littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Sept 29, 2016 13:47:59 GMT
We each have our own way of running our various investment portfolios, and favouring one over another does not constitute a lack of confidence in the platform. Equally, we each have our own view of risk, our understanding of it and our tolerance to it. The SM functions well because what one lender perceives to be risky another does not. Rather than wanting every other lender to have my own world view, I embrace the vitality that the differing views bring to the market. (A body who deals in risk day in day out could take offence at being essentially accused of being unaware of the risks they are or are not running here  ) I quite agree, each to his/her own and you can run your portfolio how you like. I only asked out of interest. My post was a set of questions not allegations, and I don't see how a question can involve "assumptions" or "accusations". IMHO INPL causes more problems than it is worth and I do not myself ascribe any value to it in enabling churn.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Sept 29, 2016 13:52:24 GMT
I have had experience in claiming from the FSCS and I can confirm the process is not as simple as they pretend. In fact they make you jump through hoops and the amount of paperwork you have to complete is beyond belief!! I found them unbelievably incompetent and they would try every trick in the book to not pay out. They originally refused to compensate me and other investors for bad advice from an IFA until we threatened them with a Judicial review of their decision. They immediately changed their minds and paid out. The process took 5 years!! The worst 5 years of my life!! Just for balance I have had a different experience. Twice the FSCS has compensated me for a 5 figure loss. The paper work was not too bad and AFAIR the process took weeks rather than years. I guess each case is different.
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Sept 29, 2016 14:12:29 GMT
We each have our own way of running our various investment portfolios, and favouring one over another does not constitute a lack of confidence in the platform. Equally, we each have our own view of risk, our understanding of it and our tolerance to it. The SM functions well because what one lender perceives to be risky another does not. Rather than wanting every other lender to have my own world view, I embrace the vitality that the differing views bring to the market. (A body who deals in risk day in day out could take offence at being essentially accused of being unaware of the risks they are or are not running here ) I quite agree, each to his/her own and you can run your portfolio how you like. I only asked out of interest. My post was a set of questions not allegations, and I don't see how a question can involve "assumptions" or "accusations". IMHO INPL causes more problems than it is worth and I do not myself ascribe any value to it in enabling churn. Perhaps I misread your tone. Apologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisuk on Sept 29, 2016 14:35:17 GMT
I have had experience in claiming from the FSCS and I can confirm the process is not as simple as they pretend. In fact they make you jump through hoops and the amount of paperwork you have to complete is beyond belief!! I found them unbelievably incompetent and they would try every trick in the book to not pay out. They originally refused to compensate me and other investors for bad advice from an IFA until we threatened them with a Judicial review of their decision. They immediately changed their minds and paid out. The process took 5 years!! The worst 5 years of my life!! Just for balance I have had a different experience. Twice the FSCS has compensated me for a 5 figure loss. The paper work was not too bad and AFAIR the process took weeks rather than years. I guess each case is different. You were indeed most fortunate. My regulated IFA was fined by the FSA/FCA and later shut up shop and did a runner and STILL the FSCS claimed he wasn't responsible for our losses! They took some persuading to reverse their decision!!
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Sept 29, 2016 14:59:20 GMT
Just for balance I have had a different experience. Twice the FSCS has compensated me for a 5 figure loss. The paper work was not too bad and AFAIR the process took weeks rather than years. I guess each case is different. You were indeed most fortunate. My regulated IFA was fined by the FSA/FCA and later shut up shop and did a runner and STILL the FSCS claimed he wasn't responsible for our losses! They took some persuading to reverse their decision!! I expect the difference is the size of the number of people affected. One of mine was an Icelandic Bank where the UK govt got involved and the other affected over 1000 investors IIRC. But well done for persevering and getting there in the end.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Sept 29, 2016 15:10:24 GMT
I quite agree, each to his/her own and you can run your portfolio how you like. I only asked out of interest. My post was a set of questions not allegations, and I don't see how a question can involve "assumptions" or "accusations". IMHO INPL causes more problems than it is worth and I do not myself ascribe any value to it in enabling churn. Perhaps I misread your tone. Apologies. That's OK. Questions can sometimes be like that. I was interested in this risk reduction strategy because I would not want to miss out on something that worked. However I am not sold on it.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 29, 2016 18:41:46 GMT
What she said!
