TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624 
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 17, 2014 14:56:37 GMT
I am relatively new to FC.
My impression after a few months of trial is that this may be a book case of great idea, disgraceful execution. A disease that plagues start ups. I am eager to see the end of the line. It reminds me of a case back in the dot com bubble. A fintech start up got acquired by a large Spanish bank for half a billion dollars. It went bust a number of months after because the management team were unable even to open foreign bank accounts.
|
|
sl125
Member of DD Central
Posts: 85
Likes: 64
|
Post by sl125 on Dec 17, 2014 15:46:01 GMT
An interesting viewpoint. Care to expand with specific examples of why you think it is a "disgraceful execution"?
I'm all for freedom to express an opinion, but to hide behind anonymity and come up with such harsh statements on a public forum, without any form of evidence....? hmmm
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 17, 2014 16:48:19 GMT
This forum is an extensive collection of examples that support the idea of a disgraceful execution.
FC is a pure online play (i.e. all transactions go through their website). The fact that such website is frequently collapsed, lacks functionality, is patchy and, more importantly, its improvement does not seem to be in their list of urgencies, is not reassuring.
There are other not trivial issues like "trapped bids", "double sales", rounding errors, delays in updating all types of transactions, live updates, browser overload, etc. that go unattended for the time being.
An online venture should excel in its online delivery. There are no excuses. As examples see eBay, Amazon, Priceline, etrade, even Alibaba.
On a side note, let's park the anonymity claim (because it sounds like a cliche). This is how online opinion forums have worked at least for the last two decades. Let's not get our knickers in a twist.
|
|
wysiati
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 86
|
Post by wysiati on Dec 17, 2014 17:23:20 GMT
More than 4 years on from the start of operations I am not sure I would now classify FC as a start-up, so I don't see why it should be accepted as an excuse (one they continue to voice). That said, you go on to selectively list far more established multi-billion dollar enterprises as your peer group for comparison. The comparison with some other P2P operations is arguably more relevant but is also unflattering in some respects.
I think that many will agree that the quality of (online) execution falls below what one would normally expect of a financial services provider but nor do I think that this point is completely lost on the principals, and I think that this is receiving a higher priority than it perhaps once did.
Unfortunately, progress can be lumpy. Previous bad experiences of being used as a live guinea pig by platforms also make me slightly more reluctant to unthinkingly criticise the platform if it is using the time productively to ensure it gets things right first time, which I hope is the case here. If not, attempting to handle the next legs of growth could prove harmful, not least to the platform's trusted provider status.
Ultimately, many users will choose to put up with the state of things if the opportunity set outweighs these other factors. Money talks.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Dec 17, 2014 17:42:09 GMT
I assume it is down to cost. The FC bidding model is far more complex than that adopted by other platforms so might be expected to have some issues on first release. The fact that the platform has been so dreadful is symptomatic of the large increase in demand and, I suspect, an unwillingness or inability to spend the required sums on creating something that works. In addition, the implementation of seriously defective code changes, points to a defective quality process.
In recent days it seems that panic measures have restored the basic functionality, but as wiser souls have suggested here, the coding standards would barely scrape a fail at GCSE computing. There is mounting evidence that the code builders do not know what they are doing.
I was rather amused by references to four year old 'legacy' code, since until my recent retirement I was supporting business critical Cobol routines written in 1969.
|
|
|
|
Post by p2perrr on Dec 17, 2014 20:28:13 GMT
Aaaah - Cobol  |
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Dec 17, 2014 20:52:22 GMT
COBOL ... Ghastly stuff, but if it was designed, coded, tested etc. Right it will run forever. Fortran too. Even with GOTOs!. FC's 4 year old legacy code obviously came out of some other jar .. What's scary is that maybe the same team are still on the job?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldservice on Dec 17, 2014 21:05:36 GMT
An online venture should excel in its online delivery. There are no excuses. As examples see eBay, Amazon, Priceline, etrade, even Alibaba. eBay may not be a good example as it was a mess imho from inception up to about a year ago - cumbersome to sell individual items, tedious to make changes, unpredictable item description box editing etc. I sometimes find myself hoping that Fuzzy Coders will not improve the experience too much: I want new users to continue to be deterred. Scattered among the awkward to use screens are the data and features that can be worked to produce a good return.
