dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158 
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on Apr 6, 2017 19:49:08 GMT
Even so, it's not the best way to encourage communication, is it? Have to disagree, if you're a Professional, and you're in "Marketing", you have to deal with all sorts all the time, goes with the territory. You grit your teeth, bite the bullet, take it on the chin, and maintain engaging with the Customer regardless. Obviously I'm more thick skinned than yer average geezer or geezerette!  Amateur! In my day we had to stand in stocks in the town square while dissatisfied customers slapped us with fish. We thanked them for treating our faces to the rejuvenating effects of omega 3 oils.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattie on Apr 6, 2017 21:10:46 GMT
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Apr 6, 2017 21:50:10 GMT
Therefore it is all a bit of a red herring and slightly irrelevant is it not. As long as Lendy continue to describe the PF in the way that they do on the website, its contents are not the least bit irrelevant. They have stated that their goal is to have the PF contain 2% of the loan book value, and they explain how it might be used to mitigate some portion of losses incurred. They are using it as a reason why people should want to invest with Lendy. If it turned out that the cupboard actually was bare, then they would have engaged in a rather misleading promotion. ISTM that regulators generally would not condone such a practice and could come down hard on the platform for it if it were to occur. To the extent that criticism and/or fines from the regulator could threaten the viability of the platform -- and that would affect all investors, whether or not they put much reliance on the PF -- it's essential for the platform to be more transparent in order to avoid such a possibility. Lendy saying that they have a PF but refusing to disclose its contents is not being transparent at all and will, I suspect, end up being a negative for the platform. For their sake -- and mine -- I wish they'd abandon that position. If the glass is half full at the moment, just say so, indicate what they're doing to refill it, and move on. A couple of loans have repaid recently. If the provision fund works as I think it does rather than Lendy transferring 2% of the value of those loans onto their books it is retained in the provision fund, and this continues until the 2% of loan book figure is regained. (My previous understanding was that Lendy were to refill the provision fund immediately after use, which would have been equivalent to Lendy at their discretion covering lender's losses.) Hopefully the provision fund is well on its way to being refilled.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 6, 2017 22:09:52 GMT
Have to disagree, if you're a Professional, and you're in "Marketing", you have to deal with all sorts all the time, goes with the territory. You grit your teeth, bite the bullet, take it on the chin, and maintain engaging with the Customer regardless. Obviously I'm more thick skinned than yer average geezer or geezerette! Amateur! In my day we had to stand in stocks in the town square while dissatisfied customers slapped us with fish. We thanked them for treating our faces to the rejuvenating effects of omega 3 oils. ............................... I laugh heartily in your general direction! 
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Apr 6, 2017 22:36:22 GMT
Time to give Paul a break I think. He's only doing his job. I haven't done all the calculations but it looks to me as though Paul could be the most popular member of the forum in terms of the number of likes he gets per post. You wouldn't think so from reading some of the posts but perhaps he can take comfort from that. Indeed, Paul64 gets a lot of likes per post, nearly 4. However, he's in a privileged position and gives us occasional 'insider' nuggets which attract many likes.
I also recall, that in at least one recent 'likes per posts' calculation, the reciprocal value has been mistakenly quoted.
|
|
|
|
Post by buttchopf23 on Apr 6, 2017 22:37:03 GMT
It's obvious they won't state a figure. Is zero a figure (mathem.)?
|
|
freddy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 147
Likes: 145
|
Post by freddy on Apr 7, 2017 3:30:17 GMT
Apologies, but having read 9 pages of comments:-
Thread began with concerns about £9m in default. Then a natural progression to 'what's on the PF' .
Then degenerates into thinly veiled insults.
And finally ends up focusing on the number of 'Likes' a particular post or poster gets.
Jesus guys, if I were Lendy I'd be sitting in my office pi**ing myself laughing.
|
|
|
|
Post by buttchopf23 on Apr 7, 2017 5:08:20 GMT
Sure this thread lost its direction, but that could have been prevented if a simple number was stated.....
