|
Post by brightspark on Feb 8, 2018 9:10:00 GMT
I expect the 2nd charge holders to lose at least interest now. I think all 2nd and 3rd charge holders need to express their concerns to FS. How do you feel FS will positively respond. I expressed my views/concerns over the (in)famous Turbine loan before everything hit the fan and got a template response. Nothing meaningful - still resulted in a c70% loss.
Until the flow of new funds into the platform starts to slow down or ceases temporarily, only then will FS take stock and review their current business model. Until then it's more of 'there's plenty more where they just came from' attitude - lenders that is. Just a personal thought.
I too lost out in the turbine loan and am stuck with small stakes in the Power boat and Knaresborough loans. Since then my policy has been to withdraw from FS and to always sell early any existing loans in this platform. My stake in FS should have been around £40K by now instead of which it is less than 2K. It will not increase until the culture in FS is changed to include one of pursuing bad debts early and rigorously. It would be well advised to cease treating borrowers concerns with platitudes/disdain/contempt - you can take your choice. the Whitehaven problems in particular was/is a salutary lesson I would hope for all investors. Stupidly when I became disillusioned with FS I initially decided to be very much more selective about which loans I held to term. I selected to retain Formby as it seemed to be a fairly straightforward development. Subsequently I had a further change of heart by which time Formby had passed its sell by date. So I am stuck with it. I would put it as evens at this stage whether or not this loan drags on for months if not years with FS pushing out the usual kicking the can down the road noises. I have already just raised a query with FS along the lines suggested and am expecting the usual vacuous reply shortly. Notwithstanding any excuses from them I would urge all investors in this loan to e-mail FS on a daily basis seeking progress reports. Unless investors on p to p platforms become much more proactive about non-performing loans nothing will change.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Feb 8, 2018 9:35:34 GMT
I too lost out in the turbine loan and am stuck with small stakes in the Power boat and Knaresborough loans. Since then my policy has been to withdraw from FS and to always sell early any existing loans in this platform. My stake in FS should have been around £40K by now instead of which it is less than 2K. It will not increase until the culture in FS is changed to include one of pursuing bad debts early and rigorously. It would be well advised to cease treating borrowers lenders' concerns with platitudes/disdain/contempt - you can take your choice. the Whitehaven problems in particular was/is a salutary lesson I would hope for all investors. Stupidly when I became disillusioned with FS I initially decided to be very much more selective about which loans I held to term. I selected to retain Formby as it seemed to be a fairly straightforward development. Subsequently I had a further change of heart by which time Formby had passed its sell by date. So I am stuck with it. I would put it as evens at this stage whether or not this loan drags on for months if not years with FS pushing out the usual kicking the can down the road noises. I have already just raised a query with FS along the lines suggested and am expecting the usual vacuous reply shortly. Notwithstanding any excuses from them I would urge all investors in this loan to e-mail FS on a daily basis seeking progress reports. Unless investors on p to p platforms become much more proactive about non-performing loans nothing will change. ?
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Feb 8, 2018 10:52:11 GMT
Thanks old grumpy. Yes I did mean as you have edited. Old age creeping in combined with frustration at the inability of FS to see where their best interests lie.
|
|
goofy115
Member of DD Central
Posts: 77
Likes: 69
|
Post by goofy115 on Feb 8, 2018 15:05:13 GMT
Further update posted today on the funding secure website.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 8, 2018 15:15:00 GMT
Further update posted today on the funding secure website. Which, although not exactly conclusive, is a bit more detailed/positive and does IMV show that it is worth making some noise (where justified) on the forum to show that we do appreciate the precarious nature of the current situation. They may not respond directly on controversial issues (I certainly wouldn't either, if I were them) , but they do definitely monitor it.
