|
Post by propman on Nov 5, 2019 16:08:26 GMT
the guidance refers to "New P2P Investors". IIRC this is < 2 years. Perhaps those of us whose accounts are >2 years will be exempt.
Just logged on, was only allowed to make an offer when I self certified. So if you are not prepared to certify then you will not be able to make any offers (interestingly no category for > 2 years experience).
I've just logged on and put an offer on the 1 year market - no questions asked... Might answer my own question as the ISA is less than 2 years old (although I had a tiny amount in an investment account that I withdrew some years ago).
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,484
Likes: 917
|
Post by aju on Nov 5, 2019 16:50:17 GMT
I've just logged on and put an offer on the 1 year market - no questions asked... Might answer my own question as the ISA is less than 2 years old (although I had a tiny amount in an investment account that I withdrew some years ago). Hmmm! I wondered if that might trigger it although Mrs Aju put a few quid into the ISA at about 9 am this morning and did not get questioned - I'm waiting with trepidation when she says what on earth are they on about just sort this out for me and let me know when its done. (She listens to me thankfully as she would not really be bothered if its not dealing with the latest shopping trip to bristol!)
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,484
Likes: 917
|
Post by aju on Nov 5, 2019 22:56:55 GMT
Might answer my own question as the ISA is less than 2 years old (although I had a tiny amount in an investment account that I withdrew some years ago). Hmmm! I wondered if that might trigger it although Mrs Aju put a few quid into the ISA at about 9 am this morning and did not get questioned - I'm waiting with trepidation when she says what on earth are they on about just sort this out for me and let me know when its done. (She listens to me thankfully as she would not really be bothered if its not dealing with the latest shopping trip to bristol!) Interestingly Mrs Aju has just met with the investor type questions. We have perusing the options but it feels uncomfortably like one is signing away any rights later down the line but perhaps that's the point. She seems to have a skip option but its not clear as yet what that means. She got the new screen after logging in tonight and there are 4 options as follows all with quite a bit of text explaining things in varying detail when selected but for both of us I'm expecting that we would be classed as There's more text to read on this option but finally there is a tick box, the same for all 4 options stating Since she wanted to get on she skipped the options to quickly get some checks done and she was put into the system as normal. I will report what happens when she logs out and logs back in but I wonder if she tried to make another lending order she might get the options again.
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,484
Likes: 917
|
Post by aju on Nov 6, 2019 9:26:45 GMT
Just had mrs aju trying to see and understand the options but its quite confusing on her tablet even with desktop set on. Only when she switch using it in landscape mode did it become clearer.
Thing is though i am not being asked these questions yet despite it says from nov 5th. Mrs aju has above 10k lent across different products Isa and ed i have under 10k perhaps it a trigger point.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 6, 2019 10:47:26 GMT
No desire to be sophisticated. It's a phrase that sounds something to aspire to be. Reality is that is it a phrase designed by regulators to determine that if these people invest in a dud it's not the regulators problem.
For pretty much all P2P investors, the end investor has next to no idea what is going on under the bonnet, both from a investment and platform health perspective. There just isn't enough visibility to make an assessment which investment is a winner or a dud. On both investment and platform health these I am definitely investing in the dark with the hope that the regulator is overseeing things and making sure that when the FCA approve a platform there are some decent controls in place, including for if a platform fails.
The 10% p2p limit seems to indicate that the FCA actually knows that there are pretty poor controls in place and investors shouldn't be surprised if they lose everything. Whether I have £1m in liquid assets, am a company director, am a hedge fund manager etc. doesn't change the fact that pretty much all P2P investors need to rely on the FCA correctly overseeing the industry and therefore no investor should be seen as sophisticated from a p2p perspective.
I for one will be selecting the option that accurately reflects that I have no idea what I am investing in.
