|
Post by MoneyThing on Jul 8, 2015 8:17:41 GMT
Hopefully this works...
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 8, 2015 8:33:05 GMT
My vote is for 6 monthly, but with the proviso that any material change in the MP (for example, if Cash Shop were unable to keep it fully "topped up" with replacement items for any reason) should be declared immediately.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Jul 8, 2015 8:34:09 GMT
My vote is for 6 monthly, but with the proviso that any material change in the MP (for example, if Cash Shop were unable to keep it fully "topped up" with replacement items for any reason) should be declared immediately. Acknowledged. Regards, Ed.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Jul 8, 2015 8:39:37 GMT
My apologies for the grammatical errors in my original post that I have just noticed. (I am unable to edit this now). Regards, Ed.
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Jul 8, 2015 8:50:09 GMT
My apologies for the grammatical errors in my original post that I have just noticed. (I am unable to edit this now). Regards, Ed. Yes, a rather targeted poll, it would have been easier to have asked Investor directly.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 8, 2015 10:13:26 GMT
At present a new schedule on the six month anniversery at the point a decision has to be made to roll-over or exit makes good sense, and has my vote.
However perhaps it might be worth giving some thought at this stage as to the implications of a future introduction of a secondary market in MPs (and remembering we are talking about a regulated industry). Is providing a schedule even 24 hours out of date going to be acceptable ? You could argue that the quality of the background info associated with secondary market loans (compared to primary market loan) is suspect on most p2p/p2b platforms, but at least for limited company borrowers the accounts are available in the public domain. Ultimately "clever IT" will probably have to be the answer such that the schedules can be generated on the fly from the backend database.
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Jul 8, 2015 10:27:55 GMT
I voted for the 6-month renewal point (i.e. at decision time), with same proviso as SteveT (material change etc). A future SM in these loans would be a gave changer, though.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 8, 2015 10:33:41 GMT
At present a new schedule on the six month anniversery at the point a decision has to be made to roll-over or exit makes good sense, and has my vote. However perhaps it might be worth giving some thought at this stage as to the implications of a future introduction of a secondary market in MPs (and remembering we are talking about a regulated industry). Is providing a schedule even 24 hours out of date going to be acceptable ? You could argue that the quality of the background info associated with secondary market loans (compared to primary market loan) is suspect on most p2p/p2b platforms, but at least for limited company borrowers the accounts are available in the public domain. Ultimately "clever IT" will probably have to be the answer such that the schedules can be generated on the fly from the backend database. One way around this would be to stop publishing item-specific breakdowns of the MPs in the first place and instead define the parameters within which the MPs are to be managed, with a commitment that any departure from / breach of these parameters will be communicated immediately. Ed already states that "The portfolio is managed by MoneyThing to ensure that the portfolio is maintained at a constant value of £20,000 lent against a minimum of 10 smaller loans with a maximum LTV of 50%". These criteria could be tightened up a little by, for example, stating that no single item will make up more than X% of the MP, all will be readily re-sellable items that are straightforward to value, etc.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Jul 8, 2015 10:38:34 GMT
Great idea SteveT, and then for any SM they would just need a 'material' change flag if appropriate, with some descriptive notes. Have to admit I am guilty of not having looked at every item in every MP , but I did at least down- load the pdf's .
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Jul 8, 2015 10:40:29 GMT
At present a new schedule on the six month anniversery at the point a decision has to be made to roll-over or exit makes good sense, and has my vote. However perhaps it might be worth giving some thought at this stage as to the implications of a future introduction of a secondary market in MPs (and remembering we are talking about a regulated industry). Is providing a schedule even 24 hours out of date going to be acceptable ? You could argue that the quality of the background info associated with secondary market loans (compared to primary market loan) is suspect on most p2p/p2b platforms, but at least for limited company borrowers the accounts are available in the public domain. Ultimately "clever IT" will probably have to be the answer such that the schedules can be generated on the fly from the backend database. One way around this would be to stop publishing item-specific breakdowns of the MPs in the first place and instead define the parameters within which the MPs are to be managed, with a commitment that any departure from / breach of these parameters will be communicated immediately. Ed already states that "The portfolio is managed by MoneyThing to ensure that the portfolio is maintained at a constant value of £20,000 lent against a minimum of 10 smaller loans with a maximum LTV of 50%". These criteria could be tightened up a little by, for example, stating that no single item will make up more than X% of the MP, all will be readily re-sellable items that are straightforward to value, etc. That sounds like a good solution. Or another way might be to restrict the SM such that MPs are not eligible, and only loans made against specific items can be bought and sold outside the initial offering/renewal times.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Jul 8, 2015 10:41:03 GMT
I voted for 6 month (at the renewal/opt out).
