averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Jul 18, 2019 12:37:39 GMT
Surely the best place to communicate is through the regular updates we get on the platform. I'm guessing many/most investors aren't on P2PIF so why should MT give those who are special treatment? Indeed it has to be on the platform to cover everyone ..but maybe more frequently in some cases
|
|
|
Post by quidsaveblue2003 on Jul 18, 2019 13:29:07 GMT
Surely the best place to communicate is through the regular updates we get on the platform. I'm guessing many/most investors aren't on P2PIF so why should MT give those who are special treatment? Indeed it has to be on the platform to cover everyone ..but maybe more frequently in some cases especially for those updates they said there would something to report next week, in two weeks time.. etc, even there is nothing happening, MT should give an update to say this is delayed or cancelled for what reason. Currently MT just uodates with an clear timescale, keeping the lenders calm down and then being quiet well over the due time. some
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jul 18, 2019 15:05:47 GMT
Surely the best place to communicate is through the regular updates we get on the platform. I'm guessing many/most investors aren't on P2PIF so why should MT give those who are special treatment? Indeed it has to be on the platform to cover everyone ..but maybe more frequently in some cases Yes, I agree. The reason I raise it here is that there is no facilility (and I am not arguing that there should be one) to raise it on the platform but of course any update should be on the site and accessable to all lenders equally.
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jul 18, 2019 15:16:12 GMT
I don't really understand where the benefit arises from having frequent updates on (defaulted) loans.
There is no action that can be taken based on any information one obtains from the update - we must wait until the recovery is complete, regardless of whether we know exactly what is going on at a given time. This is in fact made *worse* by the issue pointed out above - that any update that contains meaningful information carries with it a risk that the information is released, and that this negatively impacts the recovery.
People might find frequent updates reassuring - but I think this is a false reassurance. Either you believe MT when they say that a) they are working hard to get a resolution and b) that they will provide updates when there is something meaningful to report, or you don't believe them. But if you already believe them then there is nothing gained from pushing for more updates, and if you don't believe them then (apart from other questions this raises), why would you believe the accuracy of any updates you do get?
The logical conclusion to what you say is no updates at all; we just pay over our money and wait for it and its interest to come back. That would be fine if it were (say) a Govt bond where there is near 100% certaintly that the money and any interest would be returned on the given date. We know P2P does not and cannot, by the nature of the beast, behave in that way meaning that when things are off-course there needs to be communication so everyone knows where they stand and can re-plan their own finances accordingly. I lent money on N-U-L back in 2017 and expected interest and the return of capital by now. I have had almost no interest and the end date for return of capital has shifted more than once. According to the site my capital will be returned in less than 2 weeks from now (end date is 31 July 2019). I argue that I am owed a regular update by the people managing my money. If I dont get it there is nothing I can do, of course, but I can at least keep asking for it.
|
|
|
Post by moneyfrr on Jul 18, 2019 16:43:11 GMT
regular updates are essential to understand how hard the platform is working towards finding solutions to problematic loans (most of them nowadays).
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jul 19, 2019 22:28:21 GMT
A pretty disappointing set of updates on the site this evening but updates at least. Thanks MT for that.
Given the condition of these 14 (I think, if you include the loan updated during the week) loans that are various states of distress please keep updates coming with due regularity and frequency.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2019 22:11:15 GMT
MT has to balance updating lenders and informing the borrowers of its strategy. I believe MT finds a good balance between telling us the truth and keeping schtum so the borrower is not prepared. Long term this strategy works for me. I suggest compare their actions with ABL who also do this well.
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jul 21, 2019 9:11:42 GMT
MT has to balance updating lenders and informing the borrowers of its strategy. I believe MT finds a good balance between telling us the truth and keeping schtum so the borrower is not prepared. Long term this strategy works for me. I suggest compare their actions with ABL who also do this well. bobo, I respect your view and I acknowledge the tricky balance for platforms that you talk about but do you not see the parallels that I see with Collateral and Lendy? For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that MT are currently in the C and L league but I am saying that the pattern of increasing defaults and reducing meaningful communications link the three. The lenders in both cases cited were very patient and to a large degree very trusting of the loan information, valuations and updates until it was too late. I hope that MT are not in those deep water but the problem is that we just don't know and the signs coming form MT do more (in my eyes) to confirm rather than deny it. Someone else made the point earlier that if you trust the platform then you should just leave them to it and if you don't then no amount of update is going to satisfy you because you don't and won't trust them. However, you can read something into and gain or lose confidence in people on the basis of HOW they communicate and how consistent and considerate they are in the way they convey what they say. My own confidence in MT has reduced as their loan book has run into problems and their commincation about the loans has become less meaningful, less frequent and less consistent rather than more as you might expect given the circumstances.
