metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 555 
Likes: 432
|
Post by metoo on Mar 17, 2019 3:01:11 GMT
...
How I regret being influenced by the posts on the MT board extolling this as the best loan in p2p. ... having been brainwashed as to how fantastic the Bolton loan was, I opened an account with COL when it moved from MT.
... Forgive me if I observe that this seems to be re-writing history. I don't know, maybe Mt feel they wont be able to fill the loan when it moves on to development, it will be interesting to see if COL can raise more money for one loan than their current loan book is worth as a whole. Well it has prompted me to register for COL for the first time, and I will be contributing a four figure sum towards this loan. I have looked at the posts in this MT thread prior to your 9 May 2017 post, and found nothing extolling the loan at all, though numerous expressions of concern at delays and lack of updates. The very post you quoted there raised serious doubts as to the viability of funding for the Bolton project. How prescient it was. Perhaps you should have given it more thought before rushing in, maybe considered the posts that voiced concerns about whether Collateral could possibly fund a £5.875m development? Your post in the MT board quoted above, stating your intention to invest, was the same afternoon that the Bolton loan was listed. In that 2½ hours, just 9 posts had appeared on the Collateral thread and 6 posts on the MT thread, though 5 of these mentioned concern and none said the loan was special. I did rediscover my own posts in the MT thread of a few days later analysing differences in the valuation reports. I was new to this type of loan at the time. Your post may well have influenced others to invest. Subsequently the initial Bolton bridging loan became ranked senior to development tranches, which led to its eventual popularity. I appreciate your contributions in P2P, but I think it is time for forum staff and others to stop making false insinuations about posters brainwashing them. I expect to lose money on this platform and in this loan, but won't be blaming forum posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 17, 2019 11:18:58 GMT
metoo A small clue, quoting from my forum usage thread
The latest quarterly figures (to 26th May) have been slightly distorted by a handful of forum members deleting almost all their posts, which in total is estimated to have been a low four figure number of posts
The latest quarterly figures (to 26th Aug) have again been slightly distorted by a handful of forum members deleting almost all their posts, which in total is estimated to have been a low four figure number of posts.
I'm afraid not all posts made on this forum are made with honest intent at the time they were made, and a very few forum members have chosen to use the forum to ramp the market one direction or another. Many of these posts have been deleted post the COL collapse by the posters concerned.
If my post from 2017 reads as if I am ramping the market I apologise, that is never my intent. It is unfortunate that the historical record/context has been distorted - the Zopa forum prevented edits / deletions to posts 2 hours after posting, but is not a feature available to us via Proboards.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 17, 2019 12:20:55 GMT
mrclondon Just for clarification on your post please; are you seriously suggesting that members have deleted posts since the COL collapse that distorts the conversation in the BL00026 thread? Several thousand posts were deleted mid 2018, the majority from the MT, COL, L and ABL boards, many hundreds in each case.
I can't answer your question at a thread level, but given the relatively few threads in the COL board, it would be surprising if any given thread on the COL board hadn't shrunk by a few dozen posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 17, 2019 12:46:49 GMT
On the contrary, I blame myself, and absolutely no one else for my investments in COL.
These were all in 2017, at which point I had already concluded that I would need to undertake my own thorough due dilligence to be able to filter out some of the higher risk propositions.
The whole point of my OP on this thread was to highlight that I failed to do any due dilligence myself, on the Bolton loan or COL itself. I'm not sure how I express it clearer that in procrastinating on doing detailed due dilligence at the time, I let myself down by simply allowing myself to be influenced by what I read on here.
I hope the point that newer readers to the forum take from these exchanges this morning, is that it is not sensible to rely on anything said on this forum by anyone (myself included). You MUST do your own due dilligence on loans, or seek the advice of a suitably qualified financial adviser.
The risk of financial loss when investing in p2p loans is real, and relying on info posted on a chat forum to make decisions on investments is crazy.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 17, 2019 13:00:56 GMT
The risk of financial loss when investing in p2p loans is real, and relying on info posted on a chat forum to make decisions on investments is crazy.
I agree, except that a decision not to invest because of info posted here might turn out to be wise, not crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoy on Mar 17, 2019 14:27:21 GMT
metoo A small clue, quoting from my forum usage thread
The latest quarterly figures (to 26th May) have been slightly distorted by a handful of forum members deleting almost all their posts, which in total is estimated to have been a low four figure number of posts
The latest quarterly figures (to 26th Aug) have again been slightly distorted by a handful of forum members deleting almost all their posts, which in total is estimated to have been a low four figure number of posts.
I'm afraid not all posts made on this forum are made with honest intent at the time they were made, and a very few forum members have chosen to use the forum to ramp the market one direction or another. Many of these posts have been deleted post the COL collapse by the posters concerned.
If my post from 2017 reads as if I am ramping the market I apologise, that is never my intent. It is unfortunate that the historical record/context has been distorted - the Zopa forum prevented edits / deletions to posts 2 hours after posting, but is not a feature available to us via Proboards.
