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 8:45:30 GMT
To be fair I have notice a large reduction in the amount of my money not lent out and a reduction in the number of loans being acquired by the provision fund.
I suspect most lenders will be happy with their money is giving a regular return and a Provision Fund is >90% and will not really be interested in the nuances of how this is achieved as long as all activities are allowable under FCA rules They will be happy until something goes wrong, then they won't be, like lenders in Col and Lendy were very happy with a regular 12%. This move by FO seems a bit off to me and once something starts to feel a bit off it's time to get out. I am a lender in both Col and Lendy and in Stock Markets all have made money. Each has their own unique circumstances. Each individual must weigh up their own risk criteria but with maximum loans of £500 in total FO has very little scope for dramatic losses. Comparing this to the multi million loans on other platforms.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,215
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 5, 2019 12:31:33 GMT
They will be happy until something goes wrong, then they won't be, like lenders in Col and Lendy were very happy with a regular 12%. This move by FO seems a bit off to me and once something starts to feel a bit off it's time to get out. I am a lender in both Col and Lendy and in Stock Markets all have made money. Each has their own unique circumstances. Each individual must weigh up their own risk criteria but with maximum loans of £500 in total FO has very little scope for dramatic losses. Comparing this to the multi million loans on other platforms. So one more small disaster wouldn't really impact.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Aug 5, 2019 16:07:10 GMT
They will be happy until something goes wrong, then they won't be, like lenders in Col and Lendy were very happy with a regular 12%. This move by FO seems a bit off to me and once something starts to feel a bit off it's time to get out. I am a lender in both Col and Lendy and in Stock Markets all have made money. Each has their own unique circumstances. Each individual must weigh up their own risk criteria but with maximum loans of £500 in total FO has very little scope for dramatic losses. Comparing this to the multi million loans on other platforms. That might still be true for short term loans, but there are medium term loans of £80,000. Can't find any mention of a maximum anywhere. Also, their recent change to the target average default rate from 10% to 15% makes a mockery of their rate selection explanation. It states that the lender rate you choose matches the expected default rate for those loans. So, if you choose to lend at 5% the expected default rate for your loans should also be 5%. If the expected average default rate is now 15% then all loans should now be paying 15%.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,215
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 5, 2019 16:27:53 GMT
I am a lender in both Col and Lendy and in Stock Markets all have made money. Each has their own unique circumstances. Each individual must weigh up their own risk criteria but with maximum loans of £500 in total FO has very little scope for dramatic losses. Comparing this to the multi million loans on other platforms. That might still be true for short term loans, but there are medium term loans of £80,000. Can't find any mention of a maximum anywhere. Also, their recent change to the target average default rate from 10% to 15% makes a mockery of their rate selection explanation. It states that the lender rate you choose matches the expected default rate for those loans. So, if you choose to lend at 5% the expected default rate for your loans should also be 5%. If the expected average default rate is now 15% then all loans should now be paying 15%. I saw there was no max per loan in the FAQs, there was a 10% of platform total per loan somewhere possibly in T&Cs? To me FO being both potential lender and potential borrower could allow any amount of manipulation of the market for good or bad. Just doesn't feel right.
|
|
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 7, 2019 9:58:18 GMT
I am a lender in both Col and Lendy and in Stock Markets all have made money. Each has their own unique circumstances. Each individual must weigh up their own risk criteria but with maximum loans of £500 in total FO has very little scope for dramatic losses. Comparing this to the multi million loans on other platforms. That might still be true for short term loans, but there are medium term loans of £80,000. Can't find any mention of a maximum anywhere. Also, their recent change to the target average default rate from 10% to 15% makes a mockery of their rate selection explanation. It states that the lender rate you choose matches the expected default rate for those loans. So, if you choose to lend at 5% the expected default rate for your loans should also be 5%. If the expected average default rate is now 15% then all loans should now be paying 15%. You are correct but it is a moot point as defaults don’t directly affect investors as long as PF buys any parts in loans heading to default. We don't have recovery rates. This would be reflected in the PF % .
|
|
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 7, 2019 10:06:25 GMT
I am a lender in both Col and Lendy and in Stock Markets all have made money. Each has their own unique circumstances. Each individual must weigh up their own risk criteria but with maximum loans of £500 in total FO has very little scope for dramatic losses. Comparing this to the multi million loans on other platforms. So one more small disaster wouldn't really impact. As long as all the disasters individually are small and collectively are less than profits we have a Mr Micawber principal. "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
|
|
|
Post by danraj on Aug 14, 2019 16:05:40 GMT
I suspect there would be stong limitations and a comprehensive conflicts of interest policy around any business borrowing on the platform.
