|
|
Post by jakebullet on Dec 24, 2015 14:47:26 GMT
I've not had any 1% premium fail to sell so far. (touch wood!). It really would be nice if we got 0.5% increments.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059 
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Dec 24, 2015 16:49:40 GMT
I just wanted to add another perspective. I'm not an investor in FS but I was looking for a new P2P site to invest in. After having read this entire thread, I can safely say that my money will be going elsewhere. The implementation of the SM and the tax issues are crazy. I like to think of myself as a relatively sophisticated investor but unless I'd read this thread, I probably would have been caught out by these subtle traps. FS, I suggest you rethink your SM before the complaints start rolling in (they will) and before you put off any more potential investors.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Dec 24, 2015 17:08:19 GMT
FS are putting themselves in a vulnerable position in my opinion, and I can't understand why they are stubbornly holding out against rethinking this policy. I sell a loan part after nearly five months (at any or no markup).
The buyer pays me for the loan part plus my accrued interest. So far so good. I'm alright, Jack.
The buyer then holds to maturity, and he receives his principal money back, plus six month's interest, but only one month's interest is his because he has given me the other five.
The buyer is then liable for tax on six months interest, while only actually keeping one. AND FUNDING SECURE HAVEN'T FLAGGED THIS UP PROMINENTLY SO THE BUYER KNOWS AND CAN CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THIS TAX LIABILITY POSITION. It is this last omission which I believe will lead to FS being "done" for (allowing) mis-selling at some time in the future. How many times does this scenario need to be repeated? Happy Christmas everyone  PS I have only sold a couple of loan parts early on as a test when the system started. |
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 24, 2015 18:29:27 GMT
Conclusion - there are no circumstances where I'll buy a part at par (or a premium). So my only SM activities are going to be sales, though I could be sorely tempted if parts are offered at a discount. Has anyone spotted any discounted part on the SM? I have resisted temptation! There's a £25 part of Golders Green available at 1% discount right now. I don't know how long it's been available, but I don't expect it to last very long. Then again, it's Christmas Eve and there are other things to do.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Dec 24, 2015 19:13:36 GMT
FS are putting themselves in a vulnerable position in my opinion, and I can't understand why they are stubbornly holding out against rethinking this policy. I sell a loan part after nearly five months (at any or no markup).
The buyer pays me for the loan part plus my accrued interest. So far so good. I'm alright, Jack.
The buyer then holds to maturity, and he receives his principal money back, plus six month's interest, but only one month's interest is his because he has given me the other five.
The buyer is then liable for tax on six months interest, while only actually keeping one. AND FUNDING SECURE HAVEN'T FLAGGED THIS UP PROMINENTLY SO THE BUYER KNOWS AND CAN CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THIS TAX LIABILITY POSITION. It is this last omission which I believe will lead to FS being "done" for (allowing) mis-selling at some time in the future. How many times does this scenario need to be repeated? Happy Christmas everyone PS I have only sold a couple of loan parts early on as a test when the system started. or worse in your example they buy the loan of you pay you the interest then the next day the loan gets paid back so they have to pay tax on all the interest and get no interest themselves so end up costing them
|
|
|
|
Post by gaspilot on Dec 28, 2015 20:26:55 GMT
FS are putting themselves in a vulnerable position in my opinion, and I can't understand why they are stubbornly holding out against rethinking this policy. I sell a loan part after nearly five months (at any or no markup).
The buyer pays me for the loan part plus my accrued interest. So far so good. I'm alright, Jack.
The buyer then holds to maturity, and he receives his principal money back, plus six month's interest, but only one month's interest is his because he has given me the other five.
The buyer is then liable for tax on six months interest, while only actually keeping one. AND FUNDING SECURE HAVEN'T FLAGGED THIS UP PROMINENTLY SO THE BUYER KNOWS AND CAN CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THIS TAX LIABILITY POSITION. It is this last omission which I believe will lead to FS being "done" for (allowing) mis-selling at some time in the future. How many times does this scenario need to be repeated? Happy Christmas everyone PS I have only sold a couple of loan parts early on as a test when the system started. What happens in the situation where, for example, I sell a loan after five months (through my company) and receive the principal plus the five months accrued interest. The company would declare the interest as profit and be taxed accordingly. The buyer would, under the current arrangement, also be taxed on that five month's interest. HMRC would be having a field day. Surely this can't be correct?
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 29, 2015 10:00:47 GMT
FS are putting themselves in a vulnerable position in my opinion, and I can't understand why they are stubbornly holding out against rethinking this policy. I sell a loan part after nearly five months (at any or no markup).