Updating the schedule without providing an opt-opt at that time seems to me to be of little use.
However, I assume that in the interim, portfolio item replacements are on a like for like basis as otherwise this might constitute a significant change in the terms of the contract. For example, 45%-55% LTV gold items are replaced with similar and not 40% art work.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 8, 2015 10:49:57 GMT
I voted for 6 month (at the renewal/opt out). Updating the schedule without providing an opt-opt at that time seems to me to be of little use. However, I assume that in the interim, portfolio item replacements are on a like for like basis as otherwise this might constitute a significant change in the terms of the contract. For example, 45%-55% LTV gold items are replaced with similar and not 40% art work. One of the criteria could be that only artwork that Ed likes enough to put on his office wall may be included
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Jul 8, 2015 10:57:22 GMT
I'm inclined to agree SteveT on this too.....as I only really flick through them out of morbid curiosity as to the kind of stuff people have. It's not like we can really do much to reassure ourselves about the valuations as we might with other loans. Then again maybe that's a view too dependent on everything remaining sunny - I guess if any of the items ever need to be sold and didn't make enough to cover itself then things could look very different - but given how many items tend to be in the schedule I don't think any of us could claim they'd have spotted the overoptimistic valuation!
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Jul 8, 2015 11:00:45 GMT
One way around this would be to stop publishing item-specific breakdowns of the MPs in the first place and instead define the parameters within which the MPs are to be managed, with a commitment that any departure from / breach of these parameters will be communicated immediately. Ed already states that "The portfolio is managed by MoneyThing to ensure that the portfolio is maintained at a constant value of £20,000 lent against a minimum of 10 smaller loans with a maximum LTV of 50%". These criteria could be tightened up a little by, for example, stating that no single item will make up more than X% of the MP, all will be readily re-sellable items that are straightforward to value, etc. That sounds like a good solution. Or another way might be to restrict the SM such that MPs are not eligible, and only loans made against specific items can be bought and sold outside the initial offering/renewal times. I like that idea too....after all 6months isn't exactly a long time to have to lock your money up, and so far they aren't huge amounts anyway.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Jul 8, 2015 11:33:42 GMT
One way around this would be to stop publishing item-specific breakdowns of the MPs in the first place and instead define the parameters within which the MPs are to be managed, with a commitment that any departure from / breach of these parameters will be communicated immediately. Ed already states that "The portfolio is managed by MoneyThing to ensure that the portfolio is maintained at a constant value of £20,000 lent against a minimum of 10 smaller loans with a maximum LTV of 50%". These criteria could be tightened up a little by, for example, stating that no single item will make up more than X% of the MP, all will be readily re-sellable items that are straightforward to value, etc. That sounds like a good solution. Or another way might be to restrict the SM such that MPs are not eligible, and only loans made against specific items can be bought and sold outside the initial offering/renewal times. I think this would be unnecessarily restrictive of an SM. Doing a back- of the envelope (on iPad and can't muck around with spreadsheet's ATM) I think the MP's are in excess of a quarter (by value) of all loans ever made, and I suspect the Piper was counted twice in that. It seems the way forward for the majority of items in this asset class (jewellery) is going to be MP's. I am more than happy with this approach but my main attraction to MT is that the asset class's are primarily non-property and something that's relatively straightforward value wise (art excluded for me), and I wouldn't really want to see a restricted SM unless it really was a requirement for legal reasons.
|
|