keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 587
|
Post by keystone on Nov 29, 2019 0:19:42 GMT
As I mentioned, we received extensive legal advice and engaged with the regulator to ensure the process was completed fairly. I have received extensive legal advice that tells me this is a crock of  . Are you saying the regulator The FCA has told you it was okay to advertise to investors a rate of 6.5% for Growth and 5% for flexible when in fact the real rates were only 5.4% and 3.8%. Are you saying the FCA informed Lending Works that it was okay to tear up agreements and lie to thousands of investors and advertise one rate when in fact the real rate was really far lower and they allowed Lending Works to conceal this for the whole of 2019 so that Lending Works could bring in further funds from investors to shore up their poorly performing loans? Seeing how the FCA have regulated the P2P industry and their conduct with Collateral, Lendy and Funding Secure I shouldn't really be surprised that they are involved in hoodwinking investors. The whole P2P industry is full of conmen and crooks and that's just the platforms, never mind the borrowers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 29, 2019 8:12:43 GMT
Matthew - on requesting a quote to sell my loans I'm being quoted a "transaction fee". Shouldn't this be waived until next year or, have I misunderstood? Thanks Hi dan1 Apologies for this - the fee waiver will only be applied in the system from midnight tonight. However, if you do sell loans this evening you can let our team know and we'll reimburse that fee for you tomorrow. Many thanks Hi Matthew, the withdraw fee is still showing at 08:00 this morning.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 29, 2019 8:15:49 GMT
Thanks for your reply Matthew , I'm not necessarily disagreeing that what you've done is in the best long term interest of the platform and lenders. What you are really admitting is that the platform has over promised in the past and now found that it can't deliver that promise. I'm still surprised that you feel it is legal to unilaterally decide to amend the contract between yourself and the lenders, though I'm not personally prepared to go through the hassle of testing the legality of the situation. Life's to sort for that. I'll take some time to decide whether to take you up on your offer to escape without the 0.5% fee. My gut feel at the moment is that I'll let my investment ride and accept the lower rate for the increase in security. I'm likely to find an alternative home for the £10k of my own funds that were destined for LW and will have to have discussions with friends and relatives that I mange funds for. Hi Ace I'm sorry you feel that way. We have acknowledged that not everyone is going to be happy with these changes - other than offering investors the opportunity to liquidate their investment, I don't feel there is any more we could have done. As I mentioned, we received extensive legal advice and engaged with the regulator to ensure the process was completed fairly. I think the key point here is that investment returns in any asset class cannot ever be guaranteed, and I do think we do a good job of making that clear on our website and in our key terms. That said, for an investment to perform worse than expected in certain years and still yield 5-5.5% p.a. is not bad in the current climate and the reason consumer P2P remains attractive compared with more traditional asset classes. when I enter an amount to liquidate from the growth portfolio, it still says i will be charged 0.5% - how does one liquidate some/all of the portfolio without the charge?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 29, 2019 8:17:52 GMT
Matthew - on requesting a quote to sell my loans I'm being quoted a "transaction fee". Shouldn't this be waived until next year or, have I misunderstood? Thanks Hi dan1 Apologies for this - the fee waiver will only be applied in the system from midnight tonight. However, if you do sell loans this evening you can let our team know and we'll reimburse that fee for you tomorrow. Many thanks fee is still there this morning EDIT: crossed with Ace
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397 
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Nov 29, 2019 8:26:44 GMT
I feel deceived. Not happy.
Well the alternative is when the Shield money runs out we all take a direct hit on any defaulting loans in our portfolios, just like Zopa. Based on the level of concern that model is generating right now on the Zopa pages I'm not sure any Lending Works investors would be happy with that outcome. Personally, I think the annual cohort variable intetest approach is a quite novel and also equitable way to deal with the issue going forward and I commend Lending Works for their considered approach to this problem. A much better response than we have seen from some other platforms in recent time.
|
|
puddleduck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 537
Likes: 489
|
Post by puddleduck on Nov 29, 2019 8:47:22 GMT
I have tried to sell out this morning, and I'm still quoted a fee, and I can't sell out everything. A small chunk seems unsellable.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Nov 29, 2019 10:32:52 GMT
I feel deceived. Not happy.
