gmd78
Posts: 57
Likes: 36
|
Post by gmd78 on Sept 17, 2020 9:09:02 GMT
With a fair degree of self-interest, would those of us with relatively substantial outstanding monies owing to us on Access have been better off if RS had terminated all of their lending platforms and ring-fenced the outstanding capital owing to us?
I take the view that RS should have done just that, with good reason.
Would ring-fencing our capital have materially affected Metro’s offer? I suggest not, they were solely interested in RS’s expertise in unsecured lending.
How would RS have managed the technicalities of ring-fencing the outstanding capital owing to us is none of my concern.
Does RS owe us any favours? Do they have a duty of care? In my view, yes. But why?
Simply because, notwithstanding the investment risks to our capital was always clearly stated, the sell-out to Metro with all its ramifications was not of our making, the Metro sell-out “significantly” altered the risk factor. Who benefited from the Metro deal? None other than RS.
Appearance has it that our borrowers have been treated well.
Have lenders without whom there would be no borrowers, been treated equally well? Self-evidently, not.
For those investors who kept the faith to the bitter end, a wet finger held to the prevailing wind, is a pointless gesture of ineffective futility.
Needless to say, this post is directed not to seasoned investors, but primarily to those who mistakenly assumed that Access, as “financially” defined in English language dictionaries, Cambridge, in particular (and I quote) “as a type of an account that offers instant access to your money” and not the right or opportunity to gain a means of entry to a building.
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Sept 18, 2020 19:57:56 GMT
sorry but what favour do they owe us?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Sept 18, 2020 20:16:14 GMT
With a fair degree of self-interest, would those of us with relatively substantial outstanding monies owing to us on Access have been better off if RS had terminated all of their lending platforms and ring-fenced the outstanding capital owing to us? I take the view that RS should have done just that, with good reason. Would ring-fencing our capital have materially have affected Metro’s offer? I suggest not, they were solely interested in RS’s expertise in unsecured lending. How would RS have managed the technicalities of ring-fencing the outstanding capital owing to us is none of my concern. Does RS owe us any favours? Do they have a duty of care? In my view, yes. But why? Simply because, notwithstanding the investment risks to our capital was always clearly stated, the sell-out to Metro with all its ramifications was not of our making, the Metro sell-out “significantly” altered the risk factor. Who benefited from the Metro deal? None other than RS. Appearance has it that our borrowers have been treated well. Have lenders without whom there would be no borrowers, been treated equally well? Self-evidently, not. For those investors who kept the faith to the bitter end, a wet finger held to the prevailing wind, is a pointless gesture of ineffective futility. Needless to say, this post is directed not to seasoned investors, but primarily to those who mistakenly assumed that Access, as “financially” defined in English language dictionaries, Cambridge, in particular (and I quote) “as a type of an account that offers instant access to your money” and not the right or opportunity to gain a means of entry to a building. Ring fenced in what way? The outstanding funds are with borrowers. Or do you mean ring fenced out of the potential grasp of administrators in some way?
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Sept 18, 2020 20:19:36 GMT
With a fair degree of self-interest, would those of us with relatively substantial outstanding monies owing to us on Access have been better off if RS had terminated all of their lending platforms and ring-fenced the outstanding capital owing to us? I take the view that RS should have done just that, with good reason. Would ring-fencing our capital have materially have affected Metro’s offer? I suggest not, they were solely interested in RS’s expertise in unsecured lending. How would RS have managed the technicalities of ring-fencing the outstanding capital owing to us is none of my concern. Does RS owe us any favours? Do they have a duty of care? In my view, yes. But why? Simply because, notwithstanding the investment risks to our capital was always clearly stated, the sell-out to Metro with all its ramifications was not of our making, the Metro sell-out “significantly” altered the risk factor. Who benefited from the Metro deal? None other than RS. Appearance has it that our borrowers have been treated well. Have lenders without whom there would be no borrowers, been treated equally well? Self-evidently, not. For those investors who kept the faith to the bitter end, a wet finger held to the prevailing wind, is a pointless gesture of ineffective futility. Needless to say, this post is directed not to seasoned investors, but primarily to those who mistakenly assumed that Access, as “financially” defined in English language dictionaries, Cambridge, in particular (and I quote) “as a type of an account that offers instant access to your money” and not the right or opportunity to gain a means of entry to a building. Ring fenced in what way? The outstanding funds are with borrowers. Or do you mean ring fenced out of the potential grasp of administrators in some way? agree, it is not with ratesetter. administrators are not coming due to the buy out
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Sept 18, 2020 21:17:14 GMT
It was always made very clear that withdrawals from the accounts depended on available investments to take over the loans.
