Questioning relevance of previous history is delusional

To be fair to Lendy Ltd/savingstream there is nothing on their web site about ethical lending (other than a vague reference to "helping the UK economy by releasing land value" but that is hardly a moral standpoint), although some other platforms do make a point of it.  It could be said partcipating on the lending side, even if not getting the full benefit of it, of 18% plus loans is immoral or amoral in itself; however the quote is not, in my opinion, aimed at the character of the borrower but his previous credit history, if it is aimed at him specifically rather than as a general comment on best lending practise.

LOL at the forum members on here who are totally disregarding the principle of ethics against the other forum members who actually do consider it important: You are seriously missing the point, and that type of thinking - what psychologists call "diffusion of responsibility" - is exactly how the Nazis grew so big (look up the Milgram Experiment for further, more diluted, evidence of it). Shirking off any ethical responsibility as "nothing to do with you" is handing all the keys to someone else. You are involved the moment you decide to invest; hence why it is of critical importance that we, as investors, are afforded as much transparent knowledge of what - and who - we are investing in - including their factual history.

I don't care if you give me a cast iron guarantee that I'd get my money back plus 15% - there are certain types of people, and certain publicly available 'chequered histories', that I wouldn't want to help support (if I knew that info). That's a personal decision, I grant you, and it has nothing to do with my reputation being upheld.

But for you to show (yet another) obvious psychological tell - to present the predictably polarising argument "I assume your 12% is going to charity" is to show an ego fuelled defensiveness that does little to mask perhaps your own embarrassment at pretending not to care. I think that given the choice (and based upon the available facts) you would choose a more ethical route, as demonstrated by this example:

Two loans available. Both pay 12%. Both have a 50% LTV. Both will be paid back in full, with interest.
Loan 1: Dirty Den's new Casino, and there ("Allegedly") is evidence that he has a very dubious history.
Loan 2: Farmer Joe's Ice Cream Stand - 10% of his own profit goes to Charity.

Which one are you pulled to invest in first? And if your answer is "both, for diversification!", then you have simply answered the question already, because your own ethics are just as diversified as your investments. But please don't ask such questions as 'who defines ethics?'. You do. And you are simply choosing to outsource that definition.

Legal disclaimer: The above example is a rhetorical and philosophical question meant to stimulate metaphorical debate. Any similarity between real persons living or deceased, known or unknown, is not intended and is entirely coincidental. 

 

I don't have a major moral standpoint against gambling. The obesity causing ice cream on the other hand....

Personally I like the idea of green energy and think wind farms can, based on the state of other alternative technologies we have today, contribute towards a balanced energy mix. I've invested on both specific turbines and via mixed funds. Partly for a return (neither caused me to lose a penny so far) but also for a slightly warm fuzzy feeling. My contribution is tiny and I may have used as much electricity buying the loan parts as I helped but I did help.

There are other people on here who really dislike wind farms and would support them. That's their choice.

Ethics can be in the eye of the holder.

I think you are missing the point. Who decides what "doing the right thing" or "moral compass" means? If Saving Stream, do they conduct a poll of lenders? And where do you draw the line? I decided to give the loan involving the casino a miss whereas others seemed quite happy to invest.

There have been a couple of occasions where comments on this forum on pipeline loans seem to have caused SS to then drop them, but the issues raised were about planning permission or valuation.  After the righteous indignation being expressed by some I look forward to more discussion on the ethical aspects in the future.

I find the opprobrium being heaped on the borrower in question rather strange. Have you listened to the radio 4 interview? There are lots of very unhappy farmers who have taken out bridging loans and then found long term finance was not available and so had their security called. This is very close to savings streams own business model. Yes a refinancing take out is planned at the outset but lenders are mainly relying  on the knowledge that the security is there. Lending rates are comparable. The man claims that all farmers were required to take independent financial advice before taking out the loan and all court cases over the repossession have found in his favour. he is not in prison though frankly I wouldn't want so many dispossessed farmers as my enemies for any money. It seems to me that both his and the ss model have a strong smell of distressed borrowing like wonga for property and our very own 18% suggests this. If you want to be on the moral high ground as a lender buy gilts at 0.5%

Hor1997 we seem to have come to pretty much the same conclusion simultaneously !

So you think that SS have not or are not "doing the right thing"? On what basis do you think that? Why is your "good judgement" better than theirs?

Your idea seems to be that companies that "do the right thing" survive which seems to me to be a bit of a platitude.