adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920 
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Aug 5, 2019 7:58:41 GMT
Damn good idea - I am happy to do this just once FS admit to their gross incompetence and do the right thing- paying back our ₤2.3m that they gave away in the art loans would be a good start! Besides I am extremely worried about some of the recent FS loans e.g. Drum*** business park, fantasy development in Romford etc etc and I am concerned things are going to get worse rather than better!
And no I am not interested in buying most of what I regard as rubbish which has been dumped on the SM
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Aug 5, 2019 8:35:12 GMT
Let’s draw a line under the constant rehashing and criticism of past loans Why?
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Aug 5, 2019 8:37:09 GMT
Exactly - why should any investor do this?
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Aug 5, 2019 8:41:58 GMT
Exactly - why should any investor do this? It's important for any current/active investor to have an opinion on the current state of FS management (whether positive or negative) and not base it solely on loans that were offered and managed under previous management. However, investors who lost money in those earlier loans should of course not have to draw a line under those losses and should pursue any course of redress to the maximum of their desire.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Aug 5, 2019 8:49:42 GMT
Exactly - why should any investor do this? It's important for any current/active investor to have an opinion on the current state of FS management (whether positive or negative) and not base it solely on loans that were offered and managed under previous management. However, investors who lost money in those earlier loans should of course not have to draw a line under those losses and should pursue any course of redress to the maximum of their desire. My drawing a line was under the constant moaning. Not under the recovery of losses. Let that proceed as promised all the moaning will do nothing if every possible avenue for recovery is already being pursued.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Aug 5, 2019 10:15:01 GMT
Having spoken directly to the new person in charge this week.
Their priority is to sort out past errors and ensure they do not happen again as well as recovering as much as possible from those and current problem loans.
As there is not much else we can expect I am willing to wait see how successful they are with the recoveries and monitor new loans to access their ongoing performance.
Constantly moaning about past situations that were out with current management control is fruitless.
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATOR OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. A warning we see on every investment.
Let’s draw a line under the constant rehashing and criticism of past loans and allow the new leaders to put their best efforts in getting the best returns for everyone now and going forward.
Any legal issues arising will be addressed by the appropriate actions. I agree with Godanubis. It is very unfortunate that several of FS loans encountered problems. It appears that these were all due to the actions and/or lack of actions of the previous owners and Directors of FS, compounded by FS being a victim of fraudulent intent by some borrowers. The current management (who I have spoken to several times over the past couple of months) appear to be diligently working their way through the defaults left by the previous team. Investing, and that is what P2P is about, is akin to purchasing shares or other financial instruments. Anyone who had purchased shares in similar numbers to their P2P loans, are probably aware that some (a few companies’) shares will perform very well, most will linger about not going anywhere for years on end, and a few will tank, and this is even the case with the major listed companies over time, let’s not mention the statistics for AIM shares or even non-listed crowd funded investments. Just as a share portfolio will drop in value over time, so will a P2P investment portfolio drop occasionally in the immediate/medium term. Any P2P loans should be fully diversified not only within a platform itself, but between several platforms. P2P investments/loans should be part of a fully diversified investment portfolio. P2P is a form of investing. P2P is lending money on a level just above trust status, where you have to undertake your own Due Diligence on the platform you are loaning through in order to be satisfied that the Directors are actually fully aware of their capabilities, duties, responsibilities and limitations. Anyone moaning about the defaulted loans at FS, how many undertook their own DD on the “old” FS team prior to placing funds with them? The FCA logo is not a guarantee, nor a stamp showing that the firm knows fully what they are doing. It is merely an indication that the firm is operating (at FCA application and/or inspection intervals) to a set of known and approved criteria. This is not meant to be a confrontational posting, but rather one of fact. Anyone who has been in a similar situation as the new owners of FS will be aware of the conundrum that they face. It will tax the abilities of the best of the best of business advisors to rectify. Should anyone have any better ideas than are currently being utilised by the new owners of FS in sorting out the defaulted loan book, I am sure that the Directors would be more than willing to hear your constructive thoughts rather than moans and groans. Conclusion: It boils down to the “Lendy outcome”. Does anyone really want the old Directors of FS to throw up their hands in surrender and lose nearly all of the lenders’ monies, or for a new team to take on the fight, inject significant new capital and expertise, and recoup more of the defaults than an administrator would do?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 5, 2019 10:39:51 GMT
Having spoken directly to the new person in charge this week.
