What if we actually believed in Ratesetter?

Well now we're really getting into semantics and I'm defending the position of Ace and others that I don't actually hold myself! 

But yes, these words do not conclusively say "And RateSetter will not ever issue any new lending funded by peer-to-peer investors". I agree with you entirely, though, that it seems fairly certain as to what they mean. I'm just being generous to those who disagree with me (much to the consternation of my detractors, no doubt  )

The lending differential is *one* definite reason. A differential in non-reinvesting % is now an equal reason. Roughly:
 Total platform reinvestable cashflow is about £50m per month.
 £11m per month successful RYI is currently serving the 5yr, with zero lending. 
 That leaves £39m per month available from APM repayments to be recycled in APM.
 Performance data shows RS are still lending out £20m a month, leaving £19m per month to service the sum of RYIs and non-reinvestment withdrawals.
 Therefore, the “non-reinvestment” amount in APM must be at least £19m per month, for there to be nothing left at all to service APM RYI.

Irrespective of whether RS *want* to prioritise lending in APM, they increasingly simply won’t have any investment money to do so. As APM non-reinvestment continues to rise from current rate over the next four months, lending has to fall. RS have now run out of road where they have any discretion at all. That’s going to cause RS a lot of problems with Metro, who expect them to keep the lending side of the business going until December. This is the key question - can RS keep the plates spinning for another four months. Maybe yes, maybe no.

But they also haven't jumped in here to say we are misunderstanding anything, which we might have thought they would if that was the case and our assumptions are wrong. Or if they didn't want to reply on a forum they could issue a statement explaining how things will actually change after the Metro take over, taking into account what Metro have said, which unfortunately seems pretty conclusive.

My guess on the former is that they certainly don't bother reading all the nonsense we post on here (or, I certainly hope not).

My guess on the latter is that they deliberately don't want to explicitly say that it's game over because they think that's likely to heighten the RYI liquidity issue (whether that's rational or not), and destroy any last embers of hope for the business if the deal doesn't go through.

No, I don’t agree with that point at all. You’re taking the success criterion as queue-length (which is affected by continued lending in one market).

The real success criterion, which I used in my original post, was: does this product meet customer expectations, providing an ongoing business. Queue-length affects that, but it’s a larger question.

The 5yr account was a very *good* control group. It was an existing product, with 10yr history and a loyal customer base. Events since have shown that even in the face of a pandemic, it’s existing customer base continues with some loyalty. You, for example. In fact, in the absence of other events, 5yr could probably *slow down* RYI processing a bit at this point, having shown some progress, as long as RS could demonstrate a bit more visibility and plan, as how the time-lag could be steadily reduced to zero over the next six months. 5yr investors would tolerate that, if there were a long-term recovery plan for both Provision Fund and interest rates to rise back above 6%.

Whereas, the APM customers are burnt so bad, that the reputational impact is not survivable. No new investor would ever invest in Ratesetter, whatever the true details, given what their first google search will turn up. Anyone who thinks that “improved market sentiment” will make a difference to that is plain not thinking straight.

Actually, diversifier, my last post is so grossly long, and yours will probably be even longer so let's just forget it. You win. song will be along to like your post shortly, anyway - which definitely makes you the clear winner.