|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 9:30:01 GMT
Ridiculous recovery amount with excessive fees ,I notice even more people are heading for the exit as the SM increases, not many are reinvesting their meagre recovery You may be correct about some people heading for the exit, and I am certainly disappointed about the sale price vs valuation. However recovery is incomplete and I certainly hope that Lendy will be able to demonstrate the value of its, well publicised, investments in it recovery team. That said, it seems that Lendy continues to attract new, and sometimes, large investments. Today saw a £100k chunk taken from DFL30 and £30k into DFL27 (I have not checked all loans). With the the demise of COL and the withdrawal of FC and now also MT (as evidenced by their pipeline update today) from large property development deals, the number of players is narrowing. Now, if Lendy could achieve full FCA authorisation, I may be more reassured! Please DO NOT be reassured by the FCA authorisation. The FCA is funded by the companies themselves. They DO NOT represent the consumer, it is merely a badge to put on their websites to fool you into how safe the companies are. So far I have found the associated ombudsman service to be appalling, it seems to be run by children that have no idea of the rules, law or common sense right from wrong. My experience so far is that the ombudsman represents the company and not the consumer. The ombudsman investigator simply will not listen or read anything I send and Lendy can do no wrong in their eyes. No matter how serious the errors, the investigator deliberately ignores the obvious. He who pays the piper calls the tune, I guess.
Believe me I have contacted the FCA twice now , to no avail. The FCA (so far) is an absolute joke. When my case goes further to the senior ombudsman it might be different but from the investigators performance I do not hold out much hope. The investigator will tell you black is white until you get tired and hopefully go away.
NOBODY SHOULD HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE IN THE FCA OR OMBUDSMAN SERVICE. THE ONLY OPTION IS THE COURTS, WHICH WILL COST YOU DEAR AND LENDY, IF THEY LOSE THE CASE, WILL BE LOSING THE INVESTORS MONEY ANYHOW.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 11, 2018 9:40:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Mar 11, 2018 11:22:32 GMT
peterpea . With regard to the FCA. They are funded by a levy on authorized firms but those firms have no leverage over the FCA. The levy is compulsory; it's not as though an FCA regulated firm can say no to the levy. As someone who runs an FCA authorized firm (not P2P), I can tell you categorically that we have no influence on FCA regulations. We wish! The FCA exists only to set rules and regulations, to decide whether the people who run them are fit and proper. It then oversee them to make sure they keep to those rules. They have no role in the ìnvestment process of regulated firms and are not responsible for your decisions to invest with them. Remember P2P platforms are explicitly not regulated to give investment advice. You seem to be particularly upset by this investment on the SS platform. Nobody likes to lose money on investments but this is a high risk investment strategy and substantial losses are perfectly normal. You agreed to buy a portfolio of loans from low quality borrowers paying IRRs of up to 31%. You agreed to the platform taking a management fee of 6% and 33% of the yield i.e. that you receive c 40% of the total cost of borrowing. You bought from a platform where the directors had little experience of the products they were marketing and no experience at all in managing a portfolio of distressed debt to achieve a good realisations. You bought via a platform that, while theoretically an intermediation business, has it's profitability driven by upfront fees which favours maximizing origination volumes, not loan quality. This was all clearly known. Through 2015 into 2016, some posters on this forum, including myself, made repeated efforts to underline these facts. We were ignored. My syndicate had between £1-2mm on the SS platform over 2015/16 based on an investment strategy that utilized the INPL liquidity to strip coupons off prior to redemption. We did not "buy-and-hold" since this was, in our view, a poor risk-return proposition. Nonetheless, our strategy had the clear risk that liquidity could evaporate and also could have gone badly wrong. This is the nature of taking risk and we sized our position accordingly (i.e small). Assuming that you have a sensible risk management strategy, with clear concentration limits by platform, product and single-name loan, then PBL155 should be no more than say 0.25% of your net wealth. This loss is then just 0.15% of your NAV. At a broader level, if you keep a paltform like SS at a sensible limit (max 5% of NAV) then any losses (if any) will be modest. If you are this upset by a single loan defaulting or by the number of SS loans in default then clearly you've sized the position incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 11, 2018 12:27:26 GMT