|
|
keith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 118
Likes: 72
|
Post by keith on Feb 8, 2018 15:50:07 GMT
Yes, while not conclusive, it is certainly more comprehensive and gives a better level of confidence. If only that level of detail in comms was more frequent.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,788
Likes: 2,735
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 8, 2018 17:40:21 GMT
I too lost out in the turbine loan and am stuck with small stakes in the Power boat and Knaresborough loans. Since then my policy has been to withdraw from FS and to always sell early any existing loans in this platform. My stake in FS should have been around £40K by now instead of which it is less than 2K. It will not increase until the culture in FS is changed to include one of pursuing bad debts early and rigorously. It would be well advised to cease treating borrowers concerns with platitudes/disdain/contempt - you can take your choice. the Whitehaven problems in particular was/is a salutary lesson I would hope for all investors. Stupidly when I became disillusioned with FS I initially decided to be very much more selective about which loans I held to term. I selected to retain Formby as it seemed to be a fairly straightforward development. Subsequently I had a further change of heart by which time Formby had passed its sell by date. So I am stuck with it. I would put it as evens at this stage whether or not this loan drags on for months if not years with FS pushing out the usual kicking the can down the road noises. I have already just raised a query with FS along the lines suggested and am expecting the usual vacuous reply shortly. Notwithstanding any excuses from them I would urge all investors in this loan to e-mail FS on a daily basis seeking progress reports. Unless investors on p to p platforms become much more proactive about non-performing loans nothing will change. I do feel for you and am invested at a similar level with FS. I think the problem is their only incentive to spend time (money) on employing more people to chase old loans is their reputation which could affect lending supply. Right now, they will be awash with lender's cash so don't see it as a priority. I don't know what solution is. Perhaps some regulatory requirement for the platform to invest a percentage of their own gross profit from every successful loan into a slush fund. The lenders would be paid out by this fund (for defaulted loans) and to incentivise pursuing bad debts, if the platform made a successful recovery, it would receive 100% of the reward. Or something like that. Maybe also a requirement to put a link prominently on the platform, to this forum or some other independent site containing details of the kinds of risk these platforms present. That might cause them to consider their reputation more carefully.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 8, 2018 18:39:27 GMT
<snip> I don't know what solution is. Perhaps some regulatory requirement for the platform to invest a percentage of their own gross profit from every successful loan into a slush fund. The lenders would be paid out by this fund (for defaulted loans) and to incentivise pursuing bad debts, if the platform made a successful recovery, it would receive 100% of the reward. Or something like that. <snip> Relatively easy to sort out would be for the platform to have their own skin in the game. Say a minimum of 5% per loan opportunity held until maturity. Personally I wouldn't mind shaving my percentage return if I knew it would focus the minds of the platform prior to offering the loan and then 'guarantee' some effective monitoring whilst the loan was live. If/when a platform adopts such a strategy then they'll have my attention.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,788
Likes: 2,735
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 8, 2018 19:22:54 GMT
I suspect the issue there is that the platform probably doesn't have anywhere near 5% of the loanbook. But maybe it should?
If not, some other scheme based on their profit being held back as I suggested might be the way?
