shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563 
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 25, 2016 11:20:43 GMT
.. I dislike AC's business model but they have all the wind farms so will probably withdraw but only in the next 3 years .. Can I suggest in a friendly fashion that this is a load of hot air. FK and TC also have wind farms and Abundance of course and not here but Ethex
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 11:25:01 GMT
No worries, they are not any of my portals nor those that the originator of this post mentioned. Still, food for thought, thanks.  |
|
homes119
Member of DD Central
Posts: 93
Likes: 19
|
Post by homes119 on Mar 25, 2016 11:41:23 GMT
my concern with SS is that in the new contracts they don't have any skin in the game. Hello bobo, have you seen the new contracts by any chance? We haven't got access via platform and I've emailed SS in this regard. I received an initial response but nothing on my follow-up email and no contracts provided.
The T&Cs states that we have a contract directly with borrower and I would like to know which contracts i'm signing up for. I only have a small investment with SS at the moment and I'll be surprised if investors were putting 10s of thousands of pounds at stake without even seeing the contracts they have with the borrower.
My concern with SS is that we don't have access to the contracts. Skin in the game is good but they have a reputation to maintain so that part doesn't worry me as much. I prerfer to have confirmation of the terms between me and the borrower, if they exist that is 
Also, if the borrowers are named in the contract, that would seriously enhance due diligence post investment. We could even have a SS members only thread as for discussing this as in the AC thread. After all, if i'm lending thousands at a time to someone, my view is that I should at least know who that is.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Mar 25, 2016 12:13:01 GMT
I have sold all my loans from MT. It just feels like a company made of 2 guys in a shed, and I don't think it would survive any small crisis (financial, operational or IT related). My view is that offloading some of the work onto its partners allows MT to run leaner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 14:17:28 GMT
there is a SS only thread... scan down the list  maybe you mean a restricted one, not sure if that helps as the Pink Sheet for AC adds little value apart from protecting the mods (which is vital of course) and satisfies the needs of the Portal. |
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Mar 26, 2016 7:08:58 GMT
If you do your own research into each loan and only invest in the loans you fell are solid it does not really matter to much about the platform (except for fraud), if the platform goes under the asset and loan is still there. I think this is true in principle but in practice at best you'd be stuck with holding loans till they pay off - at worst it'd trigger non payments from debtors. One FK loan went down - albeit due to fraud - and when push came to shove the police took the view that while the borrower had lied to the platform, as the loans were with the lenders, not the platform, FK could not 'take on' the fight - lenders had to. We were encouraged to report our micro-losses to Actionfraud and unsurprisingly nothing happened - would have been too complex. I think the same thing could happen with a platform collapse - debtors may decide not to pay up deciding that nobody is going to be in position to reclaim debt. It is impractical for hundreds of microdebtors to enforce a debt, the costs would overwhelm the benefits. So I think investors really must factor in platform risk when they plough money into 12% platforms, and not dismiss dullards like Ratesetter and FC Jack P
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Mar 26, 2016 7:28:19 GMT
my concern with SS is that in the new contracts they don't have any skin in the game. Hello bobo, have you seen the new contracts by any chance? We haven't got access via platform and I've emailed SS in this regard. I received an initial response but nothing on my follow-up email and no contracts provided. Back in 2007 and 2008 Zopa was refusing to provide details like contracts and related declarations to all but a few selected lenders. One reason for me taking out a loan before a planned £30k investment there was to see what they were providing to borrowers. What I found was that they were breaking the law and several months after I'd provided them chapter and verse complete with quotes from the OFT's guidance on the mandatory items they still hadn't responded saying that they had corrected the issues. To do the lending I wanted I'd have been required to sign an application for a consumer credit license and I couldn't do that because I would have perjured myself by saying that I would comply with the CCA requirements when I knew that Zopa wasn't complying. So after those months I gave up on them, removed my money and proceeded to make out really well with stock market investments instead. The two issues involved back then should have been quite easy to fix quickly and have undoubtedly now been fixed long ago: 1. A sentence of text required by law was missing. 2. The law requires providing early settlement costs 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 way through the loan and they were instead providing them as if the loan had a one year term, so they were breaking the law for all loans not lasting a year. Unless you can see reliable samples of contracts, pre-contract disclosures and such I suggest that you use caution about investing in a platform. They may be refusing because they do have something they don't want you to know or just because they aren't confident that they are complying with the law.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Mar 26, 2016 7:54:58 GMT
One FK loan went down - albeit due to fraud - and when push came to shove the police took the view that while the borrower had lied to the platform, as the loans were with the lenders, not the platform, FK could not 'take on' the fight - lenders had to. We were encouraged to report our micro-losses to Actionfraud and unsurprisingly nothing happened - would have been too complex. That surprises me. If it still holds, and is standard practice across the country, I'd think it would have to change to allow the industry to mature.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Mar 27, 2016 6:54:07 GMT
One FK loan went down - albeit due to fraud - and when push came to shove the police took the view that while the borrower had lied to the platform, as the loans were with the lenders, not the platform, FK could not 'take on' the fight - lenders had to. We were encouraged to report our micro-losses to Actionfraud and unsurprisingly nothing happened - would have been too complex. That surprises me. If it still holds, and is standard practice across the country, I'd think it would have to change to allow the industry to mature. It's W****m's P***s thread on Funding Knight board www.p2pindependentforum.com/thread/2970/Very clearly a tryable case for fraud but platform's hands were tied as we held the debt Jack P
|
|
bob76
Posts: 103
Likes: 22
|
Post by bob76 on Mar 27, 2016 16:04:25 GMT
it does not really matter to much about the platform (except for fraud), if the platform goes under the asset and loan is still there. How will you prove which loan parts you own? I am assuming you have proper formal paperwork? How do you think the loans will continue to be repaid and administered, if a platform goes under. Even if another platform takes all the loans on board, they will need to get their fees etc. So yes, platform stability does matter...
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 28, 2016 17:31:06 GMT
One FK loan went down - albeit due to fraud - and when push came to shove the police took the view that while the borrower had lied to the platform, as the loans were with the lenders, not the platform, FK could not 'take on' the fight - lenders had to. We were encouraged to report our micro-losses to Actionfraud and unsurprisingly nothing happened - would have been too complex. That surprises me. If it still holds, and is standard practice across the country, I'd think it would have to change to allow the industry to mature. Rebs formally call the shots on any loan with problems (though a lender has a right to opt out and go solo) Would that satisfy the cops does anyone know?
|
|
