|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Feb 8, 2017 9:20:51 GMT
....indeed RS is meant to be emailing me some data on the 2016 default levels v their projections as detailed on their Market Data page, to aid my decision) and no mention of being Blacklisted was indicated if I left. I personally, if I worked there, wouldn't send you any information above and beyond what is reported on the web site, or can be deduced from analysing the downloadable loan book. Not just because they have 40,000+ lenders and so can't be expected to perform bespoke analysis for a single lender, but also because it isn't fair. The site is egalitarian and all have access to equal information whether you have £10 or a few million... And although I don't know, I'd be really surprised if anyone was "banned". Not only because it would be petty and regulatory risky, but very difficult to implement and control. Kevin.
|
|
|
Post by henders on Feb 8, 2017 11:29:05 GMT
Just re-reading the Blog that I was sent to from the email notification. Blog entry, 1st Feb 'Building greater...- Updating Lender Terms' (I don't usually do blogs). And noticed the comments section, from which I cut the following question and reply from ratesetters: I hear that if we withdraw our funds and accept the waived early exit fees - we're never allowed to come back to Ratesetter.. is this true?? Not good. • Reply•Share › − Avatar RateSetter Mod Hi, happy to clarify that this is not the case: if an investor chooses to Sell Out of all of their RateSetter loans as part of the early exit offer, they do not have to close their account. If the investor has a change of heart and chooses to reinvest at a later date, they are very welcome to do so. I have just rung RS re this and they have categorically assured me that you will not be able to re-invest at a later date. The guy claimed to have no knowledge of any blog stating otherwise. Good eh?
|
|
|
Post by marcusponds on Feb 8, 2017 11:46:40 GMT
Just re-reading the Blog that I was sent to from the email notification. Blog entry, 1st Feb 'Building greater...- Updating Lender Terms' (I don't usually do blogs). And noticed the comments section, from which I cut the following question and reply from ratesetters: I hear that if we withdraw our funds and accept the waived early exit fees - we're never allowed to come back to Ratesetter.. is this true?? Not good. • Reply•Share › − Avatar RateSetter Mod Hi, happy to clarify that this is not the case: if an investor chooses to Sell Out of all of their RateSetter loans as part of the early exit offer, they do not have to close their account. If the investor has a change of heart and chooses to reinvest at a later date, they are very welcome to do so. I have just rung RS re this and they have categorically assured me that you will not be able to re-invest at a later date. The guy claimed to have no knowledge of any blog stating otherwise. Good eh?
|
|
|
Post by marcusponds on Feb 8, 2017 11:49:13 GMT
it's fair enough isn't it? Otherwise what's to stop someone who wants to sell a large chunk, selling out everything for free and then buying back in at a lower level, disadvantaging the 'honest' clients? Perhaps a fair way is to limit the period before' re entry'
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 12:13:13 GMT
It is stated quite clearly on that RateSetter blog page not once but TWICE in the replies that customers do not have to close their account if they take advantage of the free early sell-out
If people are being told otherwise over the phone, then there is some serious muppetry going on here...
|
|
rick24
Member of DD Central
Posts: 244
Likes: 138
|
Post by rick24 on Feb 8, 2017 13:30:03 GMT
It is stated quite clearly on that RateSetter blog page not once but TWICE in the replies that customers do not have to close their account if they take advantage of the free early sell-out If people are being told otherwise over the phone, then there is some serious muppetry going on here... Sounds like the policy hasn't been worked out - being developed on the fly - or hasn't been communicated properly.
|
|
rick24
Member of DD Central
Posts: 244
Likes: 138
|
Post by rick24 on Feb 8, 2017 13:31:17 GMT
it's fair enough isn't it? Otherwise what's to stop someone who wants to sell a large chunk, selling out everything for free and then buying back in at a lower level, disadvantaging the 'honest' clients? Perhaps a fair way is to limit the period before' re entry' Selling out and then returning on Ratesetter's conditions at a lower rate. Surely they would be relatively happy with that. This isn't my reason for selling out in any case.
|
|
|
Post by nutfield on Feb 8, 2017 14:01:02 GMT
Am I missing something but why would someone trade in his investments on which he was getting over 6%, only to lend later to get the lower returns now available? If you dont like the platform's new rules - fair enough. But why come back for less?
|
|
wapping35
Member of DD Central
Posts: 385
Likes: 210
|
Post by wapping35 on Feb 8, 2017 14:32:10 GMT
....indeed RS is meant to be emailing me some data on the 2016 default levels v their projections as detailed on their Market Data page, to aid my decision) and no mention of being Blacklisted was indicated if I left. I personally, if I worked there, wouldn't send you any information above and beyond what is reported on the web site, or can be deduced from analysing the downloadable loan book. Not just because they have 40,000+ lenders and so can't be expected to perform bespoke analysis for a single lender, but also because it isn't fair. The site is egalitarian and all have access to equal information whether you have £10 or a few million... And although I don't know, I'd be really surprised if anyone was "banned". Not only because it would be petty and regulatory risky, but very difficult to implement and control. Kevin. Interesting Kev on your take on Customer Services.... .. Anyway I spoke with Rachel a supervisor (on Friday 3rd) and we discussed the Market Data page. Particularly the fact that the PF runs on a 3.0% default rate and yet on the Market Data page the most up to date projected default rates are 4.06% (2014), 3.94% (2015) and 3.53% (2016). www.ratesetter.com/aboutus/statisticsThe clarity is around why are the statistics inconsistent and Rachel (who couldn't explain, said she would email back). In addition she said the 2016 default rate was lower than expected. And I pointed out if that was the case why on the Statistic's page does it indicate the 2016 loans were written indicating a 3.43% default rate and yet the most recent projection is 2016 defaults will be 3.53%. That is higher than the originally expected default rate. I actually thought Rachel was being very helpful by promising to email a reply , especially since the Statistics could not be explained by her. I am not sure you are aware the Statistics did need to be corrected late last year due to some issues uncovered by Lenders (me being one of them) asking similar questions. And I did get an email then saying so and RS did correct those errors shortly afterwards. That did occur after you left RS. Anyway I hope all is well at TMP..
