chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 18, 2020 12:21:44 GMT
I'm struggling to see the argument that one platform had a plan and the other didn't. As I see it, both platforms had a documented plan which they are both now executing. RS with its stabilisation period, and GS with its liquidity event. You can debate which is the better plan and which has the better chance of saving its respective platform, but not really whether they had a plan. My own view is that neither platform will survive in its present form. Whether either will be able to morph into a more attractive proposition only time will tell. It's not that "one had a plan and one didn't" it's that one had a pre-existing mechanism to deal with a lack of liquidity for the purposes of withdrawals and one did not. I really did explain this in quite a lot of detail in the previous post, but I'll try again. RS's stabilisation period is not directly related to the liquidity issue - it's about the quality of the underlying loanbook and the extent to which the provision fund needed topping up. There is clearly an indirect relationship here, but in no way is the stabilisation period a measure that is meant to increase liquidity or speed up with withdrawal queue (if anything, it's the opposite). For RS, the liquidity 'plan' was already in-place: a successful RYI has always required liquidity to exist. So all that happens now is that RYIs take longer. GS's liquidity event is not a 'plan' - it's a period of time in which GS can come up with a plan. Nothing about declaring a liquidity event actually deals with the problem. Edit: Let me try to explain this once and for all in some more detail.ScenarioLet's imagine a situation where there is no particular problem with the underlying loanbook or the global economy. Everything seems fine and dandy in that regard. However, for whatever reason, P2P is not as popular as it was and platforms are experiencing users wanting to withdraw more cash than they have investors adding cash. That is to say, there is a liquidity issue for the platforms to deal with: in order to keep funding all their loans, they can't allow all these withdrawals to happen instantly. RateSetterThere's no real problem at RS because their terms have always said that liquidity is required for RYIs to be processed. That is to say, more or less, if you want to withdraw £100, someone else needs to be adding £100. When that isn't happening immediately, RYIs can still happen, but they become slower while people withdrawing wait for an investor to 'match' with them. This used to be virtually instant, now it takes a little while. Growth StreetGS, however, is in trouble. They don't have any requirement in their terms or systems for someone withdrawing to have a matching amount added to the platform by someone else. This means that the platform's cash buffer is slowly depleted until there is no buffer left and a liquidity event has to be called. But during the liquidity event, nothing changes with P2P sentiment - it's still more people wanting to withdraw money than add money. What can GS do? On its current terms and mechanisms: nothing.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,357
Likes: 2,765
|
Post by Greenwood2 on May 18, 2020 13:37:48 GMT
I'm struggling to see the argument that one platform had a plan and the other didn't. As I see it, both platforms had a documented plan which they are both now executing. RS with its stabilisation period, and GS with its liquidity event. You can debate which is the better plan and which has the better chance of saving its respective platform, but not really whether they had a plan. My own view is that neither platform will survive in its present form. Whether either will be able to morph into a more attractive proposition only time will tell. It's not that "one had a plan and one didn't" it's that one had a pre-existing mechanism to deal with a lack of liquidity for the purposes of withdrawals and one did not. I really did explain this in quite a lot of detail in the previous post, but I'll try again. RS's stabilisation period is not directly related to the liquidity issue - it's about the quality of the underlying loanbook and the extent to which the provision fund needed topping up. There is clearly an indirect relationship here, but in no way is the stabilisation period a measure that is meant to increase liquidity or speed up with withdrawal queue (if anything, it's the opposite). For RS, the liquidity 'plan' was already in-place: a successful RYI has always required liquidity to exist. So all that happens now is that RYIs take longer. GS's liquidity event is not a 'plan' - it's a period of time in which GS can come up with a plan. Nothing about declaring a liquidity event actually deals with the problem. Edit: Let me try to explain this once and for all in some more detail.ScenarioLet's imagine a situation where there is no particular problem with the underlying loanbook or the global economy. Everything seems fine and dandy in that regard. However, for whatever reason, P2P is not as popular as it was and platforms are experiencing users wanting to withdraw more cash than they have investors adding cash. That is to say, there is a liquidity issue for the platforms to deal with: in order to keep funding all their loans, they can't allow all these withdrawals to happen instantly. RateSetterThere's no real problem at RS because their terms have always said that liquidity is required for RYIs to be processed. That is to say, more or less, if you want to withdraw £100, someone else needs to be adding £100. When that isn't happening immediately, RYIs can still happen, but they become slower while people withdrawing wait for an investor to 'match' with them. This used to be virtually instant, now it takes a little while. Growth StreetGS, however, is in trouble. They don't have any requirement in their terms or systems for someone withdrawing to have a matching amount added to