nush
Member of DD Central
Posts: 396 
Likes: 113
|
Post by nush on Apr 14, 2017 9:54:22 GMT
I have likewise just begun liquidation and a message was displayed indicating that it may take up to 28 days. Not sure whether that will include loans in default or on the watchlist which may take considerably longer. Mmmmm...I wonder if fees will still be payable for these dodgy loans which may prove difficult to dispose of. thanks, i did get a message but didnt notice the 28days part of it, to be honest i just wanted out as i am a bit annoyed with BM, XIRR of 5.83% isnt what i signed up for. i dont have any loans in default yet so maybe i will be out a little sooner. im not a very happy ex customer. edit. i should add that this is not a very honourable way of doing business.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Apr 14, 2017 9:57:10 GMT
how long does it take to liquidate funds, ive only just started the ball rolling but just wondered when it would be worth checking in again I liquidated one evening and the money (capital deployed and paid interest) was in my current account the following evening. These were two working days so you may have to wait until Tuesday (not unreasonably). Make sure you also hit the withdraw button to remove your uninvested cash. The accrued interest will be paid at the end of the month. A very efficient process for which I thank BM. Note, that investors with, say, £10k with a 1% setting may receive £10/20 investments as a result of the liquidation of smaller investors - all of these liquidations have got to be reallocated to other investors.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Apr 14, 2017 10:01:46 GMT
I have likewise just begun liquidation and a message was displayed indicating that it may take up to 28 days. Not sure whether that will include loans in default or on the watchlist which may take considerably longer. Mmmmm...I wonder if fees will still be payable for these dodgy loans which may prove difficult to dispose of. Loans in default won't be passed to other investors, not sure about those on the watchlist. I guess fees are still collected on defaulted loans because they are still 'invested' - does this mean that once all your other loans and cash are paid to you that you could end up owing money to BM if the defaults don't materialise? I'm sure not just playing devils advocate!
|
|
nush
Member of DD Central
Posts: 396
Likes: 113
|
Post by nush on Apr 14, 2017 10:19:58 GMT
i haven't hit the withdraw button yet because i dont have much left in as cash, thought i would wait for everything to be sent in one go
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Apr 14, 2017 10:26:57 GMT
i haven't hit the withdraw button yet because i dont have much left in as cash, thought i would wait for everything to be sent in one go I think that if you've liquidated you should also hit the withdraw button otherwise you may be left with a small cash balance. I'm not a particularly happy customer either. I can understand that BM is portrayed as a 6-12 month investment in terms of measuring returns (i.e. XIRR) but then to move the goalposts in terms of minimum investment and a 50% hike in fees with less than 8 weeks notice is naughty and inconsistent. I like the idea of BM more than it's implementation (the terms and conditions change and the inability to get fully invested by 28 days despite what it states on the site), and it's no coincidence that of all the platforms I've experimented with it's those with direct lender fees (FC & now BM) that I've decided no longer have a place in my portfolio. Good luck to all those still invested and BM themselves.
|
|
Ukmikk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 452
Likes: 306
|
Post by Ukmikk on Apr 14, 2017 10:33:28 GMT
The optimum funding strategy seemed fairly obvious to me when I read up on BM policies so this is exactly what I did, coincidentally at the figures mentioned! Nice to see it confirmed here; however, nearly 3 weeks in I'm not exceptional in still being only 40% deployed (which doesn't bother me in itself), but there's a refusal by the publicity bods to officially recognise this despite stevefindlay 's admission on here it might take 56+ days.
However, my main concern now is the haste to jettison smaller investors; I can't see why there's much admin for established members unless account management is hands-on, which given the timescale suggests an imminent reduction in resources. Allied to the significant hike in fees, it suggests BM are financially constrained. I don't suppose there's any way to discern this until it's too late!?!