I deleted all my posts from this forum - probably several hundred in total, many of them on the MT and Col boards and chose to withdraw from this forum. None of my posts extolled the virtues of the Bolton loan, indeed many of them were photographic evidence of the lack of progress on the loan across both platforms.
Why did I do this?
Because you could no longer have a sensible discussion about the Bolton loan because one of your fellow moderators was forever in conspiracy mode about secret syndicates and their hidden agenda. Several times he openly accused me of being a member of such a syndicate – I never was and never have been.
If he had been an ordinary member, I suspect he would have been banned. He wasn’t and he still continues to moderate today.
...people in glass houses.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 17, 2019 14:40:26 GMT
The risk of financial loss when investing in p2p loans is real, and relying on info posted on a chat forum to make decisions on investments is crazy.
Along with warnings about lack of diversification across platforms and loans, perhaps one of the most important sentences posted. I've adopted it as a signature (duly quoting the source for merit and context) to ensure it is as widely seen as possible.
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 555
Likes: 432
|
Post by metoo on Mar 17, 2019 16:59:51 GMT
metoo A small clue, quoting from my forum usage thread The latest quarterly figures (to 26th May) have been slightly distorted by a handful of forum members deleting almost all their posts, which in total is estimated to have been a low four figure number of posts The latest quarterly figures (to 26th Aug) have again been slightly distorted by a handful of forum members deleting almost all their posts, which in total is estimated to have been a low four figure number of posts. I'm afraid not all posts made on this forum are made with honest intent at the time they were made, and a very few forum members have chosen to use the forum to ramp the market one direction or another. Many of these posts have been deleted post the COL collapse by the posters concerned.
If my post from 2017 reads as if I am ramping the market I apologise, that is never my intent. It is unfortunate that the historical record/context has been distorted - the Zopa forum prevented edits / deletions to posts 2 hours after posting, but is not a feature available to us via Proboards.
I have taken the time to look carefully at all 67 posts in the MT Bolton thread which preceded your endorsement, and the 9 posts in the Col thread, as faithfully preserved at the reputable "Wayback Machine" web.archive.org (MT: 1 2 3 4 5 , Col: 1). Of the MT posts: - 24 appeared negative comments (of which 5 were deleted after you invested)
- just 5 were mildly positive (of which 2 were deleted after you invested)
- 35 seemed neutral, miscellaneous or general chat (of which 2 deleted since)
- 3 were platform staff posts.
Of the Col posts: - 1 negative
- 1 mildly positive
- 6 neutral
- 1 platform staff
- none of these have been deleted.
Thus, 80% of posts expressing a view, written before you endorsed the loan, appear to have made negative comments, and none made strongly positive comments. Most of the concerns were about protracted delays on site, absence of promised updates, inconsistent valuations, and engineering issues.
The 9 posts since deleted from the live forum were all attributable to 2 members who have since deleted all their posts and become inactive in the forum. I do not believe it is fair to say the historical record has been distorted.
I could not see anything written that might have been ramping the loan, nor any attempt to influence other investors. There appears to be a sensible discussion about relevant details that were unclear to investors.
Anyone can today read the complete record of everything posted up to the time you invested. It appears you were the very first person to endorse the loan, with a sizeable financial pledge! The evidence seems clear that the following statement is entirely inaccurate:
How I regret being influenced by the posts on the MT board extolling this as the best loan in p2p. ... having been brainwashed as to how fantastic the Bolton loan was, I opened an account with COL when it moved from MT. Of course we agree that no-one should base their investment decisions on comments in a forum, which may be flawed for many reasons. Since I began reading this forum nearly 4 years ago I have always assumed any post could be written for an ulterior reason, or may simply be poor judgement.