the platform by someone else. This means that the platform's cash buffer is slowly depleted until there is no buffer left and a liquidity event has to be called. But during the liquidity event, nothing changes with P2P sentiment - it's still more people wanting to withdraw money than add money. What can GS do? On its current terms and mechanisms: nothing.From an earlier post of mine, this is what they do (looks like a plan to me): How long does a “Liquidity Event” last? A Liquidity Event can last up to 90 days. If the Liquidity Event is remedied, we will let you know by email that normal operation of the platform has resumed. If we are unable to remedy the Liquidity Event within this period, a Resolution Event will be declared. And from the T&Cs 6.5. If a Resolution Event is declared we will notify you, along with all other Growth Street investors as soon as possible but at the latest, within 5 working days. All funds held in unmatched Lend Orders will be returned to your holding account. Any funds in your holding account will be available to withdraw at any time. No new deposits or Lend Orders will be accepted. 6.6. In order to spread the risk of borrower default equally between all investors, if a Resolution Event is declared, the benefit of all loans outstanding will be immediately assigned to GSP to be held for the benefit of the investors as a whole. All payments received from borrowers will continue to be collected by GSP and held on trust for investors as a whole. 6.7. GSP is free to use funds held in the LLP and/or funds collected from borrowers during a Resolution Event to fund expenses or other payments which it reasonably believes will maximise the probability of borrower repayment, whilst also ensuring borrowers continue to be treated fairly during the collect out process. For example, funds held are likely to be used to fund recovery action against defaulted borrowers and may also be used to fund new drawdown requests if it is determined that a failure to fund the request will materially impact the borrower’s ability to (1) continue trading, (2) repay their facility, or (3) re-finance.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 18, 2020 13:43:56 GMT
From an earlier post of mine, this is what they do ( looks like a plan to me): How long does a “Liquidity Event” last? A Liquidity Event can last up to 90 days. If the Liquidity Event is remedied, we will let you know by email that normal operation of the platform has resumed. If we are unable to remedy the Liquidity Event within this period, a Resolution Event will be declared. And from the T&Cs 6.5. If a Resolution Event is declared we will notify you, along with all other Growth Street investors as soon as possible but at the latest, within 5 working days. All funds held in unmatched Lend Orders will be returned to your holding account. Any funds in your holding account will be available to withdraw at any time. No new deposits or Lend Orders will be accepted. 6.6. In order to spread the risk of borrower default equally between all investors, if a Resolution Event is declared, the benefit of all loans outstanding will be immediately assigned to GSP to be held for the benefit of the investors as a whole. All payments received from borrowers will continue to be collected by GSP and held on trust for investors as a whole. 6.7. GSP is free to use funds held in the LLP and/or funds collected from borrowers during a Resolution Event to fund expenses or other payments which it reasonably believes will maximise the probability of borrower repayment, whilst also ensuring borrowers continue to be treated fairly during the collect out process. For example, funds held are likely to be used to fund recovery action against defaulted borrowers and may also be used to fund new drawdown requests if it is determined that a failure to fund the request will materially impact the borrower’s ability to (1) continue trading, (2) repay their facility, or (3) re-finance. What did I just write? " It's not that "one had a plan and one didn't" it's that one had a pre-existing mechanism to deal with a lack of liquidity for the purposes of withdrawals and one did not." " Nothing about declaring a liquidity event actually deals with the problem." What you have just pasted in is the process for declaring a Resolution Event. That's not a plan to deal with the Liquidity Event, it's the opposite! It's what they do if they give up entirely on the platform because they can't deal with the Liquidity Event. It even specifically says " If we are unable to remedy the Liquidity Event" for goodness sake!!  I really do give up. Apparently people can't read things, so I really don't know what I can do here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on May 18, 2020 14:23:52 GMT
From an earlier post of mine, this is what they do ( looks like a plan to me): How long does a “Liquidity Event” last? A Liquidity Event can last up to 90 days. If the Liquidity Event is remedied, we will let you know by email that normal operation of the platform has resumed. If we are unable to remedy the Liquidity Event within this period, a Resolution Event will be declared. And from the T&Cs 6.5. If a Resolution Event is declared we will notify you, along with all other Growth Street investors as soon as possible but at the latest, within 5 working days. All funds held in unmatched Lend Orders will be returned to your holding account. Any funds in your holding account will be available to withdraw at any time. No new deposits or Lend Orders will be accepted. 6.6. In order to spread the risk of borrower default equally between all investors, if a Resolution Event is declared, the benefit of all loans outstanding will be immediately assigned to GSP to be held for the benefit of the investors as a whole. All payments received from borrowers will continue to be collected by GSP and held on trust for investors as a whole. 