spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 908
Likes: 455
|
Post by spiral on May 30, 2014 9:26:53 GMT
My concern is that I don't know who I have lent my money to. If Wellesley say one day 'Bad news, your particular loan went bad and the asset was sold below the loan amount and the provision fund will not cover it so you have lost money, very bad luck as all our other loans are doing well' I would just have to trust them. This issue might be addressed when the new system of dynamically reassigning loans is launched, if I understand it correctly. Will the new system cover existing loans? And this is exactly what is stopping me from adding more funds at present. When I first invested, I understood that the money went out to one loan (probably) but didn't realise that I couldn't see who that was. Until that is fixed (which I was assured on another thread would be one of the outcomes of the new change) I won't be adding further funds.
|
|
|
Post by westcountryfunder on May 30, 2014 12:11:34 GMT
My concern is that I don't know who I have lent my money to. If Wellesley say one day 'Bad news, your particular loan went bad and the asset was sold below the loan amount and the provision fund will not cover it so you have lost money, very bad luck as all our other loans are doing well' I would just have to trust them. This issue might be addressed when the new system of dynamically reassigning loans is launched, if I understand it correctly. Will the new system cover existing loans? And this is exactly what is stopping me from adding more funds at present. When I first invested, I understood that the money went out to one loan (probably) but didn't realise that I couldn't see who that was. Until that is fixed (which I was assured on another thread would be one of the outcomes of the new change) I won't be adding further funds. I am not sure that I really understand why you are so concerned about this. I suppose it depends just to what extent you like to be "hands-on" in managing you loan book. Personally, I like the idea of dynamically reassigned loans because, unless I have misunderstood something, this spreads the risk. I think the question of existing loans has been covered somewhere; see Wellesley's posting dated 10/03/14 on the Business Model topic. Comparison of different platforms is not always helpful, but if you lend on RateSetter you don't know who the borrower is. I cannot say that has ever bothered me.
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on May 30, 2014 13:45:02 GMT
And this is exactly what is stopping me from adding more funds at present. When I first invested, I understood that the money went out to one loan (probably) but didn't realise that I couldn't see who that was. Until that is fixed (which I was assured on another thread would be one of the outcomes of the new change) I won't be adding further funds. I am not sure that I really understand why you are so concerned about this. I suppose it depends just to what extent you like to be "hands-on" in managing you loan book. Personally, I like the idea of dynamically reassigned loans because, unless I have misunderstood something, this spreads the risk. I think the question of existing loans has been covered somewhere; see Wellesley's posting dated 10/03/14 on the Business Model topic. Comparison of different platforms is not always helpful, but if you lend on RateSetter you don't know who the borrower is. I cannot say that has ever bothered me. I agree with you westcountryfunder I have never understood the calls for disclosure of the borrowers/loans, as Wellesley's model does not allow the choosing of the loans in the first place, and the dynamic reassignment system will mean that the loans will potentially chop and change each week. If you did know what are you going to do about it, sell off your investment because you don't like one of the loans you have been and thus potentially earn the 1 month rather than 5 year rate that you invested in?
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on May 30, 2014 14:32:19 GMT
Whilst I agree that caveat emptor is a sound principle and a healthy measure of cynicism a necessary requirement for an investor, I feel that the risks associated with Wellesley are much lower than on most P2P platforms.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on May 30, 2014 15:04:08 GMT
Whilst I agree that caveat emptor is a sound principle and a healthy measure of cynicism a necessary requirement for an investor, I feel that the risks associated with Wellesley are much lower than on most P2P platforms. Well! I'll go to the foot of our stairs! A +1 for Wellesley from YM
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on May 30, 2014 16:02:39 GMT
Whilst I agree that caveat emptor is a sound principle and a healthy measure of cynicism a necessary requirement for an investor, I feel that the risks associated with Wellesley are much lower than on most P2P platforms. Well! I'll go to the foot of our stairs! A +1 for Wellesley from YM I wouldn’t go quite that far, besides being extremely careful with my hard earned brass, I’m very cynical where financial outfits are concerned.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on May 30, 2014 19:30:48 GMT
The recent posts have missed the point. We don't actually care who we have lent to if they repay. But if Wellesley tell us that our loan has gone bad we have no way of checking it it is true. Wellesley certainly sound OK (and they have a lot of my money) but in every financial scandal (Connaught most recently - see badger's post on p8) the investors were living in a fool's paradise thinking that their money was reasonably safe. It is in Wellesley's interest, as a new player, to do every thing they can to engender confidence in lenders.