Their priority is to sort out past errors and ensure they do not happen again as well as recovering as much as possible from those and current problem loans.
As there is not much else we can expect I am willing to wait see how successful they are with the recoveries and monitor new loans to access their ongoing performance.
Constantly moaning about past situations that were out with current management control is fruitless.
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATOR OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. A warning we see on every investment.
Let’s draw a line under the constant rehashing and criticism of past loans and allow the new leaders to put their best efforts in getting the best returns for everyone now and going forward.
Any legal issues arising will be addressed by the appropriate actions. I agree with Godanubis. It is very unfortunate that several of FS loans encountered problems. It appears that these were all due to the actions and/or lack of actions of the previous owners and Directors of FS, compounded by FS being a victim of fraudulent intent by some borrowers. The current management (who I have spoken to several times over the past couple of months) appear to be diligently working their way through the defaults left by the previous team. Investing, and that is what P2P is about, is akin to purchasing shares or other financial instruments. Anyone who had purchased shares in similar numbers to their P2P loans, are probably aware that some (a few companies’) shares will perform very well, most will linger about not going anywhere for years on end, and a few will tank, and this is even the case with the major listed companies over time, let’s not mention the statistics for AIM shares or even non-listed crowd funded investments. Just as a share portfolio will drop in value over time, so will a P2P investment portfolio drop occasionally in the immediate/medium term. Any P2P loans should be fully diversified not only within a platform itself, but between several platforms. P2P investments/loans should be part of a fully diversified investment portfolio. P2P is a form of investing. P2P is lending money on a level just above trust status, where you have to undertake your own Due Diligence on the platform you are loaning through in order to be satisfied that the Directors are actually fully aware of their capabilities, duties, responsibilities and limitations. Anyone moaning about the defaulted loans at FS, how many undertook their own DD on the “old” FS team prior to placing funds with them? The FCA logo is not a guarantee, nor a stamp showing that the firm knows fully what they are doing. It is merely an indication that the firm is operating (at FCA application and/or inspection intervals) to a set of known and approved criteria. This is not meant to be a confrontational posting, but rather one of fact. Anyone who has been in a similar situation as the new owners of FS will be aware of the conundrum that they face. It will tax the abilities of the best of the best of business advisors to rectify. Should anyone have any better ideas than are currently being utilised by the new owners of FS in sorting out the defaulted loan book, I am sure that the Directors would be more than willing to hear your constructive thoughts rather than moans and groans. Conclusion: It boils down to the “Lendy outcome”. Does anyone really want the old Directors of FS to throw up their hands in surrender and lose nearly all of the lenders’ monies, or for a new team to take on the fight, inject significant new capital and expertise, and recoup more of the defaults than an administrator would do? Lending and investing are the same, and that's a fact? When you lend money you do not participate in the success or failure of an investment. Lending creates a debt, which does not disappear if the venture for which the money is used is unsuccessful. The whole purpose of secured lending is that you guard against the failure of a project or business by securing the loan against an asset which has independent value. Many failures here are in obtaining appropriate security for the loans. You do not just forget about the debt and security if the borrower's project or investment fails. Convenient to just write off the failures of previous management as bad investments, but this is fundamentally different. The debts still exist and are not be forgotten so easily. At the macro level, yes, manage p2p as an investment, through diversity. But at the micro level, these guys owe you money that is supposed to be secured on an asset, and the platform has a duty of care towards you, no matter who now owns it, and how much they paid for it as an investment. Nil carborundum, adrian77
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Aug 5, 2019 10:51:04 GMT
....compounded by FS being a victim of fraudulent intent by some borrowers..... Really? FS are the victims here? How?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Aug 5, 2019 10:57:28 GMT
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Aug 5, 2019 11:29:18 GMT
....compounded by FS being a victim of fraudulent intent by some borrowers..... Really? FS are the victims here? How? Of course the investors are the most critical victims, but denying FS are also victims is a very strange perspective. As a result of fraud, FS have; - lost credibility - lost income from successful loans - paid/paying legal fees - spent excessive time on these cases Investors have likely lost their money. The ultimate cost to FS and their other investors could possibly be even higher. Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Aug 5, 2019 11:34:05 GMT
Really? FS are the victims here? How? Of course the investors are the most critical victims, but denying FS are also victims is a very strange perspective. As a result of fraud, FS have; - lost credibility - lost income from successful loans - paid/paying legal fees - spent excessive time on these cases Investors have likely lost their money. The ultimate cost to FS and their other investors could possibly be even higher. Time will tell. Aren't FS the ones that are supposed to checkout the credibility of the borrowers before putting loans to the lenders? Sure, FS but lost credibility and subsequently business & time, but whose fault was that?