peterpea to say the FCA is funded by regulated firms and therefore is dictated in what they do by them is thoroughly debunked by drofmas17 above. To demonstrate more simply, individuals pay taxes but the government is not dictated to by them in the way it spends it.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 14:55:28 GMT
peterpea . With regard to the FCA. They are funded by a levy on authorized firms but those firms have no leverage over the FCA. The levy is compulsory; it's not as though an FCA regulated firm can say no to the levy. As someone who runs an FCA authorized firm (not P2P), I can tell you categorically that we have no influence on FCA regulations. We wish! The FCA exists only to set rules and regulations, to decide whether the people who run them are fit and proper. It then oversee them to make sure they keep to those rules. They have no role in the ìnvestment process of regulated firms and are not responsible for your decisions to invest with them. Remember P2P platforms are explicitly not regulated to give investment advice. You seem to be particularly upset by this investment on the SS platform. Nobody likes to lose money on investments but this is a high risk investment strategy and substantial losses are perfectly normal. You agreed to buy a portfolio of loans from low quality borrowers paying IRRs of up to 31%. You agreed to the platform taking a management fee of 6% and 33% of the yield i.e. that you receive c 40% of the total cost of borrowing. You bought from a platform where the directors had little experience of the products they were marketing and no experience at all in managing a portfolio of distressed debt to achieve a good realisations. You bought via a platform that, while theoretically an intermediation business, has it's profitability driven by upfront fees which favours maximizing origination volumes, not loan quality. This was all clearly known. Through 2015 into 2016, some posters on this forum, including myself, made repeated efforts to underline these facts. We were ignored. My syndicate had between £1-2mm on the SS platform over 2015/16 based on an investment strategy that utilized the INPL liquidity to strip coupons off prior to redemption. We did not "buy-and-hold" since this was, in our view, a poor risk-return proposition. Nonetheless, our strategy had the clear risk that liquidity could evaporate and also could have gone badly wrong. This is the nature of taking risk and we sized our position accordingly (i.e small). Assuming that you have a sensible risk management strategy, with clear concentration limits by platform, product and single-name loan, then PBL155 should be no more than say 0.25% of your net wealth. This loss is then just 0.15% of your NAV. At a broader level, if you keep a paltform like SS at a sensible limit (max 5% of NAV) then any losses (if any) will be modest. If you are this upset by a single loan defaulting or by the number of SS loans in default then clearly you've sized the position incorrectly. I don`t agree with very much of that at all. I didn`t say that the companies set the rules, I said that the FCA do not enforce them. This is the second time for me that a body that is paid by the industry appears to protect the industry and not the consumer. The FCA are indirectly responsible for my decisions as they gave me the confidence to invest by authorising Lendy to conduct their business in a proper manner. The FCA should be enforcing the rules but do not.
Mostly I am upset by Lendy severely breaking the FCA rules, but also with the FCA / ombudsman service failing miserably to enforce or protect the consumer. I am also upset by many of the investments on Lendy.
Substantial losses are NOT perfectly normal if run properly. I have been with SS since inception and had no knowledge of everything you mentioned above. "we have due diligence", "we would rather make no loan than a bad one", changing the conditions after making the loan instead of for new loans moving forward etc etc.
This was not well known by me as I did not know of the forum. This is a simple formula. Problem is that Lendy told us one thing but did another. Were seemingly desperate to get things moving and failed to do the things they should have as a result. All because it wasn`t their money to lose. The most we are supposed to lose is the 15% leeway of the valuations. Why are the valuers not sued on their insurance ??