There is a very different credit risk analysis between consumer vs commercial lending.
It could be argued that borrowing on one's own platform isn't protecting client assets.
I think its really important that borrowing on you own platform doesn't become a large part of how the business is funded. It would be too ironic if the platform failed owing its lenders significant funding. Though I suppose that with the name "Fund Ourselves", they could aregue that lenders were forewarned.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 331
|
Post by zlb on Aug 14, 2019 20:06:09 GMT
With my account with the £100 I left after withdrawing the rest (with all lending options on, and 7%-15%). It's still only at 80% invested, after months of slow down. Theoretically, FO may have borrowed that £20 by now and be paying me interest, but they aren't. It makes sense that they are only plugging the gap at 5%, though. Although I agree, it's a weird practice.
|
|
Ukmikk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 445
Likes: 298
|
Post by Ukmikk on Aug 15, 2019 9:23:56 GMT
I suspect there would be stong limitations and a comprehensive conflicts of interest policy around any business borrowing on the platform. There is a very different credit risk analysis between consumer vs commercial lending. It could be argued that borrowing on one's own platform isn't protecting client assets. I think its really important that borrowing on you own platform doesn't become a large part of how the business is funded. It would be too ironic if the platform failed owing its lenders significant funding. Though I suppose that with the name "Fund Ourselves", they could aregue that lenders were forewarned. It's already been noted that they have breached their FCA permissions by lending to themselves (oh the irony): Under 'Client Money' requirements applicable to this firm: "This firm must protect the money it holds and/or controls on behalf of customers. It cannot lend this money or use it to finance its own business." I invited Mr Siam to offer an explanation but as usual he declined to do so. The way this was hurriedly and incompetently implemented smacks of desperation to me; why did they suddenly need this cash so badly that they would breach their permissions and treat their lenders with such contempt? Again, as no explanation has been forthcoming we don't really know. I do wonder if it's being used to prop up the provision fund as last year's defaults are way over the levels provided for. If so then this is a very dangerous position for lenders to be in. All my opinion of course. I called FO on Monday but true to form I was unable to speak to anyone and they have not called back.
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Aug 15, 2019 12:27:07 GMT
I suspect there would be stong limitations and a comprehensive conflicts of interest policy around any business borrowing on the platform. There is a very different credit risk analysis between consumer vs commercial lending. It could be argued that borrowing on one's own platform isn't protecting client assets. I think its really important that borrowing on you own platform doesn't become a large part of how the business is funded. It would be too ironic if the platform failed owing its lenders significant funding. Though I suppose that with the name "Fund Ourselves", they could aregue that lenders were forewarned. It's already been noted that they have breached their FCA permissions by lending to themselves (oh the irony): Under 'Client Money' requirements applicable to this firm: "This firm must protect the money it holds and/or controls on behalf of customers. It cannot lend this money or use it to finance its own business." I invited Mr Siam to offer an explanation but as usual he declined to do so. The way this was hurriedly and incompetently implemented smacks of desperation to me; why did they suddenly need this cash so badly that they would breach their permissions and treat their lenders with such contempt? Again, as no explanation has been forthcoming we don't really know. I do wonder if it's being used to prop up the provision fund as last year's defaults are way over the levels provided for. If so then this is a very dangerous position for lenders to be in. All my opinion of course. I called FO on Monday but true to form I was unable to speak to anyone and they have not called back. Perhaps checking with the FCA to see if they are, as you assert, breaching their permissions is in order? There may be some nuance to the rules or specific details missing from the register / data available to you that renders the practice acceptable. I would imagine that the FCA would want to be more proactive and transparent to lenders these days what with the questionable way they've handled Col and Lendy.
