mikeb
Posts: 1,072 
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Dec 14, 2013 23:00:21 GMT
* You got caught putting a testimonial on your website, which, again, let's be honest with each other, is obviously fake. Yes, using a stock photo is fine, but using a stock photo, claiming it's a customer singing your business' praises? No no no, that's not cool. This is the biggy for me. Lying to me, your customer, on your website. That's a big doozy. To continue your "how would you like it?" theme -- I'm sure SS wouldn't appreciate it if fake negative testimonials from fake non-customers started appearing about the place! And rightly so, I'm sure there'd be words in ears of forum moderators regarding legal action due to spurious reviews.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Dec 15, 2013 9:30:31 GMT
I have to say that I find some of the adverse comments wildly over the top. Saving Stream are not the only site to use stock photos (though I agree this should have been disclosed from the outset) and nor are they the only one to use spamming to get free publicity. Assetz did that a lot when they started up, and are still not above posting on threads about other lenders if it suits them. My more fundamental concerns are: 1. References on Saving Stream's website to "savers" and "100% repayment rate". If they are within the scope of the forthcoming regs, they will have to change those, and quite possibly they will have to change their name too. (There may be more that they'd have to change, but that's a start.) 2. The statement on this forum that " if there is a default on the loan and the sale of the asset does not cover the the full repayment due to the saver/lender then Saving Stream will cover any shortfall. The saver/lender's return is a set arrangement with Saving Stream and is not dependant on whether the sale of the asset that a loan is secured against covers the loan + interest."- If this statement is true, how can Saving Stream afford to do it? Do they have reserves to cover it? If not, is there credit insurance for each loan, are the lenders (or a trustee for the lenders) named as insured parties, and what happens if the insurance does not pay out? There is no evidence of such insurance on their website.
- But is it true? Their terms and conditions are not especially well-written but my reading of them is that lenders' recourse is limited to the asset and the proceeds of sale thereof. The only exception is that "In the event that the asset turns out to be stolen or fake, Saving Stream will reimburse all invested funds to savers" (clause 5.2.4).
3. Following on from the above, it is arguable that they are not a p2p business at all, despite trying hard to look like one (ripping off FC), and advertising on this forum. I think lenders are lending to Saving Stream, with the benefit of specific asset security but (as far as I can see) with recourse limited to the specific asset. 4. If I am right about the above, I suspect (but am not sure) that they might actually be outside the scope of the forthcoming regs as drafted. This would be most unfortunate. |
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 15, 2013 9:56:02 GMT
I have to say that I find some of the adverse comments wildly over the top. Saving Stream are not the only site to use stock photos (though I agree this should have been disclosed from the outset) and nor are they the only one to use spamming to get free publicity. Assetz did that a lot when they started up, and are still not above posting on threads about other lenders if it suits them. My more fundamental concerns are: 1. References on Saving Stream's website to "savers" and "100% repayment rate". If they are within the scope of the forthcoming regs, they will have to change those, and quite possibly they will have to change their name too. (There may be more that they'd have to change, but that's a start.) 2. The statement on this forum that " if there is a default on the loan and the sale of the asset does not cover the the full repayment due to the saver/lender then Saving Stream will cover any shortfall. The saver/lender's return is a set arrangement with Saving Stream and is not dependant on whether the sale of the asset that a loan is secured against covers the loan + interest."- If this statement is true, how can Saving Stream afford to do it? Do they have reserves to cover it? If not, is there credit insurance for each loan, are the lenders (or a trustee for the lenders) named as insured parties, and what happens if the insurance does not pay out? There is no evidence of such insurance on their website.
- But is it true? Their terms and conditions are not especially well-written but my reading of them is that lenders' recourse is limited to the asset and the proceeds of sale thereof. The only exception is that "In the event that the asset turns out to be stolen or fake, Saving Stream will reimburse all invested funds to savers" (clause 5.2.4).