When you say I bought from a company that did this and did that ................. This was not known by me and Lendy did not inform me all against FCA rules that they do not enforce. I am tempted to set up my own lending company and cheat consumers as the law does not seem to apply online. It is easy done. Remember 12DP in the U.S. Luckily I paid with credit card but still had to fight for that refund.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 14:56:33 GMT
peterpea to say the FCA is funded by regulated firms and therefore is dictated in what they do by them is thoroughly debunked by drofmas17 above. To demonstrate more simply, individuals pay taxes but the government is not dictated to by them in the way it spends it. That`s the theory but not the reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 11, 2018 15:45:23 GMT
peterpea to say the FCA is funded by regulated firms and therefore is dictated in what they do by them is thoroughly debunked by drofmas17 above. To demonstrate more simply, individuals pay taxes but the government is not dictated to by them in the way it spends it. That`s the theory but not the reality. You misinterpret your personal prejudices and expectations for reality.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 11, 2018 15:57:55 GMT
The FSCS is also funded in the same way and they have saved my bacon twice - once with Icelandic Banks and once with a firm called Keydata. I am very grateful for this degree of consumer protection. Although the FCA is far from perfect I don't think that it's shortcomings are due to the funding method.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 16:31:12 GMT
The FSCS is also funded in the same way and they have saved my bacon twice - once with Icelandic Banks and once with a firm called Keydata. I am very grateful for this degree of consumer protection. Although the FCA is far from perfect I don't think that it's shortcomings are due to the funding method. You may be right , you may be wrong. I can`t say for sure. But previous experience with other institutions have shown me this. I can say , however, that the FOS, so far has been totally pointless in its existence. There is further to go with regard to my particular case but I have little faith. It looks to be run by children.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 16:32:22 GMT
You misinterpret your personal prejudices and expectations for reality. I can only tell you of my experiences.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 11, 2018 16:38:53 GMT
You misinterpret your personal prejudices and expectations for reality. I can only tell you of my experiences. So far you have only told us of your unfounded allegations. Which the FCA after investigation has concluded there is no evidence to support. Frankly if you expect us to support your "evidence" over our own experience and an FCA investigation you are deluded.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 16:47:43 GMT
So far you have only told us of your unfounded allegations. Which the FCA after investigation has concluded there is no evidence to support. Frankly if you expect us to support your "evidence" over our own experience and an FCA investigation you are deluded. What FCA investigation ? It is a FOS investigation conducted by children. I can`t talk about specifics as the case is ongoing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 11, 2018 16:56:48 GMT
So far you have only told us of your unfounded allegations. Which the FCA after investigation has concluded there is no evidence to support. Frankly if you expect us to support your "evidence" over our own experience and an FCA investigation you are deluded. What FCA investigation ? It is a FOS investigation conducted by children. I can`t talk about specifics as the case is ongoing. QED
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Mar 11, 2018 17:49:24 GMT
Looking back I think a previous post you made (of the 30+ you have made on the PBL155 thread) explains where the issue lies: ... No-one wants to lose money, yes it might happen sometimes but overall the return should outweigh the losses by a good margin .... .... Are we all supposed to expect to lose more than we gain because that can`t be right. There is absolutely no reason why "the returns should outweigh the losses by a good margin". Or that "it can't be right" that losses outweigh gains. Over a diversified portfolio of asset classes over a long enough time horizon, yes, you are unlikely to lose money. But on a portfolio of risky loans on a specific P2P platforms over one or two years? You could very easily lose money. Investment is a stochastic process and returns can be volatile. The probability density function is not positive definite, it has a left tail and that tail can be substantial. You seem to think you are entitled to a good return on your money. Moreover (based on a number of posts that were deleted by the mods), you also seem to think that because you are a large investor you need to be treated differently from smaller lenders. It might be time to wake up and smell the coffee. |
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Mar 11, 2018 18:28:36 GMT
Looking back I think a previous post you made (of the 30+ you have made on the PBL155 thread) explains where the issue lies: ... No-one wants to lose money, yes it might happen sometimes but overall the return should outweigh the losses by a good margin .... .... Are we all supposed to expect to lose more than we gain because that can`t be right. There is absolutely no reason why "the returns should outweigh the losses by a good margin". Or that "it can't be right" that losses outweigh gains. Over a diversified portfolio of asset classes over a long enough time horizon, yes, you are unlikely to lose money. But on a portfolio of risky loans on a specific P2P platforms over one or two years? You could very easily lose money. Investment is a stochastic process and returns can be volatile. The probability density function is not positive definite, it has a left tail and that tail can be substantial. You seem to think you are entitled to a good return on your money. Moreover (based on a number of posts that were deleted by the mods), you also seem to think that because you are a large investor you need to be treated differently from smaller lenders. It might be time to wake up and smell the coffee. I am entitled to the truth and invest on that basis. It is not reasonable to be cheated and lied to, then make an investment based on that information. This is probably a hanging offence in some countries. I don`t smell coffee I smell impolite bodily functions.
|
|
