am
Posts: 1,495 
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 7, 2016 8:29:16 GMT
If we must, we will put a disclaimer in the pipeline that all information is advisory and likely to change up until the point of completion/drawdown. I wouldn't use the word "advisory". It's clear from the SS Ts&Cs that nothing on the platform is intended to be construed as advice. would do.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Sept 7, 2016 8:34:17 GMT
I wouldn't use the word "advisory". It's clear from the SS Ts&Cs that nothing on the platform is intended to be construed as advice. would do. Indicative maybe.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 7, 2016 9:23:47 GMT
How about Guess... I'm only joking SS; you know that I love you 
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 7, 2016 11:26:47 GMT
savingstream : Can you imagine what sort of public/press reaction there'd be if a large company -- Tesco, Amazon, Apple, etc. -- did something like this? They'd be crucified! Mike, whilst we understand your frustration, you must understand our need to be nimble in this market place. It is fact why we are so successful i.e the ability to fund deals that change at the last minute but are still sufficiently safe and attractive. We don't think Tesco or the like could operate in our market. Retail businesses, whilst operating on a 'Lean' model are (sometimes) very efficient, their decision making processes are too sclerotic to even comprehend entering our world. If we must, we will put a disclaimer in the pipeline that all information is advisory and likely to change up until the point of completion/drawdown. : I do understand that innovative finance is a different environment than mass-market retailing. But my experience with travel industry regulators is that rules that were written for huge companies like Thomas Cook are being applied to tiny companies where those rules cause operating difficulties and can't really be adhered to sensibly. That hasn't stopped the regulators from applying the rules rigorously. As long as the IF regulators understand and accept that things are very different in IF and will tolerate what happened with PBL131 without trying to apply the Sale of Goods Act, then there should be no problem. It would help if all SS investors also understood the volatility, so including an appropriate disclaimer would be a good idea as well. [If you don't like holding the loan now that it's down to just 9 months, it should take about 10 seconds to get rid of it via the SM] The very liquid SM helps, but not in all cases. If someone decided they didn't want to hold the shorter term than expected parts and their allocation made their account balance negative, the 7-day rule would mean they couldn't sell the parts without making a deposit first. And if they didn't want to have a negative balance and therefore sold parts in advance of the allocation they could sell the unwanted parts, but they probably couldn't buy back what they sold earlier. Not to mention that the SM may not always be so liquid.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 7, 2016 12:00:48 GMT
I don't think the term coming out SHORTER is a big issue - even if it had been listed as 365 days, the borrower can always pay back early, so it could always have been a shorter loan, AIUI. Now if it came out shorter (on paper only) because the borrower wouldn't fork out 12 months interest upfront, but is going to run the loan out to 12 or 15 or 18 months 'after the fact' then I would be upset. Getting your money back early is an acceptable P2P risk. Getting it back late is a PITA, and one of the biggest drawbacks of SS, FC, and others.
|
|
dan83
Posts: 243
Likes: 84
|
Post by dan83 on Sept 7, 2016 12:09:43 GMT
I understand this may be a big draw back for big investors who thought they could invest £x amount for 12 months, now they will have to look for alternative investment sooner.
But for small investors like me and many others, it's not that big a deal, I could quite easy sell my share and reinvest my £1000 in 1, 2 or 3 loans in the pipe line.
I do see the problem when it comes to £10,000 + as it could take quite s while to get that amount of money back in the system.
Might of been a good idea if saving stream sent an email about the change in loan length then went live 1st thing in the morning, instead of late in the afternoon.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Sept 7, 2016 12:48:47 GMT
savingstream : Can you imagine what sort of public/press reaction there'd be if a large company -- Tesco, Amazon, Apple, etc. -- did something like this? They'd be crucified! Mike, whilst we understand your frustration, you must understand our need to be nimble in this market place. It is fact why we are so successful i.e the ability to fund deals that change at the last minute but are still sufficiently safe and attractive. We don't think Tesco or the like could operate in our market. Retail businesses, whilst operating on a 'Lean' model are (sometimes) very efficient, their decision making processes are too sclerotic to even comprehend entering our world. If we must, we will put a disclaimer in the pipeline that all information is advisory and likely to change up until the point of completion/drawdown. : thank you for providing the reason for the post-launch change in loan duration. I believe it is reasonable for you to have discretion to modify some of the less material loan parameters such as duration to allow commercial expediency. However, I strongly believe that you should advise investors if there is any material change in the proposed loan terms prior to allocation. For example, if there was a significant increase in loan size or reduction in security value that significantly changed the LTV then I would expect to be notified of this prior to being committed to an allocation as this would clearly represent a material change in risk profile. I assume that in such cases you would notify us any material change in advance - can you confirm this?
|
|
tomtom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 262
Likes: 39
|
Post by tomtom on Sept 7, 2016 12:53:12 GMT
I understand this may be a big draw back for big investors who thought they could invest £x amount for 12 months, now they will have to look for alternative investment sooner. But for small investors like me and many others, it's not that big a deal, I could quite easy sell my share and reinvest my £1000 in 1, 2 or 3 loans in the pipe line. I do see the problem when it comes to £10,000 + as it could take quite s while to get that amount of money back in the system. Might of been a good idea if saving stream sent an email about the change in loan length then went live 1st thing in the morning, instead of late in the afternoon. All it means that the imvestors with very large money have to start planning x days earlier than before and I cannot see that this should cause any problems as they still have well over 250 days compared to 360 days.