I reckon stevefindlay is just being prudent erring on the side a sensibly cautious Business growth plan, IMO he is looking to BM's long term strategic positioning, a far bigger picture and the financial security of his Investor base. Do you not think they should have been clear about their long term strategic positioning from the start? Is this a business without a business plan? This along with their rather cavalier attitude towards their existing customer base are food for serious thought before getting involved, which is a shame as it all looked very promising until recently.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 1,861
|
Post by archie on Apr 14, 2017 11:59:54 GMT
With hindsight BM probably should have started with a even higher minimum and reduced it later when the model was proven. e.g. When I originally joined LI in 2014 it was £10000 minimum per investment but is now £100.  |
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Apr 14, 2017 12:47:27 GMT
I reckon stevefindlay is just being prudent erring on the side a sensibly cautious Business growth plan, IMO he is looking to BM's long term strategic positioning, a far bigger picture and the financial security of his Investor base. Do you not think they should have been clear about their long term strategic positioning from the start? Is this a business without a business plan? This along with their rather cavalier attitude towards their existing customer base are food for serious thought before getting involved, which is a shame as it all looked very promising until recently. I did opt to invest in BondMason to aid diversification despite their fairly moderate returns of "targeted net 7% after fees and before defaults". We have many times made comment that due to cash drag and occasional "lean times" in loan availability, our actual returns have often been seriously short of that figure. XIRR figures have shown that and often been commented on. Mr Findlay's advice has always been that we should expect to achieve close to the advertised returns by the time an account has been open for a full year. Now, with the increase in fees, many investors who have been placing money into their accounts through recent months, and having read those assurances, will have no chance whatsoever of achieving that target 7% net return on money deployed during that time whether or not they wait the full year. Bad move. New terms for new clients (or even new or redeployed funds) would be one thing; changing the fees on existing live loan part accounts is another. Why will existing funds not have the 1% fee retained for the duration in which those funds are actually deployed on current loans, for as many months/years as required? Or have I got it wrong, and if I opt for "run-off" after 31 July, my existing loan parts will not be punished by the impending 1.5% fee while they run their course? Probably not. 
|
|
TheDriver
Member of DD Central
Slightly bonkers
Posts: 493
Likes: 190
|
Post by TheDriver on Apr 15, 2017 19:00:22 GMT
The optimum funding strategy seemed fairly obvious to me when I read up on BM policies so this is exactly what I did, coincidentally at the figures mentioned! Nice to see it confirmed here; however, nearly 3 weeks in I'm not exceptional in still being only 40% deployed (which doesn't bother me in itself), but there's a refusal by the publicity bods to officially recognise this despite stevefindlay 's admission on here it might take 56+ days.
However, my main concern now is the haste to jettison smaller investors; I can't see why there's much admin for established members unless account management is hands-on, which given the timescale suggests an imminent reduction in resources. Allied to the significant hike in fees, it suggests BM are financially constrained. I don't suppose there's any way to discern this until it's too late!?!
I reckon stevefindlay is just being prudent erring on the side a sensibly cautious Business growth plan, IMO he is looking to BM's long term strategic positioning, a far bigger picture and the financial security of his Investor base.
Hi @magenta14;
I can't see why you quoted my post - your statement it doesn't seem to relate to my concerns; As I wrote previously, I don't have any issues with the principle of the changes as a business prerogative, just the implementation.
Bearing in mind the sudden changes eg. to investment level, which the day before was still being advertised at the old rate, then introduced immediately, 7 weeks ahead of the published date! and given your tag-line, I would have expected you to have some reservations about what seem to be blatantly UNPLANNED actions, stubborn refusal to corporately admit anomalies (deployment timescales) and distainful treatment of some established clients.
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Apr 17, 2017 9:04:34 GMT
stevefindlay Whilst I continue to ponder whether to top up or move on .............. AIUI choosing to liquidate will close my account. What is the situation in the case of still holding defaulted loans which can't be recycled? Or crystallised losses? Thinking in terms of any unexpected recovery (even a small partial) being made on those loans? Would liquidating 'blacklist' me from re-applying at some point in the future?