6.7. GSP is free to use funds held in the LLP and/or funds collected from borrowers during a Resolution Event to fund expenses or other payments which it reasonably believes will maximise the probability of borrower repayment, whilst also ensuring borrowers continue to be treated fairly during the collect out process. For example, funds held are likely to be used to fund recovery action against defaulted borrowers and may also be used to fund new drawdown requests if it is determined that a failure to fund the request will materially impact the borrower’s ability to (1) continue trading, (2) repay their facility, or (3) re-finance. What did I just write? " It's not that "one had a plan and one didn't" it's that one had a pre-existing mechanism to deal with a lack of liquidity for the purposes of withdrawals and one did not." " Nothing about declaring a liquidity event actually deals with the problem." What you have just pasted in is the process for declaring a Resolution Event. That's not a plan to deal with the Liquidity Event, it's the opposite! It's what they do if they give up entirely on the platform because they can't deal with the Liquidity Event. It even specifically says " If we are unable to remedy the Liquidity Event" for goodness sake!! I really do give up. Apparently people can't read things, so I really don't know what I can do here. I'm perfectly capable of reading. It seems that your main gripe is that GS don't specify in their Ts&Cs how they will try to restore the liquidity event, which is fair enough, they don't. I did the reading thing and checked. However, this doesn't mean that there is nothing they can do. You said " What can GS do? On its current terms and mechanisms: nothing." That is not true. One could argue that they are less restricted in their actions than RS precisely because they are not hamstrung by a prescribed course of action. For instance, they could look for institutional funding, or to refinance some of the loans, in order to resolve liquidity. I'm not saying that they will necessarily succeed, but they are free to try to resolve the Liquidity Event.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,357
Likes: 2,765
|
Post by Greenwood2 on May 18, 2020 14:26:24 GMT
From an earlier post of mine, this is what they do ( looks like a plan to me): How long does a “Liquidity Event” last? A Liquidity Event can last up to 90 days. If the Liquidity Event is remedied, we will let you know by email that normal operation of the platform has resumed. If we are unable to remedy the Liquidity Event within this period, a Resolution Event will be declared. And from the T&Cs 6.5. If a Resolution Event is declared we will notify you, along with all other Growth Street investors as soon as possible but at the latest, within 5 working days. All funds held in unmatched Lend Orders will be returned to your holding account. Any funds in your holding account will be available to withdraw at any time. No new deposits or Lend Orders will be accepted. 6.6. In order to spread the risk of borrower default equally between all investors, if a Resolution Event is declared, the benefit of all loans outstanding will be immediately assigned to GSP to be held for the benefit of the investors as a whole. All payments received from borrowers will continue to be collected by GSP and held on trust for investors as a whole. 6.7. GSP is free to use funds held in the LLP and/or funds collected from borrowers during a Resolution Event to fund expenses or other payments which it reasonably believes will maximise the probability of borrower repayment, whilst also ensuring borrowers continue to be treated fairly during the collect out process. For example, funds held are likely to be used to fund recovery action against defaulted borrowers and may also be used to fund new drawdown requests if it is determined that a failure to fund the request will materially impact the borrower’s ability to (1) continue trading, (2) repay their facility, or (3) re-finance. What did I just write? " It's not that "one had a plan and one didn't" it's that one had a pre-existing mechanism to deal with a lack of liquidity for the purposes of withdrawals and one did not." " Nothing about declaring a liquidity event actually deals with the problem." What you have just pasted in is the process for declaring a Resolution Event. That's not a plan to deal with the Liquidity Event, it's the opposite! It's what they do if they give up entirely on the platform because they can't deal with the Liquidity Event. It even specifically says " If we are unable to remedy the Liquidity Event" for goodness sake!! I really do give up. Apparently people can't read things, so I really don't know what I can do here. That's called Plan B.  GS do have a pre-existing mechanism for the purpose of withdrawals during a liquidity event. You can't! Because they don't give details of the steps they will take during a liquidity event means they are free to do whatever they think appropriate rather than being tied to a predetermined set of specific actions that might not be sensible in all scenarios. Unless you think they are just sitting on their hands for 90 days waiting for the resolution event to arrive, which I hope they are not. A bit more from the T&Cs. You have agreed that they can continue lending your funds (capital and interest) during the liquidity event, ie, you cannot withdraw funds except those in your holding account: 7.4. Whilst we work to rectify the Liquidity Event, we will continue to fund borrower drawdown requests with funds on the platform and you agree that we can: 7.4.1. switch your reinvestment settings on (if they are not on already), so all capital and interest repaid by borrowers is automatically placed into new Lend Orders; and 7.4.2. restrict or remove your ability to cancel open Lend Orders. 7.5. During a Liquidity Event, you will be free to withdraw any funds already in your holding account. Edit:Crossed with Ace (Got distracted halfway through, hedgehog caught in garden net!)
