|
|
Post by andygod1 on Apr 23, 2019 11:34:09 GMT
I feel sorry for any one who has lost, but there is a need to learn from the experience, perhaps that one of the first lessons of investing is to be protective of your capital, seems silly but making money is has a lot to do about learning how not to loose it.
Were those investing their life savings not only unwise but just a little bit greedy?
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059 
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Apr 23, 2019 11:45:16 GMT
I haven't lost any money but this victim blaming is getting nauseating. This isn't about being "greedy" or not diversifying but rather about holding people to account for their actions. This particular loan and recovery was mismanaged in numerous ways and the fact that Lendy has refused to clarify their purchase of 21st June 2018 also means that foul play or conflict of interest cannot be ruled out.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 23, 2019 11:55:54 GMT
I feel sorry for any one who has lost, but there is a need to learn from the experience, perhaps that one of the first lessons of investing is to be protective of your capital, seems silly but making money is has a lot to do about learning how not to loose it. Were those investing their life savings not only unwise but just a little bit greedy? Just because I want an average return on a business investment does not make me greedy. Seeking a higher return than currently offered by the High St is not foolish per se. Ultimately when conducting oneself with others there has to be an element of trust. When that trust is abused it causes resentment, frustration and not a little anger. All these behaviours have been manifested by many over the previous two years and will continue until the current tranche of disillusioned investors has been placated one way or another.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 23, 2019 12:52:01 GMT
10% re-invested back into platform? ... Thing is, we're not investing in the platform as such (except arguably for any "Wealth" investors), but in individual loans to individual developers secured on individual properties which happen to be listed on the platform. At time of writing there are 7 loans with a non-zero amount available via the Lendy platform (and I think a few more that are eligible for sale, but not currently having any parts for sale...). Obviously it is up to each investor to make their own decision about the individual loans, and many will already have invested up to their allowable limits in all of these already.
However, determining that these remaining loans are "bad" investments solely through association with Lendy seems to me just as much of a fallacy as those who previously believed some of the older loans were "good" merely by association with Lendy (who at the time had a better reputation amongst at least a subset of forumites)...
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 23, 2019 13:52:24 GMT
If you are to believe any of the spin that Lendy puts out they have a process of sorting the wheat from the chaff to the benefit of investors. It is not supposed to be lucky dip.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,041
Likes: 5,157
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 23, 2019 14:16:19 GMT
I haven't lost any money but this victim blaming is getting nauseating. This isn't about being "greedy" or not diversifying but rather about holding people to account for their actions. This particular loan and recovery was mismanaged in numerous ways and the fact that Lendy has refused to clarify their purchase of 21st June 2018 also means that foul play or conflict of interest cannot be ruled out. I think you've misread what I was saying. I didn't say P2P investing was greedy*. I said that exposing yourself to a high-risk investment with very little diversification, to the point that you risk losing "life-changing" amounts on a handful of loans on just one site, is foolish. I challenge you to tell me I'm wrong on that. * - FWIW, I still think it's a very sound concept. It just bubbled to the point that there was too much money chasing too few worthwhile opportunities - so rates fell and risks rose.
|
|
|
|
Post by andygod1 on Apr 23, 2019 14:25:29 GMT
So investors were 100% blame free and in the right, and it was totally down to Lendy mismanagement etc, that they lost money Have i got that right?
it was i who stated that perhaps people who invested their life savings in these high risk loans were perphaps being a little bit greedy.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on Apr 23, 2019 14:40:40 GMT
Or perhaps the FCA have finally got this right and p2p should never have been marketed to retail investors?
It seems to me that with Collateral, Lendy and now Unbolted, there are far too many risks with the product to market it to the average retail investor. You have to be very clued up legally and a sophisticated investor to navigate the p2p minefield.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,041
Likes: 5,157
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 23, 2019 14:51:05 GMT
It seems to me that with Collateral, Lendy and now Unbolted, there are far too many risks with the product to market it to the average retail investor. Collateral - FCA dropped one with the register. Lendy - One borrower chancing their arm with a baseless lawsuit. Unbolted - Looks like a single solicitor-borrower taking legal action on technicalities in contract to avoid/delay overdue loans being enforced.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 23, 2019 14:59:21 GMT
It seems to me that with Collateral, Lendy and now Unbolted, there are far too many risks with the product to market it to the average retail investor. Collateral - FCA dropped one with the register. Lendy - One borrower chancing their arm with a baseless lawsuit. Unbolted - Looks like a single solicitor-borrower taking legal action on technicalities in contract to avoid/delay overdue loans being enforced. Out of curiosity, how many platforms would you suggest the average "retail" investor to diversify their portfolio with so that they mitigate the [various] "risks" posed by P2P lending?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 23, 2019 15:01:22 GMT
Or perhaps the FCA have finally got this right and p2p should never have been marketed to retail investors? It seems to me that with Collateral, Lendy and now Unbolted, there are far too many risks with the product to market it to the average retail investor. You have to be very clued up legally and a sophisticated investor to navigate the p2p minefield. It does not seem to be the product that poses the risk, but the management of the risk by the P2P companies that is becoming a concern.