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on Apr 17, 2017 9:55:40 GMT
Do you not think they should have been clear about their long term strategic positioning from the start? Is this a business without a business plan? This along with their rather cavalier attitude towards their existing customer base are food for serious thought before getting involved, which is a shame as it all looked very promising until recently. I did opt to invest in BondMason to aid diversification despite their fairly moderate returns of "targeted net 7% after fees and before defaults". We have many times made comment that due to cash drag and occasional "lean times" in loan availability, our actual returns have often been seriously short of that figure. XIRR figures have shown that and often been commented on.Mr Findlay's advice has always been that we should expect to achieve close to the advertised returns by the time an account has been open for a full year.
Now, with the increase in fees, many investors who have been placing money into their accounts through recent months, and having read those assurances, will have no chance whatsoever of achieving that target 7% net return on money deployed during that time whether or not they wait the full year.Bad move. New terms for new clients (or even new or redeployed funds) would be one thing; changing the fees on existing live loan part accounts is another. Why will existing funds not have the 1% fee retained for the duration in which those funds are actually deployed on current loans, for as many months/years as required? Or have I got it wrong, and if I opt for "run-off" after 31 July, my existing loan parts will not be punished by the impending 1.5% fee while they run their course? Probably not. That sums up my feeling about the whole sorry saga that is BondMason. I have raised issue regarding my own account several times cash drag, defaulted loans, etc but Steve Findlay has repeated the mantra that you should look at it after a full year. Now, many clients are not even able to reach that full year before being kicked out. Is the real reason smaller investors are being kicked out because of the rise in defaults and the subsequent complaints that will arise after failing to meet the target return figure after the 1 full year? Why don't you publish the returns for smaller investors of less than £5000 and the returns of those who have suffered a crystallised loss stevefindlay ? How Bond Mason can get their treatment of clients pass the FCA is beyond me, no bank/building society, ISA provider, insurance company would get away with that, What happened to treating your customers fairly? www.fca.org.uk/firms/fair-treatment-customersConsumer outcomes There are six consumer outcomes that firms should strive to achieve to ensure fair treatment of customers. These remain core to what we expect of firms. Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly. Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale. Outcome 4: Where consumers receive advice, the advice is suitable and takes account of their circumstances. Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.
The change of terms and conditions and charges for new clients fine, it's their choice, but existing clients are forced to suffer losses because Bond Mason made the choice for them. Disgraceful behaviour from Bond Mason. No way should this company have approval from the FCA now or in the future until they start treating customers fairly.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Apr 17, 2017 16:12:23 GMT
I did opt to invest in BondMason to aid diversification despite their fairly moderate returns of "targeted net 7% after fees and before defaults". We have many times made comment that due to cash drag and occasional "lean times" in loan availability, our actual returns have often been seriously short of that figure. XIRR figures have shown that and often been commented on.Mr Findlay's advice has always been that we should expect to achieve close to the advertised returns by the time an account has been open for a full year.
Now, with the increase in fees, many investors who have been placing money into their accounts through recent months, and having read those assurances, will have no chance whatsoever of achieving that target 7% net return on money deployed during that time whether or not they wait the full year.Bad move. New terms for new clients (or even new or redeployed funds) would be one thing; changing the fees on existing live loan part accounts is another. Why will existing funds not have the 1% fee retained for the duration in which those funds are actually deployed on current loans, for as many months/years as required? Or have I got it wrong, and if I opt for "run-off" after 31 July, my existing loan parts will not be punished by the impending 1.5% fee while they run their course? Probably not. That sums up my feeling about the whole sorry saga that is BondMason. I have raised issue regarding my own account several times cash drag, defaulted loans, etc but Steve Findlay has repeated the mantra that you should look at it after a full year. Now, many clients are not even able to reach that full year before being kicked out. Is the real reason smaller investors are being kicked out because of the rise in defaults and the subsequent complaints that will arise after failing to meet the target return figure after the 1 full year? Why don't you publish the returns for smaller investors of less than £5000 and the returns of those who have suffered a crystallised loss stevefindlay ? How Bond Mason can get their treatment of clients pass the FCA is beyond me, no bank/building society, ISA provider, insurance company would get away with that, What happened to treating your customers fairly? www.fca.org.uk/firms/fair-treatment-customersConsumer outcomes There are six consumer outcomes that firms should strive to achieve to ensure fair treatment of customers. These remain core to what we expect of firms. Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly. Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale. Outcome 4: Where consumers receive advice, the advice is suitable and takes account of their circumstances. Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.