|
|
|
Post by uncletone on May 30, 2014 21:26:53 GMT
Well! I'll go to the foot of our stairs! A +1 for Wellesley from YM I wouldn’t go quite that far, besides being extremely careful with my hard earned brass, I’m very cynical where financial outfits are concerned. I try to tell myself that I am the same, but my investment in Wellesley has just exceeded the money I've put into three other platforms.
|
|
spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 908
Likes: 455
|
Post by spiral on May 31, 2014 8:56:21 GMT
I’m very cynical where financial outfits are concerned. I'd go so far as to say anyone who is after my money including shop so called discounts, utility companies to name but a couple. You have to be on your toes.
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on May 31, 2014 14:37:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on May 31, 2014 14:38:25 GMT
I’m very cynical where financial outfits are concerned. I'd go so far as to say anyone who is after my money including shop so called discounts, utility companies to name but a couple. You have to be on your toes. I agree 100%!!
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Jun 3, 2014 11:29:55 GMT
The recent posts have missed the point. We don't actually care who we have lent to if they repay. But if Wellesley tell us that our loan has gone bad we have no way of checking it it is true. Wellesley certainly sound OK (and they have a lot of my money) but in every financial scandal (Connaught most recently - see badger's post on p8) the investors were living in a fool's paradise thinking that their money was reasonably safe. It is in Wellesley's interest, as a new player, to do every thing they can to engender confidence in lenders. That's not all the point. I asked the other day, and I was told again yes my money was in fact loaned out, but they couldn't easily tell me to whom. If Wellesley go bust (heaven forbid) if there is no clear record of who owes me then I fear my chances of recovery would be small. At present it's more p2nobodyknowsexactly. They do indeed promise the new wizzo dynamic reallocation system will resolve this, but it's somewhat overdue in seeing the light of day.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Jun 3, 2014 13:12:01 GMT
The recent posts have missed the point. We don't actually care who we have lent to if they repay. But if Wellesley tell us that our loan has gone bad we have no way of checking it it is true. Wellesley certainly sound OK (and they have a lot of my money) but in every financial scandal (Connaught most recently - see badger's post on p8) the investors were living in a fool's paradise thinking that their money was reasonably safe. It is in Wellesley's interest, as a new player, to do every thing they can to engender confidence in lenders. That's not all the point. I asked the other day, and I was told again yes my money was in fact loaned out, but they couldn't easily tell me to whom. If Wellesley go bust (heaven forbid) if there is no clear record of who owes me then I fear my chances of recovery would be small. At present it's more p2nobodyknowsexactly. They do indeed promise the new wizzo dynamic reallocation system will resolve this, but it's somewhat overdue in seeing the light of day. I had never thought of that. While I never planned to commit too much to Wellesley you are correct to be considering the business failure risk.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 4, 2014 19:46:11 GMT
Having dipped my big toe rather than my prior wetting of little toe only into W&C, I have to admit it is slightly disconcerting to see that only 20% of my money is 'on loan'. When coupled with announcement of rate drops would suggest that they are currently sloshing with lender money, or have a shortage of new deals on board, or have a business model which is heavily dependent on lumpy large deals rather than steady stream of small deals.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 4, 2014 20:48:15 GMT
Having dipped my big toe rather than my prior wetting of little toe only into W&C, I have to admit it is slightly disconcerting to see that only 20% of my money is 'on loan'. When coupled with announcement of rate drops would suggest that they are currently sloshing with lender money, or have a shortage of new deals on board, or have a business model which is heavily dependent on lumpy large deals rather than steady stream of small deals. My suspicion is that it is "large lumpy deals"; their stats page is currently showing c. £11.5m awaiting drawdown over the next 2 weeks, and nearly £24m over the next month. The rate drop is clearly designed to slow the inflow of funds - I don't envy the fine balance that W&C have to achieve between maintaining an adequate inflow of funds and not creating an excessive overhang when loans mature given their committment to pay interest on a daily basis whether the funds are on risk or not.
|
|