coogaruk
Hello everyone! Anyone remember me?
Posts: 706
Likes: 464
|
Post by coogaruk on Aug 19, 2020 13:17:38 GMT
Heck, on the spectrum of P2P/Fin-Tech dog t*rds, RateSetter aren't even that bad. Whilst that may well be true, it doesn't alter the fact that RS is finished.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 19, 2020 13:18:02 GMT
I haven't stopped believing in Ratesetter. I Still deposit ££££ regularly and almost instantly even when the total balance is being wind down. Although it is not operating in normal conditions, I am happy to receive better than FSCS interest. No loss so far with RS. Withdrawal speed from holding account is reasonable, not panicked yet. As I've said to you before - please do keep it up!  
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591 
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Aug 19, 2020 13:20:15 GMT
I haven't stopped believing in Ratesetter. I Still deposit ££££ regularly and almost instantly even when the total balance is being wind down. Although it is not operating in normal conditions, I am happy to receive better than FSCS interest. No loss so far with RS. Withdrawal speed from holding account is reasonable, not panicked yet. As I've said to you before - please do keep it up! I can't keep the balance up. 😆
|
|
coogaruk
Hello everyone! Anyone remember me?
Posts: 706
Likes: 464
|
Post by coogaruk on Aug 19, 2020 13:22:06 GMT
I haven't stopped believing in Ratesetter. I Still deposit ££££ regularly and almost instantly even when the total balance is being wind down. Although it is not operating in normal conditions, I am happy to receive better than FSCS interest. No loss so far with RS. Withdrawal speed from holding account is reasonable, not panicked yet. Whilst reading your post I was somewhat reminded of my younger self. Not that much younger I hasten to add, maybe just a year or two at most. Evidenced I'm sure by what I was posting about RS back then.
Successful investing is often about timing and sometimes that element can be crucial. I do hope yours isn't amiss in this instance.
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,500
Likes: 924
|
Post by aju on Aug 19, 2020 13:42:39 GMT
As I've said to you before - please do keep it up! I can't keep the balance up. 😆 , I'll sell you our relatively high rates in Access that are probably going to hang there there for a really long time. Can we come to some arrangement - second thoughts they probably wouldn't be high enough for you! they wouldn't for me at the moment. We must have a chat about Zopa default returns as hopefully that's all i'll have left soon - with any luck and I reach the front of the queue again this month we'll hopefully be down to 3 figures of defaults value, not bad as most are < £10 a loan. Mind you if shops keep laying people off (M%S 5000 projected today) then its probably going to be even worse next month too! 
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 19, 2020 17:01:14 GMT
Doesn't this post completely miss the main reason why 5 Year has been so much less 'disastrous' than A/P/M re RYI processing? i.e. that RS isn't doing any lending out of 5 Year so all the re-investment money goes to RYI processing; whereas the very opposite is true of A/P/M? This isn't related to the models of 5 Year and A/P/M per se.Edit: The 1 Year experience also doesn't fit especially well into this analysis. It is true that the reduced lending is one possibility. But I don’t think it affects the point that the 5yr account has met customer expectation, whereas the APM has destroyed the companies reputation. I also don’t think 1yr is so much a problem, from the company reputation perspective. Obviously, none of it is “nice”, and 1yr is stalling, but the max wait irrespective of RYI is 1yr, not 5yr. Again, meeting customer expectations. And people in 1yr have already had about 60% returned by normal repayment since the crisis, so they’re not screaming as hard. Put another way on customer expectation: whatever the rights and wrongs of reading the small print, most 1yr and 5yr account holders haven’t incurred life-changing loss. But a lot of APM account holders have. They are out for blood. Many of them will even sue RS in court cases that they can’t win, just to inflict loss on RS. That issue alone is going to make it virtually impossible to operate RS as a going concern. Don’t shoot the messenger, I am not among them, that is simply what is going to happen. I mean, I'm not so sure I'd call it 'one possibility' - more like the now clearly documented reason for the huge disparity in RYI processing between 5 Year and A/P/M. True that more 5 Year investors might've expected to leave their money in there for 5 Years (or, at least, a longer period), but I'm assuming the vast majority still planned to use the RYI feature at some point and would be equally upset if their market wasn't getting any RYI processing funds. My point is that these aren't good 'control groups' because they've been treated completely differently in terms of RYI processing (with this treatment having no connection to anything intrinsic about the product). As for trying to sue RS... I don't think they'd get anywhere near court. RS are virtually the only platform in a bit of trouble to have actually stuck to their terms. (And it doesn't seem RS is planning to operate as a going concern anyway, is it? It's being bought out!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Aug 19, 2020 17:13:18 GMT
