P**k S****t EX16 (Kuf)

I suspect any agreed variations like loan extensions aren't instances of 'default'.

There is a problem with the system of 'updates' - which is it typically posts 'no updates' until loan repayment is either imminent and thereafter (if the loans goes overdue) the notes are making excuses for a continuing delay. Each time it is 'worse' objectively than before yet those notes stay intentionally pert, uninformative and repetitive.

Also the SM. As long as loan parts have to be sold in one piece partially redeemed loans are removed whole-cloth which impacts potential sellers and buyers. I know it is basically a technical issue to be addressed and it's the way KUF is set up but it seems they have inadvertently made things worse when renegotiating (longer) borrower terms.

It worked fine until about a year ago when refinance seems to have frozen up - not surprising given the economic background. (Another 'fair-weather' P2P model?)

And the 'promotional'/marketing approach of KUF as it grows volume may be causing the overlooking of these core difficulties that with some little amount of effort could be addressed and placate customers.

(And of course one way to placate your retail customers that eg politicians know well is simply don't tell them, let them find out. Cynical but effective)

They are definitely not complying with number 6.


Ongoing disclosures
COBS 18.12.31R09/12/2019
A firm must ensure that, at any point in time, a lender is able to access details of each P2P agreement they have entered into which was facilitated by that firm, including:

(1) the price of the P2P agreement;
(2) where not provided under (1), the annual percentage rate that will be paid by the borrower in respect of that P2P agreement, where applicable to that agreement;
(3) the outstanding capital and interest payments in respect of that P2P agreement;
(4) when the P2P agreement is due to mature;
(5) any fees paid in respect of that P2P agreement by the lender or the borrower;
(6) if the firm has carried out a valuation of the P2P agreement:
(a) the most recent valuation;
(b) the valuation date; and
(c) an explanation of why the firm conducted the valuation;
(7) a fair description of the likely actual return, taking into account fees, default rates and taxation;
(8) where the firm determines the price of P2P agreements, details of the credit risk assessment, credit-worthiness assessment or assessment of affordability carried out under MCOB;
(9) whether the P2P agreement is backed by an asset (for example, secured against property developments) and if so, details of that asset;
(10) where the firm:
(a) determines the price of P2P agreements;
(b) selects which P2P agreements to facilitate for a lender; or
(c) offers a target rate,
the risk categorisation of that P2P agreement and an explanation of that risk categorisation, by reference to the risk categories set out in the risk management framework;

(11) whether the firm considers that the borrower is unlikely to pay its obligations under the P2P agreement in full without the firm enforcing any relevant security interest or taking other steps with analogous effect and, if so, information to that effect; and
(12) whether a default by the borrower under a P2P agreement has occurred and, if so, information to that effect.

But they win even when they lose - your money remains 'invested' pro-tem (i.e. to term and beyond) It would still take several years from that point on to realise your total investment. As retail customers (aka 'savers' aka 'dumb money') we're in the wrong game

But in other 'Investor News': 

"PLATFORM 'almost' READY TO REPAY FIRST LOAN ON TIME:"
"We were shocked too" said one self-appointed critic. (We'll see... we'll see)

Why aren't they able to produce the reports? They are obliged to keep lenders informed about any relevant information they have on our investments. Especially so when there is an SM. Otherwise there could be an asymmetry of knowledge between those trading.