|
|
Post by overthehill on Jan 6, 2023 20:16:44 GMT
I've definitely no idea based on the gross rate of 99% of loans !
Would you invest in a property whose valuation document has the splendid paragraph below with english typos and grammar? Maybe it was a former brothel ! I didn't read any more.
"The property is held under a single freehold tile was vacant and therefore we have made our assessment as a vacant passion occupancy"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jan 6, 2023 20:28:22 GMT
I've definitely no idea based on the gross rate of 99% of loans !
Would you invest in a property whose valuation document has the splendid paragraph below with english typos and grammar? Maybe it was a former brothel ! I didn't read any more.
"The property is held under a single freehold tile was vacant and therefore we have made our assessment as a vacant passion occupancy"
You can't. See here: p2pindependentforum.com/post/464515/thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jan 6, 2023 20:34:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jan 6, 2023 20:46:16 GMT
My mistake. My posts above relate to the auto and SIPP accounts where they are blatantly quoting the misleading rates of up to 8.05%.
There is at least 1 tier 3 loan with an XIRR of 8.08%. So, you could get a return that high if you only invested in that loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jan 6, 2023 21:30:52 GMT
My mistake. My posts above relate to the auto and SIPP accounts where they are blatantly quoting the misleading rates of up to 8.05%. There is at least 1 tier 3 loan with an XIRR of 8.08%. So, you could get a return that high if you only invested in that loan.
For all accounts, it appears to be blatantly misleading projections based on outliers. I hate that sort of thing but I don't work for the FCA and I'm not stupid enough to be influenced. Counter-productive in my view as it seeds distrust.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jan 6, 2023 22:07:29 GMT
My mistake. My posts above relate to the auto and SIPP accounts where they are blatantly quoting the misleading rates of up to 8.05%. There is at least 1 tier 3 loan with an XIRR of 8.08%. So, you could get a return that high if you only invested in that loan.
For all accounts, it appears to be blatantly misleading projections based on outliers. I hate that sort of thing but I don't work for the FCA and I'm not stupid enough to be influenced. Counter-productive in my view as it seeds distrust.
Unfortunately, I was stupid enough to be conned by the new auto rates when they were first updated to the new values. I just couldn't imagine that anyone would think that it was OK to increase the stated rate on a product by over 1% without actually changing the return. I know that it's definitely fooled others too. I know many lenders that just don't have the necessary maths skills to understand the issue, and why should they? They should be able to expect that standardised rates are quoted by all platforms so they they can easily compare between them. I've raised an official complaint with Kuflink. This really is something that the FCA should regulate, just as they do with APRs and AERs for other forms of borrowing and lending; otherwise, anyone could invent a new way to measure returns to quote higher and higher rates. It's absolutely ridiculous. As I pointed out to them, if their new way of calculating the rate was legal, Loanpad could use the same method to quote that their 5% rate (from 1st feb) was a compound annualised rate of 8.26% , while the small print qualified: if invested for 20 years. It's utter nonsense and shouldn't be allowed IMO. If they really believe that the way they calculate the annualised return for the auto and SIPP products is right, why don't they use it for their quoted 8.08% on the top self-select loan? If they did, it would be 8.25%! I've got a feeling that I'm going to need to take this one to the FOS to adjudicate. I do like Kuflink, and I do invest with them, but this is bonkers.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jan 7, 2023 12:15:01 GMT
For all accounts, it appears to be blatantly misleading projections based on outliers. I hate that sort of thing but I don't work for the FCA and I'm not stupid enough to be influenced. Counter-productive in my view as it seeds distrust.
Unfortunately, I was stupid enough to be conned by the new auto rates when they were first updated to the new values. I just couldn't imagine that anyone would think that it was OK to increase the stated rate on a product by over 1% without actually changing the return. I know that it's definitely fooled others too. I know many lenders that just don't have the necessary maths skills to understand the issue, and why should they? They should be able to expect that standardised rates are quoted by all platforms so they they can easily compare between them. I've raised an official complaint with Kuflink. This really is something that the FCA should regulate, just as they do with APRs and AERs for other forms of borrowing and lending; otherwise, anyone could invent a new way to measure returns to quote higher and higher rates. It's absolutely ridiculous. As I pointed out to them, if their new way of calculating the rate was legal, Loanpad could use the same method to quote that their 5% rate (from 1st feb) was a compound annualised rate of 8.26% , while the small print qualified: if invested for 20 years. It's utter nonsense and shouldn't be allowed IMO. If they really believe that the way they calculate the annualised return for the auto and SIPP products is right, why don't they use it for their quoted 8.08% on the top self-select loan? If they did, it would be 8.25%! I've got a feeling that I'm going to need to take this one to the FOS to adjudicate. I do like Kuflink, and I do invest with them, but this is bonkers. well you're definitely not stupid but the great majority of investors are gullible or lack the time to disprove financial claims and promises.
At the other end of the spectrum of trust , I've seen no one in this forum state that they receive lower returns than Elfin Market's quoted returns (and I'm not invested at the moment)
|
|