It is true that the reduced lending is one possibility. But I don’t think it affects the point that the 5yr account has met customer expectation, whereas the APM has destroyed the companies reputation. I also don’t think 1yr is so much a problem, from the company reputation perspective. Obviously, none of it is “nice”, and 1yr is stalling, but the max wait irrespective of RYI is 1yr, not 5yr. Again, meeting customer expectations. And people in 1yr have already had about 60% returned by normal repayment since the crisis, so they’re not screaming as hard. Put another way on customer expectation: whatever the rights and wrongs of reading the small print, most 1yr and 5yr account holders haven’t incurred life-changing loss. But a lot of APM account holders have. They are out for blood. Many of them will even sue RS in court cases that they can’t win, just to inflict loss on RS. That issue alone is going to make it virtually impossible to operate RS as a going concern. Don’t shoot the messenger, I am not among them, that is simply what is going to happen. I mean, I'm not so sure I'd call it 'one possibility' - more like the now clearly documented reason for the huge disparity in RYI processing between 5 Year and A/P/M. True that more 5 Year investors might've expected to leave their money in there for 5 Years (or, at least, a longer period), but I'm assuming the vast majority still planned to use the RYI feature at some point and would be equally upset if their market wasn't getting any RYI processing funds. My point is that these aren't good 'control groups' because they've been treated completely differently in terms of RYI processing (with this treatment having no connection to anything intrinsic about the product). As for trying to sue RS... I don't think they'd get anywhere near court. RS are virtually the only platform in a bit of trouble to have actually stuck to their terms. ( And it doesn't seem RS is planning to operate as a going concern anyway, is it? It's being bought out!) I mentioned this before somewhere without response. Perhaps I'm just being daft (feel free to tell me so if that's the case), but I'll give it one more go. In the communications from RS and Metro they have been careful to say that Metro wants the future unsecured loans. Could it be that the current products will be allowed to continue with secured loans for retail lenders? Or perhaps a new product for this?
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Aug 19, 2020 17:13:47 GMT
I can't keep the balance up. 😆 , I'll sell you our relatively high rates in Access that are probably going to hang there there for a really long time. Can we come to some arrangement - second thoughts they probably wouldn't be high enough for you! they wouldn't for me at the moment. We must have a chat about Zopa default returns as hopefully that's all i'll have left soon - with any luck and I reach the front of the queue again this month we'll hopefully be down to 3 figures of defaults value, not bad as most are < £10 a loan. Mind you if shops keep laying people off (M%S 5000 projected today) then its probably going to be even worse next month too! May be you misunderstood why I am doing. I top up regualry, I don't increase investment balance, I have more money to withdraw than money topping up. Topping up /= investment
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 19, 2020 17:20:57 GMT
I mentioned this before somewhere without response. Perhaps I'm just being daft (feel free to tell me so if that's the case), but I'll give it one more go. In the communications from RS and Metro they have been careful to say that Metro wants the future unsecured loans. Could it be that the current products will be allowed to continue with secured loans for retail lenders? Or perhaps a new product for this? Absolutely can't be 100% sure, but I recall my reading being that the use of 'unsecured' here was just additional information as to what sort of lending MB were planning to do using the RS branding/systems etc., rather than a suggestion that it would be leaving some lending for RS to operate on its own. I think the latter option would be a very odd situation given the acquisition, but as I say, can't be 100%. Edit: We're getting a little off-topic now, but does anyone know the legal structure of the deal? Presumably it's an asset sale and the remaining shell company of RS winds the existing loanbook down? If so, it's potentially not impossible that this entity could start lending again, but it will have sold off the means to do that and presumably there may be some non-compete clause with MB post-sale??? (I could also go and find this out myself perhaps - I'm being lazy, apologies.)
|
|
coogaruk
Hello everyone! Anyone remember me?
Posts: 706
Likes: 464
|
Post by coogaruk on Aug 19, 2020 17:28:32 GMT
I mentioned this before somewhere without response. Perhaps I'm just being daft (feel free to tell me so if that's the case), but I'll give it one more go. In the communications from RS and Metro they have been careful to say that Metro wants the future unsecured loans. Could it be that the current products will be allowed to continue with secured loans for retail lenders? Or perhaps a new product for this? Absolutely can't be 100% sure, but I recall my reading being that the use of 'unsecured' here was just additional information as to what sort of lending MB were planning to do using the RS branding/systems etc., rather than a suggestion that it would be leaving some lending for RS to operate on its own. I think the latter option would be a very odd situation given the acquisition, but as I say, can't be 100%. Edit: We're getting a little off-topic now, but does anyone know the legal structure of the deal? Presumably it's an asset sale and the remaining shell company of RS winds the existing loanbook down? If so, it's potentially not impossible that this entity could start lending again, but it will have sold off the means to do that and presumably there may be some non-compete clause with MB post-sale??? (I could also go and find this out myself perhaps - I'm being lazy, apologies.) As I understood it, all new unsecured consumer lending will be undertaken by Metro Bank (under the RS brand if I recall correctly) whereas all of the existing P2P side of the business will continue to operate under the existing platform and customer services team.
