aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,500 
Likes: 924
|
Post by aju on Jan 17, 2020 18:02:15 GMT
Zopa has created a blog entry a couple of days ago, brought to my attention in the monthly email. It's interesting that they have suggested that one of the reasons for not bringing it back is now cited as. I would have thought that the why with the new regs that give us 4 options in determining our ability to lend should have that fact covered anyway don't they? I still struggle with Zopa's Tax reasoning for the withdrawal so anyone who understands it feel free to help my understanding. My personal feeling is that Zopa found it difficult to maintain it as they were taking on the loans rather than us. Perhaps also that's why its very easy for them to just sell our loans off as well as it has little affect on their business model. Any thoughts? |
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Jan 17, 2020 18:24:46 GMT
www.zopa.com/about/leadershipI suppose Group CEO is devoted to bring Zopa back to profitability and growth, the position of Natasha is definitely not the very top in the leadership team, almost at the bottom of the page. Unless someone inside Zopa believes safeguard will bring back profitability and growth.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Jan 17, 2020 18:40:58 GMT
The reason ZOPA ditched SG is crystal freaking clear:
TOO MANY DEFAULTS! Possibility of profit impact (or in zopa's case loss increases).
And many of us in Plus are still suffering, notably the wife who is achieving 2.6% on her account (very similar to the incompetent twits at FC). Compare and contrast with RS and AC who, despite issues, have so far (!) delivered on rates for each lender.
End of economics 101 lesson.
And yes, i'd rather have a false sense of security at RS and AC than the rate achieved on Plus.
Sadly this is from someone who has been with ZOPA since 2005, with founder bonus and even share options. Shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Jan 17, 2020 19:39:56 GMT
My understanding is that formerly investors were not permitted to net down the interest gained by the amount of losses incurred through default i.e. they were taxed on the interest gross of losses
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 21:30:26 GMT
My understanding is that formerly investors were not permitted to net down the interest gained by the amount of losses incurred through default i.e. they were taxed on the interest gross of losses But I'd rather have a provision fund than the 'benefit' of tax relief on capital losses. Better to be protected from those losses in the first place, even if that protection isn't guaranteed. To make it work, Zopa needed to demonstrate to investors that they could make a good return without Safeguard, and they've shown just the opposite - to me anyway, and plenty of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Jan 17, 2020 21:51:42 GMT
If you are engaged in microlending, spreading your investment in minute chunks across the whole market then the risk that your portfolio will suffer losses at a greater rate than the whole market is vanishingly small. Unless your portfolio is piddling in size the costs of an insurance premium sufficient to cover your losses will be very likely to approximate to your losses or more if there are costs associated with implementing and managing the insurance scheme. As an analogy consider the truck driver who owns his own rig. He needs to insure against breakdown, because if his truck breaks down he has no income and probably cannot afford a major repair by the roadside. By contrast Eddie Stobart does not need to insure against breakdown because the breakdown rate of the very large numbers of Eddie Stobart trucks is predictable (that's how insurance works) and the costs of insurance will exceed the losses through breakdown if the insurers are not to experience a loss
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 22:19:52 GMT
If you are engaged in microlending, spreading your investment in minute chunks across the whole market then the risk that your portfolio will suffer losses at a greater rate than the whole market is vanishingly small. Unless your portfolio is piddling in size the costs of an insurance premium sufficient to cover your losses will be very likely to approximate to your losses or more if there are costs associated with implementing and managing the insurance scheme. As an analogy consider the truck driver who owns his own rig. He needs to insure against breakdown, because if his truck breaks down he has no income and probably cannot afford a major repair by the roadside. By contrast Eddie Stobart does not need to insure against breakdown because the breakdown rate of the very large numbers of Eddie Stobart trucks is predictable (that's how insurance works) and the costs of insurance will exceed the losses through breakdown if the insurers are not to experience a loss I understand the pooling of risks. The fact remains that Zopa returns have dropped significantly since the demise of Safeguard. I suspect Zopa knew that was coming and wanted the impact to be investors' responsibility rather than Safeguard's (which ultimately would have destroyed Zopa if/when it ran out of funds). As it is, it presumably hopes most investors won't notice the higher risk / lower return model it's now using.
|
|
coogaruk
Hello everyone! Anyone remember me?
Posts: 706
Likes: 464
|
Post by coogaruk on Jan 18, 2020 15:53:23 GMT
Zopa has created a blog entry a couple of days ago, brought to my attention in the monthly email. It's interesting that they have suggested that one of the reasons for not bringing it back is now cited as. There was a time (for those of us with long memories) when customers could make an informed decision about the actual assets they were investing in.
Taking that away from us spelt the beginning of the end of p2p in my view.
Maybe Giles, Samir, and who knows maybe Rhydian as well, always knew that the p2p business model was fundementally flawed from the beginning but hey, they got their OBE, MBE, IPO, Banking Licence, etc. or whatever. So, for them at least... Mission accomplished!
|
|