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Feb 8, 2018 19:43:13 GMT
I suspect the issue there is that the platform probably doesn't have anywhere near 5% of the loanbook. But maybe it should? If not, some other scheme based on their profit being held back as I suggested might be the way? Not saying this is the definitive answer to this thread but ive just copied this from FC's platform..I stopped investing with them a while back.... What happens if Funding Circle goes out of business? In the unlikely event that Funding Circle goes out of business, you would continue to receive repayments for the loans originated on our platform and our back-up service provider would administer these payments for you. If you hold an ISA account, ISA regulations now provide for the ability for our backup servicer to become approved as an ISA manager to allow the maintenance of your ISA account. It’s important to understand that if Funding Circle were to go out of business and our back-up servicer at the time was not an ISA manager, your investments may no longer benefit from tax-free earnings. Our current back-up servicer is authorised by HMRC as an ISA manager. Funding Circle is not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 451
|
Post by aj on Feb 9, 2018 7:22:30 GMT
<snip> I don't know what solution is. Perhaps some regulatory requirement for the platform to invest a percentage of their own gross profit from every successful loan into a slush fund. The lenders would be paid out by this fund (for defaulted loans) and to incentivise pursuing bad debts, if the platform made a successful recovery, it would receive 100% of the reward. Or something like that. <snip> Relatively easy to sort out would be for the platform to have their own skin in the game. Say a minimum of 5% per loan opportunity held until maturity. Personally I wouldn't mind shaving my percentage return if I knew it would focus the minds of the platform prior to offering the loan and then 'guarantee' some effective monitoring whilst the loan was live. If/when a platform adopts such a strategy then they'll have my attention. My largest P2P holding is with BridgeCrowd; they put their own cash into every loan. I have only had one loan where the borrower is being difficult but so far they are being very proactive in their recovery efforts. In the interest of balance, bad points are low availability, high minimum investment, no ISA and lower rates than FS.
|
|
|
Post by gaspilot on Feb 10, 2018 11:06:22 GMT
Just waiting for the fire service to respond now by all accounts. Fingers crossed for a quick positive reply.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 10, 2018 19:11:02 GMT
I think the problem is their only incentive to spend time (money) on employing more people to chase old loans is their reputation which could affect lending supply. Right now, they will be awash with lender's cash so don't see it as a priority. The problem, which I'm not sure FS fully appreciate, is that reputations are a lot easier to lose than to gain. By the time the supply/demand balance were to shift to the point where they have trouble funding loans, it will be too late to start putting more resources towards chasing overdue loans. That's partly because the recovery process is a long drawn-out one, and partly because once an investor gives up on a platform and starts directing their investments elsewhere it will take a big improvement to a platform before that investor will start thinking about re-directing their money back to a platform they had moved away from. There's a lot of competition for P2P investors' money. <snip> I don't know what solution is. Perhaps some regulatory requirement for the platform to invest a percentage of their own gross profit from every successful loan into a slush fund. The lenders would be paid out by this fund (for defaulted loans) and to incentivise pursuing bad debts, if the platform made a successful recovery, it would receive 100% of the reward. Or something like that. <snip> Relatively easy to sort out would be for the platform to have their own skin in the game. Say a minimum of 5% per loan opportunity held until maturity. And better still would be if that investment was made on a 'first loss' basis. In short, what's really needed is to have platforms' interests better aligned with investors' interests'
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 10, 2018 22:04:44 GMT
The problem, which I'm not sure FS fully appreciate, is that reputations are a lot easier to lose than to gain. By the time the supply/demand balance were to shift to the point where they have trouble funding loans, it will be too late to start putting more resources towards chasing overdue loans. That's partly because the recovery process is a long drawn-out one, and partly because once an investor gives up on a platform and starts directing their investments elsewhere it will take a big improvement to a platform before that investor will start thinking about re-directing their money back to a platform they had moved away from. There's a lot of competition for P2P investors' money. Relatively easy to sort out would be for the platform to have their own skin in the game. Say a minimum of 5% per loan opportunity held until maturity. And better still would be if that investment was made on a 'first loss' basis. In short, what's really needed is to have platforms' interests better aligned with investors' interests' Agreed and they wouldn't need to 'put' the funds up at loan launch time - only in the event of a default/loss. That would concentrate the mind of the platform(s) and enhance lenders confidence. If they (FS) had been potentially liable for 50k re the (in)famous turbine loan, I'm convinced they would have ensured that the primary asset was hooked up and commissioned prior to permitting the borrower to simply take the cash, ignore the primary asset and use the funds elsewhere. But in reality that's what happened. So now the situation is they are going to chase the borrower for the 'missing' 70%. Oh please dream on and stop insulting my intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by scores on Feb 16, 2018 7:34:31 GMT
I have a feeling this Fire Service will be arriving from Trumpton.
|
|