xtab
Posts: 41 
Likes: 34
|
Post by xtab on Aug 22, 2016 18:00:22 GMT
I'm a relative newcomer to this. There's a heck of a lot of experience among the users of this forum and I'm curious as to what experience people here have had with P2P sites that haven't made it and have closed down, gone into administration, voluntary liquidation, etc.
If you had investments in any of these, did the administrators continue taking repayments from borrowers and eventually you got your investments back? Or most of them (assuming some bad debts )? Or did you take a big hit?
If you'd be prepared to say what percentage of your investment you lost, that would be useful info. Or any other info/experience you have on this.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 22, 2016 18:32:06 GMT
There have been very few platform failures in the UK, those that have closed have generally done so in an orderly fashion with no loss of money to lenders. The notable exception was Quakle, one of the very early platforms in which lenders lost significant funds (but relatively little in total as it was a VERY small operation) but this predated the FCA interim authorisation process that now mandates an orderly run down of loan books. See also this previous thread on the same subject p2pindependentforum.com/thread/3795/platforms-ceased |
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Aug 23, 2016 9:29:02 GMT
There have been a number of P2P sites that have failed or ceased trading over the last 11 years. I actively monitor them on P2P money (www.p2pmoney.co.uk/companies.htm). With the exception of Quakle and TrustBuddy, I am not aware of lenders actually loosing money due to the platform failing. TrustBuddy is the biggest failure to date and that failed in an uncontrolled manner attributed and the company had to call in administrators with questions on where all of the lenders funds had actually gone. Quakle failed because it did not sufficiently assess borrowers before lending, and then when they found that the bad debt was too high they pulled the plug, however there were no contingencies in place to handle repayments after the company closed. The notable controlled closures to date would be YES-secure, Danesfield, Squirrl, Invest and Borrow and Fruitful.
The biggest risk to lenders I would argue is platform risk due to fraud, where the business has to cease trading and then the administrators have to determine where all of the money has gone. With UK based companies with FCA authorisation there should be processes and procedures in place to prevent this from happening, but there are no guarantees.
|
|
xtab
Posts: 41
Likes: 34
|
Post by xtab on Aug 23, 2016 11:27:34 GMT
Many thanks for that info, guys. Very useful and (although past performance isn't ........ etc) still relatively reassuring.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiseclerk on Aug 23, 2016 13:17:06 GMT
Another infamous case was Boober in the Netherlands. There are more international examples like Fairrates in Denmark, and some that did not comply with regulation like IOU Central in Canada and Bankless Life in Austria. The last one is peculiar because authorities did not only close and pursue the platform but also participating investors were put on trial, convicted and fined.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Aug 23, 2016 13:32:05 GMT
Another infamous case was Boober in the Netherlands. There are more international examples like Fairrates in Denmark, and some that did not comply with regulation like IOU Central in Canada and Bankless Life in Austria. The last one is peculiar because authorities did not only close and pursue the platform but also participating investors were put on trial, convicted and fined.Obviously a lot more to that one than meets the eye then.....
|
|
|
|
Post by wiseclerk on Aug 23, 2016 18:41:22 GMT
Not really. They just took a very strict position on enforcing the law. Regulation says only banks can give out loans. Platfform did not have a banking license. Neither did have the individual investors. Authorities concluded both violated the law.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,153
Likes: 4,882
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 23, 2016 22:51:13 GMT
Not really. They just took a very strict position on enforcing the law. Regulation says only banks can give out loans. Platfform did not have a banking license. Neither did have the individual investors. Authorities concluded both violated the law. Eeek!
|
|
markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on Aug 24, 2016 11:30:01 GMT
Another orderly close down (of their P2P side) was Piggybank, a P2P payday loan platform. I don't recall the details but I think impending FCA regulation (both Payday loan sector and P2P) led them to abandon P2P and become just another loan company. I got out, but I think those who wanted to could convert their investments into loans to the parent company secured on the loanbook. The site is still running and active so I assume those that chose to do that did OK.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,984
Likes: 11,205
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 24, 2016 11:34:21 GMT
Fruitful isnt dead its just resting.
|
|
|
|
Post by gmaxkenny on Aug 24, 2016 12:29:19 GMT
Fruitful isnt dead its just resting. "The money was just resting in my account" Fr. Ted Crilly
|
|