|
|
mikeh
Member of DD Central
Posts: 499
Likes: 370
|
Post by mikeh on Sept 7, 2016 12:58:38 GMT
If we must, we will put a disclaimer in the pipeline that all information is advisory and likely to change up until the point of completion/drawdown. I wouldn't use the word "advisory". It's clear from the SS Ts&Cs that nothing on the platform is intended to be construed as advice. "Subject to contract" maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Sept 7, 2016 13:07:21 GMT
Nick - agree with that point. Whenever there is a significant change in the security - LTV, amount, credit proposal - we will relist the loan as we believe it constitutes a material change in risk and therefore investors deserve another chance to 'think again'.
Is the term a material risk factor that should be put back to investors to reconsider? Most of the time, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 7, 2016 13:19:42 GMT
Nick - agree with that point. Whenever there is a significant change in the security - LTV, amount, credit proposal - we will relist the loan as we believe it constitutes a material change in risk and therefore investors deserve another chance to 'think again'. Is the term a material risk factor that should be put back to investors to reconsider? Most of the time, no. SHORTENING it is not, LENGTHENING it would be, IMO. (And yes, overrunning loans are not unheard of, and are just as much of a problem as changing the length from e.g. 6 months to 12 at the outset would be).
|
|
jamesc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 447
Likes: 253
|
Post by jamesc on Sept 7, 2016 13:27:19 GMT
Nick - agree with that point. Whenever there is a significant change in the security - LTV, amount, credit proposal - we will relist the loan as we believe it constitutes a material change in risk and therefore investors deserve another chance to 'think again'. Is the term a material risk factor that should be put back to investors to reconsider? Most of the time, no. I think the answer is it depends IMHO lengthening is not a problem, shortening could be, 12mths to 9mths is would be ok for most but say 6mths to 3mths could be a problem for some and I think material.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 7, 2016 13:33:56 GMT
Nick - agree with that point. Whenever there is a significant change in the security - LTV, amount, credit proposal - we will relist the loan as we believe it constitutes a material change in risk and therefore investors deserve another chance to 'think again'. Is the term a material risk factor that should be put back to investors to reconsider? Most of the time, no. Many lenders would consider the period of retained interest to be a material risk factor. In the case of several previous loans where it has been determined only on extension that these loans were 6m not the 12m advertised at launch there probably was a requirement for lender to be given the chance to 'think again' In this case, where the change was made immediately and with a liquid market I would agree it isnt an issue. In terms of indicating uncertainty on terms - list page already has TBC on value/loan size, so there is already some indication that terms arent final. Simplest thing would be to add some text to the disclaimer at top of page about upcoming projects
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 7, 2016 13:39:16 GMT
Nick - agree with that point. Whenever there is a significant change in the security - LTV, amount, credit proposal - we will relist the loan as we believe it constitutes a material change in risk and therefore investors deserve another chance to 'think again'. Is the term a material risk factor that should be put back to investors to reconsider? Most of the time, no. I think the answer is it depends IMHO lengthening is not a problem, shortening could be, 12mths to 9mths is would be ok for most but say 6mths to 3mths could be a problem for some and I think material. /mod hat off Beg to differ .. If I prefund a 6 month loan, I don't expect to find I bought a 99-year one (OK, extreme case) which may not be liquid. I do agree with ilmoro that we should know how much interest is retained at the get-go, but I don't mind if it turns out to be less than expected if the loan then really runs for less than expected time. If the loan overruns, I am not a happy bunny either way. Remember all these loans can be settled early, and some have been, so when you buy into a '12 month loan' that should read 'up to 12 months' (and historically more like 'up to 18')!
|
|
jamesc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 447
Likes: 253
|
Post by jamesc on Sept 7, 2016 14:07:32 GMT
I think the answer is it depends IMHO lengthening is not a problem, shortening could be, 12mths to 9mths is would be ok for most but say 6mths to 3mths could be a problem for some and I think material. /mod hat off Beg to differ .. If I prefund a 6 month loan, I don't expect to find I bought a 99-year one (OK, extreme case) which may not be liquid. I do agree with ilmoro that we should know how much interest is retained at the get-go, but I don't mind if it turns out to be less than expected if the loan then really runs for less than expected time. If the loan overruns, I am not a happy bunny either way. Remember all these loans can be settled early, and some have been, so when you buy into a '12 month loan' that should read 'up to 12 months' (and historically more like 'up to 18')! Personally I would love to prefund a 6 month loan and find a 99 year one because that would mean that the borrower had actually paid over more money for the retained interest than they borrowed therefore the safest loan you could possibly hope for ! Otherwise all other things being equal in general the longer the loan the safer because the greater the retained interest and therefore the less of our capital at risk.
|
|