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 18, 2020 15:04:51 GMT
We really are going round in circles again now, so this should be it from me on these points. I'm perfectly capable of reading. It seems that your main gripe is that GS don't specify in they're Ts&Cs how they will try to restore the liquidity event, which is fair enough, they don't. I did the reading thing and checked. However, this doesn't mean that there is nothing they can do. You said " What can GS do? On its current terms and mechanisms: nothing." That is not true. One could argue that they are less restricted in their actions than RS precisely because they are not hamstrung by a prescribed course of action. For instance, they could look for institutional funding, or to refinance some of the loans, in order to resolve liquidity. I'm not saying that they will necessarily succeed, but they are free to try to resolve the Liquidity Event. Firstly, it's not a 'gripe' as much as a basic observation of their system of operation that I was simply pointing out to illustrate the difference with other platforms like RS. I didn't think it was that controversial (given it's evidently the case...), but there we go. Secondly, I've made the point repeatedly earlier in the thread that looking for external funding doesn't (entirely) help us. Any external cash injection would not be mixed with our retail funds; it would remain separate. And while it's possible some loans could be refinanced (and, indeed, it appears some have been), it's very unlikely (impossible?) that anyone will want to take them all on at 100% of their book value, especially in the current climate. So inevitably we will be left with a load of loans from which we still want to withdraw (but cannot as there's no incoming funds = liquidity problem); and almost certainly it will be the dodgiest ones! There is no solution to the liquidity issue here - it's a structural problem that requires a structural solution. That is to say, while there are things GS can do to temporarily increase the amount of cash buffer, based on their current terms there is nothing they can do to resolve the essential structural problem. This point should be relatively clear when you consider that, if GS were to refinance all of their loanbook... that would be the end of GS. That's not so much a solution to the liquidity event as just another way of describing what happens in a Resolution Event, when they've essentially given up on the platform. That would be bye bye GS! Also, weird that you say this is somehow a benefit of GS and that RS are 'hamstrung' in their ability to take these sorts of measures. Why would RS not be able to do these things? To be very clear one final time: - THE ONLY WAY TO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM IS TO HAVE A RULE THAT LIQUIDITY IS REQUIRED FOR WITHDRAWALS IN YOUR TERMS - THIS IS WHAT ALLOWS RS AND OTHERS TO HAVE A QUEUING SYSTEM THAT KEEPS THEIR PLATFORMS GOING ON EVEN WHEN LOTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO WITHDRAW - GS DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT LIQUIDITY IS NECESSARY TO WITHDRAW IN ITS TERMS - THAT MEANS THEY CAN'T IMPLEMENT A QUEUING SYSTEM OR SIMILAR TO RESOLVE THE LIQUIDITY ISSUE* - THERE IS NO OTHER SOLUTION (UNLESS YOU COUNT ENDING THE PLATFORM AS SOMEHOW A 'SOLUTION' WHICH IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T) (*without breaching their terms, which they may do and just pretend it's not breaching their terms) That's called Plan B. GS do have a pre-existing mechanism for the purpose of withdrawals during a liquidity event. You can't! Because they don't give details of the steps they will take during a liquidity event means they are free to do whatever they think appropriate rather than being tied to a predetermined set of specific actions that might not be sensible in all scenarios. Unless you think they are just sitting on their hands for 90 days waiting for the resolution event to arrive, which I hope they are not. A bit more from the T&Cs. You have agreed that they can continue lending your funds (capital and interest) during the liquidity event, ie, you cannot withdraw funds except those in your holding account: 7.4. Whilst we work to rectify the Liquidity Event, we will continue to fund borrower drawdown requests with funds on the platform and you agree that we can: 7.4.1. switch your reinvestment settings on (if they are not on already), so all capital and interest repaid by borrowers is automatically placed into new Lend Orders; and 7.4.2. restrict or remove your ability to cancel open Lend Orders. 7.5. During a Liquidity Event, you will be free to withdraw any funds already in your holding account. Edit:Crossed with Ace (Got distracted halfway through, hedgehog caught in garden net!) " GS do have a pre-existing mechanism for the purpose of withdrawals during a liquidity event. You can't!" I'm really sorry, but you appear to have not read what I've written again. Or maybe you just don't understand - it's hard to tell. I said that they don't have a " pre-existing mechanism to deal with a lack of liquidity for the purposes of withdrawals", 'deal with' in the sense of 'remedy'. Having a rule just saying you can't make withdrawals obviously does nothing to deal with/remedy the situation. Surely you understand that? You can call an RE a 'Plan B' if you want to - that doesn't mean it sorts out the LE. It plainly, in GS's own words, is what they do if they can't resolve the LE. I can't believe I'm writing this again. And yes... I'm aware what the T&C say. I don't know why you keep posting sections of them that have nothing to do with what I've said. Stopping users from withdrawing is the liquidity problem. It's not a solution to it. |
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,357
Likes: 2,765
|
Post by Greenwood2 on May 18, 2020 15:40:03 GMT
