HNW lenders and even possibly safer. Maybe they think lenders who can only invest at lower amounts are more likely to be troublesome and less likely to understand legalities and non-disclosure.
Even if I was HNW , I wouldn't be investing at minimums of 5k in loans through P2P companies who mostly have very little executional or reputational history. Spread it across the 80 baillie gifford inv. trusts and funds !
"AxiaFunder has no minimum investment size requirement from its investors and relatively low operational costs.
We are therefore able to fund legal cases on the lower end of the legal market typically requiring less than £1 million of funding.
AxiaFunder can also bundle several smaller cases into one investment offer."
All my previous AF loan offerings have been offered in £500 chunks. (just checked) im not in all the very early offerings.
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 617
|
Post by dave4 on Dec 22, 2021 20:06:46 GMT
Especially as it is basically another tranche of an existing case. I like the idea behind this kind of funding as the legal system is totally unaffordable or too risky financially for the majority of wronged claimants. There are not enough loans at the moment. However I'm not sure I would be so willing to invest at a 1000 min.
Not to keen on the trend towards £1k chunks myself. I can understand that the platform finds chunks of ££ easier and convenient, (imagine the headache of sorting £3.99 pledges).Maybe a little bit of feedback on this subject to AF may be worthwhile?. Im personally in the £500 chunks compromise camp and have e mailed AF my feelings along with Christmas wishes and another matter. E mail reply regarding 1k chunks. "The minimum investment per case is driven by the changing regulatory environment and is based on advice we have had from our regulatory lawyers and fund manager. The FCA is currently working to reduce the number of retail investors in alternative finance. My preference would be to revert to a minimum £500 if / when the regulatory environment allows it."best regards, Cormac
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 22, 2021 21:09:35 GMT
E mail reply regarding 1k chunks. "The minimum investment per case is driven by the changing regulatory environment and is based on advice we have had from our regulatory lawyers and fund manager. The FCA is currently working to reduce the number of retail investors in alternative finance. My preference would be to revert to a minimum £500 if / when the regulatory environment allows it."best regards, C Really?!? That seems to be saying: - FCA wants retails investors out of alternative finance. [True]
- if an investment is £500 (or less than £1000 / or thereabouts) you're deemed to be a retail investor [Huh?]
- if an investment is £1000 (or thereabouts), then because it's of that amount then you are no longer deemed to be a retail investor [Doubly 'Huh?'!]
What happened to the notice on AF's website: "The investments on this website are intended for Sophisticated and High Net Worth Investors as defined by the FCA." (And those FCA definitions are - as far as I know - still well defined by the FCA under COBS 4.12)If those FCA definitions still hold, where does the investment amount become a factor? What's the difference between £1000 in one promotion and £500 in each of two promotions? (And there's an argument that it contradicts AF's own advice around diversification on it's Risk page* - and isn't good diversification an indicator of sophistication when it comes to investing?)Seems to me AF is getting it's messages muddled due to, in my opinion, an effort to disguise the fact they are trying to lower administrative overheads by reducing the number of participants. And there's absolutely nothing wrong in a platform trying to reduce costs.Except when, in attempting to do so, that platform tries to pass off that attempt as being down to, supposedly, factors beyond their control such as 'changing regulatory environment'.*Speaking of the Risk page: 1) AF need to update the statement: " The minimum investment per case is £500." 2) I wonder how many investors have read and understood: " LOSSES CAN EXCEED INVESTED AMOUNT"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Dec 22, 2021 21:58:02 GMT
E mail reply regarding 1k chunks. "The minimum investment per case is driven by the changing regulatory environment and is based on advice we have had from our regulatory lawyers and fund manager. The FCA is currently working to reduce the number of retail investors in alternative finance. My preference would be to revert to a minimum £500 if / when the regulatory environment allows it."best regards, C Really?!? That seems to be saying: - FCA wants retails investors out of alternative finance. [True]
- if an investment is £500 (or less than £1000 / or thereabouts) you're deemed to be a retail investor [Huh?]
- if an investment is £1000 (or thereabouts), then because it's of that amount then you are no longer deemed to be a retail investor [Doubly 'Huh?'!]