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Nov 6, 2019 10:51:51 GMT
Just had mrs aju trying to see and understand the options but its quite confusing on her tablet even with desktop set on. Only when she switch using it in landscape mode did it become clearer. Thing is though i am not being asked these questions yet despite it says from nov 5th. Mrs aju has above 10k lent across different products Isa and ed i have under 10k perhaps it a trigger point. Pretty sure they are doing it in phases, could well be they are targetting those "most at risk" initially, which could be newer and lower value accounts. I would be selecting self certified sophisticated. As an accountant I am pretty sure I understand the concept of risk, the implications should I lose some / all my investment etc
|
|
Stonk
Stonking
Posts: 735
Likes: 658
|
Post by Stonk on Nov 6, 2019 10:55:02 GMT
No desire to be sophisticated. It's a phrase that sounds something to aspire to be. Reality is that is it a phrase designed by regulators to determine that if these people invest in a dud it's not the regulators problem.
Totally.
In 5 to 10 years time, when P2P is the next PPI, those who chose "sophisticated" will only be able to watch as the amateur under-10%-ers receive bucketloads of compensation.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 6, 2019 10:56:24 GMT
Just had mrs aju trying to see and understand the options but its quite confusing on her tablet even with desktop set on. Only when she switch using it in landscape mode did it become clearer. Thing is though i am not being asked these questions yet despite it says from nov 5th. Mrs aju has above 10k lent across different products Isa and ed i have under 10k perhaps it a trigger point. Pretty sure they are doing it in phases, could well be they are targetting those "most at risk" initially, which could be newer and lower value accounts. I would be selecting self certified sophisticated. As an accountant I am pretty sure I understand the concept of risk, the implications should I lose some / all my investment etc Robski - I am a chartered accountant, been investing in p2p for over 7 years and have no idea about the risks of p2p investments? Do you really? Remember being a sophisticated investor is not a badge of honour or something to be proud of. I have no idea what I am investing in, no idea of the platform risk, investment risk or controls in place if the platform fails. I would be amazed if anybody did!
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,484
Likes: 917
|
Post by aju on Nov 6, 2019 12:27:08 GMT
A part of me thinks I've been doing this for 10 years or more, I've seen the Zopa Safe Guard come and go, I'm more recently branched out to using RS after careful thought but at the end of the day am I any wiser as a result of the FCA involvement and RS options I am presented with. I'm also rather cynical that if I sign any one of these then I am somehow now more responsible for my actions and someone has a document that says this person did this all knowing that I could lose everything - I did anyway but I never signed a document as such and I'm never happy signing anything unless I can see clear and precise documents that are in laymans terms. Oh and are easy to work with - one can seemingly sign up on a tablet without seeing all the details - I think thats what happened earlier for Mrs Aju although I stopped the final signing.
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Nov 6, 2019 14:06:59 GMT
Pretty sure they are doing it in phases, could well be they are targetting those "most at risk" initially, which could be newer and lower value accounts. I would be selecting self certified sophisticated. As an accountant I am pretty sure I understand the concept of risk, the implications should I lose some / all my investment etc Robski - I am a chartered accountant, been investing in p2p for over 7 years and have no idea about the risks of p2p investments? Do you really? Remember being a sophisticated investor is not a badge of honour or something to be proud of. I have no idea what I am investing in, no idea of the platform risk, investment risk or controls in place if the platform fails. I would be amazed if anybody did! Yeah not sure whats so difficult really Whats the risk? The risk is its practically unregulated (I am sure the FCA etc may slightly disagree). So therefore the risk is that with no compensation guarantee you could loose the lot. This could be due to platform failure, fraud, recession etc. Ie the risk of some kind of incident that could significantly affect capital is high. Then there is the personal element of the risk. If your investing a significant portion of your capital, or say borrowing to invest, or you would be unable to recover should you suffer a total loss. Those cover to me the main (macro) risks of a P2P environment vs a FSCS covered position. Sure I dont understand, nor do I deem it necessary to understand in intricate detail every investment. I understand the two main issues. Just like someone investing in shares could have investments in hundreds of companies and yet know little of the underlying companies they invested in. To me a sophisticated investor understands the macro risks, understanding (or at least trying hard to) the micro risks is just adding a level of sophistication that may allow them to outperform the markets. IMO the whole point of the tightening up of the legislation is to restrict the people who cannot get the macro risks and would require advice in order to be able to.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Nov 6, 2019 14:10:18 GMT
Initially I opted out of a decision, but when trying to make an offer, this option didn't exist. Having self-certified I was not asked again when making a second offer then or when signing back in. I know that I will be losing rights by doing this, but most of our funds are in my wife's name and so RS is >10% of my investable assets if not our combined investable assets. Annoyed that there isn't a "I have been investing for >2years" option. If this is all that is required to be "sophisticated" the protection is worthless. That said, I would assume that RS would have the option to voluntarily restrict its investors to those it thinks its investments are appropriate for (in the same way that I think some higher risk platforms always required).