Access merely meant that there was no fee charged. The risk of repayments taking up to 5 years was fully discussed in this forum, and in RS small print.
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Sept 18, 2020 21:59:56 GMT
It was always made very clear that withdrawals from the accounts depended on available investments to take over the loans. Access merely meant that there was no fee charged. The risk of repayments taking up to 5 years was fully discussed in this forum, and in RS small print. exactly right
|
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Sept 19, 2020 10:02:11 GMT
gmd78I don't disagree with the gist of your post. Misnaming their product as "Access" was simply a triumph of marketing over matter. Which is what helped them attract as much investment as they did. Hopefully one good thing coming out of Covid will be that we see the back of these kind of illiquid accounts with the word Access in their names. As for keeping lenders' interests in mind, that's a bit too much to expect unfortunately. You have to realize that RS were/are in a desperate situation, hence the decision to sell out for a pittance in the midst of a global crisis for a fraction of what they were valued at just 3 years ago. As far as lenders are concerned, RS will do the bare minimum they can get away with, that's about it. If their T&Cs allowed them to charge a "fee" or divert an interest rate haircut to bolster their profits, they would do that as well. Indeed another prominent outfit that I'm invested in is doing just that using the excuse of Covid. Wait and watch, in the coming months there will be more surprises coming our way. The only thing you can be sure of is that for RS, we are at the bottom of the pile. With a fair degree of self-interest, would those of us with relatively substantial outstanding monies owing to us on Access have been better off if RS had terminated all of their lending platforms and ring-fenced the outstanding capital owing to us? I take the view that RS should have done just that, with good reason. Would ring-fencing our capital have materially have affected Metro’s offer? I suggest not, they were solely interested in RS’s expertise in unsecured lending. How would RS have managed the technicalities of ring-fencing the outstanding capital owing to us is none of my concern. Does RS owe us any favours? Do they have a duty of care? In my view, yes. But why? Simply because, notwithstanding the investment risks to our capital was always clearly stated, the sell-out to Metro with all its ramifications was not of our making, the Metro sell-out “significantly” altered the risk factor. Who benefited from the Metro deal? None other than RS. Appearance has it that our borrowers have been treated well. Have lenders without whom there would be no borrowers, been treated equally well? Self-evidently, not. For those investors who kept the faith to the bitter end, a wet finger held to the prevailing wind, is a pointless gesture of ineffective futility. Needless to say, this post is directed not to seasoned investors, but primarily to those who mistakenly assumed that Access, as “financially” defined in English language dictionaries, Cambridge, in particular (and I quote) “as a type of an account that offers instant access to your money” and not the right or opportunity to gain a means of entry to a building.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,917 
Likes: 4,144
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 19, 2020 11:00:47 GMT
very good way of putting it - granted I should have checked the smallprint and done more DD but being an idiot I thought "access" meant access!
I really don't like PR and I like FS's PR even less e.g. all this twaddle about "releasing" the APM queue -what they have done is basically frozen it and left it to run down - not saying that was the wrong decision it is the not being honest about it that annoys me.
