sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 2, 2019 21:09:47 GMT
With further multi-million share trades at 82p reported since then, it's possible they may now be out completely. The small bounce-back in the market price also seems to suggest that... The 6,001,214 trade which is 2.05% of SCRF looks bang on to be the last bit of Invesco’s shareholding. Not sure who sold the 5m. The same 6,001,214 figure was indeed mentioned on Invesco's most recent TR-1 [the information source I use for share trades only shows the trade as "6.00m", so if yours shows the same as the TR-1, that's the only reasonable explanation...]
More importantly, it means at least one institutional investor is feeling sufficiently bullish about it to take on these substantial holdings, which pleases me, as I was having difficulty understanding why "nobody" was buying in any significant quantity at that price (except for the trades in own shares). I'd guess the actual dividend and buyback announcement was just enough to make the difference for them.
|
|
Stonk
Stonking
Posts: 735
Likes: 658
|
Post by Stonk on Nov 5, 2019 0:42:31 GMT
I notice that FC claim that under the new selling system due to be enacted next month, sales will incur "no fees".
Apparently it is not a "fee", it is a "transfer payment", and that's completely different.
Of course it's a fee, you deceitful low-lifes! If it feels like a fee and has the effect of a fee, then it is a fee. It matters not the tiniest jot that "100% of the transfer payment goes to the investor buying the loan"; what matters is that I no longer have 1.25% that I did have a moment earlier.
I should try this on my clients: "Hey, from today, my services are completely fee-free to you. Yes, no fees at all: absolutely no fees. Just a service payment - 100% of which goes to the provider of the service."
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Nov 5, 2019 1:10:45 GMT
You're not a fan then?  I guess 'fee' infers a sum going to Funding Circle and they don't want HMRC or anyone else to interpret it so. Perhaps 'Transfer payment' should be called 'Transfer fee' ? Stinks either way. Especially when I've been queued for 3 months, all for nothing. At the very least they should not be charging transfer fees to those already waiting in the queue. New business perhaps, but unfair to apply it retrospectively to those who'd already committed to sell. I feel swindled.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Nov 5, 2019 8:45:12 GMT
I notice that FC claim that under the new selling system due to be enacted next month, sales will incur "no fees".
Apparently it is not a "fee", it is a "transfer payment", and that's completely different.
Of course it's a fee, you deceitful low-lifes! If it feels like a fee and has the effect of a fee, then it is a fee. It matters not the tiniest jot that "100% of the transfer payment goes to the investor buying the loan"; what matters is that I no longer have 1.25% that I did have a moment earlier.
I should try this on my clients: "Hey, from today, my services are completely fee-free to you. Yes, no fees at all: absolutely no fees. Just a service payment - 100% of which goes to the provider of the service."
It’s a transfer discount.After 80 pages of dissing FC’s loans i’m Surprised anyone wants to buy them. Of course they need a discount. You are not selling to raise money, you are selling to rid yourselves of what you think will be underperforming loans. Er, so why the feck would anyone buy without an incentive?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,594
Likes: 2,624
|
Post by keitha on Nov 5, 2019 9:02:25 GMT
The other way of looking at this is that personally I think in the short term from initiating a sale to it completing I will get more than 1.25% in interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Nov 6, 2019 2:53:45 GMT
The new Transfer Payment. I asked King Solomon for his view:- It can neither be considered solely a discount ("transfer discount", "discount to loan value"...) nor solely a fee, since these terms depend on your perspective. As a seller, you would naturally see this as a penalty, a fee. As a buyer you'll see it as a discount. As a seller you fail to see any discount at work, as a buyer you fail to see any fee associated with your transaction. So both terms are nuanced. For now, I can't improve on FC's term "Transfer Payment". QED |
|
|
|
Post by lotus_eater on Nov 6, 2019 7:10:07 GMT
You know, all FC really needed to do here was offer this "discount/fee/con/rip-off/theft" (whatever you want to call it) as an option to investors. So if you were willing to pay to unload loans, then you could choose the "discount" you wanted to give to buyers. Be it 0.25% or 25%. Kind of link Minots. Actually exactly like Minots. That would have turned this whole palaver in to a positive change instead of a potentially "business killing" move. Maybe? Or am I missing something?
I would likely be willing to give a bit of discount to unload loans faster. Or if not, I can sit there and wait to see if someone will take it at face value. If someone wants to pay more, they unload faster. Point is, it would be our "choice" rather than "guess what faithful investors, you're paying 1.25% if you want out early". Oopsy, now not faithful but pissed off investors.