What happened to the notice on AF's website: "The investments on this website are intended for Sophisticated and High Net Worth Investors as defined by the FCA." (And those FCA definitions are - as far as I know - still well defined by the FCA under COBS 4.12)If those FCA definitions still hold, where does the investment amount become a factor? What's the difference between £1000 in one promotion and £500 in each of two promotions? (And there's an argument that it contradicts AF's own advice around diversification on it's Risk page* - and isn't good diversification an indicator of sophistication when it comes to investing?)Seems to me AF is getting it's messages muddled due to, in my opinion, an effort to disguise the fact they are trying to lower administrative overheads by reducing the number of participants. And there's absolutely nothing wrong in a platform trying to reduce costs.Except when, in attempting to do so, that platform tries to pass off that attempt as being down to, supposedly, factors beyond their control such as 'changing regulatory environment'.*Speaking of the Risk page: 1) AF need to update the statement: " The minimum investment per case is £500." 2) I wonder how many investors have read and understood: " LOSSES CAN EXCEED INVESTED AMOUNT" Or, the incompetent FCA put pressure on AF to raise the minimum investment in some stupidly misguided belief that it would reduce the risk for retail investors? The AF platform was already set up to handle £500 minimums, and some of its loans have struggled to fill. Any changes would involve cost. I very much doubt that they unilaterally decided to raise the minimum and reduce their lender base. If they say they were pressured by the regulator to do so, I'm inclined to believe them.
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 617
|
Post by dave4 on Dec 23, 2021 8:15:56 GMT
Really?!? That seems to be saying: - FCA wants retails investors out of alternative finance. [True]
- if an investment is £500 (or less than £1000 / or thereabouts) you're deemed to be a retail investor [Huh?]
- if an investment is £1000 (or thereabouts), then because it's of that amount then you are no longer deemed to be a retail investor [Doubly 'Huh?'!]
What happened to the notice on AF's website: "The investments on this website are intended for Sophisticated and High Net Worth Investors as defined by the FCA." (And those FCA definitions are - as far as I know - still well defined by the FCA under COBS 4.12)If those FCA definitions still hold, where does the investment amount become a factor? What's the difference between £1000 in one promotion and £500 in each of two promotions? (And there's an argument that it contradicts AF's own advice around diversification on it's Risk page* - and isn't good diversification an indicator of sophistication when it comes to investing?)Seems to me AF is getting it's messages muddled due to, in my opinion, an effort to disguise the fact they are trying to lower administrative overheads by reducing the number of participants. And there's absolutely nothing wrong in a platform trying to reduce costs.Except when, in attempting to do so, that platform tries to pass off that attempt as being down to, supposedly, factors beyond their control such as 'changing regulatory environment'.*Speaking of the Risk page: 1) AF need to update the statement: " The minimum investment per case is £500." 2) I wonder how many investors have read and understood: " LOSSES CAN EXCEED INVESTED AMOUNT" Or, the incompetent FCA put pressure on AF to raise the minimum investment in some stupidly misguided belief that it would reduce the risk for retail investors? The AF platform was already set up to handle £500 minimums, and some of its loans have struggled to fill. Any changes would involve cost. I very much doubt that they unilaterally decided to raise the minimum and reduce their lender base. If they say they were pressured by the regulator to do so, I'm inclined to believe them. Platform now shows the FCA Prefered? 1k. (who would love to find commonsense verses FCA on AF)? www.axiafunder.com/help/faq/how-much-can-i-invest.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Dec 23, 2021 9:47:18 GMT
Really?!? That seems to be saying: - FCA wants retails investors out of alternative finance. [True]
- if an investment is £500 (or less than £1000 / or thereabouts) you're deemed to be a retail investor [Huh?]
- if an investment is £1000 (or thereabouts), then because it's of that amount then you are no longer deemed to be a retail investor [Doubly 'Huh?'!]
