|
|
Post by batchoy on Mar 6, 2014 10:30:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Mar 6, 2014 12:01:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Mar 6, 2014 12:24:08 GMT
The usual journalistic shortcut which cannot distinguish P2P from crowdfunding.
The crowdfunding proposals from FCA make a lot of sense, they are largely aimed at stopping naive investors thinking business startups are a safe investment. The report itself does a good job of separating this out from P2P.
The P2P regulation looks very tame
- £20 000 Minimum capital rising to £50 000 by 2017. Actual Capital requirements above the minimum based on loans outstanding, but tiny.
- A strategy to manage loans should the platform fail.
Reading the submissions I would say the FCA has rolled over before the weakest and least deserving platforms and utterly failed to introduce the most basic degree of protection to investors. Open season for the likes of Y** S**U**.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Mar 6, 2014 12:43:01 GMT
One thing that I did query but which they have not picked up on was with regard to the use of the secondary market in lieu of cancellation rights and the issue of secondary market fees which means that the right to cancel without penalty is not fulfilled.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Mar 6, 2014 19:13:40 GMT
Open season for the likes of Y** S**U**. I’ve always been surprised about the lack of comments regarding Y** S**U** on this forum.
YS deserves to be pilloried for both allowing scammers to take out and default on loans and then refusing to keep lenders informed a la FC.
Add to that a call centre in Bangalore or somewhere similar where the standard of English is so bad as to be unintelligible and you have a cr*p set up that leaves you with the distinct feeling of having been shafted.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,560 
Likes: 1,169
|
Post by shimself on Mar 6, 2014 19:58:08 GMT
Y** S**U** isn't the name of a particular lender, so I think you can publish the name in full can't you? (I still haven't worked it out)
|
|
|
|
Post by uncletone on Mar 6, 2014 21:06:06 GMT
Y** S**U** isn't the name of a particular lender, so I think you can publish the name in full can't you? (I still haven't worked it out) Without consultation, I feel it were legally better that the name were not published, even though they were pretty obviously defined. My guess is that if you cannot work out the name, you're not interested. If you can, it's pretty obvious....
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Mar 7, 2014 10:56:23 GMT
Open season for the likes of Y** S**U**. I’ve always been surprised about the lack of comments regarding Y** S**U** on this forum.
YS deserves to be pilloried for both allowing scammers to take out and default on loans and then refusing to keep lenders informed a la FC.
Add to that a call centre in Bangalore or somewhere similar where the standard of English is so bad as to be unintelligible and you have a cr*p set up that leaves you with the distinct feeling of having been shafted.
I had a tiny nail dip with Y** S**U** when it first started and got out quick. Getting monies returned - I had to provide a copy of the bank statement from which I'd made my few pennies investment from. Had a quick peep at their site as I'm still registered with them and they are just a nothing P2P. Got a handful of loan 'opportunities' which are single digit percentage filled. So effectively dormant. Like many P2P/P2B's they come onto the scene offering the earth, moon and stars and simply fall down after a few months. I always do a bit of DD on these new companies before making a commitment - my pathfinder days are over.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Mar 7, 2014 11:27:26 GMT
Y** S**U** isn't the name of a particular lender, so I think you can publish the name in full can't you? (I still haven't worked it out) Think "Affirmative Safe" (3,6) in a crossword puzzle. (Grumpy knows all about crosswords) 
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 7, 2014 13:25:10 GMT
Y** S**U** isn't the name of a particular lender, so I think you can publish the name in full can't you? (I still haven't worked it out) Think "Affirmative Safe" (3,6) in a crossword puzzle. (Grumpy knows all about crosswords) Umm, not exactly overly cryptic though. How about "Positive answer points to medicine for p2p lender (3,6)"
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Mar 7, 2014 13:30:55 GMT
"Umm, not exactly overly cryptic though."
Oh yes it is ...... according to my crossword solving capabilities. 
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Mar 10, 2014 21:59:29 GMT
The usual journalistic shortcut which cannot distinguish P2P from crowdfunding. The crowdfunding proposals from FCA make a lot of sense, they are largely aimed at stopping naive investors thinking business startups are a safe investment. The report itself does a good job of separating this out from P2P. The P2P regulation looks very tame - £20 000 Minimum capital rising to £50 000 by 2017. Actual Capital requirements above the minimum based on loans outstanding, but tiny. - A strategy to manage loans should the platform fail. Reading the submissions I would say the FCA has rolled over before the weakest and least deserving platforms and utterly failed to introduce the most basic degree of protection to investors. Open season for the likes of Y** S**U**. I too was a little concerned by the lack of protection for lenders from poorly managed or rogue platforms. I had argued that there should be FSCS protection for lenders when the platform failed in order to run down the outstanding loans. If a company such as Quakle were to launch again, there is nothing to prevent it or to step in and help lenders who wouldn't know who their borrowers are. I still welcome the FCA regulation but I think it should have gone further.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Mar 10, 2014 22:45:20 GMT
The usual journalistic shortcut which cannot distinguish P2P from crowdfunding. The crowdfunding proposals from FCA make a lot of sense, they are largely aimed at stopping naive investors thinking business startups are a safe investment. The report itself does a good job of separating this out from P2P. The P2P regulation looks very tame - £20 000 Minimum capital rising to £50 000 by 2017. Actual Capital requirements above the minimum based on loans outstanding, but tiny. - A strategy to manage loans should the platform fail. Reading the submissions I would say the FCA has rolled over before the weakest and least deserving platforms and utterly failed to introduce the most basic degree of protection to investors. Open season for the likes of Y** S**U**. I too was a little concerned by the lack of protection for lenders from poorly managed or rogue platforms. I had argued that there should be FSCS protection for lenders when the platform failed in order to run down the outstanding loans. If a company such as Quakle were to launch again, there is nothing to prevent it or to step in and help lenders who wouldn't know who their borrowers are. I still welcome the FCA regulation but I think it should have gone further. FCA regulation will go further with the basics sooner rather than later IMO. But all members of the FCA are governed by the TCF requirements which is a catch all situation and each case is interpreted by the FCA on it's merits - sometimes media driven. The FCA are highly sensitive about poor press coverage especially when it implies they've been asleep on the job. Hence one bad apple and it will impact on all P2P/P2B platforms.
|
|