|
|
|
|
Post by investorni on Apr 24, 2019 14:22:33 GMT
Or perhaps the FCA have finally got this right and p2p should never have been marketed to retail investors? It seems to me that with Collateral, Lendy and now Unbolted, there are far too many risks with the product to market it to the average retail investor. You have to be very clued up legally and a sophisticated investor to navigate the p2p minefield. It does not seem to be the product that poses the risk, but the management of the risk by the P2P companies that is becoming a concern. The risk seems to be coming from the fact that valuations have been gotten so wrong. The concern should be the due diligence and valuations. With a boat you knew exactly what it was worth, you knew you could take it to an auction, put it up for auction, sell it, settle all the outstanding debt and return the surplus to the borrower. Retail investors were fine with this, were able to say, yes that boat should achieve enough at auction to cover my investment, nothing has changed except the scale, problem is now we have to trust the valuations. Get that trust back and p2p is fine for investors, but right now the trust is lacking, but can be recovered.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Apr 24, 2019 16:05:36 GMT
The risk seems to be coming from the fact that valuations have been gotten so wrong. The concern should be the due diligence and valuations. With a boat you knew exactly what it was worth, you knew you could take it to an auction, put it up for auction, sell it, settle all the outstanding debt and return the surplus to the borrower. Retail investors were fine with this, were able to say, yes that boat should achieve enough at auction to cover my investment, nothing has changed except the scale, problem is now we have to trust the valuations. Get that trust back and p2p is fine for investors, but right now the trust is lacking, but can be recovered. This loan has nothing to do with valuations so please don't muddy the waters. This loan defaulted because of lax loan monitoring whereby money that was supposed to be spent on the development was diverted elsewhere. Proper oversight would have prevented this from happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by investorni on Apr 24, 2019 18:13:11 GMT
The risk seems to be coming from the fact that valuations have been gotten so wrong. The concern should be the due diligence and valuations. With a boat you knew exactly what it was worth, you knew you could take it to an auction, put it up for auction, sell it, settle all the outstanding debt and return the surplus to the borrower. Retail investors were fine with this, were able to say, yes that boat should achieve enough at auction to cover my investment, nothing has changed except the scale, problem is now we have to trust the valuations. Get that trust back and p2p is fine for investors, but right now the trust is lacking, but can be recovered. This loan has nothing to do with valuations so please don't muddy the waters. This loan defaulted because of lax loan monitoring whereby money that was supposed to be spent on the development was diverted elsewhere. Proper oversight would have prevented this from happening. I get that, the point is, selfish as it may sound, i dont really care if a loan defaults, if the security is easily accessible and disposable and covers the capital plus all interest then as an investor default just means waiting a little longer but being compensated. Loan monitoring is important only in so far as to ensure the current LTV does not reach an unacceptable level, ie monies intended to increase property value get sequestered into private accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 24, 2019 20:21:27 GMT
It does not seem to be the product that poses the risk, but the management of the risk by the P2P companies that is becoming a concern. The risk seems to be coming from the fact that valuations have been gotten so wrong. The concern should be the due diligence and valuations. With a boat you knew exactly what it was worth, you knew you could take it to an auction, put it up for auction, sell it, settle all the outstanding debt and return the surplus to the borrower. Retail investors were fine with this, were able to say, yes that boat should achieve enough at auction to cover my investment, nothing has changed except the scale, problem is now we have to trust the valuations. Get that trust back and p2p is fine for investors, but right now the trust is lacking, but can be recovered. There are boats and then there are "powerboats" which seem to be a different animal in FS world.
|
|