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Nov 6, 2019 14:27:58 GMT
Robski - I am a chartered accountant, been investing in p2p for over 7 years and have no idea about the risks of p2p investments? Do you really? Remember being a sophisticated investor is not a badge of honour or something to be proud of. I have no idea what I am investing in, no idea of the platform risk, investment risk or controls in place if the platform fails. I would be amazed if anybody did! Yeah not sure whats so difficult really Whats the risk? The risk is its practically unregulated (I am sure the FCA etc may slightly disagree). So therefore the risk is that with no compensation guarantee you could loose the lot. This could be due to platform failure, fraud, recession etc. Ie the risk of some kind of incident that could significantly affect capital is high. Then there is the personal element of the risk. If your investing a significant portion of your capital, or say borrowing to invest, or you would be unable to recover should you suffer a total loss. Those cover to me the main (macro) risks of a P2P environment vs a FSCS covered position. Sure I dont understand, nor do I deem it necessary to understand in intricate detail every investment. I understand the two main issues. Just like someone investing in shares could have investments in hundreds of companies and yet know little of the underlying companies they invested in. To me a sophisticated investor understands the macro risks, understanding (or at least trying hard to) the micro risks is just adding a level of sophistication that may allow them to outperform the markets. IMO the whole point of the tightening up of the legislation is to restrict the people who cannot get the macro risks and would require advice in order to be able to. Robski - Thanks this is a good answer, however I think what you say above here refers more to an investor accepting a risk statement, rather than being classed as sophisticated. The definition of a sophisticated investor is below: You confirm that have been one of the following: • A director of a company turning over at least £1 million within the last two years • Have made more than one investment in an unlisted company in the last two years • A member of a network or syndicate of business angels for at least six months • Have worked in the past two years in a professional capacity in the private equity sector or in the provision of finance for small and medium enterprises I agree every investor in p2p should be aware that they could lose their money for a whole range of reasons, and to be fair I think all sites have made this pretty clear for as long as I remember. Maybe on the sophisticated investor thing my issue is more I don't understand what they are trying to prove? Even if somebody meets the above criteria, does that mean that the person is really sophisticated when it comes to p2p investment? I don't even know what that means. My cynicism says that by answering one is sophisticated it will mean one is deemed not to require the FCA to properly regulate the provider. But as no retail investor has any idea about the health of any platform or investment within a platform, surely everybody will rely on the FCA to properly regulate the industry. Do I understand p2p risks, yeah think so, do I understand what it means to be a sophisticated investor, kind of, do I understand why if somebody falls in any of these definitions they will somehow be deemed to be given more of a free reign on p2p, absolutely not. My real concern as others have noted is that by saying one is sophisticated one may really be saying one doesn't need to rely on effective FCA regulation, I can't see that ever being the case and definitely not in ones interest to self certify as such.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Nov 6, 2019 15:29:40 GMT
Robski - Thanks this is a good answer, however I think what you say above here refers more to an investor accepting a risk statement, rather than being classed as sophisticated. The definition of a sophisticated investor is below: You confirm that have been one of the following: • A director of a company turning over at least £1 million within the last two years • Have made more than one investment in an unlisted company in the last two years • A member of a network or syndicate of business angels for at least six months • Have worked in the past two years in a professional capacity in the private equity sector or in the provision of finance for small and medium enterprises I agree every investor in p2p should be aware that they could lose their money for a whole range of reasons, and to be fair I think all sites have made this pretty clear for as long as I remember. Maybe on the sophisticated investor thing my issue is more I don't understand what they are trying to prove? Even if somebody meets the above criteria, does that mean that the person is really sophisticated when it comes to p2p investment? I don't even know what that means. My cynicism says that by answering one is sophisticated it will mean one is deemed not to require the FCA to properly regulate the provider. But as no retail investor has any idea about the health of any platform or investment within a platform, surely everybody will rely on the FCA to properly regulate the industry. Do I understand p2p risks, yeah think so, do I understand what it means to be a sophisticated investor, kind of, do I understand why if somebody falls in any of these definitions they will somehow be deemed to be given more of a free reign on p2p, absolutely not. My real concern as others have noted is that by saying one is sophisticated one may really be saying one doesn't need to rely on effective FCA regulation, I can't see that ever being the case and definitely not in ones interest to self certify as such. the question is, is lending money "making an investment"? If so, where we don't know which (if any) of our loans are to unlisted companies, how do we self-certify?
