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 19:00:45 GMT
|
|
justme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 203 
Likes: 89
|
Post by justme on Jun 5, 2019 19:57:54 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 am not sure how it will protect the investors. It will give an FCA or whoever is responsible the excuse to say " we warned you" , that's it. I see the issues as not clear rules - for example on one hand lender funds are not supposed to be used for anything else but lending and distributing them back but on another administrators have to be paid from somewhere so lender funds are used for it; unclear status of registration, ridiculous valuation for which nobody is responsible- I am sure other will come up with their own - and the rules do not seem to be addressing the real issues so it is just to be seen to do something.
|
|
sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Jun 6, 2019 8:53:37 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. Yeah, but that's all expensive and might need lots of people with integrity and competence. Sloping shoulders is the order of the day. Much easier to put a sign up saying, 'beware of the leopard' than to make a cage with a decent door and pay a guard.
I suspect the regulations proposed will just drift into the many pages of Ts&Cs that are only fully read and appreciated by the few who need educating the least. Surely the focus should be on regulating the loan agents with hard rules, not telling them to shuffle more bits of paper towards the potential investor to read. Key words from the proposed changes: clarify, strengthen, assess, inform. Mmmm...
P2P kills! (with a picture of a collapsed new build - the Lendy one that you can see from the main road)
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,500
Likes: 924
|
Post by aju on Jun 6, 2019 16:08:55 GMT
I am not sure how it will protect the investors. It will give an FCA or whoever is responsible the excuse to say " we warned you" , that's it. I see the issues as not clear rules - for example on one hand lender funds are not supposed to be used for anything else but lending and distributing them back but on another administrators have to be paid from somewhere so lender funds are used for it; unclear status of registration, ridiculous valuation for which nobody is responsible- I am sure other will come up with their own - and the rules do not seem to be addressing the real issues so it is just to be seen to do something.
As I said, the FCA are approaching this from both angles.
On the one side they need to make a reasonable effort to protect idiots from themselves. If, in some situations, that amounts to being able to tell people 'well, you signed a form that clearly told you not to invest more than 10%' then so be it.
But (I hope) the FCA will focus the bulk of their efforts on whipping the platforms into shape. Because 45% of the risk in P2P comes from the increasingly Wild West manner in which the platforms have been run to date. The remaining 55% of the risk comes from the nature of the prodcut itself and that's why the lender side needs addressing simulaneously, because P2P is very much NOT suitable for everyone, let alone at the amounts of over-investment we are seeing. And nobody should ever be under the idiotic illusion that P2P is an acceptable alternative to a savings account.
Personally I think the FCA should have gone further with these recent rules. But reading between the lines, one gets the impression the P2P platforms have leant on them and thus the end result is softer than it should have been.
If i'm reading it right, people like the newly "sophisticated" me can still complain as I never signed anything and do not seem to be considered to have to but that said I should not lend >10% until I know what I am doing and i am now deemed to know what I am doing. Mind you when I started back in 2006 with Zopa I only committed £10 then £100 once I thought i knew what i was doing, note the word thought. I've been been around the block a few times with zopa and I've done quite well so far i feel. That said there are things in the way the platforms are not always that clear with how they work that come back to bite me. Having said that I've always found Zopa to be very receptive when it clearly can be shown they have made a mistake ( they do make these still but lately it does take quite a bit of effort to track/find these). I've more recently moved on to RS but so far not found anything that worries me under the hood but i'm still getting to grips with how to lend above MR especially at the moment when there seems a lot of money coming in each week. I've yet to move away from these seemingly more stable platforms but the defaults on Zopa do seem to have be increasing over the last 4/5 months and more recently. Earlier it was alternating good and not so good months. I have lent in £10 blocks since PF cover was withdrawn and that seems to help a bit but as I always say "time will tell".
|
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Jun 6, 2019 18:50:23 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. Yeah, but that's all expensive and might need lots of people with integrity and competence. Sloping shoulders is the order of the day. Much easier to put a sign up saying, 'beware of the leopard' than to make a cage with a decent door and pay a guard.
I suspect the regulations proposed will just drift into the many pages of Ts&Cs that are only fully read and appreciated by the few who need educating the least. Surely the focus should be on regulating the loan agents with hard rules, not telling them to shuffle more bits of paper towards the potential investor to read. Key words from the proposed changes: clarify, strengthen, assess, inform. Mmmm...
P2P kills! (with a picture of a collapsed new build) My bold. beepbeepimajeep . A challenge for you to provide a suitable pic that the FCA might want to use to keep idiots like me from shovelling batchbucketloads of my money into P2P?
|
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Jun 6, 2019 19:59:53 GMT
what the FCA might want to use to keep idiots like me from shovelling bucketloads of my money in 
|
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Jun 6, 2019 21:07:34 GMT
what the FCA might want to use to keep idiots like me from shovelling bucketloads of my money in Never expected Donald to have such reach. No choice but to obey. 
|
|
|
|
Post by squeezedmiddle on Jun 10, 2019 16:05:06 GMT
Harland Kearney Interested to now why you have greater trust in A/C than the others. Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Jun 10, 2019 18:00:29 GMT
I have been a customer with them since 2016 now. Their loan book is healthy, rates realistic and new pipe loans numerous. Communication is good and present on here.