However, you and some of the other forum staff seem to use your position of authority to relentlessly impugn the motives of others. As I stated above, I think it is time you should consider it appropriate to stop making unsubstantiated or contrived insinuations. I somehow doubt you will, that is a matter for your conscience. The facts speak for themselves, and it is not necessary to distort them, nor is it ever right to cast false aspersions.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 17, 2019 23:11:56 GMT
It is past midnight and I should be finishing off my presentation for tomorrow. However, I am here procrastinating... Who here still thinks that investing on collateral platform was a correct move?Serious answer, please. PS: I do not. It turned out to be the wrong decision, but nobody could foresee the collapse. I'm struggling to fault my initial decision to invest on Col. When I signed up Col was a pawn platform. I consider pawn loans as a safer type of investment and because there is a ration for small pawn across platforms (4 at the time - UB, MT, FS and Col) signing up for all of them was a right move. Soon after I joined they introduced a handful of small property loans. I gave them a go investing small amount in each. They were repaid on time. This gave me some confidence to invest larger amounts in "property loan flood" that followed. This was incorrect move, I should have stopped investing in high risk property loans. At the time, there were plenty of signs (from other platforms) indicating the danger of getting involved.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Mar 18, 2019 1:07:12 GMT
Yes, a good plan from them, they sucked us in really well and have probably squirrelled away millions in the first few weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 18, 2019 4:54:05 GMT
The worst decisions were not made by investors. First, the FCA deliberately forcing COL into Administration. This was such a destructive act by the FCA. Completely reckless. Just because COL didn’t have accredition the action taken by FCA was completely disproportionate to the problem. LY has full accreditation and look at the damage being caused by LY. Not having accreditation is no big deal, a tap on the shoulder and a bit of supervision would have been more appropriate, not throwing COL and all investors under the bus. Second, the complete farce regarding appointment of receivers, culminating in BDO being appointed. BDO are totally incompetent and a disgrace to a profession that’s already a disgrace. Decision 2 rubs salt in the wounds of decision 1. Investors themselves cannot be blamed.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 18, 2019 7:06:42 GMT
The worst decisions were not made by investors. First, the FCA deliberately forcing COL into Administration. This was such a destructive act by the FCA. Completely reckless. Just because COL didn’t have accredition the action taken by FCA was completely disproportionate to the problem. LY has full accreditation and look at the damage being caused by LY. Not having accreditation is no big deal, a tap on the shoulder and a bit of supervision would have been more appropriate, not throwing COL and all investors under the bus. Second, the complete farce regarding appointment of receivers, culminating in BDO being appointed. BDO are totally incompetent and a disgrace to a profession that’s already a disgrace. Decision 2 rubs salt in the wounds of decision 1. Investors themselves cannot be blamed. Not how I heard it. Didn't Col claim they didn't need authorisation, then removed their (supposed) interim permission from their web site (without telling lenders they were not authorised), these actions putting themselves in direct conflict with the FCA (and lenders). And when the FCA reacted they put themselves into Administration, using their, now pretty discredited buddies RR.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 18, 2019 8:31:02 GMT
The worst decisions were not made by investors. First, the FCA deliberately forcing COL into Administration. This was such a destructive act by the FCA. Completely reckless. Just because COL didn’t have accredition the action taken by FCA was completely disproportionate to the problem. LY has full accreditation and look at the damage being caused by LY. Not having accreditation is no big deal, a tap on the shoulder and a bit of supervision would have been more appropriate, not throwing COL and all investors under the bus. Second, the complete farce regarding appointment of receivers, culminating in BDO being appointed. BDO are totally incompetent and a disgrace to a profession that’s already a disgrace. Decision 2 rubs salt in the wounds of decision 1. Investors themselves cannot be blamed. Not how I heard it. Didn't Col claim they didn't need authorisation, then removed their (supposed) interim permission from their web site (without telling lenders they were not authorised), these actions putting themselves in direct conflict with the FCA (and lenders). And when the FCA reacted they put themselves into Administration, using their, now pretty discredited buddies RR. I’m not saying COL was being well run but my point is there are FCA accredited platforms that are not being well run. I think Administration was destructive and unnecessary.
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922 
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Mar 18, 2019 9:20:32 GMT
The worst decisions were not made by investors. First, the FCA deliberately forcing COL into Administration. This was such a destructive act by the FCA. Completely reckless. Just because COL didn’t have accredition the action taken by FCA was completely disproportionate to the problem. LY has full accreditation and look at the damage being caused by LY. Not having accreditation is no big deal, a tap on the shoulder and a bit of supervision would have been more appropriate, not throwing COL and all investors under the bus. Second, the complete farce regarding appointment of receivers, culminating in BDO being appointed. BDO are totally incompetent and a disgrace to a profession that’s already a disgrace. Decision 2 rubs salt in the wounds of decision 1. Investors themselves cannot be blamed. Whilst I personally would have been better off if COL had kept running a month or so longer because I was exiting, saying that all investors would have been better off if the FCA hadn't got involved is naive. COL didn't accidentally tell us they had interim and were applying for full permissions...and the database sure as heck wouldn't have accidentally got into the mess it's now in, so COL sure as heck didn't have our best interests at heart, especially in engaging RR without consulting with the FCA. So, bad for us to be stuck in it yes, but there could have been many more people with far more invested particularly at the rate they were growing if something hadn't been done. As for investors and blame...no we can't be blamed for believing them to be legit, but if we put more than we can afford in a single platform we do bear some responsibility for the scale of our losses
|
|
boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 368
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Mar 18, 2019 14:42:34 GMT
Without getting into the heated debate about who deleted what, when and why...
I invested a small proportion of my P2P loans in COL because I wanted to spread my platform risk. My thinking was (and still is) that loans backed by first charges on tangible assets would be fairly safe. I didn't take into account the risk of the person running the platform 'losing' the passwords / failing to back up records etc.
I'm not quite sure why fellow investors are now getting jolly cross with each other about not giving due warning or for ramping. I made my own investment decisions based on my own DD, and I blame nobody but the guy who ran the platform (oh yes, and the FCA). With exactly the same information up front, but without the crystal ball, I'm fairly sure many others would make the same investment decision again.
|
|