|
|
bramhall17
Member of DD Central
Posts: 88
Likes: 148
|
Post by bramhall17 on Jul 21, 2019 10:52:52 GMT
I'm not entirely convinced that the overall emphasis on not divulging information to 'protect lenders legal interests' is always completely necessary. Yes there can be NDA's and various other legal protocols/client privilege etc but in what is usually administration of a failed project and disputes about contracts and due process the ' blanket approach ' seems an easy way of heading off criticism. If platforms are the agents and we the direct lenders, then there should be more priority on keeping lenders informed via private portals. That said, given there are always people keen to demonstrate they are ITK and tempted to put privileged information on public forums I can also see the other side.
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jul 21, 2019 14:12:54 GMT
I'm not entirely convinced that the overall emphasis on not divulging information to 'protect lenders legal interests' is always completely necessary. Yes there can be NDA's and various other legal protocols/client privilege etc but in what is usually administration of a failed project and disputes about contracts and due process the ' blanket approach ' seems an easy way of heading off criticism. If platforms are the agents and we the direct lenders, then there should be more priority on keeping lenders informed via private portals. That said, given there are always people keen to demonstrate they are ITK and tempted to put privileged information on public forums I can also see the other side. I think there is a danger of it being used as a smokescreen, I agree. However, if I were running a platform I really wouldn't give out any information (whether on my own site, on a forum or even by private email) that I wasn't prepared to have seen by the borrower or disclosed to the public. I think this places the onus on the platform to think carefully about its communications policy because it must communicate with lenders but has to maintain appropriate confidentiality in dealing with its borrowers. Not easy but necessary.
|
|
amwinv
Member of DD Central
Posts: 198
Likes: 282
|
Post by amwinv on Jul 21, 2019 15:43:21 GMT
I'm not entirely convinced that the overall emphasis on not divulging information to 'protect lenders legal interests' is always completely necessary. Yes there can be NDA's and various other legal protocols/client privilege etc but in what is usually administration of a failed project and disputes about contracts and due process the ' blanket approach ' seems an easy way of heading off criticism. If platforms are the agents and we the direct lenders, then there should be more priority on keeping lenders informed via private portals. That said, given there are always people keen to demonstrate they are ITK and tempted to put privileged information on public forums I can also see the other side. I think there is a danger of it being used as a smokescreen, I agree. However, if I were running a platform I really wouldn't give out any information (whether on my own site, on a forum or even by private email) that I wasn't prepared to have seen by the borrower or disclosed to the public. I think this places the onus on the platform to think carefully about its communications policy because it must communicate with lenders but has to maintain appropriate confidentiality in dealing with its borrowers. Not easy but necessary. Queen Vic, you don't see the staggering hypocrisy in everything you just said? You started this very thread to demand MT are more open with info. They obviously can't give us info, so they frequently (and frustratingly for us lenders) don't say anything. And whenever they are pushed and pushed by people on this forum, emailing and calling them demanding info (that MT cannot give us) then they are forced to post completely pointless "we can't give specifics but are still working on it" updates and they get shot down by everyone. They are damned, whatever they do.
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jul 21, 2019 16:27:34 GMT
I think there is a danger of it being used as a smokescreen, I agree. However, if I were running a platform I really wouldn't give out any information (whether on my own site, on a forum or even by private email) that I wasn't prepared to have seen by the borrower or disclosed to the public. I think this places the onus on the platform to think carefully about its communications policy because it must communicate with lenders but has to maintain appropriate confidentiality in dealing with its borrowers. Not easy but necessary. Queen Vic, you don't see the staggering hypocrisy in everything you just said? You started this very thread to demand MT are more open with info. They obviously can't give us info, so they frequently (and frustratingly for us lenders) don't say anything. And whenever they are pushed and pushed by people on this forum, emailing and calling them demanding info (that MT cannot give us) then they are forced to post completely pointless "we can't give specifics but are still working on it" updates and they get shot down by everyone. They are damned, whatever they do. But, amwinv, that is not what I am saying. I maintain that they MUST communicate with their lenders and they must do it frequently, regularly, consistently and meaningfully. However, they have to be careful not to breach confidentiality with borrowers or to give away tactics that may be necessary with the less co-operative borrowers. I accept it is not an easy task but that is one of the key jobs of a succesful platform, in my view. Its not that unusual though is it? Are you not in a business where communications with customers, suppliers, staff and perhaps investors and/or lenders is important yet certain conflicts in what can be disclosed exist? I am not looking for the family secrets. I am not looking for a blow-by-blow account of all the conversations with the borrower. I am looking for regular, consistent updates that maintain my confidence that the platform is on top of things and in particular is dealing with the loans that are in trouble. MT are failing me in this.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Jul 21, 2019 18:10:11 GMT
I agree that there are similarities, with the pre-Administration approach of Lendy, to what we maybe seeing from MT.
