|
Post by tony46 on Jan 28, 2021 19:41:37 GMT
Hi Everybody As a currently rather long-suffering (like most of us) investor in LW, in my case a IFISA holder for the last 3 years or so, I haven't posted on the forum for well over a year, but have just received today 28/01/21 an emailed link to a new updated LW review on 4thWay's website: www.4thway.co.uk/candid-opinion/lending-works-review/After you've read it, I'm wondering what do members think, is it a fair summary of the current situation, ie. impartial or biased in LW's favour? Looking forward to hearing everyone's opinions.
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Jan 28, 2021 21:09:22 GMT
I think the facts speak for themselves, Ratesetter yesterday announcing they're now back to paying full interest, after paying half interest for a period (still negative with LW). Assets still paying interest, and also no longer taking a charge towards their shield (LW still taking investors money). I haven't read the 4thway review, don't really intend to, not sure what way it's biased, no review good or bad will ever change my opinion of this company, as one of the poorest performing during the Covid period, and the utter contempt towards their investors. Corporate, sugar coated BS, as a reason for helping themselves to investors capital because of their poor loan decisions is disgraceful. They have lost any respect, as a business that people will struggle to ever trust again.
|
|
|
Post by fredblogs on Jan 28, 2021 22:25:34 GMT
This is a very naive and uninformed report. It suggests that lenders are not selling their loans by choice. It doesn't mention the fact that the secondary market has been closed for the best part of a year and that everyone's money is locked in. It also has no mention of the extortionate hidden cost of selling loans when it was possible. It's clear that most investors are taking their money out as it becomes available. There is also no mention of the fact that the shield became completely drained over a year ago well before covid, due to LW's incompetence and total lack of care for lenders money. Although it does mention negative interest it doesn't state the extortionate and sudden amount of negative interest that has been applied due to bad financial management and the fact that LW's still, 3 months since applying this are refusing to explain or put a specific percentage figure on what they are taking or admit that it is a CAPITAL LOSS. The report suggests that negative interest WAS applied BRIEFLY when in fact even LW's has admitted it will be for the remaining term of the loans. There is no mention of the appalling customer service and repeated discrepancies and inaccuracies in monthly statements and their unwillingness or inability to correct this. I suggest that before these journalists review p2p platforms they could consult the lenders for their view on things and not just look at manipulated statistics conjured up by those with their own interests at heart.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Jan 29, 2021 9:50:32 GMT
Within other posts i have made about 4thWay over the years i have tended to suggest that they are more puff then hard hitting reviews (and i am certainly not happy with the way LW was performing a few months pre Covid or how they communicate what is happening now) But with this review 4thWay do address negative rates for longer term investors and do seem to be inviting feedback from unhappy people and mentions its review maybe controversial for some (understatement maybe considering they rate them as a top marked exceptional ??!!) I also wonder if the review has been tweaked since posting as a couple of the points mentioned above seemed to be addressed such as an addendum about not being able to sell so hence lender numbers have not fallen as there trapped. To me reviews such as this try to straddle opinions which can defeat the object - if the review is to hard hitting then no One clicks on the link to the product site hence no referral fee but if to positive people moan when things go wrong
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jan 29, 2021 10:48:26 GMT
Within other posts i have made about 4thWay over the years i have tended to suggest that they are more puff then hard hitting reviews (and i am certainly not happy with the way LW was performing a few months pre Covid or how they communicate what is happening now) But with this review 4thWay do address negative rates for longer term investors and do seem to be inviting feedback from unhappy people and mentions its review maybe controversial for some (understatement maybe considering they rate them as a top marked exceptional ??!!) I also wonder if the review has been tweaked since posting as a couple of the points mentioned above seemed to be addressed such as an addendum about not being able to sell so hence lender numbers have not fallen as there trapped. To me reviews such as this try to straddle opinions which can defeat the object - if the review is to hard hitting then no One clicks on the link to the product site hence no referral fee but if to positive people moan when things go wrong You're correct, the article has been modified.
|
|
|
Post by fredblogs on Jan 29, 2021 16:39:47 GMT
It appears that the article that I referred to in my previous post has indeed been modified substantially. With that in mind I retract some of the comments I made, particularly that of lenders not being included in the input of it's content. I praise the author for taking this into consideration and acting promptly on this. It's nice to know somebody is willing to listen and alter their strategy for the better good.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jan 29, 2021 17:23:46 GMT
It appears that the article that I referred to in my previous post has indeed been modified substantially. With that in mind I retract some of the comments I made, particularly that of lenders not being included in the input of it's content. I praise the author for taking this into consideration and acting promptly on this. It's nice to know somebody is willing to listen and alter their strategy for the better good. It shows they didn't do the DD they should have done initially and had to modify it, probably after reading this thread, although there was plenty of information already on the forum.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 587
|
Post by keystone on Jan 29, 2021 18:14:05 GMT
They've produced this report at least 9 months too late. If they wanted lenders input they have had plenty of time during the period of zero and then negative interest rates. They seem to have timed this at the same time as LW release, so they will probably follow up with a report in a few months saying they have raised these issues with LW and LW has listened. All self-serving interests.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 1,735
|
Post by benaj on Jan 30, 2021 12:26:33 GMT
IMHO, the author has summed it up pretty accurately. I am no expert, but it's odd the growth product receives +++ rating while the flexible receives ++.