3. Following on from the above, it is arguable that they are not a p2p business at all, despite trying hard to look like one (ripping off FC), and advertising on this forum. I think lenders are lending to Saving Stream, with the benefit of specific asset security but (as far as I can see) with recourse limited to the specific asset. 4. If I am right about the above, I suspect (but am not sure) that they might actually be outside the scope of the forthcoming regs as drafted. This would be most unfortunate. They haven't exactly got off to the best of 'starts' that's for sure and I will not be investing/loaning money to them. My impression is that you are in effect investing or is it supplying working capital to Lendy Ltd. Before I get involved with anything I always check the T&C's although often others are quicker off the block than myself, then a company check and finally get hold of the directors details. Okay the T&C's were a mess and the website, well it was a simple throw together job IMO. Sure the web designers should probably be fired (if they haven't been already) but the buck stops with the company owners. If they are not diligent in this area then that raises serious doubts in my mind about the rest of their business acumen. What is more interesting though was the background checks on the owners. The information is available in the public domain. I'll put this whole thing down to SS aka Lendy being naive when dealing with the P2P or P2B community.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Dec 15, 2013 10:07:26 GMT
3. Following on from the above, it is arguable that they are not a p2p business at all, despite trying hard to look like one (ripping off FC), and advertising on this forum. I think lenders are lending to Saving Stream, with the benefit of specific asset security but (as far as I can see) with recourse limited to the specific asset. This is the basic conclusion I have reached but coming from a different direction namely the numbers: borrowers pay 4%, lenders receive 1% and yet there are no fees. The obvious way to explain this given the information available is if lenders are lending to SS (Lendy Ltd), with the benefit of specific asset security rather than buying a portion of a specific loan in which case they are as you say arguably not a p2p business.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 15, 2013 15:49:03 GMT
We've discussed previously the cloning of the FC website style, the use of stock photos (e.g. James Marshall) , and the use of random possibly copyrighted photos (e.g. yachts), and have alluded to the probability that the T&C's were cloned. I wonder why we haven't thought to ask google which other website has a T&C as daft as ""You may not include a link to our platform in any other site, computer or network without our prior written consent and licence. ". The answer is Funding Secure who have it as T&C 13.10 (Surely no-coincidence that this was SS's T&C 13.10 until recently - now 11.10) . And those missing sections 5 & 6 in SS's first attempt at T&C's, yes those section numbers correspond to FS borrower T&C's. Edited to add: And before anyone asks, no I haven't received FS's "prior written consent and licence" for the posting of this link to their website, nor for any of the other links I may have included on this forum or the zopa forum.
|
|
andy2001
Member of DD Central
Posts: 361
Likes: 34
|
Post by andy2001 on Dec 15, 2013 18:55:42 GMT
3. Following on from the above, it is arguable that they are not a p2p business at all, despite trying hard to look like one (ripping off FC), and advertising on this forum. I think lenders are lending to Saving Stream, with the benefit of specific asset security but (as far as I can see) with recourse limited to the specific asset. This is the basic conclusion I have reached but coming from a different direction namely the numbers: borrowers pay 4%, lenders receive 1% and yet there are no fees. The obvious way to explain this given the information available is if lenders are lending to SS (Lendy Ltd), with the benefit of specific asset security rather than buying a portion of a specific loan in which case they are as you say arguably not a p2p business. There model is a bit like OnestopFunding, who I made a post about on the old forum. They lend on sub prime car loans. As for the no fees, Assets also say they charge no fees, but of course the lender rate will always be less than the borrower pays. But the rate quoted to the lender is the rate they get unless there's a default, unlike Funding Circle.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 16, 2013 2:04:04 GMT
As for the no fees, Assets also say they charge no fees, but of course the lender rate will always be less than the borrower pays. ... and I think it's unfortunate and quite non-transparent the way Assetz do this, inasmuch as the only way to determine what rate the borrower is paying is to plug the payment schedule into a spreadsheet or payment calculator and work it out yourself. There were a few loans where they specifically mentioned what they referred to as a 'loan monitoring fee' but this hasn't been common. I've asked them if they would specify this as a matter of course, but they haven't adopted that procedure yet -- and they haven't said they would, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Dec 16, 2013 11:10:23 GMT