Well the alternative is when the Shield money runs out we all take a direct hit on any defaulting loans in our portfolios, just like Zopa. Based on the level of concern that model is generating right now on the Zopa pages I'm not sure any Lending Works investors would be happy with that outcome. Personally, I think the annual cohort variable intetest approach is a quite novel and also equitable way to deal with the issue going forward and I commend Lending Works for their considered approach to this problem. A much better response that we have seen from some other platforms in recent time. i think at this moment in time for p2p in general you may well see other what you call novel ideas from platforms in the future.The problem is that a LW type product is also trying to target the average saver in the street and that's where novel ideas from a public relations point of view may not look good and where some of the other implications of saving in p2p are coming out The bank/bs saver is used to rates dropping so if LW had dropped the rate you would get grumbles and have to make a choice the same as you do with a savings account.But in this case it seems to compare more with taking out a 3 year fixed rate bond and the bank saying half way through sorry we need to cut the rate or your 3 years is being shortened etc to help with the banks cost's and that would be a PR nightmare for the bank.At the end of the day i am not sure Joe public was thinking about loan cohorts and the future funding of the shield when they moved ISA money
|
|
|
|
Post by kronen1 on Nov 29, 2019 10:57:39 GMT
Hmmn,
Strategically, this sounds like a sensible on-going change. But surely, this should somehow be applied to new investments only?
I have invested at a fixed rate, for a fixed term - knowing the default risks etc.
Where do I go to refuse the new T&Cs? I'll keep the rate & risk I invested at thank you.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Nov 29, 2019 11:12:28 GMT
think that's where from a PR point of view it does not look good as you would expect cuts going forward not on something that you thought was fixed
|
|
Ukmikk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 452
Likes: 306
|
Post by Ukmikk on Nov 29, 2019 11:25:53 GMT
think that's where from a PR point of view it does not look good as you would expect cuts going forward not on something that you thought was fixed It basically means they were well out with their numbers, which does call into question their level of expertise and competence in this field. Possibly explains why the insurance has been discontinued if the insurers decided to up the costs accordingly.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Nov 29, 2019 11:32:37 GMT
think that's where from a PR point of view it does not look good as you would expect cuts going forward not on something that you thought was fixed It basically means they were well out with their numbers, which does call into question their level of expertise and competence in this field. Possibly explains why the insurance has been discontinued if the insurers decided to up the costs accordingly. Am not sure the insurance was ever a good idea as it was only insuring a very narrow risk but it sounded good. It was probably worth them testing it out. Much better to use the money saved to cover the general issue of defaults and losses IMHO, whatever the cause. Am surprised they didn't make the change earlier in some ways.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Nov 29, 2019 11:48:33 GMT
think that's where from a PR point of view it does not look good as you would expect cuts going forward not on something that you thought was fixed It basically means they were well out with their numbers, which does call into question their level of expertise and competence in this field. Possibly explains why the insurance has been discontinued if the insurers decided to up the costs accordingly. there have posts on here about the shield for i would guess over a year and people questioning how the rates were higher then most others, but there were always reassuring replies but you do wonder if they should have acted earlier
|
|
|
|
Post by carol167 on Nov 29, 2019 13:40:46 GMT
Well the alternative is when the Shield money runs out we all take a direct hit on any defaulting loans in our portfolios, just like Zopa. Based on the level of concern that model is generating right now on the Zopa pages I'm not sure any Lending Works investors would be happy with that outcome. Personally, I think the annual cohort variable intetest approach is a quite novel and also equitable way to deal with the issue going forward and I commend Lending Works for their considered approach to this problem. A much better response that we have seen from some other platforms in recent time. i think at this moment in time for p2p in general you may well see other what you call novel ideas from platforms in the future.The problem is that a LW type product is also trying to target the average saver in the street and that's where novel ideas from a public relations point of view may not look good and where some of the other implications of saving in p2p are coming out The bank/bs saver is used to rates dropping so if LW had dropped the rate you would get grumbles and have to make a choice the same as you do with a savings account.But in this case it seems to compare more with taking out a 3 year fixed rate bond and the bank saying half way through sorry we need to cut the rate or your 3 years is being shortened etc to help with the banks cost's and that would be a PR nightmare for the bank.At the end of the day i am not sure Joe public was thinking about loan cohorts and the future funding of the shield when they moved ISA money I fully accept that rates needed to go down. We'd been implying that on this board for some time. How could LW have kept rates so high for so long we argued, as others were dropping their rates around us. It was clearly not going to be sustainable and I welcome the change in rates. It should have come a lot sooner.
