bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 12, 2015 12:14:44 GMT
My point exactly. There's often a great deal of emphasis placed on doing a few background checks on the potential borrower(s) on a platform without first carrying out those background checks on the platform itself. I know of a couple of platforms that I've looked at closely and the FCA must be asleep on the job to grant even an interim permission. But then they, the FCA, do collect fees so I suppose they have to live somehow or is that me just being cynical.  I think that this is one of the main arguments against regulating something like P2P lending at this stage. People assume some sort of credibility that isn't justified. But if they made the regulation more substantial it would become expensive and would probably stifle innovation. It doesn't have to stifle innovation. The old FSA used to have a 'fit and proper' person rule although just about every Tom, Dick and Harry managed to pass that 'test'. What they need to carry out are more intensive background checks on the individuals behind the applicant companies before approval is granted - something that seemed to be lacking with the old FSA. Agreed it's still no guarantee but it's far superior than what appears to be happening ATM IMO. It's the FCA that needs to gain a good reputation rather than always being seen to be asleep on the job. Once they gain that then it automatically applies to member companies. PS- apologies to anyone with the Tom, Dick or Harry name.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 13, 2015 4:20:27 GMT
I see several posts here about potential for fraud, FCA regulation meaning not much in reality, and lack of real tangible evidences/proof of what lenders really own. Sounds like P2P lending is going to cost money to a few people then, until it matures! While there is potential for fraud, I'm not sure it follows that there necessarily will be fraud. We have to trust the platforms in order to participate. If the platforms deserve that trust, then fraud won't be an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by lynnanthony on Feb 13, 2015 6:19:43 GMT
I see several posts here about potential for fraud, FCA regulation meaning not much in reality, and lack of real tangible evidences/proof of what lenders really own. Sounds like P2P lending is going to cost money to a few people then, until it matures! While there is potential for fraud, I'm not sure it follows that there necessarily will be fraud. We have to trust the platforms in order to participate. If the platforms deserve that trust, then fraud won't be an issue.
Disagree. If there is potential for fraud, sooner or later there will be fraud. We have to trust the platforms in order to participate.Well yes. Don't participate on a platform you don't trust. Obviously. But the act of trusting will not in itself remove the possibility of fraud. If the platforms deserve that trust, then fraud won't be an issue.I believe that is called a circular argument! "If the platform isn't fraudulent then it won't be fraudulent."
|
|
