ejohn
Posts: 32 
Likes: 11
|
Post by ejohn on Dec 22, 2014 11:06:03 GMT
Many members of the forum are experienced, or informed, users of p2p sites. So why don't we use our influence by encouraging sites that we believe set the standards for other sites to follow.
We could do this by nominating 'Sites of the year' under a number of categories e.g Best communication with lenders, Easiest site to use, Most innovative, Best business model.
There would be no prizes for the winners just the Kudos that their efforts are appreciated. At the other end of the scale, and I hesitate a bit here, we could have a site "turkey of the year award" for any site that needs to be shamed in to doing better.
What do you think? Who would you nominate? What other categories could there be?
|
|
|
|
Post by longjohn on Dec 22, 2014 13:53:22 GMT
We already have a p2p platform of the year. I don't know why Ratesetter are not shouting it from the rooftops though.
In the FT and Investors Chronicle 'Investment and Wealth Management Awards 2014' Ratesetter was the winner of the p2p section with Funding Circle, Wellesley and Zopa shortlisted. Ratesetter's Rhydian Lewis collected the award.
Of course, that's the official best platform. It would be good to know what people here think as I'm sure some people have accounts with several providers.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 22, 2014 20:37:08 GMT
After a year in which many of the bigger platforms have had a makeover of their web sites with a generally less than satisfactory user experience (at least initially) as a result, it is very hard to nominate any of them as P2P platform of the year. So sorry RS, I don't think you deserve the award this year. Wellesley & Co has been a success story of 2014 coming from no where to be a major player, but IMO the recent drop in rates takes them below what is sensible for the risk. Hence any award would be a false endorsement going forward. Personally I end 2014 with far more in FS and SS than I was expecting, which has been at the expense of AC. This time last year I wouldn't touch SS with a barge pole, and their initial forrays into this forum were pretty disastrous. Their simple offering is effective, but too many account errors and website glitches (including their high spam rated emails) rule them out for an award. The new FS website is reasonably user friendly and has had relatively few bugs, the deal flow has picked up, to date I've only lost a small amount accrued interest on one loan and have had no capital losses. So for me the platform of the year 2014 is fundingsecure
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 234
Likes: 42
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 23, 2014 23:27:37 GMT
I nominate FundingKnight. Fantastic lender communication, a very usable platform offering and a gradually increasing deal flow make it one to keep an eye on in the unsecured P2B space.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jan 5, 2015 18:45:36 GMT
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jan 9, 2015 20:25:13 GMT
First requirements for me are:
1. A high level and delivered commitment to proactively follow the law, notably the Consumer Credit Act. Proactively is important.
2. A commitment to accurately describe investments, only issue investments that match that description and actually follow its described underwriting policies.
3. A high level and delivered commitment to comply with relevant regulations and industry practice.
Unfortunately I don't think that the moderators here will permit us to specifically identify platforms which breach such basic tests and such discussions may have to be conducted elsewhere.
Platforms that have a history of not meeting such basic tests just wouldn't qualify to be platform of the year in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 9, 2015 21:55:14 GMT
. Unfortunately I don't think that the moderators here will permit us to specifically identify platforms which breach such basic tests and such discussions may have to be conducted elsewhere. I'm not sure why you would infer that, especially as one of the mods on this forum (not me) has been probably one of the most prolific posters when it comes to pointing out where a platform may be in breach of regulatory requirements. There is a difference between making an uncorroborated accusation, versus stating specific example of rule/behaviour/opinion of how the latter may be in breach of the former. Edit: Glaring typo correction
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 9, 2015 22:52:07 GMT
Did you mean uncorroborated? 