However, for those who worked hard to increase our amounts on the basis that 6.5 was the going rate, only to find that that was in effect a lie feels like a misselling issue. We were led up the garden path. How much of their recent growth has occured because of this lie ?
LW was high in my respect (I was in over 10 platforms) and it was probably my favourite, been with them since March 2015. I have often promoted them and spoken highly of them in the past. I have a large amount of capital well in excess of the average.
The point is this....
how can we now trust anything LW say going forwards. 6.5 was clearly a lie. Will we find that the 5.4% is now a lie and in the near future they will just take that away from exisiting loans ?
Trust has been compromised.
As trevor said in the other thread : "Where on the tin did it say 6.5% for 5 years but may be not?" that LW will change it as and when they feel like it on existing agreements ?
|
|
|
|
Post by propman on Nov 29, 2019 14:06:56 GMT
i think at this moment in time for p2p in general you may well see other what you call novel ideas from platforms in the future.The problem is that a LW type product is also trying to target the average saver in the street and that's where novel ideas from a public relations point of view may not look good and where some of the other implications of saving in p2p are coming out The bank/bs saver is used to rates dropping so if LW had dropped the rate you would get grumbles and have to make a choice the same as you do with a savings account.But in this case it seems to compare more with taking out a 3 year fixed rate bond and the bank saying half way through sorry we need to cut the rate or your 3 years is being shortened etc to help with the banks cost's and that would be a PR nightmare for the bank.At the end of the day i am not sure Joe public was thinking about loan cohorts and the future funding of the shield when they moved ISA money I fully accept that rates needed to go down. We'd been implying that on this board for some time. How could LW have kept rates so high for so long we argued, as others were dropping their rates around us. It was clearly not going to be sustainable and I welcome the change in rates. It should have come a lot sooner.
However, for those who worked hard to increase our amounts on the basis that 6.5 was the going rate, only to find that that was in effect a lie feels like a misselling issue. We were led up the garden path. How much of their recent growth has occured because of this lie ?
LW was high in my respect (I was in over 10 platforms) and it was probably my favourite, been with them since March 2015. I have often promoted them and spoken highly of them in the past. I have a large amount of capital well in excess of the average.
The point is this....
how can we now trust anything LW say going forwards. 6.5 was clearly a lie. Will we find that the 5.4% is now a lie and in the near future they will just take that away from exisiting loans ?
Trust has been compromised.
As trevor said in the other thread : "Where on the tin did it say 6.5% for 5 years but may be not?" that LW will change it as and when they feel like it on existing agreements ? I don't have a copy of the previous T&Cs, but I am sure that there were always caveats that the return may be less than shown. With any fixed interest product the headline rate is the maximum, that is why you need to discount that for the risk.
However cuddly the presentation, this is not a reassessment of future strategy, it is an acceptance that there is a real problem with the Shield. It is good to see an acknowledgement now rather than estimates of future defaults getting less realistic in the face of actual performance. It would be good to see an attempt to sell defaulted loans as on other platforms to raise cash for the Shield liquidity. I wonder whether this has been delayed or negotiations discontinued (perhaps due to the recent Zopa sales) that have made this action necessary where teh cash from a sale was hoped to bridge the gap until defaults on discontinued problem loan categories from the past subsided.
|
|
easylender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 249
Likes: 225
|
Post by easylender on Nov 29, 2019 14:49:33 GMT
I feel deceived. Not happy.
According to the December 2016 Terms and Conditions there was never a guaranteed return because of the provision for pooling: Pooling 19.17 If at any time, in the opinion of the Trustee, the Lending Works Shield does not have sufficient funds to satisfy the claims arising from the Loans outstanding (a“Deficit”), and, the Deficit is not, in the opinion of the Trustee and in its sole and absolute discretion, capable of being rectified through the ordinary course of business, the Trustee in consultation with Lending Works may declare a “Pooling Event”. What we are now presented with seems to be a much improved version of the pooling event.
|
|
.