|
|
|
Post by nsiam on Aug 15, 2019 12:40:24 GMT
I suspect there would be stong limitations and a comprehensive conflicts of interest policy around any business borrowing on the platform. There is a very different credit risk analysis between consumer vs commercial lending. It could be argued that borrowing on one's own platform isn't protecting client assets. I think its really important that borrowing on you own platform doesn't become a large part of how the business is funded. It would be too ironic if the platform failed owing its lenders significant funding. Though I suppose that with the name "Fund Ourselves", they could aregue that lenders were forewarned. It's already been noted that they have breached their FCA permissions by lending to themselves (oh the irony): Under 'Client Money' requirements applicable to this firm: "This firm must protect the money it holds and/or controls on behalf of customers. It cannot lend this money or use it to finance its own business." I invited Mr Siam to offer an explanation but as usual he declined to do so. The way this was hurriedly and incompetently implemented smacks of desperation to me; why did they suddenly need this cash so badly that they would breach their permissions and treat their lenders with such contempt? Again, as no explanation has been forthcoming we don't really know. I do wonder if it's being used to prop up the provision fund as last year's defaults are way over the levels provided for. If so then this is a very dangerous position for lenders to be in. All my opinion of course. I called FO on Monday but true to form I was unable to speak to anyone and they have not called back. Ukmikk , not responding to your posts does not mean that I am agreeing with you. I am not sure what your background is, but its clearly not compliance. One does not come to conclusion after reading 2 sentences. You have to read the full CONC and understand the business model, permissions and regulations first before jumping into conclusion. You do not learn how to ride a bicycle after reading the cover of a how to ride a bicycle book. Also, your views and conclusions are incorrect but I am not here to challenge you. I am not responding to your questions because we do have official channels for user queries and questions. I have asked you before to send your queries to our support ream but nothing was sent until now. Also, your claims that you cannot call our customer service team is incorrect. We have a strong large customer service and lender support teams that are responding to queries quickly. Also not sure why a competitor would comment on a competitors post. No comment.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,215
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 15, 2019 13:21:44 GMT
It's already been noted that they have breached their FCA permissions by lending to themselves (oh the irony): Under 'Client Money' requirements applicable to this firm: "This firm must protect the money it holds and/or controls on behalf of customers. It cannot lend this money or use it to finance its own business." I invited Mr Siam to offer an explanation but as usual he declined to do so. The way this was hurriedly and incompetently implemented smacks of desperation to me; why did they suddenly need this cash so badly that they would breach their permissions and treat their lenders with such contempt? Again, as no explanation has been forthcoming we don't really know. I do wonder if it's being used to prop up the provision fund as last year's defaults are way over the levels provided for. If so then this is a very dangerous position for lenders to be in. All my opinion of course. I called FO on Monday but true to form I was unable to speak to anyone and they have not called back. Perhaps checking with the FCA to see if they are, as you assert, breaching their permissions is in order? There may be some nuance to the rules or specific details missing from the register / data available to you that renders the practice acceptable. I would imagine that the FCA would want to be more proactive and transparent to lenders these days what with the questionable way they've handled Col and Lendy. I do think someone should ask the FCA, or has anyone already? I have just voted with my feet and withdrawn my funds. A ruling from the FCA about the legality and the advisability of what FO are doing, might restore some confidence, or get the decision reversed. And at least we would know that the FCA were aware.
|
|
|
Post by nsiam on Aug 15, 2019 13:31:38 GMT
Perhaps checking with the FCA to see if they are, as you assert, breaching their permissions is in order? There may be some nuance to the rules or specific details missing from the register / data available to you that renders the practice acceptable. I would imagine that the FCA would want to be more proactive and transparent to lenders these days what with the questionable way they've handled Col and Lendy. I do think someone should ask the FCA, or has anyone already? I have just voted with my feet and withdrawn my funds. A ruling from the FCA about the legality and the advisability of what FO are doing, might restore some confidence, or get the decision reversed. And at least we would know that the FCA were aware. We do have a team of compliance and legal professionals who are experts in the field working with us. The team check all features from a compliance and legal point of view and are working closely with the FCA. All features we release have to pass through stringent compliance and legal review and have to be for the benefit of the user.
|
|
Ukmikk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 445
Likes: 298
|
Post by Ukmikk on Aug 16, 2019 11:00:25 GMT
I do think someone should ask the FCA, or has anyone already? I have just voted with my feet and withdrawn my funds. A ruling from the FCA about the legality and the advisability of what FO are doing, might restore some confidence, or get the decision reversed. And at least we would know that the FCA were aware. We do have a team of compliance and legal professionals who are experts in the field working with us. The team check all features from a compliance and legal point of view and are working closely with the FCA. All features we release have to pass through stringent compliance and legal review and have to be for the benefit of the user. Is this the same sort of 'team' as your alleged lender customer service 'team' (one person who is apparently unable to make or receive a telephone call)? Another laughably grandiose claim which I'd be surprised if anyone is buying any more.
|
|
|
Post by nsiam on Aug 16, 2019 11:03:23 GMT
We do have a team of compliance and legal professionals who are experts in the field working with us. The team check all features from a compliance and legal point of view and are working closely with the FCA. All features we release have to pass through stringent compliance and legal review and have to be for the benefit of the user. Is this the same sort of 'team' as your alleged lender customer service 'team' (one person who is apparently unable to make or receive a telephone call)? Another laughably grandiose claim which I'd be surprised if anyone is buying any more. Ukmikk , you are wrong again. Our customer support team alone is 5 man/women strong!
|
|