Although some of the contents are obsolete, some updated articles are still worth reading, especially in learning how to avoid same mistake twice.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 587
|
Post by keystone on Jan 30, 2021 17:18:14 GMT
IMHO, the author has summed it up pretty accurately. I am no expert, but it's odd the growth product receives +++ rating while the flexible receives ++. Although some of the contents are obsolete, some updated articles are still worth reading, especially in learning how to avoid same mistake twice.Simple, don't use them!
|
|
|
Post by frankfurt13 on Feb 1, 2021 19:07:05 GMT
P2P is dead to me.
For years I tried to convince myself I was wrong about my nagging doubts;
1) Why would someone take out an (by comparison) expensive P2P loan instead of a bank loan if they were creditworthy and
2) Why do P2P platforms give a sh1t who they lend YOUR money to if they get paid anyway and you're the only one taking the risk?
Lesson learnt.
|
|
|
Post by shell147 on Feb 7, 2021 7:47:38 GMT
I read the original report and have to admit, it irritated me so much I replied to them. Highlighted a few of of the glaring differences between their report & our experience as investors, including many of those raised above. Basically called them out for not being able to trust any of their reviews if they could be so far off the mark on one I knew about.
Within an hour I had a response back from Faulkner, the guy who runs that site. He was actually (as best as you can tell, right) genuinely upset at the response and we chatted via email for a bit. I was clearly not the only one who did so and within a day all those various updates appeared in their report, making it a much better reflection I thought.
I think it's still less than ideal how far off the mark they were with their opening, some of this stuff (like investors not leaving because they can't, not because they don't want to!) would not have been hard to get right. My take, they're getting the happy view data from LW and not digging enough but taking it on face value. It doesn't help the site is paid for by affiliate links right.
But I was impressed the guy did listen to feedback & adapt the report as a result. Hopefully they will dig a bit more before the next one!
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Feb 7, 2021 8:51:50 GMT
I read the original report and have to admit, it irritated me so much I replied to them. Highlighted a few of of the glaring differences between their report & our experience as investors, including many of those raised above. Basically called them out for not being able to trust any of their reviews if they could be so far off the mark on one I knew about. Within an hour I had a response back from Faulkner, the guy who runs that site. He was actually (as best as you can tell, right) genuinely upset at the response and we chatted via email for a bit. I was clearly not the only one who did so and within a day all those various updates appeared in their report, making it a much better reflection I thought. I think it's still less than ideal how far off the mark they were with their opening, some of this stuff (like investors not leaving because they can't, not because they don't want to!) would not have been hard to get right. My take, they're getting the happy view data from LW and not digging enough but taking it on face value. It doesn't help the site is paid for by affiliate links right. But I was impressed the guy did listen to feedback & adapt the report as a result. Hopefully they will dig a bit more before the next one! i am guessing you were not expecting to get a result so well done on what you achieved - we can only hope that new investors if there any still out there for p2p at the moment or anyone who has just been letting their account run over the last few months without checking actually reads the review and does not stop at the rating at the top (of exceptional?)
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 7, 2021 9:46:34 GMT
I read the original report and have to admit, it irritated me so much I replied to them. Highlighted a few of of the glaring differences between their report & our experience as investors, including many of those raised above. Basically called them out for not being able to trust any of their reviews if they could be so far off the mark on one I knew about. Within an hour I had a response back from Faulkner, the guy who runs that site. He was actually (as best as you can tell, right) genuinely upset at the response and we chatted via email for a bit. I was clearly not the only one who did so and within a day all those various updates appeared in their report, making it a much better reflection I thought. I think it's still less than ideal how far off the mark they were with their opening, some of this stuff (like investors not leaving because they can't, not because they don't want to!) would not have been hard to get right. My take, they're getting the happy view data from LW and not digging enough but taking it on face value. It doesn't help the site is paid for by affiliate links right. But I was impressed the guy did listen to feedback & adapt the report as a result. Hopefully they will dig a bit more before the next one! Yes, I too felt obliged to point out the glaring errors, which lead to a similar email exchange. I completely agree with all you have said here.
|
|
|
Post by tony46 on Mar 2, 2021 17:37:20 GMT
Hi Thanks very much to those who replied to my post for your opinions on LW's performance and communication skills (or lack of) over the last year or so. As a holder of an IFISA in both LW and AC it has been a revelation to me, comparing the 2 companies to see how completely differently they have handled the Covid crisis. I know LW are much smaller than AC, but that doesn't really excuse the unprofessional mess they made of things last year. I estimate that at the present rate it will take at least 2 more years before the monthly drawdown of capital which I commenced last April, recovers 90% of my remaining investment. Whether I will get it all back eventually is an unknown, but to me at the moment it seems unlikely. I suppose at least we must be grateful that so far it hasn't joined the ranks of Lendy, etc!
|
|