While no conclusions can be drawn as we have insufficient information, I have paused any further MT investments until the outcome of my defaults are known.
My reference for best practice in communication regarding defaults is ArchOver. Their largest Borrower defaulted. As well as several other smaller Borrowers in a short period of time. For many Platforms that would have been fatal. Yet ArchOver have managed to significantly increase Loan origination and fund the increase in their loan book successfully in the last year.
I put this down to their robust approach to attempting to enforce their security and legal recourse in full. At the same time they have continued to communicate their strategy - naming names and counter-parties they are legally pursuing with a summary of why they believe they have a case. Whilst this has yet to bear fruit, as the legal process takes a lot of time, their communication gives me significant hope that they will be ultimately successful.
When Platforms hide behind a legal cloak I can only doubt the strength of their case, and I will halt further investments until I can see the success, or failure, of their approach. For me, this is the only prudent way I can see to minimise losses.
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Jul 21, 2019 18:20:48 GMT
I agree that there are similarities, with the pre-Administration approach of Lendy, to what we maybe seeing from MT. While no conclusions can be drawn as we have insufficient information, I have paused any further MT investments until the outcome of my defaults are known. My reference for best practice in communication regarding defaults is ArchOver. Their largest Borrower defaulted. As well as several other smaller Borrowers in a short period of time. For many Platforms that would have been fatal. Yet ArchOver have managed to significantly increase Loan origination and fund the increase in their loan book successfully in the last year. I put this down to their robust approach to attempting to enforce their security and legal recourse in full. At the same time they have continued to communicate their strategy - naming names and counter-parties they are legally pursuing with a summary of why they believe they have a case. Whilst this has yet to bear fruit, as the legal process takes a lot of time, their communication gives me significant hope that they will be ultimately successful. When Platforms hide behind a legal cloak I can only doubt the strength of their case, and I will halt further investments until I can see the success, or failure, of their approach. For me, this is the only prudent way I can see to minimise losses. Thanks for that Mary. Very useful to have a positive example. And, I do agree with the maybe on MT; as you say, we don't have enough info yet.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Jul 21, 2019 19:41:18 GMT
I'm not entirely convinced that the overall emphasis on not divulging information to 'protect lenders legal interests' is always completely necessary. Yes there can be NDA's and various other legal protocols/client privilege etc but in what is usually administration of a failed project and disputes about contracts and due process the ' blanket approach ' seems an easy way of heading off criticism. If platforms are the agents and we the direct lenders, then there should be more priority on keeping lenders informed via private portals. That said, given there are always people keen to demonstrate they are ITK and tempted to put privileged information on public forums I can also see the other side. I think there is a danger of it being used as a smokescreen, I agree. However, if I were running a platform I really wouldn't give out any information (whether on my own site, on a forum or even by private email) that I wasn't prepared to have seen by the borrower or disclosed to the public. I think this places the onus on the platform to think carefully about its communications policy because it must communicate with lenders but has to maintain appropriate confidentiality in dealing with its borrowers. Not easy but necessary. And As I have said many times, I do not want the platform to have to expend resources on it's communications policy, I want those resources to be used constructively running the platform, and to me that means handling the defaults. Now I know you believe if you do not know about something it is or may not be being done properly, but that is where we differ. I am only interested in the ultimate result, not the process. I have no influence over what MT does, I accept that and so see communication unless it is news of funds actually returning, as waste of limited resource that could be better exerted elsewhere. MT, when it ventured into development loans started in's problems, they have neither the skills or expertise to handle developers. They grew because of their zero defaults for so long, but I guess there are only so many safe pawn loans, and you cannot grow on those alone. Everything I have has been sold or is in the sales queues, and I make rhat point to illustrate where I stand with MT. I have made my decisions on MT's actions, without trying to influence those decisions by complaining.
|
|