As I see it, the reason for this category is that some investors are worldly wise enough to investigate for themselves what they are getting into. Will they have full knowledge? No, but they will accept the risks with their eyes open. Essentially it is saying the Caveat Emptor applies as the exemption for the general public needing extra protections due to the complexities and risks associated with investing are not required for this group.
Why the more than one unlisted investment category? This clearly may not indicate knowledge, I can only assume that they are assuming that if you have done so already despite the restrictions for a significant period then you have voluntarily accepted the increased risks presumably with your eyes open.
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Nov 6, 2019 16:32:49 GMT
Yeah not sure whats so difficult really Whats the risk? The risk is its practically unregulated (I am sure the FCA etc may slightly disagree). So therefore the risk is that with no compensation guarantee you could loose the lot. This could be due to platform failure, fraud, recession etc. Ie the risk of some kind of incident that could significantly affect capital is high. Then there is the personal element of the risk. If your investing a significant portion of your capital, or say borrowing to invest, or you would be unable to recover should you suffer a total loss. Those cover to me the main (macro) risks of a P2P environment vs a FSCS covered position. Sure I dont understand, nor do I deem it necessary to understand in intricate detail every investment. I understand the two main issues. Just like someone investing in shares could have investments in hundreds of companies and yet know little of the underlying companies they invested in. To me a sophisticated investor understands the macro risks, understanding (or at least trying hard to) the micro risks is just adding a level of sophistication that may allow them to outperform the markets. IMO the whole point of the tightening up of the legislation is to restrict the people who cannot get the macro risks and would require advice in order to be able to. Robski - Thanks this is a good answer, however I think what you say above here refers more to an investor accepting a risk statement, rather than being classed as sophisticated. The definition of a sophisticated investor is below: You confirm that have been one of the following: • A director of a company turning over at least £1 million within the last two years • Have made more than one investment in an unlisted company in the last two years • A member of a network or syndicate of business angels for at least six months • Have worked in the past two years in a professional capacity in the private equity sector or in the provision of finance for small and medium enterprises I agree every investor in p2p should be aware that they could lose their money for a whole range of reasons, and to be fair I think all sites have made this pretty clear for as long as I remember. Maybe on the sophisticated investor thing my issue is more I don't understand what they are trying to prove? Even if somebody meets the above criteria, does that mean that the person is really sophisticated when it comes to p2p investment? I don't even know what that means. My cynicism says that by answering one is sophisticated it will mean one is deemed not to require the FCA to properly regulate the provider. But as no retail investor has any idea about the health of any platform or investment within a platform, surely everybody will rely on the FCA to properly regulate the industry. Do I understand p2p risks, yeah think so, do I understand what it means to be a sophisticated investor, kind of, do I understand why if somebody falls in any of these definitions they will somehow be deemed to be given more of a free reign on p2p, absolutely not. My real concern as others have noted is that by saying one is sophisticated one may really be saying one doesn't need to rely on effective FCA regulation, I can't see that ever being the case and definitely not in ones interest to self certify as such. Hmm you have me thinking now. I had assumed the term was along the lines of trying to get to experience, but maybe your right, if they do indeed want to refer to the www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/COBS/4/12.html#DES583 then IMO they should be being super clear about that at that point. I am not sure how or why being a high net worth individual is different, as it would seem to be you have 3 choices of "high status" and only 1 of "anyone else" Maybe this was FCA issued. There is a world of difference (IMO) between someone who can understand where the risk lies, what it is likely to mean (within reason) and someone who is completely un-savvy and has no concept of risk. The