The change of terms and conditions and charges for new clients fine, it's their choice, but existing clients are forced to suffer losses because Bond Mason made the choice for them. Disgraceful behaviour from Bond Mason. No way should this company have approval from the FCA now or in the future until they start treating customers fairly.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Apr 17, 2017 19:17:59 GMT
I did opt to invest in BondMason to aid diversification despite their fairly moderate returns of "targeted net 7% after fees and before defaults". We have many times made comment that due to cash drag and occasional "lean times" in loan availability, our actual returns have often been seriously short of that figure. XIRR figures have shown that and often been commented on.Mr Findlay's advice has always been that we should expect to achieve close to the advertised returns by the time an account has been open for a full year.
Now, with the increase in fees, many investors who have been placing money into their accounts through recent months, and having read those assurances, will have no chance whatsoever of achieving that target 7% net return on money deployed during that time whether or not they wait the full year.Bad move. New terms for new clients (or even new or redeployed funds) would be one thing; changing the fees on existing live loan part accounts is another. Why will existing funds not have the 1% fee retained for the duration in which those funds are actually deployed on current loans, for as many months/years as required? Or have I got it wrong, and if I opt for "run-off" after 31 July, my existing loan parts will not be punished by the impending 1.5% fee while they run their course? Probably not. That sums up my feeling about the whole sorry saga that is BondMason. I have raised issue regarding my own account several times cash drag, defaulted loans, etc but Steve Findlay has repeated the mantra that you should look at it after a full year. Now, many clients are not even able to reach that full year before being kicked out. Is the real reason smaller investors are being kicked out because of the rise in defaults and the subsequent complaints that will arise after failing to meet the target return figure after the 1 full year? Why don't you publish the returns for smaller investors of less than £5000 and the returns of those who have suffered a crystallised loss stevefindlay ? How Bond Mason can get their treatment of clients pass the FCA is beyond me, no bank/building society, ISA provider, insurance company would get away with that, What happened to treating your customers fairly? www.fca.org.uk/firms/fair-treatment-customersConsumer outcomes There are six consumer outcomes that firms should strive to achieve to ensure fair treatment of customers. These remain core to what we expect of firms. Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly. Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale. Outcome 4: Where consumers receive advice, the advice is suitable and takes account of their circumstances. Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.
The change of terms and conditions and charges for new clients fine, it's their choice, but existing clients are forced to suffer losses because Bond Mason made the choice for them. Disgraceful behaviour from Bond Mason. No way should this company have approval from the FCA now or in the future until they start treating customers fairly. I take these comments very, very seriously. Any regular reader of this forum will appreciate the efforts and lengths we go to, to explain our service, engage with clients and seek to address any concerns they may have. Which I will do again here. For context, client treatment is a very important aspect of our service and central to our code of ethics, and the FAQs page sets out how to notify us of any complaints, which are always passed directly to me (as CEO) to review: invest@bondmason.com. For complaints to be handled correctly they must be written in an email to us - so that we can review against client records appropriately. Turning to the latest series of comments in this thread, there appears to be two key elements: 1. Specific clients that have concerns over their investment performance vs expectations 2. Continuing disappointment at the revised T&Cs Taking each in turn: 1. Investment performance
We have 500+ clients, and each portfolio is distinct to them. Performance across the entire set of underlying loans is set out on our Statistics page. Individual clients have different levels of performance, some above the average, some below the averages. We try to keep the distribution as tight as possible - but there will be clients that inevitably have lower levels of performance. The question is (in the context of this thread) whether there has been any unfair treatment for those clients that have achieved performance at the lower end. The BondMason system is set out to ensure clients are treated fairly - there is no deviation to this. Auto-bid allocations are randomised. We are also very happy to review and discuss an individual's client account if they have concerns. We have done this on a few occasions where this has been requested to date. We've not shied away from this, nor would we. 2. Revised T&Cs
This is the only material change we have made to the T&Cs in over 2 years. A revision requires 30 days notice for existing clients. We provided 7-8 weeks notice for the fee changes, and allowed an additional grace period for the revised minimums. Treating customers fairly.
