|
|
Post by oppsididitagain on Dec 2, 2016 8:01:26 GMT
How do you think ReBS should be counting the votes for their recoveries process
Do you think ReBS should be counting votes on a lender by lender basis
I.e 1 vote for 1 person
Or should they take a (£) Percentage basis
I.E The larger the holding the more % of the vote you have
Personally I think it should be 1 vote for 1 person - count up the number of votes and take action based on the result.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561 
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Dec 2, 2016 8:23:48 GMT
How do you think ReBS should be counting the votes for their recoveries process Do you think ReBS should be counting votes on a lender by lender basis I.e 1 vote for 1 person Or should they take a (£) Percentage basis I.E The larger the holding the more % of the vote you have Personally I think it should be 1 vote for 1 person - count up the number of votes and take action based on the result. Naa, £1 it's trivial, £1000 it's not. As per other platforms AC TC the votes are weighted by money as they should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by oppsididitagain on Dec 3, 2016 10:12:39 GMT
I would be interested to see how the H**** D******* LTD vote would have gone if they had taken a 1 vote 1 investor stance.
13% recovery on this loan, can't believe most people voted yes to this !
|
|
seb8072
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 99
|
Post by seb8072 on Dec 3, 2016 10:26:36 GMT
Sorry oppsididitagain, I don't agree with you on this. More money equals more risk equals more say. Look at this another way, say you have 100 lenders, one of which lends 80% of the funds. If that were you, would you want the other 99 lenders to say what happens to your funds?
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Dec 3, 2016 10:28:08 GMT
I would be interested to see how the H**** D******* LTD vote would have gone if they had taken a 1 vote 1 investor stance. 13% recovery on this loan, can't believe most people voted yes to this ! According to the poll this recovery was 35% (at a guess it's because a fair number of installments had been paid), and we were told that it was the family members who forked out, the guarantors being skint The votes only added up tp £9000 anyway. REBS in particular (and I think to their credit) take over the administration of any default and largely use their own judgement (we have an opt-out if we wish, I've never heard of anyone using it)
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,195
Likes: 6,005
|
Post by registerme on Dec 3, 2016 10:44:22 GMT
The only equitable way to allow voting in a default situation is on a % investment basis, ie not on a one vote per person invested. The alternative would be to provide the same voting weight to somebody who took 99% of a loan and to the person who took the remaining 1% of the loan. Frankly that's ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by oppsididitagain on Dec 3, 2016 12:14:16 GMT
Sorry oppsididitagain, I don't agree with you on this. More money equals more risk equals more say. Look at this another way, say you have 100 lenders, one of which lends 80% of the funds. If that were you, would you want the other 99 lenders to say what happens to your funds? Its ok to disagree, thats why we have these forums. :-) I understand what you are saying and if I was ever in the situation you describe then maybe I would want to have the biggest say. Just like an AGM for a PLC, the more shares you own the more votes you have. On the flip side, if more people think the same way then maybe they are correct ? They maybe better judged and have a better collective knowledge than just 1 person. Just because I invest £10 doesn't mean to say that the risk for me isn't as great as say £5000 invested by a wealthier investor. On this occasion, with said company I think we could have recovered more.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Dec 4, 2016 17:53:59 GMT
|
|