high net worth definition seems equally flawed. Having not seen the screens myself yet, if there is nothing more than a simple choice I suspect RS will be back to ask again. IMO its misleading to ask the questions they appear to be asking without explaining they are using the FCA definitions and that they differ from what a layman may believe. As ever my views on this sort of regulation are its misplaced and a bit wonky. Its easy to rack up silly amounts of debt, to basically unsustainable levels, and yet the FCA seem to want to stop those with money, but not bucket loads of it, or having as you say some fairly dubious very specific experience from being able to partake. I was FD in a £150M business a few years back, but somehow all the lessons and experience from that is invalid as it was more than 2 years ago, really? Its a good point though and I think i am now more inclined to go for the only "safe" option. If that somehow triggers me to be considered high risk and they want me to reduce my investment then maybe I should. I must admit the recent point someone made about how much property lending is taking place on RS has made me consider if the risk has gone up in the background. Its partly why I see a real benefit in this forum, there are enough people around paying attention that to me its highly unlikely for a big risk on RS to go unnoticed.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Nov 6, 2019 17:10:37 GMT
Hmm you have me thinking now. I had assumed the term was along the lines of trying to get to experience, but maybe your right, if they do indeed want to refer to the www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/COBS/4/12.html#DES583 then IMO they should be being super clear about that at that point. I am not sure how or why being a high net worth individual is different, as it would seem to be you have 3 choices of "high status" and only 1 of "anyone else" Maybe this was FCA issued. There is a world of difference (IMO) between someone who can understand where the risk lies, what it is likely to mean (within reason) and someone who is completely un-savvy and has no concept of risk. The high net worth definition seems equally flawed. Having not seen the screens myself yet, if there is nothing more than a simple choice I suspect RS will be back to ask again. IMO its misleading to ask the questions they appear to be asking without explaining they are using the FCA definitions and that they differ from what a layman may believe. As ever my views on this sort of regulation are its misplaced and a bit wonky. Its easy to rack up silly amounts of debt, to basically unsustainable levels, and yet the FCA seem to want to stop those with money, but not bucket loads of it, or having as you say some fairly dubious very specific experience from being able to partake. I was FD in a £150M business a few years back, but somehow all the lessons and experience from that is invalid as it was more than 2 years ago, really? Its a good point though and I think i am now more inclined to go for the only "safe" option. If that somehow triggers me to be considered high risk and they want me to reduce my investment then maybe I should. I must admit the recent point someone made about how much property lending is taking place on RS has made me consider if the risk has gone up in the background. Its partly why I see a real benefit in this forum, there are enough people around paying attention that to me its highly unlikely for a big risk on RS to go unnoticed. I can only assume that HNW is seen as a proxy for can afford to take significant risks as has the resources to cushion any losses. This is weakened by the 10% limit. This already allows a greater involvement of the wealthy! i suppose it does protect on the media side as there will be few sympathisers of rich people losing money! I agree that the 2 year experience criteria is a blunt instrument. I assume they are assuming that many in that category will have investments from then that will keep them as sophisticated under the other category.
I agree that sophisticated should mean knowledgable about the area of P2P being invested in or areas sufficiently close to have cross over benefits.
As fopr RS scrutiny, while I have some confidence that anything visible will be teased out, RS has a history of making fundamental changes and only informing the investors after the event. No amount of external scrutiny can identify what is not visible. I am also concerned at the lack of contemporaneous info. A lot can happen in the 3 weeks from a period end to disclosure and the summary info available could cover a multitude of issues. Re property, as well as other exposures, I am concerned that the FCA allow a longer period before defaulting loans, so the published defaults may understate the issues for months!
|
|