We really are going round in circles again now, so this should be it from me on these points. I'm perfectly capable of reading. It seems that your main gripe is that GS don't specify in they're Ts&Cs how they will try to restore the liquidity event, which is fair enough, they don't. I did the reading thing and checked. However, this doesn't mean that there is nothing they can do. You said " What can GS do? On its current terms and mechanisms: nothing." That is not true. One could argue that they are less restricted in their actions than RS precisely because they are not hamstrung by a prescribed course of action. For instance, they could look for institutional funding, or to refinance some of the loans, in order to resolve liquidity. I'm not saying that they will necessarily succeed, but they are free to try to resolve the Liquidity Event. Firstly, it's not a 'gripe' as much as a basic observation of their system of operation that I was simply pointing out to illustrate the difference with other platforms like RS. I didn't think it was that controversial (given it's evidently the case...), but there we go. Secondly, I've made the point repeatedly earlier in the thread that looking for external funding doesn't (entirely) help us. Any external cash injection would not be mixed with our retail funds; it would remain separate. And while it's possible some loans could be refinanced (and, indeed, it appears some have been), it's very unlikely (impossible?) that anyone will want to take them all on at 100% of their book value, especially in the current climate. So inevitably we will be left with a load of loans from which we still want to withdraw (but cannot as there's no incoming funds = liquidity problem); and almost certainly it will be the dodgiest ones! There is no solution to the liquidity issue here - it's a structural problem that requires a structural solution. That is to say, while there are things GS can do to temporarily increase the amount of cash buffer, based on their current terms there is nothing they can do to resolve the essential structural problem. This point should be relatively clear when you consider that, if GS were to refinance all of their loanbook... that would be the end of GS. That's not so much a solution to the liquidity event as just another way of describing what happens in a Resolution Event, when they've essentially given up on the platform. That would be bye bye GS! Also, weird that you say this is somehow a benefit of GS and that RS are 'hamstrung' in their ability to take these sorts of measures. Why would RS not be able to do these things? To be very clear one final time: - THE ONLY WAY TO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM IS TO HAVE A RULE THAT LIQUIDITY IS REQUIRED FOR WITHDRAWALS IN YOUR TERMS - THIS IS WHAT ALLOWS RS AND OTHERS TO HAVE A QUEUING SYSTEM THAT KEEPS THEIR PLATFORMS GOING ON EVEN WHEN LOTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO WITHDRAW - GS DOESN'T SPECIFY THAT LIQUIDITY IS NECESSARY TO WITHDRAW IN ITS TERMS - THAT MEANS THEY CAN'T IMPLEMENT A QUEUING SYSTEM OR SIMILAR TO RESOLVE THE LIQUIDITY ISSUE* - THERE IS NO OTHER SOLUTION (UNLESS YOU COUNT ENDING THE PLATFORM AS SOMEHOW A 'SOLUTION' WHICH IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T) (*without breaching their terms, which they may do and just pretend it's not breaching their terms) That's called Plan B. GS do have a pre-existing mechanism for the purpose of withdrawals during a liquidity event. You can't! Because they don't give details of the steps they will take during a liquidity event means they are free to do whatever they think appropriate rather than being tied to a predetermined set of specific actions that might not be sensible in all scenarios. Unless you think they are just sitting on their hands for 90 days waiting for the resolution event to arrive, which I hope they are not. A bit more from the T&Cs. You have agreed that they can continue lending your funds (capital and interest) during the liquidity event, ie, you cannot withdraw funds except those in your holding account: 7.4. Whilst we work to rectify the Liquidity Event, we will continue to fund borrower drawdown requests with funds on the platform and you agree that we can: 7.4.1. switch your reinvestment settings on (if they are not on already), so all capital and interest repaid by borrowers is automatically placed into new Lend Orders; and 7.4.2. restrict or remove your ability to cancel open Lend Orders. 7.5. During a Liquidity Event, you will be free to withdraw any funds already in your holding account. Edit:Crossed with Ace (Got distracted halfway through, hedgehog caught in garden net!) " GS do have a pre-existing mechanism for the purpose of withdrawals during a liquidity event. You can't!" I'm really sorry, but you appear to have not read what I've written again. Or maybe you just don't understand - it's hard to tell. I said that they don't have a " pre-existing mechanism to deal with a lack of liquidity for the purposes of withdrawals", 'deal with' in the sense of 'remedy'. Having a rule just saying you can't make withdrawals obviously does nothing to deal with/remedy the situation. Surely you understand that?You can call an RE a 'Plan B' if you want to - that doesn't mean it sorts out the LE. It plainly, in GS's own words, is what they do if they can't resolve the LE. I can't believe I'm writing this again. And yes... I'm aware what the T&C say. I don't know why you keep posting sections of them that have nothing to do with what I've said. Stopping users from withdrawing is the liquidity problem. It's not a solution to it. You obviously understand things differently from me, if the terms say I can't withdraw funds (during a liquidity event lasting up to 90 days) that is how they are dealing with withdrawals. You may not like it, but it's a fact. The liquidity problem for GS is that they are contractually obliged to honour their lending and they can only do that currently by stopping us withdrawing funds that are needed for their borrowers. Do you understand that?