|
|
rick24
Member of DD Central
Posts: 244
Likes: 138
|
Post by rick24 on Feb 8, 2017 14:40:44 GMT
I believe they are calculated in a different way.
From FT Alphaville:
"The expected bad debts on the provision fund page are estimated by looking at a 12-month cohort of loans that are at least 18 months old. So, at the moment, it reflects the performance of loans originated between June 2014 to May 2015. The company then extrapolate that performance to the entire loan book, taking into account the split between loans that are less than one year old or more than one year old. Older loans are given a lower expected loss figure, on account that they are past the point where default risk is highest.
The projected year-by-year loss numbers on the statistics page are calculated in a different, slightly weirder way. Take 2016, for example. As we’ve still got a month to go, Ratesetter does the same thing it does above in terms of looking at a past 12-month cohort of loans that are at least 18 months old. When the year is finished and no more 2016 loans are being originated, the company then looks at the actual performance of loans originated this year and adjusts its expected losses. If the loans originated in 2016 have lower defaults than in previous years, which Ratesetter believes will be the case, then the expected loss number will come down over time.
However, the key reason for the difference today, according to Ratesetter, is that on the statistics page they don’t take into account lower expected losses on older loans — this, apparently, is why the loss number is higher than the one given on the provision fund page."
Does that help?
|
|
wapping35
Member of DD Central
Posts: 385
Likes: 210
|
Post by wapping35 on Feb 8, 2017 15:45:52 GMT
Thanks.
It helps some what but it does not explain why the 2016 default rate is shown to be higher than they planned, given they expected it to be lower and indeed Rachel indicated it was lower.
I did also ask Rachel if the Market Data page computes a more conservative approach to defaults perhaps the PF should follow that more conservative approach given the coverage ratio is so much lower than the 125% minimum.
Also glad to see RS were happy to email the FT, as well as me.
p..s
Looking back I also saw an email from CS at RS (Nov 23rd 2016) which quote:
"In regards to the loan book downloads, both are unfortunately still inaccurate and this is something we are working to fix as soon as possible."
I know Kevin referred to looking at the loan book downloads, well the above really shows why that is not a lot of use.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 8, 2017 17:02:10 GMT
Am I missing something but why would someone trade in his investments on which he was getting over 6%, only to lend later to get the lower returns now available? If you dont like the platform's new rules - fair enough. But why come back for less? I now have just under 30 grand left. The change in the risk mix (SMEs, prop loans, PF haircuts) for me no longer justifies being locked in at c6% up to 5 years. I may feel more comfortable with 5-10k in RS at c5% under the new rules while aiming for a higher blended rate (from 3% current accounts to riskier, short term lending). If RS do block reopening accounts, I would substitue this mid-priced rate with Lending Works or Zopa for the access I'd want to consumer lending.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 8, 2017 18:38:45 GMT
Am I missing something but why would someone trade in his investments on which he was getting over 6%, only to lend later to get the lower returns now available? If you dont like the platform's new rules - fair enough. But why come back for less? Because the change makes you bear the risk in the newer loans and because you are getting a higher interest rate you pay more in say a 50% cut than the person who has those loans at a lower rate. So the sensible thing to do if you have lots of older loans is sell out, take the over 6%, far over, that is readily available elsewhere and reinvest back at RateSetter whenever the risk-reward picture looks attractive vs the competition again. If you want a somewhat similar investment mixture and possibly a bit higher returns, Zopa Plus looks interesting, though without a protection fund. The selling out process at Zopa is also a good deal nicer to lenders than RateSetter's. Both bad, just less bad.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 8, 2017 18:48:56 GMT
I have just rung RS re this and they have categorically assured me that you will not be able to re-invest at a later date. The guy claimed to have no knowledge of any blog stating otherwise. Good eh? If it transpires that people taking up their right to dissolve their contract under the CRA 2015 are being threatened with an action that would represent a barrier to their exit (such as being blacklisted), then unless RS follows through with said action and is able to justify it as being fair, then RS is opening itself up to compensation claims by any investor who is dissuaded from exercising their right and subsequently experiences a loss at the hands of the new T&Cs. Perhaps some of the call centre staff have come to RS after trying to flog PPI, where similar tactics were involved.
|
|
jimc99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 284
Likes: 115
|
Post by jimc99 on Feb 9, 2017 0:04:44 GMT
I have emailed RS to confirm my phone call to them of the 2nd Feb that I wish to sell out my loans under the current fee free offer.
Thought it would be prudent to have it written down rather than rely on a phone call.
|
|