I have more faith in them than any other P2P company, however don't be confused to think my faith is deep for them. My faith in P2P is extremely limited, I do not think this industry would bold well in a recession. I am by the end of the year to have Peer to Peer a max exposure of 10 percent of portfolio. That entire exposure (excluding defaults on Funding Secure) should be limited to Assets Capital.
Assets Capital have a good track record in the industry, realistic rates, good communication and good recovery rates. They have also used their Provision Fund to pay delayed interest in bad loans on a few occasions.
I've ridden the Lendy horse and funding secure purely for trading purposes. In 2016-2017 many users (and myself) were simply buying newly created loans on Lendy (then saving stream) to get 90 days into the loan, sell up rinse and repeat. It was a extremely risky trading techniques but did me very well (and the tax man). Once the market became larger (more retail investors) its time to pack bags for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by notascooby on Jun 11, 2019 13:49:14 GMT
Good point. It is difficult to do your own due diligence when collateral valuations (I'm looking at you RICS!) are so off. I recall hearing astounded groans when bricks and mortar assets, with a LTV of 70% or lower were losing money in administration. Then we had assets losing it with 50% LTV. Now we have a AC loan being valued at 12% when the forced sale RICS valuation was much bigger than the loan if it defaulted. I don't care how sophisticated you are. Having professional figures so wildly out makes this just gambling. The industry relies on professional valuations. If lenders are cynical about them, then it undermines the whole P2P reason for being.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Jun 11, 2019 19:19:21 GMT
Good point. It is difficult to do your own due diligence when collateral valuations (I'm looking at you RICS!) are so off. I recall hearing astounded groans when bricks and mortar assets, with a LTV of 70% or lower were losing money in administration. Then we had assets losing it with 50% LTV. Now we have a AC loan being valued at 12% when the forced sale RICS valuation was much bigger than the loan if it defaulted. I don't care how sophisticated you are. Having professional figures so wildly out makes this just gambling. The industry relies on professional valuations. If lenders are cynical about them, then it undermines the whole P2P reason for being. what adds to this is the headline some of us saw about valuers avoiding P2P apparently because of the claims against their insurance, as if that were the fault of the sector somehow. Is there a sector where people aren't bothered about wrong valuations, or are these valuers avoiding p2p because they can't get away with what's happening so far? Or is that just a bit of spin news?
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Jun 11, 2019 20:15:49 GMT
what adds to this is the headline some of us saw about valuers avoiding P2P apparently because of the claims against their insurance, as if that were the fault of the sector somehow. Is there a sector where people aren't bothered about wrong valuations, or are these valuers avoiding p2p because they can't get away with what's happening so far? Or is that just a bit of spin news? Seem to remember it being a bit of a storm in a tea-cup... IIRC, the main concern on the part of Valuers was that 'hundreds' of P2P lenders may attempt to sue them for their (the lenders) individual losses. This means the Valuer's PI insurers would have to manage 'hundreds' of claims costing thousands in admin (plus the amount of the claim if found justified). Thus, premia would go up to the Valuers making PI for P2P valuations neigh on impossible. A commentator at the time - may have been a Valuer, might have been a legal bod working in that domain - pointed out that it should be entirely possible to place a contractual point in the TS&Cs such that only the platform could sue the valuer (or somehow otherwise claim against the PII) and that lenders weren't entitled to. Filled some (digital) column inches at the time though.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jun 17, 2019 21:11:37 GMT
Good point. It is difficult to do your own due diligence when collateral valuations (I'm looking at you RICS!) are so off. I recall hearing astounded groans when bricks and mortar assets, with a LTV of 70% or lower were losing money in administration. Then we had assets losing it with 50% LTV. Now we have a AC loan being valued at 12% when the forced sale RICS valuation was much bigger than the loan if it defaulted. I don't care how sophisticated you are. Having professional figures so wildly out makes this just gambling. The industry relies on professional valuations. If lenders are cynical about them, then it undermines the whole P2P reason for being. May I refer you to the Topic "The C****t" under Lendy, where The Valuations ConScam kicked off originally, and some years back.  PBL157/PBL158
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,500
Likes: 924
|
Post by aju on Aug 11, 2019 14:48:56 GMT
Okay I'm not sure if anyone on here has any thoughts but I thought i'd ask anyway. I have been a P2P lender since almost the beginning with Zopa. I started very slowly towards the end of 2006 with a quick £100 punt. To date I have been lending in various amounts since that start recently culminating in almost 6 figures total across both our accounts.
In the last 6 months we have become investors on RS as well as Zopa but we have also reduced our overall lending by 10-20% in total - still 5 figures but taking precautionary reductions.
So my question is does this activity over the last 10 years or more give me the "Sophisticated Lender" title so that if I were to want to lend with another product or more I could be classed in a different way to a new lender in the eyes of the new FCA rules allowing me to lend as I require rather than if were new to this game completely.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Oct 30, 2019 12:28:35 GMT
Does one have poorer rights as a "sophisticated" investor? doesn't seem easy to find online. What if one has >=2 unlisted investment from 3 years ago?
|
|