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 18, 2020 15:44:57 GMT
You obviously understand things differently from me, if the terms say I can't withdraw funds (during a liquidity event lasting up to 90 days) that is how they are dealing with withdrawals. You may not like it, but it's a fact. The liquidity problem for GS is that they are contractually obliged to honour their lending and they can only do that currently by stopping us withdrawing funds that are needed for their borrowers. Do you understand that? Seriously, are you trolling me? I didn't say 'dealing with withdrawals', I said dealing with/resolving the liquidity problem!! This is maddening! The solution to the liquidity issue is not stopping withdrawals. That is what they do while they work out how to solve the liquidity issue. Or are you saying you're happy to just let this all continue with your funds held in perpetuity on the GS platform, with you unable to ever access them? You'd call that a solution to this issue? Of course not. I'm officially done with this inane discussion.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,357
Likes: 2,765
|
Post by Greenwood2 on May 18, 2020 17:49:10 GMT
You obviously understand things differently from me, if the terms say I can't withdraw funds (during a liquidity event lasting up to 90 days) that is how they are dealing with withdrawals. You may not like it, but it's a fact. The liquidity problem for GS is that they are contractually obliged to honour their lending and they can only do that currently by stopping us withdrawing funds that are needed for their borrowers. Do you understand that? Seriously, are you trolling me? I didn't say 'dealing with withdrawals', I said dealing with/resolving the liquidity problem!! This is maddening! The solution to the liquidity issue is not stopping withdrawals. That is what they do while they work out how to solve the liquidity issue. Or are you saying you're happy to just let this all continue with your funds held in perpetuity on the GS platform, with you unable to ever access them? You'd call that a solution to this issue? Of course not. I'm officially done with this inane discussion. Likewise. But you did say 'I said that they don't have a "pre-existing mechanism to deal with a lack of liquidity for the purposes of withdrawals"'
|
|
|
|
Post by garreh on May 19, 2020 14:24:52 GMT
chris1200 I know you've been incredibly helpful and insightful with your knowledge but just reading back the recent comments you do come across as quite hostile, to various different members of the forum. I've personally had a lash before as well - its certainly not a few isolated cases. I realise it can be frustrating to explain things when you don't feel like your being heard, or "trolled" as you put it, but I don't think there is anyone here that is purposely trying to wind you up or misunderstand you - even though they may have differing opinions and ways of looking at things. We're all in the same boat here, all frustrated by the current situation, but for the benefit of everyone reading this thread could we keep some decorum.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 19, 2020 16:09:23 GMT
chris1200 I know you've been incredibly helpful and insightful with your knowledge but just reading back the recent comments you do come across as quite hostile, to various different members of the forum. I've personally had a lash before as well - its certainly not a few isolated cases. I realise it can be frustrating to explain things when you don't feel like your being heard, or "trolled" as you put it, but I don't think there is anyone here that is purposely trying to wind you up or misunderstand you - even though they may have differing opinions and ways of looking at things. We're all in the same boat here, all frustrated by the current situation, but for the benefit of everyone reading this thread could we keep some decorum. You'll notice, if you look at my posts, that I am perfectly polite and civil with someone who happens to get something wrong or doesn't understand something. Not once have I ever 'lashed out' at someone just because of this. Quite the opposite, I try to be helpful and kind. And, indeed, if someone corrects something I've said politely, and actually dealing with the point I've made, I also respond entirely positively. See my response on the previous page starting with 'Fair point', for example. Or my post in response to you when I felt bad because you'd apologised for something you obviously didn't need to apologise for ( p2pindependentforum.com/post/387850/thread ). Where you'll notice me be rather different (although, I'd contend, still civil - never have I called names or been personally rude) is when someone has the arrogance to go out of their way to try to 'correct' me while actually being incorrect themselves. Worse still is when they do this while not engaging fairly by actually reading what I've said and responding to it, but instead misrepresenting me or just making their same point again seemingly without bothering to read what I've said, thereby making me repeat myself over and over (and, understandably, getting rather frustrated). This is the difference. In the most recent posts, I made what was quite a factual comparison between GS and RS and how their terms differ. A point which should be clear from a basic reading of their terms, or even a reading of previous posts on this thread. If someone suddenly joins in the discussion and mischaracterises what I've said in some misplaced attempt to 'correct' me, I don't think it's wrong for me to point out that they apparently haven't read what I actually wrote and are arguing against something I never said. If they just said 'ah yes, my mistake' it would be over - all smiles. Or indeed if they actually engaged with what I wrote. But when they double-down and continue to misrepresent, or not read what I've actually said and address it, I don't find the need to be overly polite anymore. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe that anyone using this platform can possibly not understand the difference between solving/remedying the GS liquidity event, and deciding to ban withdrawals. There are only so many times I can explain that banning withdrawals isn't a solution to allow us to withdraw again. At that point I can only assume that someone is acting in bad faith, I'm afraid. So, yes. If someone has the arrogance to butt in and try to 'correct' me, while not engaging with what I've actually said, I will be quite hostile. As I've said before on here, it's really important - right now especially - that the information on this forum is correct. This isn't a case of 'all opinions are valid', sorry - there is right and wrong on this stuff. Several posts made by others in recent days in this thread contained objectively factually incorrect information. If someone wants to politely disagree with me about something, and actually engage with my point, I'm more than happy to have a polite discussion. But when someone forces me to explain the same thing time and time again because they don't bother to actually engage with it... I struggle. My tone is nothing to do with frustration at the situation, it's to do with frustration regarding the other person's conduct. If you really read all the posts above and thought I came across as the bad guy... then my god, I don't know how we're meant to have discussions that actually engage with each other and provide accurate information on this forum. I can't tell you the number of times I've made quite some effort to explain things in detail to someone so they understand the point, and rarely (if ever), especially on this particular thread, do I get a thank you or a 'like', and sometimes - like here - it's a completely disingenuous refusal to actually engage with what I've said. So I give up with this thread - everyone can go ahead and write whatever nonsense they want on here. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by garreh on May 19, 2020 17:57:22 GMT
