AC with their noses in the trough

I spotted this about 6 months ago and it was an eye opener for me. It's not just the fact they pay themselves first, it's the amount they charge as soon as a loan hits some turbulence. The normal monthly monitoring charge is already high as far as I'm concerned when you compare it with PL and others. There is no alignment with lenders' interests if you think it through.

The problem with AC although my thoughts are not just confined to them is the gradual erosion of trust. Whilst I'm out of AC reading the posts there is increasing disenchantment with the way the platform operates and it has gone from a company that embraced transparency to one which is becoming more opaque as each day passes.

When I first got involved with P2P many moons ago, the lender was very high on the priority list of the platforms. But as those platforms grew the lender was nothing more than an inconvenient necessity. Then many platforms attracted institutional funding and I'm not that stupid to believe they received the same treatment as us 'ordinary folk'. One platform I remember got an institutional investment boost and the loan opportunities for retail lenders dried up for more than a couple of months - not even a few crumbs were offered. When loans returned to some sort of normality there was anything but cream on offer - the loans were ultra high risk in my book and even at 12% were nothing more than gambling. This point was mentioned a few years ago by MRC who had carried out some extensive background research on the individuals running the platforms. As an aside, I do hope MRC is okay as it's been a while since he posted on the forum.

Back to AC and when they can be bothered to respond to any form of constructive criticism it is often in a puke inducing patronising fashion. Nonetheless, when a loan goes belly up, it's always the lenders that take the pain with AC taking monthly monitoring fees plus more so there is every incentive for them to extend the suffering for as long as possible - just a personal observation.

New P2P platforms offer the earth, moon and stars to attract lenders and yes, in the early days they are very active in their communications. But given time, provided they survive, they too go into hibernation mode plus a quick check at Companies House and their string of other directorships makes one wonder just how serious they are. Or are they just chancers to see if their latest and greatest platform will achieve take off.

There exists several serious problems with many P2P platforms ranging from a lack of disclosure, expecting lenders to do their own DD, changing the T's and C's and backdating them usually for their own financial benefit, continual can kicking decisions, platforms with a direct but usually indirect association with the borrower - in fact the list is endless. Please don't ask me to name those associaions as a public forum is not the place to disclose them but the list is undesirable to say the least.

The current state of P2P platforms in administration proves that the run-off plans approved by the FCA were nothing more than a sham. Administrators in my view will always look after themselves first so again, lenders are treated with utter contempt.

Calling the market - I have no idea any more whether P2P is worth the time and effort required. It used to be good but those days seem to have ebbed away back in the 2017's. S&S has a lot going for it over the longer term but knowing when to cash out at the top of the market is anyone's guess at the moment. So sometimes I think my hard earned cash is better simply under the mattress even though it's true worth is being eaten away by inflation.

Just my ramblings.   

Edit - it's a funny old world that the FCA have just come out the the statement - “We [the FCA] have been very clear that P2P loans are a higher risk form of investment, rather than, say, a savings product.” So after being 'overall charge' and supposedly being responsible for protecting consumers, they have just managed to decide this whilst in the meantime allowing platforms to blazon their FCA authorisation at every available opportunity.  

This is not a one-off (in fact two of the current votes have similar terms) and truly demonstrates AC with their "nose in the trough".

Hopefully for lenders it will prevent the platform going bust - we know how bad that is but will the charges mean some borrowers do not survive, thus affecting lenders adversely whilst AC are sitting pretty.

As an investor,I should be content with AC "over-charging(?) borrowers but it does not feel right.