|
Post by wiseclerk on Feb 10, 2017 13:15:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Feb 22, 2017 22:14:48 GMT
Welcome on board WestonKevTMP . I was thrilled to see you had joined TMP, and that you have already started engaging with us. I am pleased to hear that your first priority is to get the borrowing side into shape. I am concerned that there are only £51,500 of loans in place today. With such small loan volumes the platform must be a long way short of covering its costs. What will you be doing to increase the number of borrowers? And what volume do you expect to achieve over what timescale? How long could this platform survive at current loan volumes? I hope we are looking forward to a long and prosperous engagement. Profitability is not a short-term aim. Seed capital allows the platform to grow numbers safely whilst getting the platform right for borrowers and lenders. Obviously the platform cannot survive on current loan volumes, but having been live for only around 5 months the volumes are as expected. We have sufficient "runway". Phase 1 of building a real platform matching loans with links into the credit reference agencies and payment processors has been a great achievement, alongside full FCA authorisation. This wasn't overnight, it's taken the co-founders 18 months of planning and liaison with the FCA and bureaux to get here. Next stage (phase 2) is getting the product and risk management into a more optimal position. This includes lender protection. Lender volume is not a short term requirement or aim, that's phase 3 for H2 2017 onwards.... Kevin. P.S. I've just made up these "phases", this isn't part of a grand plan....
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Feb 22, 2017 22:33:44 GMT
it may help in allying some of your personal concerns surrounding the mid to longer term viability of TMP by taking a look see into the important business and personal links of those directly involved with or to those with a watchful vested interest to be found at a distance to the 'core' a goodly number of very wealthy and influential people have a vested interest in the strategic positioning, success, growth and ultimate sector dominance of this venture. These interested parties have identified a niche that will enable them to generate yields for themselves better than or equivalent to some of their affiliate yield driven moneymaking interests. The pursuit of yield forms the bedrock of TMP's ethos, as lenders one could reasonably argue that you are participating in making this well researched business objective viable, by lending one becomes 'a Name' of TMP 'syndicate'. All risk rests with the lender not with TMP as the latter has evidently positioned itself in the role of win, win. Perhaps WestonKevTMP could correct my theorising hypothesis if any part of what I've expressed is incorrect? Link back to my post on Page 2 of this thread: p2pindependentforum.com/post/151998With best regards. I have no idea whatsoever what this post means, or how to answer it. It might just be me, but I think the style very difficult. I apologize if English is your second language. Are you praising the solid professional backgrounds of the co-founders and investors, or something else? I think they have demonstrated strong professional careers to date. And knowing them, they are smart and dynamic. Most forumites know who I am and what I achieved at RateSetter, so I like to think that's earned me some brownie points. Here's my professional profile : (feel free to Link in....) As per the comments on yield. Again your message is very cryptic. Is it a bad thing to form a company that might one day be profitable, as well as providing a fair product for lenders and borrowers? Isn't this a good thing? It's worth noting that unlike I think every other P2P platform, The Money Platform charges zero up front fees on a loan. We only get paid when a loan repays, so we are 100% aligned to the lender in this respect. Arguably the lender is taking a risk with their money and we "only" with reputation, but the estimated returns reflect this. If you like this balance of risk reward then lend, if you don't then fine. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 22, 2017 23:06:43 GMT
Umm, I doubt you are the only one who would be unable to discern the meaning from the words. Isn't it strange how sometimes English appears to be a foreign language.
|
|
hendragon
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 619
|
Post by hendragon on Mar 9, 2017 9:43:05 GMT
since my original post of Nov 11th the following has happened.
Managed to get 3 loans, two of which repaid early and one was after two or three days. To my mind the charges are a little too weighted towards TMP in the event of a very early repayment, perhaps there should be a minimum repayment for lenders.
All loans have repaid in full.
I have had money ready to lend since early February, it is still waiting. Unless more loans come through the platform I really cannot invest more with TMP.
Was promised a reward for help with some feedback. A reminder e-mail to TMP about this has not been replied to.
All in all a good idea, when it works it works well, not enough volume.
|
|
hendragon
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 619
|
Post by hendragon on Mar 9, 2017 9:57:59 GMT
I would not accuse TMP of being untrustworthy. I might suggest that they came to the market place with their plans somewhat unformed, but my impression is that there is a misunderstanding rather than anything else.
|
|
hendragon
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 619
|
Post by hendragon on Mar 9, 2017 10:25:24 GMT
Indeed it was a misunderstanding, just had an e-mail TMP apologised and will sort it out Long live the forum!