The buyer pays me for the loan part plus my accrued interest. So far so good. I'm alright, Jack.
The buyer then holds to maturity, and he receives his principal money back, plus six month's interest, but only one month's interest is his because he has given me the other five.
The buyer is then liable for tax on six months interest, while only actually keeping one. AND FUNDING SECURE HAVEN'T FLAGGED THIS UP PROMINENTLY SO THE BUYER KNOWS AND CAN CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THIS TAX LIABILITY POSITION. It is this last omission which I believe will lead to FS being "done" for (allowing) mis-selling at some time in the future. How many times does this scenario need to be repeated? Happy Christmas everyone PS I have only sold a couple of loan parts early on as a test when the system started. What happens in the situation where, for example, I sell a loan after five months (through my company) and receive the principal plus the five months accrued interest. The company would declare the interest as profit and be taxed accordingly. The buyer would, under the current arrangement, also be taxed on that five month's interest. HMRC would be having a field day. Surely this can't be correct? I also invest through a company and have the same potential issue here. I can't see how I can declare the increase in capital of a sold loan part as anything other than profit and so get taxed on it? Please can FS provide some clarification?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,337
Likes: 11,562
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 6, 2016 10:50:55 GMT
Seems to be a warning about the tax liability issue showing on the secondary market page now. Is this new?
Also a link to info on tax situation/treatment including reference to being a trader and further links to relevant pages on HMRC site.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 6, 2016 10:58:47 GMT
Seems to be a warning about the tax liability issue showing on the secondary market page now. Is this new? Also a link to info on tax situation/treatment including reference to being a trader and further links to relevant pages on HMRC site. Can you see the "Cigarettes can cause cancer" warning? . . . . Let them sell and burn. What a situation?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,337
Likes: 11,562
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 6, 2016 11:04:13 GMT
Seems to be a warning about the tax liability issue showing on the secondary market page now. Is this new? Also a link to info on tax situation/treatment including reference to being a trader and further links to relevant pages on HMRC site. Can you see the "Cigarettes can cause cancer" warning? . . . . Let them sell and burn. What a situation? Informed choice as opposed to uninformed choice.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 6, 2016 11:08:13 GMT
Can you see the "Cigarettes can cause cancer" warning? . . . . Let them sell and burn. What a situation? Informed choice as opposed to uninformed choice. It is definitely a step in the right direction.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 6, 2016 11:12:47 GMT
Seems to be a warning about the tax liability issue showing on the secondary market page now. Is this new? Also a link to info on tax situation/treatment including reference to being a trader and further links to relevant pages on HMRC site. Yes, that is a much better warning. Anyone who buys parts now without appreciating the risk and tax implications has only themselves to blame. Now, on the assumption someone is listening here, can we please have some finer increments for setting premiums? The 3% / 4% / 5% settings are pointless for 6 month loans so how about 0.5% / 1% / 1.5% / 2% / 2.5% (ie. keeping with five optional levels)?
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 6, 2016 12:10:34 GMT
Seems to be a warning about the tax liability issue showing on the secondary market page now. Is this new? Also a link to info on tax situation/treatment including reference to being a trader and further links to relevant pages on HMRC site. Yes, that is a much better warning. Anyone who buys parts now without appreciating the risk and tax implications has only themselves to blame. Now, on the assumption someone is listening here, can we please have some finer increments for setting premiums? The 3% / 4% / 5% settings are pointless for 6 month loans so how about 0.5% / 1% / 1.5% / 2% / 2.5% (ie. keeping with five optional levels)? IMO we need different settings for premiums and discounts. Actually I would prefer no premiums at all. I can envisage a situation where someone desperately needs to get out of a loan which is going to be hard to sell for some reason and is willing to accept a substantial discount. Yes, this is a better warning but what about all the purchases already made? IMO they are wide open for a compensation claim.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 6, 2016 12:31:16 GMT
Discount options can stay as they are. No-one in the current climate really needs to use them anyway (anything at par seems to disappear soon enough)
|
|
Investboy
Member of DD Central
Trying to recover from P2P revolution
Posts: 564
Likes: 201
|
Post by Investboy on Jan 6, 2016 12:50:04 GMT
This is step in right direction albeit small. Also in the "web world" serious warning are usually marked in red.
The whole situation is unacceptable though and I hope it will soon be rectified completely.
The fact that you can: a) pay for accrued interest that may never materialize b) pay somebody else's tax c) or avoid tax if you're clever and sell before maturity does not exists anywhere in the financial world. It is plainly wrong, bad, incorrect, unacceptable ect.
|
|