As for the no fees, Assets also say they charge no fees, but of course the lender rate will always be less than the borrower pays. ... and I think it's unfortunate and quite non-transparent the way Assetz do this, inasmuch as the only way to determine what rate the borrower is paying is to plug the payment schedule into a spreadsheet or payment calculator and work it out yourself. There were a few loans where they specifically mentioned what they referred to as a 'loan monitoring fee' but this hasn't been common. I've asked them if they would specify this as a matter of course, but they haven't adopted that procedure yet -- and they haven't said they would, either. Mike The reason why it isn't stated is that it varies from loan to loan depending on the level of risk and the amount of monitoring that is required. Also it is a commercial arrangement between the borrower and Assetz for undertaking that loan, and as I say it varies from loan to loan. Should Assetz fail, then that margin is used by GT to cover costs as they run off the loan book. What I can say is that the fee we take is proportionate and reasonable but doesn't affect the rate that we will be paying to lenders. Any negotiation in the rate payable is varied by the fee to Assetz and not the rate to lenders. So far, we have not had any complaints about the rate lenders get or the fee we take from the borrower. A
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 16, 2013 18:24:05 GMT
The reason why it isn't stated is that it varies from loan to loan depending on the level of risk and the amount of monitoring that is required. Also it is a commercial arrangement between the borrower and Assetz for undertaking that loan, and as I say it varies from loan to loan. Should Assetz fail, then that margin is used by GT to cover costs as they run off the loan book. What I can say is that the fee we take is proportionate and reasonable but doesn't affect the rate that we will be paying to lenders. Any negotiation in the rate payable is varied by the fee to Assetz and not the rate to lenders. So far, we have not had any complaints about the rate lenders get or the fee we take from the borrower. What confused me was the fact that in some credit reports it was specified while in others it wasn't. Furthermore, since it can be derived from the information in each credit report, there doesn't seem to be much point in not disclosing it and making anyone who wants to know work it out for themselves. I have no problem with Assetz taking a fee, they have to have some revenue in order to stay in business. I understand the fee varies from loan to loan -- if it didn't, I wouldn't have to keep asking what it is. The fees that I've been aware of have been quite reasonable -- Assetz are charging borrowers annual fees that are in the same range as what FS and SS are charging per month! PS. Who are GT?
|
|
andy2001
Member of DD Central
Posts: 361
Likes: 34
|
Post by andy2001 on Dec 16, 2013 18:44:17 GMT
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 16, 2013 18:47:34 GMT
|
|
debeast
(o)(o)
Posts: 238
Likes: 44
|
Post by debeast on Dec 16, 2013 22:02:46 GMT
No SS posts today ? Thats a shame would love a reply to the current statements
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 16, 2013 22:17:49 GMT
We've discussed previously the cloning of the FC website style, the use of stock photos (e.g. James Marshall) , and the use of random possibly copyrighted photos (e.g. yachts), and have alluded to the probability that the T&C's were cloned. I wonder why we haven't thought to ask google which other website has a T&C as daft as ""You may not include a link to our platform in any other site, computer or network without our prior written consent and licence. ". The answer is Funding Secure who have it as T&C 13.10 (Surely no-coincidence that this was SS's T&C 13.10 until recently - now 11.10) . And those missing sections 5 & 6 in SS's first attempt at T&C's, yes those section numbers correspond to FS borrower T&C's. I'm curious on this. Is there a suggestion/implication that FS and SS are in someway related ? If not, then the only other reasonable conclusion in a situation like this is that entity Y has 'lifted' their T's and C's from entity X (you do not have the same worded T&C, which is in itself an abnormal T and C, as the same clause in two unrelated cases unless ....). To be clear: I am not saying that is what has happened, I am simply observing that it would seem extraordinarily unusual / realms of "Infinite Improbability Drive" for a non-standard/strange contractual item to appear in identical form in two different situations unless there was a relationship, and even more unlikley (now at Restaurant at the end of the universe levels) to appear with the same clause number. Bewildered of Bracknell.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 16, 2013 22:56:10 GMT
