FCA bans q&a?

Where have Ablrate said that please?

I'd add two more concerns.

One is platforms barring public discussion that names a borrower or shares information present on a platform. So the discussions are restricted to often limited tools on the platform and also diligence by prospective customers is inhibited. The combination of a platform with no internal discussion and a ban on external disclosure is particularly toxic, effectively barring much useful investor discussion of risk issues.

Another is this forum, that it is to some extent undermining proper due diligence by investors.

The problem is the don't name the investor rule, which effectively bars investors sharing information and due diligence about loans and platforms here, complete with proper references. So if a group of investors wanted to do something like cooperating to share the results of say land registry searches on a property being used as security, the rules here prohibit it by banning the posting of the link or details of the borrower. Ditto for things like planning permission or press reports, all of which are useful diligence.

In one specific recent case my due diligence about using a platform I was considering using was impaired here by the rule, which while barring naming the borrower also ended up barring checking the platforms own actions because the checks on the platform would have disclosed the borrower name.

In some cases I've chosen to have discussions in places like MSE where that is permitted and where I know that MSE has a very favourable consumer protection first policy, complete with in-house lawyer.* Not something that this place can afford, for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure what the solution is other than carrying out such cooperative checking and related discussions somewhere else. The don't name the borrower rule was originally implemented to protect consumers, where there was and is specific legislation relating to harassment and embarrassment of borrowers so I think it is still necessary in that context. I'm not aware of something similar for say a limited company, so permitting identifying companies via things like Companies House or Land Registry or press isn't something that I think would be harmful overall, except in a few specific cases.

There is one partial solution in use here for one platform, a restricted membership board. A catch is that since you have to be a customer before you can read it, pre-customer diligence is inhibited and so is web searching. Still, it's a useful measure and I'm pleased to see it.

There are things that this place is superb for but cooperative due diligence is not one of those things.

*That isn't anything goes. For example, a person or two were unhappy with me mentioning a specific investment and complained to MSE then MSE's forum team asked me about it. i replied with a couple of messages explaining things and heard no more about it, having comprehensively addressed the potential issues.

I'm re-quoting this from a thread on the Ablrate board:

The good news is virtually all platforms (including Ablrate) accept that they have no editorial control over the forum, and post positively and sensibly on here to reflect their beliefs and opinions just like any other poster (whilst hopefully remembering the financial promotions regulations).

However the forum mod team are distracted at regular intervals by just two platforms requesting we remove negative comments and opinions concerning their platform from the forum. I can't recall in any of these instances we have actually taken any action as none of the posts contravened the forum rules. If the comment is so demonstrably wrong, why not simply post in the thread a full explanation as to why it is wrong.

One of these two platforms has recently accused a forum poster of fabricating a screen grab of their platform by extracting the html code, inserting erroneous data, rendering it in a browser, and taking the screen grab.  This was in reply to my earlier response to the platform that I could see no evidence that the screen grab had been "photoshopped".   This same platform has recently suggested that they should be given moderation rights to their sub-board on this forum to remove posts they don't like .... don't panic that simply isn't going to happen.

 

"... However the forum mod team are distracted at regular intervals by just two platforms requesting we remove negative comments and opinions concerning their platform from the forum..."

Ooooh! I wonder which - couldn't be the one which caused the formation of this forum by any chance? Oh no, I may think that but you could not possibly comment, etc. The other one .... mmm! 

AC have done a very good thing in founding this forum and adding the private pink pages, thanks

TC have an equivalent forum, restricted to people who have invested.  It isn't independently moderated; it might not be moderated at all and certainly very frank opinions are expressed, I have a niggling recollection that they did delete something once but perhaps I'm thinking of something else.

They also have an onsite forum, which they do moderate a bit (?),

and finally they have a q&a for every loan, well used, which, like AC, has a rule that it's for questions not for sounding off.  Unlike AC they don't validate each question before allowing it to appear; I've had AC refuse to publish 1 or 2 questions of mine where I thought they were being unreasonable.  In addition (and this isn't about my questions which AC didn't like) it seems reasonable to me to allow people to air criticisms of loans (to sound off), data needs interpreting to become information (I think I just coined that, I've impressed myself)

I suspect a lot of AC lenders are not aware of p2pif, and personally I'd like to see a link on AC's website, labelled forum, which comes here.  I'd also like to see a link on each voting email.

shimself - I've offered this before but if anyone ever feels they've unfairly had a question removed from our Q&A then I'm happy for them to send the details to me and I'll investigate.  Our lender team should not be hiding behind the Q&A rules nor censoring difficult questions.  However I've had three people thus far take me up on this offer and in each case it was clear that the lender team were correct in their action.

For the avoidance of doubt a question is something like "Can you explain why my hotel room curtains appear to be blue?".  If someone posts something like "This is a blooming disgrace.  I paid good money for this hotel room and they've given me blue curtains when the advert said they'd be navy.  I expect my money back and compensation and everyone else staying at the hotel should know about this.  So AC, why are the curtains blue?"

It doesn't matter if your opinion is right or wrong, whether the platform is correct or someone has made a bit of a boo boo.  The Q&A is expressly not a place for you to air your opinions or broadcast your thoughts to the other lenders.  Clear, concise, constructive, polite, unique, a question, and nothing but a question.  Tick all those boxes and the lender team shouldn't have any excuses for removing your post or hide it from the site and if they do then complain to me and I'll personally look into it.