The "Access" ,as I see it could never have been that as you can't take money in and lend out on contracts up to 5 years and then give it out when people ask unless you have
vastly more putting it in than taking it out which is not exactly the case now - totally misleading in my book
|
|
|
|
Post by shanghaiscouse on Sept 19, 2020 11:08:46 GMT
The point is being lost here. RS had three main types of lending, unsecured personal, secured property, and vehicle. It has now terminated new lending in one of these three areas and transferred all new lending to Metro. So the individual lenders now face a materially different risk profile. This is why I would argue that investors, in return for this change in risk profile brought on by the Metro deal, should be allowed to turn off all automatic reinvestment as we didn't sign up to lend solely to property and vehicle (particularly when vehicle has been a disaster with big write offs of the deal itself, and RS for the only time ever did make good individual lenders on some dud vehicle loans it acquired). The risk profile has been materially changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 19, 2020 12:19:21 GMT
Needless to say, this post is directed not to seasoned investors, but primarily to those who mistakenly assumed that Access, as “financially” defined in English language dictionaries, Cambridge, in particular (and I quote) “as a type of an account that offers instant access to your money” and not the right or opportunity to gain a means of entry to a building. It gets worse... I've just discovered that - Virgin Atlantic have in fact flown the Atlantic many times before. - Megabus coaches are no wider than other coaches. - Kentucky Fried Chicken is sometimes cooked in the UK. - The more Johnnie Walker, the less perambulation. We just can't trust the labels these days! 😁 Cost-a Coffee, though, at least they're honest. 😉
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,030
Likes: 4,431
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 19, 2020 15:07:30 GMT
Needless to say, this post is directed not to seasoned investors, but primarily to those who mistakenly assumed that Access, as “financially” defined in English language dictionaries, Cambridge, in particular (and I quote) “as a type of an account that offers instant access to your money” and not the right or opportunity to gain a means of entry to a building. It gets worse... I've just discovered that - Virgin Atlantic have in fact flown the Atlantic many times before. - Megabus coaches are no wider than other coaches. - Kentucky Fried Chicken is sometimes cooked in the UK. - The more Johnnie Walker, the less perambulation. We just can't trust the labels these days! 😁 Cost-a Coffee, though, at least they're honest. 😉 Reminds me of the Homer Simpson walking song "I love to perambulate, it's standing still I really hate"
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Sept 19, 2020 16:17:08 GMT
It was always made very clear that withdrawals from the accounts depended on available investments to take over the loans.Access merely meant that there was no fee charged. The risk of repayments taking up to 5 years was fully discussed in this forum, and in RS small print. Yet RS closed their doors to new investors thereby limiting the scope for withdrawals. Indeed, it is totally outrageous that the high priests of RS were not sacrificing virgins at the alter to ensure the Sun rose for us in the morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Sept 19, 2020 19:39:08 GMT
The point is being lost here. RS had three main types of lending, unsecured personal, secured property, and vehicle. It has now terminated new lending in one of these three areas and transferred all new lending to Metro. So the individual lenders now face a materially different risk profile. This is why I would argue that investors, in return for this change in risk profile brought on by the Metro deal, should be allowed to turn off all automatic reinvestment as we didn't sign up to lend solely to property and vehicle (particularly when vehicle has been a disaster with big write offs of the deal itself, and RS for the only time ever did make good individual lenders on some dud vehicle loans it acquired). The risk profile has been materially changed. I might be misreading this point and I'm not interested in reading the whole thread but every investor in Ratesetter has always been able to turn off automatic reinvestment, simply set your interest rate to 20%.
I'm not defending Ratesetter's recent behaviour and Metro Bank certainly doesn't make me feel my money is more likely to be returned with interest, they are just a long series of newsworthy cockups and terrible customer service.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruralres66 on Sept 19, 2020 19:47:06 GMT
".... simply set your interest rate to 20%. ..."
RS don't allow that level of interest to be set. They have a cut off limit,
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 20, 2020 6:10:12 GMT
Ok 10%.
|
|