We've discussed previously the cloning of the FC website style, the use of stock photos (e.g. James Marshall) , and the use of random possibly copyrighted photos (e.g. yachts), and have alluded to the probability that the T&C's were cloned. I wonder why we haven't thought to ask google which other website has a T&C as daft as ""You may not include a link to our platform in any other site, computer or network without our prior written consent and licence. ". The answer is Funding Secure who have it as T&C 13.10 (Surely no-coincidence that this was SS's T&C 13.10 until recently - now 11.10) . And those missing sections 5 & 6 in SS's first attempt at T&C's, yes those section numbers correspond to FS borrower T&C's. I'm curious on this. Is there a suggestion/implication that FS and SS are in someway related ? If not, then the only other reasonable conclusion in a situation like this is that entity Y has 'lifted' their T's and C's from entity X (you do not have the same worded T&C, which is in itself an abnormal T and C, as the same clause in two unrelated cases unless ....). To be clear: I am not saying that is what has happened, I am simply observing that it would seem extraordinarily unusual / realms of "Infinite Improbability Drive" for a non-standard/strange contractual item to appear in identical form in two different situations unless there was a relationship, and even more unlikley (now at Restaurant at the end of the universe levels) to appear with the same clause number. Bewildered of Bracknell. Doubt if they are related and there's probably nothing new in this world. I used to deal in insurance contracts and they were in essence all the same. Main difference was that whilst they may have contained near identical T&C's they were laid out to look different. Think what is being suggested on the forum is that SS aka Lendy simply went off and lifted someone else's T&C's and could not be bothered re-jigging the clause numbers plus slightly different wording here and there. Just sloppy IMO like the website. Okay they used a stock photo which is common in the web design world but to then attribute a financial comment to a fictitious individual was a step too far. Maybe the comment was genuine but it certainly wasn't from the individual being displayed. Doesn't inspire lender confidence that's for sure. Now if only SS aka Lendy came on here and stated they jumped the gun, apologised for any confusion, etc, etc then maybe they could get somewhere. Just possibly they have a good idea but trying to blame others (nothing to do with us guv') and justifying what is a mess just doesn't cut it. They underestimated the sophistication of many P2P or P2B lenders and I suspect they've decided not to bother with the forum and hope things quieten down.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Dec 17, 2013 7:49:36 GMT
Lending Marine/Savingstream AKA Lendy Ltd appear have lifted a lot of their website from elsewhere for instance SS publish that they have a Provision fund but then hide the fact by commenting out the text in the page source: <!--
<div style='height:50px;'>
<div style='float:left; width:50px; margin-top:2px;'><img src='/images/2.png'/></div><h2 style='width:820px; font-size:1.3em; margin-top:0px; float:right;'>Our Provision Fund is a discretionary fund that the shareholders of Saving Stream's parent company setup for the sole purpose of compensating savers if a loan is not fully covered by the sale of the secured asset.</h2>
</div>
<p>
<ul style='margin-right:100px; margin-left:100px; list-style-image:url(/images/greentick.png);'>
<li>The Provision Fund has been established as a separate company from Saving Stream's parent company meaning that any assets it holds are separate from the liabilities of Saving Stream or its parent company.</li><br/>
<li>It is the intention of the Directors of Saving Stream's parent company, that no saver ever suffers a loss of capital or interest as a result of participating in loans made through the Saving Stream platform.</li><br/>
<li>The Provision Fund has been set up with an initial £100,000.00 of shareholder money.</li><br/>
<li>Every time we make a new loan, a portion of the loan fee will be paid into the Provision Fund.</li><br/>
<li>Payments to lenders will be at the discretion of the Directors of the Provision Fund.</li>
</ul>
</p>
<h2 class='large-primary' style='color:#007abf; margin-left:80px;'>Provision fund: £100,000.00</h2>
-->
This text barring the name changes is identical to that of Wellesley & Co. Unfortunately I can't confirm the current legal point of view on commented out text, i.e. whether it is considered to be voided or just redacted but relevant, however cases where the text is hidden rather than being commented out and is used to distort search engine results then it is considered relevant even though it cannot be read without looking at the source, and text comments in program source code is considered the accepted place to put legal copyright information. Just as with Savingstream's T&C, Lendy Marine's are a bit strange, the website talks about vessels staying at their moorings but the T&C talk about assets being sent to Lendy but all is explained when you read Borro's T&C and realise that they are written for the pawning of small items sent though the post. And we still haven't had an explanation of where 75% of the interest earned on the loan goes when there are no fees on either the borrower or the lender other than a separate 4% setup fee for the borrower. |
|