|
|
|
|
Post by longjohn on Dec 17, 2014 22:43:05 GMT
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 17, 2014 23:24:33 GMT
I am relatively new to FC. My impression after a few months of trial is that this may be a book case of great idea, disgraceful execution. A disease that plagues start ups. I am eager to see the end of the line. It reminds me of a case back in the dot com bubble. A fintech start up got acquired by a large Spanish bank for half a billion dollars. It went bust a number of months after because the management team were unable even to open foreign bank accounts. I believe your impression is misinformed. Partly because a forum such as this inevitably gets filled with the most highly engaged people complaining about problems they have encountered, whether it be on the website of the handling of loans, problems which the majority of FC lenders will rarely see. And you never get the views of the borrowers, who we must assume are happy. And those who do point out problems are usually just wishing to contribute to improvement, usually at the detailed level. As for failing due to management inability, that is a serious misjudgement. I regard FC as the market leader, certainly in creative thinking, in p2p business loans. It was a start up, four years ago, but is no longer, and it was a start up in a new financial sector, and chose to lead the development of that sector, or at least to a considerable extent, to work to influence and create the regulatory regime, and then to adapt its operations to the developing market and regulatory regime - next stop ISAs. There are quality issues with its IT systems and its accuracy of listings, which you would not expect to see in a mature business in a mature and stable market (but then consider Nat West and NATS). It would be easier to decide on your offering at the beginning, design your systems, and then stick with that offering and hope that you have picked the right model and will survive. FC, on the other hand has taken the path of, effectively, continuous development of its offering, combined with leadership in developing the market and the regime, which in my view will result in continued growth. At the same time, change and growth always puts strain on operations, particularly on IT systems where the costs of development and maintenance are bespoke to one operator and cannot be spread. It is no good throwing money at those things and then finding that you cannot scale up the business and keep those overheads within the small margins of p2p operation. There is a tight financial discipline evident, and the venture capitalists will be watching the scalability like hawks to maximise the value of the company when it goes to IPO. I have no investment in FC but most of my savings are lent through it. If I doubted its ability to stay the course and provide good returns I would have been out long ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Dec 18, 2014 9:13:37 GMT
It's not as bad as might appear from reading here. It's not as good as FC would like to pretend. My main complaint is that it is spin-doctor heavy, and rarely tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and is not very open/responsive to issues which are raised. The rounding error issue, for instance, is fairly minor and irksome rather than critical (yes, I am still easily irked) but FC failing to acknowledge, comment, or have any visible position on it, indicates, to me, a lack of caring. They have lots of effective communication methods, but what they choose to communicate is too often pap.
Then there's what they did to the old indie forum .. Not exactly customer caring again (where did OUR posts go!), and their unwillingness to engage on this one ('we can do better'? But they can't can they).
Arrogance and hubris, perchance? See also 'zopa'. Or maybe they are right and really don't need retail / picky lenders.
|
|
rogerbu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 213
|
Post by rogerbu on Dec 18, 2014 9:45:15 GMT
Is Funding Circles IT perfect. Of course not. BUT. It is way better than some of the other P2P sites, and much better than many other larger players in the broarder financial sector - I recently spent over 3 hours and 6 attempts to register an ISA with IWeb.
From my correspondence with FC, they seem to be open to constructive criticisms from us users
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 18, 2014 12:59:17 GMT
Good insights provided. The consensus seems to be that the website is suboptimal at least but there are many other positives. I would change the title of the thread to Great idea. Poor execution in some aspects, mostly technology and communication. Wordy but more accurate. One last observation: Whatever attractive P2P may appear to be, better not put all eggs in one basket. Within the traditional classification of Cash - Bonds - Equities, P2P does not fit in the Bond category and is definitely not Cash (i.e. Savings accounts, money market). Just a word of caution. And yes, Tito Puente rocks. |
|
unmadem
Member of DD Central
Posts: 377
Likes: 181
|
Post by unmadem on Dec 18, 2014 17:40:48 GMT
Good insights provided. The consensus seems to be that the website is suboptimal at least but there are many other positives. I would change the title of the thread to Great idea. Poor execution in some aspects, mostly technology and communication. Wordy but more accurate. One last observation: Whatever attractive P2P may appear to be, better not put all eggs in one basket. Within the traditional classification of Cash - Bonds - Equities, P2P does not fit in the Bond category and is definitely not Cash (i.e. Savings accounts, money market). Just a word of caution. And yes, Tito Puente rocks. and even with the bit you put into p2p, don't put it all in one platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 18, 2014 18:18:34 GMT
and even with the bit you put into p2p, don't put it all in one platform. This is a view I don't necessarily agree with. I personally have got spread across a number of platforms, although limited diversification, but I'm not sure I agree with the logic that platform diversification is necessary from the point of risk. Its a very very different kettle of fish from diversifying your loan book. To me it rather depends on whether you are viewing your p2p as a relatively liquid asset which you want to be able to get access to should you want the cash. If you do, then I agree platform diversification is sensible since it reduces your exposure to any single platform should you find you are locked into loans until end of term because the platform has gone belly up and there is no secondary market. But if its in order to reduce the risk of losses as a consequence of any one platform going under, then I don't really buy it. 'Cos there are simply not enough good platforms out there to be able to reduce that potential loss to an acceptable %age of your p2p which would make the game still worth playing. Plus I have a feeling that should one of the significant p2p platforms fail in a bad way, one might well find that the secondary market on other platforms might very quickly lack for buyers.
|
|