I'm not sure how much clearer they could have made it.
|
|
|
|
Post by herringbone on Aug 19, 2020 17:30:45 GMT
I mentioned this before somewhere without response. Perhaps I'm just being daft (feel free to tell me so if that's the case), but I'll give it one more go. In the communications from RS and Metro they have been careful to say that Metro wants the future unsecured loans. Could it be that the current products will be allowed to continue with secured loans for retail lenders? Or perhaps a new product for this? I've been wondering the same about secured loans. There's been no mention of discontinuing them, which I think there would have been if that were the intention. £9.5million of purchase price is dependent on performance over the next three years: performance of just winding down the existing loanbook or of an ongoing, secured loan business?
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 19, 2020 17:31:08 GMT
Absolutely can't be 100% sure, but I recall my reading being that the use of 'unsecured' here was just additional information as to what sort of lending MB were planning to do using the RS branding/systems etc., rather than a suggestion that it would be leaving some lending for RS to operate on its own. I think the latter option would be a very odd situation given the acquisition, but as I say, can't be 100%. Edit: We're getting a little off-topic now, but does anyone know the legal structure of the deal? Presumably it's an asset sale and the remaining shell company of RS winds the existing loanbook down? If so, it's potentially not impossible that this entity could start lending again, but it will have sold off the means to do that and presumably there may be some non-compete clause with MB post-sale??? (I could also go and find this out myself perhaps - I'm being lazy, apologies.) As I understood it, all new unsecured consumer lending will be undertaken by Metro Bank (under the RS brand if I recall correctly) whereas all of the existing P2P side of the business will continue to operate under the existing platform and customer services team.
I'm not sure how much clearer they could have made it.
That depends what you mean by 'continue to operate' - do you mean conduct new lending or just wind down the existing lending? Not so clear after all
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 19, 2020 17:33:54 GMT
I mentioned this before somewhere without response. Perhaps I'm just being daft (feel free to tell me so if that's the case), but I'll give it one more go. In the communications from RS and Metro they have been careful to say that Metro wants the future unsecured loans. Could it be that the current products will be allowed to continue with secured loans for retail lenders? Or perhaps a new product for this? I've been wondering the same about secured loans. There's been no mention of discontinuing them, which I think there would have been if that were the intention. £9.5million of purchase price is dependent on performance over the next three years: performance of just winding down the existing loanbook or of an ongoing, secured loan business? See my post above, but also recall that the platform etc. is being sold to MB; and a lot of staff seem to be going too. How is RS going to initiate any new lending in this situation? As I mentioned in a few posts on the MB-related threads, the earn-out will almost certainly be related to how well the business that MB purchases performs after acquisition. This is always how earn-outs work. The existing loanbook won't be relevant as MB isn't going to have any connection with it, so it's completely unrelated to the value of what MB is purchasing.
|
|
coogaruk
Hello everyone! Anyone remember me?
Posts: 706
Likes: 464
|
Post by coogaruk on Aug 19, 2020 17:35:35 GMT
As I understood it, all new unsecured consumer lending will be undertaken by Metro Bank (under the RS brand if I recall correctly) whereas all of the existing P2P side of the business will continue to operate under the existing platform and customer services team.
I'm not sure how much clearer they could have made it.
That depends what you mean by 'continue to operate' - do you mean conduct new lending or just wind down the existing lending? Not so clear after all The latter would be my presumption. I'm not sure why some are making it sound more complicated than it really is.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Aug 19, 2020 17:37:36 GMT
That depends what you mean by 'continue to operate' - do you mean conduct new lending or just wind down the existing lending? Not so clear after all The latter would be my presumption. I'm not sure why some are making it sound more complicated than it really is. Agreed on your position - although somewhat more lenient as to others being less certain The MB line that says "RateSetter will continue to manage the existing RateSetter loan portfolio and Provision Fund on behalf of its existing peer-to-peer investors, with Metro Bank assuming no credit risk for these existing loans" (my bold) makes me pretty sure this is the case, but I agree that it is not 100% definitive.
|
|
