|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Jun 4, 2019 21:14:35 GMT
These rules are not good enough. They should have said
1. All p2p need to be independently audited.
2. All p2p need to have a pf equal to 10% of deposits.
3. Pf needs to be independently regulated.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jun 4, 2019 21:41:14 GMT
It is 10% of your available cash. For example, if you have £100 today, you are allowed to invest a tenner. If you spend £10 tomorrow, you'll have to reduce your p2p holding by 90p... Err... I think you mean reduce by £1! Leads to question, can FCA rely on 'retail investor' to calculate their p2p allowance? What would FCA action be if they find out I'm 10p over my allowance?
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Jun 4, 2019 21:55:28 GMT
Your level of protection would be lower when the next platform fails
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,707 
Likes: 2,983
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 4, 2019 21:57:50 GMT
Bloody red tape and nanny state paid for by all of us. What stops me spending £30,000 on curtains like my neighbour has done ? Why don't I have better protection from Lady Luck at the casino who promises all sorts of "fantastic" bonuses, feature spins and games like roulette that are physcologically designed to look like they reward short term "investment" ?
I just don't understand why an adult of sound mind can't do what he or she sees fit with his or her cash without jumping through hoops.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 4, 2019 22:15:02 GMT
Bloody red tape and nanny state paid for by all of us. What stops me spending £30,000 on curtains like my neighbour has done ? Why don't I have better protection from Lady Luck at the casino who promises all sorts of "fantastic" bonuses, feature spins and games like roulette that are physcologically designed to look like they reward short term "investment" ? I just don't understand why an adult of sound mind can't do what he or she sees fit with his or her cash without jumping through hoops. Because adults complain (see this forum) and then "something has to be done".
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Jun 4, 2019 22:29:01 GMT
Maybe it's the not-so-sound minds that need protection
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Jun 5, 2019 7:35:56 GMT
Trolls are such a nuisance (even if they have a point)
Read Buckels et al. "Trolls just want to have fun"
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 5, 2019 8:40:28 GMT
Bloody red tape and nanny state paid for by all of us. What stops me spending £30,000 on curtains like my neighbour has done ? Why don't I have better protection from Lady Luck at the casino who promises all sorts of "fantastic" bonuses, feature spins and games like roulette that are physcologically designed to look like they reward short term "investment" ? I just don't understand why an adult of sound mind can't do what he or she sees fit with his or her cash without jumping through hoops. Because when it all goes pear shaped a percentage of lenders suddenly have no idea what they signed up for, don't understand about the risks, feel it must have been someone else's fault and someone must be responsible and pay them their money back. I am stunned by reading that lenders have had to mortgage their homes or take their pensions early because their P2P 'investment' didn't work out, some people do need to be protected from themselves. I don't think it will be possible to enforce the 10% rule, but lenders will be made aware of it, so if lenders still chose to put 100% of their savings into P2P they will definitely have no one to blame but themselves. And yes P2P is the wild west, there are sharks out there and it needs cleaning up, and we can all identify with feeling ripped off by some platforms. So more regulation is inevitable.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jun 5, 2019 11:21:11 GMT
The FCA doesn't need to impose new and increasingly onerous Rules & Regulations.
ALL they need to do is jail a few Borrowers, Middlemen, Valuers and Platform Directors for blatant Fraud. It's as simple as that.
Watch P2P clean itself up overnight if that were to happen.
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,500
Likes: 924
|
Post by aju on Jun 5, 2019 13:46:29 GMT
Zopa has responded to the new rules here, at least we will not be affected by the changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 13:47:45 GMT
blog.zopa.com/2019/06/04/what-the-new-p2p-regulations-mean-for-zopa-investors/I completely agree with this bit: However, we are concerned that the introduction of these limits doesn’t take into account the diversity of risk levels to which investors are exposed across different platforms.Indeed, a 10% limit would still allow someone unsuspecting to dump 10% of their entire savings into a single dodgy loan on a single dodgy platform. If the FCA is really serious about risk, it should be thinking about per-loan, per-borrower and per-platform limits, not a crude sector limit.
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,500
Likes: 924
|
Post by aju on Jun 5, 2019 14:54:06 GMT
blog.zopa.com/2019/06/04/what-the-new-p2p-regulations-mean-for-zopa-investors/I completely agree with this bit: However, we are concerned that the introduction of these limits doesn’t take into account the diversity of risk levels to which investors are exposed across different platforms.Indeed, a 10% limit would still allow someone unsuspecting to dump 10% of their entire savings into a single dodgy loan on a single dodgy platform. If the FCA is really serious about risk, it should be thinking about per-loan, per-borrower and per-platform limits, not a crude sector limit. Best way to mitigate the risks in Zopa is to lend in chunks of £1999 or less per product that way the Zopa engine will lend at max £10 loans. It's slower but it does mean the more that is lent is statistically more likely to get lower default rates, relatively speaking of course. Zopa has been promising to provide this capability for quite a while but I think they are frightened how slow it would be to actually lend it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Jun 5, 2019 15:28:21 GMT
I just don't understand why an adult of sound mind can't do what he or she sees fit with his or her cash without jumping through hoops.