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 30, 2016 15:53:40 GMT
toffeeboy : Can you please explain why you feel INPL doesn't add anything? And why does it make any difference whether loans are fully funded or not? The idea of dropping INPL might work OK for smaller investors -- if you pre-fund £100 you can be pretty sure that you'll be allocated that and you won't have deposited money unnecessarily. For investors who pre-fund three- or four-figure amounts, however, and who can't guess what they might be allocated, INPL gives them the opportunity to wait until they know what they've been allocated before taking action to cover their negative balances, either by selling parts or making a deposit. (I accept that if you deposit what turns out to be an excessive amount, you can always make a withdrawal. But if you sell too many parts, you're just out of luck!) For me it is exactly as mikes1531 says. As somebody who stopped adding new money into SS a long time ago, removing INPL would remove the thing that enables SS to work for me. I would have to sell loan parts in advance, and when I got allocated £234 instead of £2,340 there'd mostly be nothing left on the SM for me to buy that I would want and I'd be left with over £2K sitting around doing nothing. Equally, I would often have understimated the amount I needed to sell. I quite often get allocated more of a loan than I'd have guessed because fewer people turn out to want it; in those cases it might become available on the SM, but generally most of us aren't sitting around poised over the SM at the moment a loan actually goes live. SS would have become pretty much impossible to use for me. The only way it could work would be if I had something more predictable as an allocation amount. I'm happy to leave small amounts of money doing nothing, but not several £K. I have neither the bandwidth in my life, nor the inclination to keep withdrawing and re-depositing money that may or may not turn out to be needed, and I also think it wastes a lot of SS time to implement that. I accept it might disappear one day, and I'd have to lump it, but it is certainly still very, very valuable to some of us for perfectly legitimate reasons. It would be nicer for me is SS would buy (with prefund) up to the cash I had available, then I would not go into the red. As for 'idle funds', I can live with a few % idle funds (whether from new deposits, or SM sales which turned out to not be needed). In most cases I can guess pretty well what the allocation might be, although I can see that if you are into the 5 or 6 figure range, the uncertainty gets rather larger as a proportion of the request!! I'm not putting a lot of new money in either, and I do sometimes go 'overdrawn' .. but for minutes or hours, not a couple of days, but I could probably manage without (I do manage without over on MT, FC, AC, LC, ReBS, RS, etc. etc).
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Sept 30, 2016 16:13:14 GMT
For me it is exactly as mikes1531 says. As somebody who stopped adding new money into SS a long time ago, removing INPL would remove the thing that enables SS to work for me. I would have to sell loan parts in advance, and when I got allocated £234 instead of £2,340 there'd mostly be nothing left on the SM for me to buy that I would want and I'd be left with over £2K sitting around doing nothing. Equally, I would often have understimated the amount I needed to sell. I quite often get allocated more of a loan than I'd have guessed because fewer people turn out to want it; in those cases it might become available on the SM, but generally most of us aren't sitting around poised over the SM at the moment a loan actually goes live. SS would have become pretty much impossible to use for me. The only way it could work would be if I had something more predictable as an allocation amount. I'm happy to leave small amounts of money doing nothing, but not several £K. I have neither the bandwidth in my life, nor the inclination to keep withdrawing and re-depositing money that may or may not turn out to be needed, and I also think it wastes a lot of SS time to implement that. I accept it might disappear one day, and I'd have to lump it, but it is certainly still very, very valuable to some of us for perfectly legitimate reasons. It would be nicer for me is SS would buy (with prefund) up to the cash I had available, then I would not go into the red. As for 'idle funds', I can live with a few % idle funds (whether from new deposits, or SM sales which turned out to not be needed). In most cases I can guess pretty well what the allocation might be, although I can see that if you are into the 5 or 6 figure range, the uncertainty gets rather larger as a proportion of the request!! I'm not putting a lot of new money in either, and I do sometimes go 'overdrawn' .. but for minutes or hours, not a couple of days, but I could probably manage without (I do manage without over on MT, FC, AC, LC, ReBS, RS, etc. etc). I would avoid any where I needed to leave really significant amounts lying around totally idle. At the moment I know exactly how much I need to sell on MT, so no problems there until somebody persuades them to make it all more complicated, and on AC at least I'm earning something on the money while it sits there. Hardly use RS, but get the odd bits re-invested reasonably quick. The others in your list aren't really on my radar for now. If SS becomes unusable for me at some point, I'll find something that suits me better, and if not the money will just go back to other investments from whence it came. All good things come to an end eventually; I'll mutter and moan briefly and then just get on with it, just like when Zopa did away with my favoured markets. Sigh. 