To address keystone 'highlighted in bold' concerns: "Outcome 1: Core to culture." Yes, plainly, this is. The commitment we've made to addressing concerns on this forum alone is testament to this. "Outcome 5: Performance and Expectations" Please see comments above. Any client is very welcome to enquire as to why their own experience may have deviated from the stated aims. We have been very engaged with any concerns - you cite the discussions relating to cash drag, which has been a key areas of concern for us - this is a good example of one of the many ways we have been transparent regarding expectations around performance. "Outcome 6: Post sale barriers" Pretty much every client that has requested a liquidation and/or withdrawal, in part or in full, has been processed and repaid within 24-48 hours. We make it as easy as possible for clients to leave and have never deviated from this. If you would like to close your account, please just drop us a line: invest@bondmason.com It may be worth noting, that although we are not yet regulated by the FCA we do conduct ourselves on the basis of performing in accordance with their client treatment framework. If you do have any concerns about your treatment, please send BondMason an email: invest@bondmason.com and we can review your case. Even if we were already FCA regulated, in considering any client complaint, they (the FCA) will ask the complainant how it was raised with the company and how it was handled. Please make sure you contact us first (invest@bondmason.com) so that any of your issues can be reviewed, investigated and considered. I understand and sympathise with the emotion around clients wanting to stay with BondMason and not being able to get to £5,000. I also understand and sympathise with clients who may be at the lower end of performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Apr 17, 2017 19:23:49 GMT
stevefindlay Whilst I continue to ponder whether to top up or move on .............. AIUI choosing to liquidate will close my account. What is the situation in the case of still holding defaulted loans which can't be recycled? Or crystallised losses? Thinking in terms of any unexpected recovery (even a small partial) being made on those loans? Would liquidating 'blacklist' me from re-applying at some point in the future? Re: default - any Receivable which relates to an underlying loan which is in default (or watchlist) - you will continue to have these positions until they are finalised. We liaise with the underlying platform in each case to understand the progress of each of these. Re blacklist - liquidating your account does not add you to the blacklist. We only refuse re-entry for clients that have been offensive to members of the team - which I'm sad to report we have had instances of.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Apr 17, 2017 19:30:41 GMT
I reckon stevefindlay is just being prudent erring on the side a sensibly cautious Business growth plan, IMO he is looking to BM's long term strategic positioning, a far bigger picture and the financial security of his Investor base.
Hi @magenta14 ;
I can't see why you quoted my post - your statement it doesn't seem to relate to my concerns; As I wrote previously, I don't have any issues with the principle of the changes as a business prerogative, just the implementation.
Bearing in mind the sudden changes eg. to investment level, which the day before was still being advertised at the old rate, then introduced immediately, 7 weeks ahead of the published date! and given your tag-line, I would have expected you to have some reservations about what seem to be blatantly UNPLANNED actions, stubborn refusal to corporately admit anomalies (deployment timescales) and distainful treatment of some established clients.
I have to respond here: - Sudden change: we given existing clients 7-8 weeks notice for the fee changes and 3 months notice for revised minimums (the T&Cs only require 30 days) - Introduced immediately: only for new clients, as they aren't subject to the old T&Cs. - Unplanned actions: these have been under consideration since the end of 2016. - Deployment timescales: we've been incredibly active on trying to give updates about deployment rates. - Disdainful treatment: we've not intended to offend anyone. We are running a business, not a charity, and the model has proven uneconomic to service clients with smaller balances. I'm sorry that this has proven to be the case, but it is what it is. There are a great many clients who are very pleased with BondMason, but sadly the forum tends to see the majority comments from those at the other end of the scale.
|
|