What do you guys think?
|
|
bramhall17
Member of DD Central
Posts: 88
Likes: 148
|
Post by bramhall17 on Nov 6, 2019 8:16:04 GMT
Agreed. Or investors could choose their own discount which would reflect their urgency as per MT. Whether the FC software could cope with this as the scale is so much larger is a possible issue.
|
|
Stonk
Stonking
Posts: 735
Likes: 658
|
Post by Stonk on Nov 6, 2019 10:47:47 GMT
You know, all FC really needed to do here was offer this "discount/fee/con/rip-off/theft" (whatever you want to call it) as an option to investors. So if you were willing to pay to unload loans, then you could choose the "discount" you wanted to give to buyers. Be it 0.25% or 25%. Kind of link Minots. Actually exactly like Minots. That would have turned this whole palaver in to a positive change instead of a potentially "business killing" move. Maybe? Or am I missing something? I would likely be willing to give a bit of discount to unload loans faster. Or if not, I can sit there and wait to see if someone will take it at face value. If someone wants to pay more, they unload faster. Point is, it would be our "choice" rather than "guess what faithful investors, you're paying 1.25% if you want out early". Oopsy, now not faithful but pissed off investors. What do you guys think?
If I was a buyer, and I knew that sellers could choose a level of discount, then I would also want an option to set the minimum level of discount at which I am prepared to buy. For example, if many sellers were selling at a 2% discount, then I would not want to receive loans that happened to be at a 0.5% discount by random chance (which is how it's currently planned to work).
So, logically, I think both sellers and buyers would necessarily need a discount setting. Then the matching algorithm would get considerably more fiddly (on a platform that has been trying to simplify) and couldn't be explained in a short paragraph in a nice big friendly font.
|
|
Stonk
Stonking
Posts: 735
Likes: 658
|
Post by Stonk on Nov 6, 2019 11:38:48 GMT
I would have preferred FC hadn’t made the following three sequential mistakes, each leading into the next one when not handled in a timely, competent and equitable manner: 1) Dropping standards to chase volumes and thus writing poor cohorts and doing so for too long 2) Dithering for six or seven months whilst the sale queue spiralled further out of control 3) Ignoring the wasted months of the long queuers. Other than those avoidable mistakes, FC’s solution and current handling of the liquidity situation is OK with me and less flawed than any suggestions I’m reading from lenders here. I think there’s a higher chance of an orderly management of the liquidity pressure through a Platform mandated discount rather than a crowd-cum-herd free-for-all race to the bottom. (1) only lead to (2) because of:
(1.5) Artificially throttling sales of loans with no known problems, merely on the dubious grounds they are in the same cohort as loans with problems.
To be honest, I would have preferred they left the queue system (and preferably removed the throttling). It behaved as we were promised it would when we signed up, i.e., in times of reduced liquidity, sales might take a long time and you may be stuck with your loans for their full lifetime. It would eventually have become fast again. Under the new tool, we have a bit of a kludge which (a) will ultimately be unnecessary and (b) contains an arbitrarily chosen constant 1.25%.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 18:05:55 GMT
This is FC's Final Response regarding the changes to the selling tool. It does not mention the new fee once. It does tell you what to do if you don't accept the new terms _ just don't sell!
It is important to note that the ability and time taken to sell loan parts on the secondary market is not, and has never been, guaranteed. As you know, the balance between sellers and buyers has continued to shift in recent months, with the time it takes to process sale requests increasing as a result. This would have continued under the current system, so there is no guarantee that investors who have already been waiting in the queue wouldn’t have continued to do so for a significant period of time. We want all investors to be able to benefit from the liquidity available at the time. This is why we are introducing changes which will allow all investors selling (including those currently in the queue) to be able to begin accessing some of their funds more quickly.
The current T&Cs do not outline how the secondary market selling process works. This is typical of T&Cs generally, which usually do not specify the details of product operation. Our T&Cs, like many others, permit us to make general product and service changes without your consent:
16.1. We may make changes to these Investor Terms and Conditions from time to time without your consent for any of the following reasons: [...] to make changes to the products or services we offer or provide to you, to introduce new products or services or to withdraw products or services we no longer offer;[...]
However, for clarity, given that the changes will result in a different experience to what selling investors may be used to, and given that we are making other changes at the same time, we have concluded that it is appropriate for us to follow the change process in Clause 16.2 of the T&Cs and give one month’s advance notice of all of these changes to our investors.
16.2. We will always try to give you at least one month's notice of an amendment to these Investor Terms and Conditions by notifying you of the proposed change through the Website or sending an email to your registered email address. However, this may not always be possible and we may make changes on shorter notice periods.
Investors who do not wish to agree to the new T&Cs are not bound by them. However, by continuing to access and use their investor accounts after 2nd December, investors are agreeing to the changes and accept the new T&Cs:
16.3. Subject to clause 17.2, if you do not agree with any changes that we make to these Investor Terms and Conditions you are able to close your Investor Account at any time by contacting us by email (contactus@fundingcircle.com) or by telephone (020 7401 9111). By continuing to access and use the Funding Circle Platform after any changes to these Investor Terms and Conditions, you accept and agree to be bound by the updated Investor Terms and Conditions.