What happened to the notice on AF's website: "The investments on this website are intended for Sophisticated and High Net Worth Investors as defined by the FCA." (And those FCA definitions are - as far as I know - still well defined by the FCA under COBS 4.12)If those FCA definitions still hold, where does the investment amount become a factor? What's the difference between £1000 in one promotion and £500 in each of two promotions? (And there's an argument that it contradicts AF's own advice around diversification on it's Risk page* - and isn't good diversification an indicator of sophistication when it comes to investing?)Seems to me AF is getting it's messages muddled due to, in my opinion, an effort to disguise the fact they are trying to lower administrative overheads by reducing the number of participants. And there's absolutely nothing wrong in a platform trying to reduce costs.Except when, in attempting to do so, that platform tries to pass off that attempt as being down to, supposedly, factors beyond their control such as 'changing regulatory environment'.*Speaking of the Risk page: 1) AF need to update the statement: " The minimum investment per case is £500." 2) I wonder how many investors have read and understood: " LOSSES CAN EXCEED INVESTED AMOUNT" Or, the incompetent FCA put pressure on AF to raise the minimum investment in some stupidly misguided belief that it would reduce the risk for retail investors? The AF platform was already set up to handle £500 minimums, and some of its loans have struggled to fill. Any changes would involve cost. I very much doubt that they unilaterally decided to raise the minimum and reduce their lender base. If they say they were pressured by the regulator to do so, I'm inclined to believe them.
I won't be investing at £1000 but I would at 2 x £500? Diversification ? Hello FCA anyone in ? Dimwits? Warren Buffet doesn't like diversification but the FCA aren't here to protect people like him, he says diversification protects against investing ignorance and we all have plenty of that.
|
|
ton27
Member of DD Central
Posts: 431 
Likes: 267
|
Post by ton27 on Dec 23, 2021 17:47:00 GMT
I would much prefer the minimum to be £500 and it would be great if Cormac could re-instate the lowr figure. Have absolutely no faith in the FCA - whatever they do they screw retail investors - they are and have been a complete joke and totally unfit for purpose...and we now have their erstwhile leader as governor of the Bank of England - HELP!
|
|
|
|
Post by kazamx on Dec 24, 2021 21:48:51 GMT
They just rejected WiseAlphas application to serve retail investors too. I have no idea what the FCA are playing at, but how on earth can High Yield Bonds be that much more dangerous than AIM shares.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,322
Likes: 11,533
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 13, 2022 16:58:59 GMT
|
|
tallsuk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 143
Likes: 128
|
Post by tallsuk on Apr 29, 2022 17:27:49 GMT
A new offer has been listed on the site and there are shares available at a discount on the secondary market (although I would make sure you read all the updates).
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on May 2, 2022 14:52:52 GMT
Who doesn't like the current offer and won't be investing ? Putting aside the FCA jokers enforced £1000 minimum to protect us retail investors.
|
|
tallsuk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 143
Likes: 128
|
Post by tallsuk on May 2, 2022 16:21:30 GMT
Who doesn't like the current offer and won't be investing ? Putting aside the FCA jokers enforced £1000 minimum to protect us retail investors. Do you mean benefiting from lawyers targeting councils and Housing Associations that will end up being paid by tax payers? For those not aware, the law firm is looking for funding to support tennents who have not had proper long term repairs etc.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,322
Likes: 11,533
|
Post by ilmoro on May 2, 2022 18:41:11 GMT
Who doesn't like the current offer and won't be investing ? Putting aside the FCA jokers enforced £1000 minimum to protect us retail investors. Nothing to do with the FCA actually, thats a platform decision based on legal advice/principal . They arent a regulated firm but an AR.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on May 3, 2022 21:50:08 GMT
Who doesn't like the current offer and won't be investing ? Putting aside the FCA jokers enforced £1000 minimum to protect us retail investors.
I missed out on this one, too slow, final 150k went whoosh after loan went fully public. I was still deciding , in a region I avoid now for any investments but I think it's a sound deal and a good cause, it's the only way for lots of people to get justice. One thing I wasn't too keen on was the inferred premise that the defendants will always be able to pay, they are not immune to financial problems, debt and local corruption as we've seen many times in the past and something has to give.
|
|