|
|
petrichory
Member of DD Central
Posts: 59
Likes: 207
|
Post by petrichory on Aug 5, 2019 11:35:59 GMT
My Whitehaven T4/T5 mis-selling complaint was sat on the FOS’s desk for nearly 6 months before they decided that technically, because both parties to my part of the loan were Limited Companies (ie. both the borrower and my own company as lender), it wasn’t strictly Article 36H compliant and so was out of scope for the FOS to determine. - I had the exact opposite experience with the FOS. I submitted a complaint about a FC loan last year and the Ombudsman claimed that I was using FC as a company and therefore they could not investigate, as I was not acting in the capacity of a consumer. Their reasoning? I made two card payments to FC that were rejected by their Barclaycard payment processor and subsequently appeared as a "credits" on my account statement; in reality they were just failed card payments. The FOS said I was receiving money from FC so clearly I was a borrower and not a lender. It boggles the mind to understand their reasoning for why FC would pay me on my credit card or why I would be making a complaint about my own loan?
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Aug 5, 2019 11:40:47 GMT
Of course the investors are the most critical victims, but denying FS are also victims is a very strange perspective. As a result of fraud, FS have; - lost credibility - lost income from successful loans - paid/paying legal fees - spent excessive time on these cases Investors have likely lost their money. The ultimate cost to FS and their other investors could possibly be even higher. Time will tell. Aren't FS the ones that are supposed to checkout the credibility of the borrowers before putting loans to the lenders? Sure, FS but lost credibility and subsequently business & time, but whose fault was that? If you leave a window open and are subsequently burgled, are you still a victim? Maybe you brought it upon yourself, but you are still a victim. I haven't denied the real victims are the investors, but stating FS aren't also victims of what is now demonstrably a crime implies an inability to look at a larger picture from other angles.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Aug 5, 2019 11:42:17 GMT
My Whitehaven T4/T5 mis-selling complaint was sat on the FOS’s desk for nearly 6 months before they decided that technically, because both parties to my part of the loan were Limited Companies (ie. both the borrower and my own company as lender), it wasn’t strictly Article 36H compliant and so was out of scope for the FOS to determine. - I had the exact opposite experience with the FOS. I submitted a complaint about a FC loan last year and the Ombudsman claimed that I was using FC as a company and therefore they could not investigate, as I was not acting in the capacity of a consumer. Their reasoning? I made two card payments to FC that were rejected by their Barclaycard payment processor and subsequently appeared as a "credits" on my account statement; in reality they were just failed card payments. The FOS said I was receiving money from FC so clearly I was a borrower and not a lender. It boggles the mind to understand their reasoning for why FC would pay me on my credit card or why I would be making a complaint about my own loan? Close to the dumbest thing I've ever read. Mind boggling rationale.
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Aug 5, 2019 11:51:42 GMT
Aren't FS the ones that are supposed to checkout the credibility of the borrowers before putting loans to the lenders? Sure, FS but lost credibility and subsequently business & time, but whose fault was that? If you leave a window open and are subsequently burgled, are you still a victim? Maybe you brought it upon yourself, but you are still a victim. I haven't denied the real victims are the investors, but stating FS aren't also victims of what is now demonstrably a crime implies an inability to look at a larger picture from other angles. FS's whole reason for being is to check out borrowers and put the good ones forward with a recommendation to lend. That they did that appallingly badly, losing their own credibility in the process and subsequently costing them tiny amounts of money compared to the money lost by investors I don't think deserves them any sympathy whatsoever. In fact they didn't lose any money, they just didn't make as much as they would have if they'd done their job right. They left the window open when it was their responsibility to keep it closed and locked.
|
|