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922 
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Apr 7, 2017 6:32:02 GMT
As long as Lendy continue to describe the PF in the way that they do on the website, its contents are not the least bit irrelevant. They have stated that their goal is to have the PF contain 2% of the loan book value, and they explain how it might be used to mitigate some portion of losses incurred. They are using it as a reason why people should want to invest with Lendy. If it turned out that the cupboard actually was bare, then they would have engaged in a rather misleading promotion. ISTM that regulators generally would not condone such a practice and could come down hard on the platform for it if it were to occur. To the extent that criticism and/or fines from the regulator could threaten the viability of the platform -- and that would affect all investors, whether or not they put much reliance on the PF -- it's essential for the platform to be more transparent in order to avoid such a possibility. Lendy saying that they have a PF but refusing to disclose its contents is not being transparent at all and will, I suspect, end up being a negative for the platform. For their sake -- and mine -- I wish they'd abandon that position. If the glass is half full at the moment, just say so, indicate what they're doing to refill it, and move on. A couple of loans have repaid recently. If the provision fund works as I think it does rather than Lendy transferring 2% of the value of those loans onto their books it is retained in the provision fund, and this continues until the 2% of loan book figure is regained. (My previous understanding was that Lendy were to refill the provision fund immediately after use, which would have been equivalent to Lendy at their discretion covering lender's losses.) Hopefully the provision fund is well on its way to being refilled. I don't think it's going to be refilled fully until a number of loans get paid back - any top ups to it at the moment will only be in proportion to the new loans and growing loan book, it'll only be when some loans repay and don't have their "contribution" withdrawn again from the PF that the PF will recover proportionately. My guess is it could be a while
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Apr 7, 2017 9:14:08 GMT
Lendy want to have their cake and eat it.
They want the PF on the website to encourage lenders to invest, but don't want to fund it (or won't confirm whether it is funded, which suggests it's not).
I have to conclude that the provision fund is worthless and make my investment decisions accordingly (which is why my new investments are going into other platforms at the moment.).
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Apr 7, 2017 9:51:19 GMT
Lendy want to have their cake and eat it. They want the PF on the website to encourage lenders to invest, but don't want to fund it (or won't confirm whether it is funded, which suggests it's not). One person suggest we don't worry about this and simply presume the fund is empty, which we should be doing anyway. The reason we should be crying foul is because this much trumpeted provision fund is attracting investors with competing funds and is actively encouraging lendy to reduce rates paid to all investors due to over subscription of loans. This is like pushing up the price of a used car with guarantees that consist of blank sheets of paper. Of course, if Paul would like to confirm that the amount in the provision fund is actually enough to be worthy of reassuring investors, I'll be happy to stop whining. If the fund is empty or insignificant, stop using it to attract competing funds, Lendy.
|
|
grahamg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 220
Likes: 62
|
Post by grahamg on Apr 7, 2017 13:36:38 GMT
Lendy want to have their cake and eat it. They want the PF on the website to encourage lenders to invest, but don't want to fund it (or won't confirm whether it is funded, which suggests it's not). I have to conclude that the provision fund is worthless and make my investment decisions accordingly (which is why my new investments are going into other platforms at the moment.). Everyone seems to have missed the three words at the end of the statement that paul made. "However, at the current time our policy states that ''the Fund will aim to have a minimum balance of 2% of the total live loan amount at any time,” and it will." Implying that Lendy will maintain the balance. One question i would like answered Paul64 . Does SBL = serviced by provision fund?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 7, 2017 13:57:20 GMT
Lendy can imply all they like, what Investors have been clamouring for, for weeks now, and not unreasonably, is confirmation, straight proof of exactly how much is in the PF, now, and to keep said Investors updated as the PF tops up/reduces.
And Lendy continue to duck and dive. This is peoples money, it's finance, and vague "implying" is totally unacceptable, its treating us like mugs.
Do I get the feeling this Topic is now like a dog chasing its tail?
PS: I continue to Vote with my Withdrawals. How many red flags do people need before, you know, they think "Hey, this might be a warning"?
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Apr 7, 2017 14:54:42 GMT
Very pleased with Lendy's recent update particularly around provision funds. As we know the FCA are not at all happy with the way some platforms use provision funds and I am glad that Lendy are making their position clear. Investors should not be lending on the basis of the existence of a provision fund and therefore as I have said before I am more than happy not to know how much is in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Apr 7, 2017 15:12:59 GMT
Lendy want to have their cake and eat it. They want the PF on the website to encourage lenders to invest, but don't want to fund it (or won't confirm whether it is funded, which suggests it's not). I have to conclude that the provision fund is worthless and make my investment decisions accordingly (which is why my new investments are going into other platforms at the moment.). "However, at the current time our policy states that ''the Fund will aim to have a minimum balance of 2% of the total live loan amount at any time,” and it will." [/quotel] A (deliberately?) ambiguous marketing weasel worded sentence where it is not clear whether Lendy WILL maintain the PF or WILL AIM to maintain it
|
|
