|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Aug 3, 2016 8:27:56 GMT
Quote from the CEO of the Chartered Institute of Crdit Management in response to Saving Stream statement on the principal of the borrower in PBL064.
Do you agree or not?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Aug 3, 2016 8:32:20 GMT
Quote from the CEO of the Chartered Institute of Crdit Management in response to Saving Stream statement on the principal of the borrower in PBL064. Do you agree or not? When and where did he make this comment? Can you link it please?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Aug 3, 2016 8:35:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 8:50:28 GMT
had to read the comment three times to come to an opinion
Still a Bush jnr said, "cheat me once shame on you.."
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 1,861
Member is Online
|
Post by archie on Aug 3, 2016 9:02:22 GMT
PK's oddly phrased comment was in response to another tweet. The poll question should be "Do you agreed, as implied by PK, that a borrower's previous history is relevant"? To which I answer 'yes'. Not sure I've answered as intended, poll question is confusing. History is certainly relevant but I answered 'No' to this poll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 9:12:23 GMT
Did this quote really necessitate a poll ?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinnerlady on Aug 3, 2016 9:23:43 GMT
Previous history of a borrower may not be in the interests of large institutional lenders, however in the case of P2P, I am risking my own personal hard earned funds! Therefore this form of lending is on a very personal level and only wish to loan to persons of good ethical character and to projects that I deem to support my personal views.
|
|
|
|
Post by buttchopf23 on Aug 3, 2016 13:02:59 GMT
a borrowers previous history is indeed relevant to me
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Aug 3, 2016 14:41:39 GMT
I'm writing this in a purely personal capacity. I'm a big fan of Saving Stream but I have to disagree that a previous history is not relevant. I believe it is very relevant to any lending decision.
Experienced lenders know that small number of borrowers have done things to [try to] get out of their obligation by various "less than honourable" means, so any lending history - good or bad - would be relevant to my lending decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 14:42:00 GMT
to be fair, the SS reasoning is not on the ethics. But on the financial point of view.
Each project is set as a separate SV just to be sure it is treated independently and has its own history of success/failure.
And I agree that, while you might or might not like some people, the success of a project is usually linked to the project itself (area, planning, detail of buz lan, demand in the area etc). Of course, not to forget the exerience that a person brings in, which depends on how many similar projects he completed (very important on the building side).
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Aug 3, 2016 14:48:38 GMT
Assuming SS has done that, we can be assured then, that this borrower (whatever the newspapers allege) has a good history of repaying earlier loans in a timely and hassle-free manner, or his current loans would not have been approved.
??
|
|
goopy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 307
Likes: 144
|
Post by goopy on Aug 3, 2016 15:17:31 GMT
to be fair, the SS reasoning is not on the ethics. But on the financial point of view. Well it should be!! The money they are lending is ours, ordinary people with morals and standards which we like to think we have lived by. We are not a bunch of faceless bankers with psychopathic traits who will stop at nothing to get their hands on more and more money no matter who they destroy in the process. SS should be thinking about this when they lend our money and they do themselves no favours by putting out statements which basically say the character of the borrower makes no difference (Tennanted Block thread), because to most people it certainly does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 15:57:52 GMT
to be fair, the SS reasoning is not on the ethics. But on the financial point of view. Well it should be!! The money they are lending is ours, ordinary people with morals and standards which we like to think we have lived by. We are not a bunch of faceless bankers with psychopathic traits who will stop at nothing to get their hands on more and more money no matter who they destroy in the process. SS should be thinking about this when they lend our money and they do themselves no favours by putting out statements which basically say the character of the borrower makes no difference (Tennanted Block thread), because to most people it certainly does. I assume your 12% interest goes in full to a good charity then :-) Let's be practical here. Resources are finite, so if we get 12% someone suffer to pay for it. Sometimes their plan works out (win-win situation), but most of the time not (so there is loss of capital, loss of house/field/farm etc). Our main hope/belief is that the security they offered us is good enough to withstand the difficult times, but we honestly don't go beyond this (did you care for the two borrowers defaulting here or for the thousands defaulting on FC or other platforms?; I assure you that most borrowers defaulting will not care at all about lenders....) If you wish to invest ethically, I think there are better venues than briding loans. To me any borrower is good, as long as he repays my money with the related interest (and possibly in time).
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Aug 3, 2016 16:04:36 GMT
to be fair, the SS reasoning is not on the ethics. But on the financial point of view. Well it should be!! The money they are lending is ours, ordinary people with morals and standards which we like to think we have lived by. We are not a bunch of faceless bankers with psychopathic traits who will stop at nothing to get their hands on more and more money no matter who they destroy in the process. SS should be thinking about this when they lend our money and they do themselves no favours by putting out statements which basically say the character of the borrower makes no difference (Tennanted Block thread), because to most people it certainly does.
Not sure I agree that we can expect SS to concentrate on the ethics. Who decides which ethics are important as we will all have different definitions of what is or is not permissible? Or as you put it "What does ethics mean?" to quote your comment on the "Lending Ethics" discussion
p2pindependentforum.com/thread/4568/lending-ethics?page=2
And to quote another comment from that thread isn't ethics the area between London and the east coast?
|
|
goopy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 307
Likes: 144
|
Post by goopy on Aug 3, 2016 16:07:55 GMT
Well it should be!! The money they are lending is ours, ordinary people with morals and standards which we like to think we have lived by. We are not a bunch of faceless bankers with psychopathic traits who will stop at nothing to get their hands on more and more money no matter who they destroy in the process. SS should be thinking about this when they lend our money and they do themselves no favours by putting out statements which basically say the character of the borrower makes no difference (Tennanted Block thread), because to most people it certainly does. I assume your 12% interest goes in full to a good charity then :-) Let's be practical here. Resources are finite, so if we get 12% someone suffer to pay for it. Sometimes their plan works out (win-win situation), but most of the time not (so there is loss of capital, loss of house/field/farm etc). Our main hope/belief is that the security they offered us is good enough to withstand the difficult times, but we honestly don't go beyond this (did you care for the two borrowers defaulting here or for the thousands defaulting on FC or other platforms?; I assure you that most borrowers defaulting will not care at all about lenders....) If you wish to invest ethically, I think there are better venues than briding loans. To me any borrower is good, as long as he repays my money with the related interest (and possibly in time). Everyone has standards below which they are not willing too stoop. Some peoples standards are obviously a lot lower than others, I hope you sleep very well tonight.. 
|
|