chris1200 I know you've been incredibly helpful and insightful with your knowledge but just reading back the recent comments you do come across as quite hostile, to various different members of the forum. I've personally had a lash before as well - its certainly not a few isolated cases. I realise it can be frustrating to explain things when you don't feel like your being heard, or "trolled" as you put it, but I don't think there is anyone here that is purposely trying to wind you up or misunderstand you - even though they may have differing opinions and ways of looking at things. We're all in the same boat here, all frustrated by the current situation, but for the benefit of everyone reading this thread could we keep some decorum. You'll notice, if you look at my posts, that I am perfectly polite and civil with someone who happens to get something wrong or doesn't understand something. Not once have I ever 'lashed out' at someone just because of this. Quite the opposite, I try to be helpful and kind. And, indeed, if someone corrects something I've said politely, and actually dealing with the point I've made, I also respond entirely positively. See my response on the previous page starting with 'Fair point', for example. Or my post in response to you when I felt bad because you'd apologised for something you obviously didn't need to apologise for ( p2pindependentforum.com/post/387850/thread ). Where you'll notice me be rather different (although, I'd contend, still civil - never have I called names or been personally rude) is when someone has the arrogance to go out of their way to try to 'correct' me while actually being incorrect themselves. Worse still is when they do this while not engaging fairly by actually reading what I've said and responding to it, but instead misrepresenting me or just making their same point again seemingly without bothering to read what I've said, thereby making me repeat myself over and over (and, understandably, getting rather frustrated). This is the difference. In the most recent posts, I made what was quite a factual comparison between GS and RS and how their terms differ. A point which should be clear from a basic reading of their terms, or even a reading of previous posts on this thread. If someone suddenly joins in the discussion and mischaracterises what I've said in some misplaced attempt to 'correct' me, I don't think it's wrong for me to point out that they apparently haven't read what I actually wrote and are arguing against something I never said. If they just said 'ah yes, my mistake' it would be over - all smiles. Or indeed if they actually engaged with what I wrote. But when they double-down and continue to misrepresent, or not read what I've actually said and address it, I don't find the need to be overly polite anymore. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe that anyone using this platform can possibly not understand the difference between solving/remedying the GS liquidity event, and deciding to ban withdrawals. There are only so many times I can explain that banning withdrawals isn't a solution to allow us to withdraw again. At that point I can only assume that someone is acting in bad faith, I'm afraid. So, yes. If someone has the arrogance to butt in and try to 'correct' me, while not engaging with what I've actually said, I will be quite hostile. As I've said before on here, it's really important - right now especially - that the information on this forum is correct. This isn't a case of 'all opinions are valid', sorry - there is right and wrong on this stuff. Several posts made by others in recent days in this thread contained objectively factually incorrect information. If someone wants to politely disagree with me about something, and actually engage with my point, I'm more than happy to have a polite discussion. But when someone forces me to explain the same thing time and time again because they don't bother to actually engage with it... I struggle. My tone is nothing to do with frustration at the situation, it's to do with frustration regarding the other person's conduct. If you really read all the posts above and thought I came across as the bad guy... then my god, I don't know how we're meant to have discussions that actually engage with each other and provide accurate information on this forum. I can't tell you the number of times I've made quite some effort to explain things in detail to someone so they understand the point, and rarely (if ever), especially on this particular thread, do I get a thank you or a 'like', and sometimes - like here - it's a completely disingenuous refusal to actually engage with what I've said. So I give up with this thread - everyone can go ahead and write whatever nonsense they want on here. Enjoy. Honestly, my original post didn't need this reply it just needed a "fair enough". To me, at least, the way you approach differing opinions as compared to your own sometimes doesn't come across too well - from what I've read nobody here has ill intentions or is trying to mischaracterisewhat you say. And if your triggered by anything they say, then it's best to correct in a polite way and try to stay clear from saying things like "seriously, are you trolling me", "what did I just write??", "I hope that's now finally clear", "we're just going round in circles and it's really not that complicated." - these comments are clearly sources of frustration but, at least to my ears, they come across poorly. Anyway, it's just an observation, make of it as you will. I'm personally thankful you are here to correct and provide valuable knowledge and keep a positive spirit - let's keep it that way! (even though sometimes it may feel like your banging your head against a wall 😁)
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 19, 2020 18:12:59 GMT