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jan 10, 2015 0:34:44 GMT
. Unfortunately I don't think that the moderators here will permit us to specifically identify platforms which breach such basic tests and such discussions may have to be conducted elsewhere. I'm not sure why you would infer that, especially as one of the mods on this forum (not me) has been probably one of the most prolific posters when it comes to pointing out where a platform may be in breach of regulatory requirements. There is a difference between making an corrobated accusation, versus stating specific example of rule/behaviour/opinion of how the latter may be in breach of the former. OK, lets give it a try and see what happens. Zopa fails my tests because the firm: 1. Issued initial disclosure documents which gave early settlement amounts at 3, 6 and 9 months instead of one quarter, one half and three quarters of the loan term. 2. Issued initial disclosure documents which missed a mandatory sentence. 3. Overcharged me interest on a loan. 4. Overcharged me interest in a second way on the same loan. 5. Issued an annual statement where the numbers didn't even add up correctly - initial balance minus payments was lower than the specified closing balance by more than a hundred Pounds. 6. In the didn't add up case did not notify borrowers of the problem, just silently corrected it in the online version. 7. Replacement statements have been provided that may be correct but I think that none of the original annual statements were. 8. On many occasions used or tried to use promotional material that was not acceptable to the relevant regulator, notably in substantial advertising campaigns they made or wanted to make where the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against them. Bondora fails my tests because: 1. The only borrowers it has described as being acceptable under age 25 are "young professionals" yet it has sold loans to those using automated lending to borrowers under 25 who work as fitters, tellers and shop assistants with only basic education and low incomes, not remotely close to being what young professional normally means. 2. Assorted other ways that are too unresolved at the moment to mention in this context. If a single moderator wishes to see evidence I'll be happy to provide it to that moderator. That'll generally be copies of incorrect disclosure documents and replacement or original loan annual statements. As you may gather from the mention of replacement statements Zopa is aware of the issues they have had but there are still some unresolved matters. All: it's my personal view that the moderators will be very uncomfortable with this post, notably those who have a conflict of interest and who should recuse themselves because they also act as moderators for Zopa, so don't be surprised if it ends up edited by moderators at some point. Please do give them time to discuss the issues, the conflict of interest ones could be particularly tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jan 10, 2015 8:22:29 GMT
Unfortunately I don't think that the moderators here will permit us to specifically identify platforms which breach such basic tests and such discussions may have to be conducted elsewhere. For me in general terms I don't see a problem as long as the evidence is presented and the platform is given the chance to respond. Some platforms don't actively contribute here and probably don't monitor all areas of the forum so in all cases where something is important we should follow whatever "contact us" method the platform advises they'd like us to use so they have the opportunity to respond (and hopefully resolve the issue!).
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jan 10, 2015 8:33:06 GMT
If a single moderator wishes to see evidence I'll be happy to provide it to that moderator. That'll generally be copies of incorrect disclosure documents and replacement or original loan annual statements. As you may gather from the mention of replacement statements Zopa is aware of the issues they have had but there are still some unresolved matters. From my point of view no desire to see any evidence, but I think it would be good for you to point Zopa in the direction of this thread so they have the pportunity to respond. All: it's my personal view that the moderators will be very uncomfortable with this post, notably those who have a conflict of interest and who should recuse themselves because they also act as moderators for Zopa, so don't be surprised if it ends up edited by moderators at some point. Please do give them time to discuss the issues, the conflict of interest ones could be particularly tough. Not sure if that moderator is me or the other mod here who is also a mod at Zopa?  I'm not uncomfortable with your post - you've already alerted Zopa to the issues - but as I say above it would be polite to alert Zopa to this thread so they can reply. When you say "conflict of interest ... act as moderators for Zopa" - not sure what you're implying. The Mods on the Zopa forum, like here, do it for "fun", so I don't see a conflict there. Ok, other than a meal or two, some tasty biscuits and several cups of tea paid for by Giles over the last few years.  Scan back through some of my posts on the Zopa forum and you'll see I didn't feel the need to hold back when I thought something needed saying!
|
|
|
|
Post by uncletone on Jan 10, 2015 10:28:26 GMT
I've been told by Zopa not to mention the unlimited free use of the company Lear Jet, but in the interests of openness......  |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,042
Likes: 5,157
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 10, 2015 10:59:06 GMT
I've been told by Zopa not to mention the unlimited free use of the company Lear Jet, but in the interests of openness...... How many times? This is NOT a Lear Jet. 
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,055
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 10, 2015 11:03:54 GMT
I've been told by Zopa not to mention the unlimited free use of the company Lear Jet, but in the interests of openness...... You don't need to declare free use of a photocopier
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,055
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 10, 2015 11:06:45 GMT
Getting back to the original topic;
Don't have a problem with supporting Ratesetter. It does what it says on the tin, and I quite like purple.
|
|
I'm not uncomfortable with your post - you've already alerted Zopa to the issues - but as I say above it would be polite to alert Zopa to this thread so they can reply.
Scan back through some of my posts on the Zopa forum and you'll see I didn't feel the need to hold back when I thought something needed saying!