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 30, 2016 16:23:25 GMT
/mod hat off
I guess it depends what you call significant .. I'm quite happy to have 3-5% of my investment on an (active) platform 'not invested right now' (accepting that 3% for you is probably a lot bigger than 3% for me, but it's still 3%). That's enough lubrication to get me into a new loan, or the SM, to the extent I want (since I aim to be spread over 20-30 loans at any one time). MT's 'instant funds in' works well, when you know in advance how much you might get .. but I could easily be sold on a hybrid of the two systems .. an SS style 'pre fund' to tell you/them/anyone what the max bid would be, and then an MT style 'pay for it when you actually get it' sale. I guess that's not wildly different from INPL (except for the SM), with the proviso that you don't get the parts until you paid for them. Maybe if SS didn't have to pay 12% interest on money they haven't got for 2 days, they would be able to pay us another fractional increase (12.1%. 8>.). Dump the PF and perhaps we could get 12.2% or even 13% like MT offered on the Cardiff loans before it migrated.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 30, 2016 16:41:39 GMT
I'm quite happy to have 3-5% of my investment on an (active) platform 'not invested right now'... Maybe if SS didn't have to pay 12% interest on money they haven't got for 2 days, they would be able to pay us another fractional increase (12.1%. 8>.). Perhaps what colours my thinking is the knowledge that having 3% of my funds idle would mean I'd be earning 11.64% instead of 12% on my total investment. If it's 5% idle, then the return is 11.4%. It would take a lot more than just 0.1% to compensate for the loss of INPL.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 30, 2016 19:06:15 GMT
Your math is impeccable, if you assume that the 3% is idle all the time, but actually it fluctuates .. when I make a SM purchase or fund something on the PM, it'll drop to near zero, then it'll float back up to 3% when the time looks ripe. But still, yes, it's be nice to get an extra 0.3% rather than a 0.1% .. I'd take it.
|
|
andy2001
Member of DD Central
Posts: 361 
Likes: 34
|
Post by andy2001 on Nov 2, 2016 23:05:15 GMT
It used to be that when you put a loan up for sale you stop earning interest on it. Is this still the case? If so what happens if you cancel it the same day.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Nov 2, 2016 23:41:50 GMT
It used to be that when you put a loan up for sale you stop earning interest on it. Is this still the case? If so what happens if you cancel it the same day. > If you put a loan part up for sale and it sells, you will loose the interest that would have been gained while it was for sale > If you put a loan part up for sale, and then cancel it within the same month, you will still receive all the interest > When you enter a new month, you will lose any interest from any loan part you have up for sale, regardless of if it sells or is canceled Hope that makes sense 
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 3, 2016 3:29:23 GMT
> When you enter a new month, you will lose any interest from any loan part you have up for sale, regardless of if it sells or is canceled : Are you saying that if someone had put a part up for sale on 30/Oct and it didn't actually sell until 2/Nov they wouldn't have received any interest at all for October?
|
|
)