Honestly, my original post didn't need this reply it just needed a "fair enough". To me, at least, the way you approach differing opinions as compared to your own sometimes doesn't come across too well - from what I've read nobody here has ill intentions or is trying to mischaracterisewhat you say. And if your triggered by anything they say, then it's best to correct in a polite way and try to stay clear from saying things like "seriously, are you trolling me", "what did I just write??", "I hope that's now finally clear", "we're just going round in circles and it's really not that complicated." - these comments are clearly sources of frustration but, at least to my ears, they come across poorly. Anyway, it's just an observation, make of it as you will. I'm personally thankful you are here to correct and provide valuable knowledge and keep a positive spirit - let's keep it that way! (even though sometimes it may feel like your banging your head against a wall 😁) Sorry garreh , but I'm not going to write 'fair enough' when I completely disagree with what you've said about me. Yes, those examples you cite are frustration for sure. Because, as opposed to your suggestion that these are "differing opinions as compared to my own", sometimes people are actually just wrong. If you read the first post by this particular person on the page before this (which used a direct quote of my post), it: 1) Tried to somehow correct what I'd said about the biggest threat to RS. But I never even commented on this. 2) Stated that the RS stabilisation period caused a run on withdrawals. This is completely incorrect (genuinely impossible) as the 'run' happened several weeks before the stabilisation period was announced. This set our 'discussion' off to a pretty bad start. I don't think it's that surprising that I would respond quite firmly (but politely) in response to both issues, which I did. Unfortunately this pattern continued when discussing GS too and, again I don't think surprisingly, I became even more frustrated. I don't have much interest in being especially kind to someone who posts in this way. Once again, it's really important that what's said on here is correct - people's savings are on the line. You're very kind to say you're thankful I'm here - but I promise you, for the most part I have no extra 'valuable knowledge' I just actually read what it says on these platforms' websites etc. and think about it. I just wish others did the same. Edit: Also, just to explain the 'trolling' thing. I don't know how old you are (and sorry if I'm making assumptions), but 'trolling' is a thing that people actually do on online forums. It isn't about just being rude or something as politicians tend to use the term (for Twitter abuse etc.), it's actually deliberately trying to get a rise out of someone by being difficult or saying obviously incorrect things. A lot of people do this online because they enjoy the reaction and I genuinely have suspected it a few times on this forum.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 972 
Likes: 662
|
Post by alender on May 20, 2020 10:43:58 GMT
Edit: Also, just to explain the 'trolling' thing. I don't know how old you are (and sorry if I'm making assumptions), but 'trolling' is a thing that people actually do on online forums. It isn't about just being rude or something as politicians tend to use the term (for Twitter abuse etc.), it's actually deliberately trying to get a rise out of someone by being difficult or saying obviously incorrect things. A lot of people do this online because they enjoy the reaction and I genuinely have suspected it a few times on this forum. First I would like to say that I am not taking sides, commenting on recent posts and do not want to start some sort of argument.
I was a person who you accused of trolling you about the facility which had gone bad and had issues on another subject. I am a technical and was at a reasonable senior technical level in investment banking so have understanding on the technical but not the legal side. I always found if I did not have 100% understanding of something I would continue to ask questions (not matter now stupid they seem) until I fully understood otherwise we would not always get the best outcome, this worked well as it sometimes showed up unexpected issues. Unfortunately you seem sometimes take things the wrong way or expect other people to have either more knowledge than they have or be as forensic in the analysis of words as you are.
However I very much appreciate your contribution on this and other boards, at times invaluable, I know you do spend a lot of time researching and point people to the places to find the info and it is frustrating when this is ignored. I would respectfully ask you to please keep up your superb input but be a little more tolerant of other people who do not have your knowledge, we cannot all be good in all areas.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 20, 2020 11:25:23 GMT
First I would like to say that I am not taking sides, commenting on recent posts and do not want to start some sort of argument. I was a person who you accused of trolling you about the facility which had gone bad and had issues on another subject. I am a technical and was at a reasonable senior technical level in investment banking so have understanding on the technical but not the legal side. I always found if I did not have 100% understanding of something I would continue to ask questions (not matter now stupid they seem) until I fully understood otherwise we would not always get the best outcome, this worked well as it sometimes showed up unexpected issues. Unfortunately you seem sometimes take things the wrong way or expect other people to have either more knowledge than they have or be as forensic in the analysis of words as you are.
However I very much appreciate your contribution on this and other boards, at times invaluable, I know you do spend a lot of time researching and point people to the places to find the info and it is frustrating when this is ignored. I would respectfully ask you to please keep up your superb input but be a little more tolerant of other people who do not have your knowledge, we cannot all be good in all areas. Hi alender - your good intentions are entirely understood and your kind words appreciated! Firstly, I just want to say, though, that I didn't 'accuse' you of trolling - I asked if you were and said I couldn't tell. This was out of genuine disbelief and suspicion that you might have been - but clearly this was not the case. People maybe take this term differently to how I imagine they would as I'm likely a fair bit younger than most people on this forum, and this behaviour does happen a lot online. You might have seen others on this forum who engaged with me in recent weeks who clearly were being disingenuous in their claims and discussions given they were later found to be lying. Secondly, I'd like to stress again that my frustration never comes from people not knowing things (I work in academia, I am used to teaching people things they don't know and learning things I don't know - it always seems to be an enjoyable experience for all). What I do get frustrated about is when I perceive that someone isn't bothering, for example, to read and attempt to understand what I've written, before just stating the same thing again. Other examples include not bothering to actually read through platforms' terms and conditions and understand them. Others, still, post completely inaccurate information without checking it first and react negatively when you point this out. This isn't lack of 'knowledge' per se, it's laziness (and sometimes arrogance). As I've said above, most of this stuff doesn't concern special knowledge I have, it's just that I bother to actually go and read up to educate myself and understand. I will do my best to be more patient with people, but I would also urge others not to post clearly inaccurate or spurious claims (think/check before posting), to engage with what others are actually saying rather than misrepresenting them, and to try hard to actually fully read and understand what someone has posted before replying. Perhaps I'm expecting too much, though.
|
|