Because you only have to look at this very forum to see the things mentioned in the FCA document and which the FCA are quite rightly concerned about :
- Idiots over-exposing themselves to risk ? Tick. Tick, Tick a million times.
- Idiots treating P2P as an alternative to a savings account ? Tick. Tick, Tick a million times.
- Blatantly unsophisiticated investors piling into P2P becuase they are greedy and want the high-percentages ? Tick. Tick, Tick a million times. etc. etc. etc.
When it all goes tits-up what are these idiots likely to do ? Yup, that's right ... run off to mummy (the ombudsman) cryting their little eyes out that the big bad man (the P2P platform) has been nasty to them. So the FCA is pre-empting all that (and avoiding the cost and hassles invovled with piles of avoidable ombudsman cases).
So yes, regulation is very much necessary in P2P for two reasons :
1) To protect greed and gluttony idiots from themselves. 2) To reign in the Wild West the platforms have turned into.
I have to agree strongly with this. Many consumers shy away from the S&S and other more sophisticated (yet track record proven long term investments) types of investments, in favour of the more retail aimed, rainbow sounding advertisement/marketing Peer to Peer companies shed out. (Lendy, no customer has ever lost capital "claim"). It is clear to the grand majority of us that this is extremely crude and nothing but mirror and smoke tactics, the type of advertisement some of these companies preform. But time again somebody is falling for it, runs to the ombudsman, often brings their tears here to no productive avail. Well the cycle repeats in a new platform until FCA put footdown to protect "investors" against themselves. So here we are. Personally, I'm all for more regulation and oversight. I don't think FCA will (or should.) ever save you from a bad investment or platform risk (that has gone sour due to a bad business model). But it will force platforms to comply or die. Much better than most practises of kicking the can down the road which has been the broken slow motion train reck many platforms have become. (I withdraw from all P2P industry except Assetz Capital which I still hold and plan to hold a large amount of assets in. I withdrew from Lendy 18 months before May 2019, and it was clear this was coming even 20-24 months down the line, hell even 3 years with some of these extremely laughable valuation stunts they pulled on bewildered investors. First and should be the only MASSIVE red flag to any informed investor) This forum has given me invaluable information over the past 3 years of use. However, the past 8 months this site has turned into a cess-pit of angry lenders who are flooding the site with negative upheaval against investments they made themselves, levying even at platforms not related and mis painting good actors in the industry. I see alot of members of this board, who are legacy (although ive been reading more than adding to I will admit!) agree with this point across the entire forum board. I hope to everybody a good outcome is achieved, but what did we all expect from 1 percent a month, grossly mis-advertised (but obviously market claims, anybody can see), ill liquid screaming overvalued investments. Peer to Peer is a infant market, a developing sector. It can be a part of your portfolio, but it cannot BE YOUR PORTFOLIO. That this has to be said, screams the amount of bank account, cash saving type investors must of flooded from 0.6 percent P.A to 12 P.A not understanding the risks of such a move. Of course, my opinion not advice, but its served me well so far. I'm not aiming this at anybody personally on this site, and I will continue to contribute and read from this forum and hope anybody does have money tied up in these accounts gets the best possible outcome. These regulations exist so that the blame can be lifted from the FCA, onto the investor. Rightfully so, you made the investment, not the FCA. (As S&S say.)
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Jun 5, 2019 16:33:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jun 5, 2019 18:20:42 GMT
blog.zopa.com/2019/06/04/what-the-new-p2p-regulations-mean-for-zopa-investors/I completely agree with this bit: However, we are concerned that the introduction of these limits doesn’t take into account the diversity of risk levels to which investors are exposed across different platforms.Indeed, a 10% limit would still allow someone unsuspecting to dump 10% of their entire savings into a single dodgy loan on a single dodgy platform. If the FCA is really serious about risk, it should be thinking about per-loan, per-borrower and per-platform limits, not a crude sector limit. I assume there will be some compulsory questionnaire for new investors to every platform. Everyone will have to tick a box confirming they understand that there is a risk of loosing capital. This will cover platform's and FCA backs, but won't address the problem they supposedly intend to solve.
|
|