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Apr 3, 2017 14:56:34 GMT
These are unsecured loans to individuals, so no security to evaluate. People borrowing at these rates probably have low credit scores or they would get the money another way. It is a very risky type of lending. Not necessarily. Of course there are a lot of loan providers in the UK servicing the impaired credit population (sub-prime). However there are many segments that don't necessarily have problems - for example " thin files", young/retired, transient renters. Historic arrears but today working and with no issues. In addition not everyone has a credit card or wants a loan over 12+ months - for a financial need between £250 and £1,000 born out of a short term need (e.g. broken boiler), then often they only want a loan over a matter of weeks and not months. That's why The Money Platform talks about " short term lending", and not sub-prime.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Apr 3, 2017 15:21:34 GMT
As of earlier today they had a total of £33,750 loans in place. Hardly a viable volume for lenders or for the platform. But that has doubled since I last checked on 17th November, which is encouraging. This amount of lending is of course not viable in the long-term. The point is that we've got to get the foundations right first and we are happy if this takes time, we are in no hurry. Getting the foundations right started with the platform web site and back office tech tech, building the payment processing infrastructure, FCA authorisation, income checks and API links in with the various credit reference agencies and fraud tools. This has all been live for around 6 months, a fantastic achievement. It has more recently been a case of getting some of the credit basics right including customer management (including Collections), credit references agency reporting and credit policy. Basically the risk stuff. The credit policy has purposely been initially strict, our approach is always to start prudent and slowly increase approval rates. Also when you first launch a product the quality of through the door traffic tends to be markedly worse than for a mature platform. In addition we don't want to attract too much volume from partners until we are in a place where we can more confidentially approve the right applicants. This we have started to do, and volumes of lending should now slowly start to increase. The Money Platform has recently passed the £100k mark; Not quite the millions I'm use to at RateSetter, but feels good to be building something here from the foundations. So I appreciate some of our lenders might have been frustrated with stagnant money, but hopefully borrower volumes will now start to escalate. I also appreciate the platform at this stage isn't for everyone. The platform today is for the more adventurous investor/lender. Returns are expected to be higher - but there is neither FSCS protection, loan fractionalisation nor a provision fund. The Money Platform is a pure P2P lending platform. But over time these things will change as we grow, mature and extend the offering. But that's for the future (no plans to become a bank!), and I thank the lenders that have registered on the platform so far, the adventurous early adopters. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Apr 3, 2017 15:25:24 GMT
....How long could this platform survive at current loan volumes? The platform cannot survive on current loan volumes, and we will need to scale. But there is no short-term time pressure, and we want to " get it right, then do it on time".... They key is to get the foundations right (platform tech, credit policy, customer management, loan product, lender product), and then hopefully scale lending without having to scale costs.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 3, 2017 16:17:08 GMT
These are unsecured loans to individuals, so no security to evaluate. People borrowing at these rates probably have low credit scores or they would get the money another way. It is a very risky type of lending. Not necessarily. Of course there are a lot of loan providers in the UK servicing the impaired credit population (sub-prime). However there are many segments that don't necessarily have problems - for example " thin files", young/retired, transient renters. Historic arrears but today working and with no issues. In addition not everyone has a credit card or wants a loan over 12+ months - for a financial need between £250 and £1,000 born out of a short term need (e.g. broken boiler), then often they only want a loan over a matter of weeks and not months. That's why The Money Platform talks about " short term lending", and not sub-prime. If that is the case why are the rates so high? And why are the expected defaults so high?
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Apr 4, 2017 21:34:44 GMT
If that is the case why are the rates so high? And why are the expected defaults so high? That question deserves a large answer, there are so many issues. Firstly the short term product means APRs are always high. Any fee based short term product, when annualised is magnified. It's not a bad deal for a single short term borrower, but great for a long term lender who can keep his monies rolling from one borrower to another across a whole year. Another issue is sourcing of borrowers. Most channels focus on " prime" or " sub prime", there isn't really a middle ground for the type of applicant I described. Then there's the issue of why/when borrowers default. My view is that there are three timings; 1) No intention, either fraud or borrower is taking the loan knowing they are not going to pay. Usually a first (non)payment default. 2) Poor lending decision, i.e. the loan was granted when the customer cannot afford the loan or their financial status wasn't stable enough. 3) longer term, life happens and the borrower can't pay. Perhaps they lose their job, debt spirals, get ill, The issue is that short term borrowers suffer from 2 out of 3, even if the loan is just for a few weeks. So the risk is not that less than a 12+ month loan, despite only charging interest for weeks, rather than years. These applicants do often have some form of historical impaired credit. So approval rates are low but the platform has to pay to assess everyone. It isn't a case of approving defaults of CCJs, but segmenting the applications to determine slices of the impaired portfolio that are acceptable within a risk appetite. This segmentation requires data analytics and a higher degree of risk sophisticated than simple low risk lending to homeowners with perfect credit histories. Finally a lot of the lending costs are the same. The cost of sourcing the borrower, broker or comparison fees, credit reference checks, operational costs. So it costs the same for a 4 week loan to be acquired as a 5-year loan. So to answer your question, there are many factors that come into play. But very often factors that make short term lending an expensive business to be in. These costs inevitably end up with the borrower, and default expectations are higher. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Apr 14, 2017 19:52:49 GMT
WestonKevTMP Over 10,000 users; congrats! How many are lenders, how many are actual borrowers and how many are declined borrowers? Ha ha, now I'm all for transparency but some details we'd rather keep private as we grow. Especially as the first 6-months is very unlikely to look like the next 6-months.... But the vast majority will be borrower registrations, with a very high percentage of declines as we tweek Credit Policy, product and underwriting processes. The key point for me was simply that the platform can handle user applications with all the appropriate APIs into third parties (such as credit reference agencies), and that there is a clear demand for what we offer. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by reeknralf on Apr 29, 2017 12:10:52 GMT
There are few bugs better guaranteed to sip me off than automated address fillers which don't work. This one offers you your address in a menu, and then says it's invalid. No option to enter the address yourself. No option to tick a bow confirming the address is actually correct. carp.
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Apr 29, 2017 13:02:02 GMT
There are few bugs better guaranteed to sip me off than automated address fillers which don't work. This one offers you your address in a menu, and then says it's invalid. No option to enter the address yourself. No option to tick a bow confirming the address is actually correct. carp. Could you DM or email me the address you tried, so we can test it? We are having some issues with some addresses that only have names, no numbers. Alas this is quite often, but we are going to get it fixed if people tell us.... Kevin.
|
|