It is important to note that the ability to sell loan parts on the secondary market is not, and has never been, guaranteed (see clause 10.6 below). Furthermore, the current T&Cs state that sale requests that are not successful within 120 days will be delisted from the secondary market:
10.6. There is no guarantee that your Loan Parts will be transferred, nor any assurance as to how long it may take to do so. If a transfer has not been successful within 120 days after you make your request, we will delist the Loan Parts from the secondary market of the Funding Circle Platform. We will notify you if the transfer is not successful and you will continue to be the Investor in respect of the unsold Loan Parts.
We paused this delisting process while we conducted our secondary market review. However, the existence of this clause (which will be replaced under the new sale process) is one of the reasons why we have concluded that the changes are fair to Investors. Under the existing T&Cs and the existing sale process, all loans currently on the secondary market past 120 days (which is less than the minimum time it currently takes to reach the top of the queue) can be delisted. We do not believe that this course of action would be in the best interests of our investors.
If you object to the new T&Cs and do not wish to participate under the new secondary market sale process, you should remove their loan parts currently listed for sale (if any) and may notify us that you wish to close your investor account. If you continue to use the secondary market functionality on the Funding Circle Platform after 2nd December, you will be deemed to have accepted and agreed to be bound by the new T&Cs that govern the new secondary market sale process and transfer payment. By objecting to the changes and removing loan parts from the secondary market, you will remain the investor for all your loan parts and will continue to receive repayments for those loan parts.
We are confident that these changes to our product are fair, are in the best interests of the vast majority of investors, and will provide an improved overall service as all investors selling loan parts will begin to receive some funds back faster and more regularly.
We have carefully considered the legal and regulatory issues that arise when making changes of this nature. In support of the argument that these changes are fair, we considered:
the contractual basis for the change, the fact that our current terms and conditions for investors clearly contemplate Funding Circle making these kind of changes, and the fact that we have fairly exercised our rights under the contract;
we have made this change for valid reasons and for the overall benefit of investors;
we have communicated the changes clearly and given fair notice of the changes.
There are several additional factors which support these arguments, specifically:
the fact that secondary market sales are not guaranteed, and have never been guaranteed by Funding Circle;
the current T&Cs do not detail how the secondary market works, or how loans are priced on sale; and
the current T&Cs currently allow us to delist loans waiting 120 days to sell.
|
|
Stonk
Stonking
Posts: 735
Likes: 658
|
Post by Stonk on Nov 12, 2019 0:15:12 GMT
This is FC's Final Response regarding the changes to the selling tool. It does not mention the new fee once. It does tell you what to do if you don't accept the new terms _ just don't sell! [ snip! ]
The practicalities of objecting to the changes and closing your account are ridiculous.
It appears that if you ever log into your account after 2nd December, you are instantly deemed to have accepted the new T&Cs (even if you have explicitly notified that you do not accept them). So, during the many years it will typically take for your loans to repay, you will be unable to withdraw any accumulated cash, or even monitor how your exit is progressing. After you have no loans left, FC will send the money to your bank account ... the problem being that for almost everyone (anyone with a default or a downgrade, for example) this will be nigh on impossible and could literally never happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by lotus_eater on Nov 12, 2019 8:57:14 GMT
Has anyone been watching Funding Circle's TrustPilot reviews? uk.trustpilot.com/review/fundingcircle.com They are being very clever it appears, burying all of the bad investor reviews with 10x positive borrower reviews they have "invited". It's easy to give investors money away to dodgy borrowers and then get them to write a nice review I would think. They have 82% positive reviews! Funding Circle's replies to angry investors gripes are beyond insulting too. They have also figured out a way to get some of the negative reviews removed for "policy violations". Very crafty. Nice to see they are spending money on more PR as they are robbing us! P.S. I'm a little grumpy this morning as they just hit my account with over £500 worth of bad debt, in 1 day! (£554.60). I started to try to sell out on July 1st. Nothing sold yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 9:03:40 GMT
I raised a complaint with the Ombudsman yesterday. My main issue is with the charge which as they don't mention it I suggest they can't defend it. They say in the original email that they hope the transfer fee will encourage new investors. It will be interesting to see how they are going to advertise this. I think Gloria Gaynor will provide the music... Go on now, go, walk out the door Just turn around now 'Cause you're not welcome anymore Weren't you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye Do you think I'd crumble Did you think I'd lay down and die? Oh no, not I, I will survive... |
|
rho
New Member
Posts: 3
Likes: 1
|
Post by rho on Dec 5, 2019 7:47:23 GMT
Has anyone considered complaining to the FCA? I was thinking about it after reading the guidance they published (FG18 / 7: Fairness of variation terms in financial services consumer contracts under the Consumer Rights Act 2015) as I feel that there are quite a few places where the guidance suggests the change in terms and conditions could be considered unfair. In particular the table on pages 12/13 mentions things like:
- whether the customer could have foreseen the change in terms when they entered the contract
- whether the right to exit can be exercised in practice
- balancing the interests of different groups of customers (I think this change goes too far in favour of buyers at the expense of those selling)
|
|
