|
Post by MoneyThing on Aug 24, 2017 15:25:37 GMT
Many thanks,
Ed
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 6,019
|
Post by registerme on Aug 24, 2017 15:26:20 GMT
Other - without being able to offer discounts or ask for premiums this is moot.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Aug 24, 2017 15:33:06 GMT
Other - without being able to offer discounts or ask for premiums this is moot. You may well be right. However I think an important principal is at stake. If we say investors are too careless/ignorant/whatever to understand that investing in a defaulted loan needs careful consideration, then that leads inevitably to the conclusion that only sophisticated investors should be allowed to use platforms like MoneyThing (and the rest are consigned to "simpler" platforms like RS, (soon to be) FC, etc.). I think that would be a great shame and different solutions to the problem need to be found.
|
|
jcb208
Member of DD Central
Posts: 821
Likes: 607
|
Post by jcb208 on Aug 24, 2017 15:34:36 GMT
Any one in this loan will obviously say Yes to SM trading
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Aug 24, 2017 15:35:25 GMT
Well I voted No
But thats purely based on T&Cs, as I posted elsewhere this week I don't have an issue with trading in SM, as long as its clearly marked as default(ed/ing), however I don't agree with this when its contrary to the T&Cs as that makes it feel like the T&Cs are optional.
Change the T&Cs to allow this and I would switch to Yes
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Aug 24, 2017 15:39:53 GMT
Well I voted No But thats purely based on T&Cs, as I posted elsewhere this week I don't have an issue with trading in SM, as long as its clearly marked as default(ed/ing), however I don't agree with this when its contrary to the T&Cs as that makes it feel like the T&Cs are optional. Change the T&Cs to allow this and I would switch to Yes Agreed. Based on the results of this poll, we would look to amend the Ts&Cs and/or communicate that SM is disabled. Regards, Ed.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Aug 24, 2017 15:40:38 GMT
Well I voted No But thats purely based on T&Cs, as I posted elsewhere this week I don't have an issue with trading in SM, as long as its clearly marked as default(ed/ing), however I don't agree with this when its contrary to the T&Cs as that makes it feel like the T&Cs are optional. Change the T&Cs to allow this and I would switch to Yes I agree with you. While not necessarily disagreeing with the principle of SM trading of defaulted loans, I do disagree with changing terms and conditions during the course of a loan and particularly on the basis of a poll of users of a forum which is unlikely to comprise all holders of the loan. The terms and conditions are supposed to have a basis in law and not be subject to change in this fashion. Perhaps MT should take legal advice first.....
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,212
Likes: 6,019
|
Post by registerme on Aug 24, 2017 15:48:35 GMT
Other - without being able to offer discounts or ask for premiums this is moot. You may well be right. However I think an important principal is at stake. If we say investors are too careless/ignorant/whatever to understand that investing in a defaulted loan needs careful consideration, then that leads inevitably to the conclusion that only sophisticated investors should be allowed to use platforms like MoneyThing (and the rest are consigned to "simpler" platforms like RS, (soon to be) FC, etc.). I think that would be a great shame and different solutions to the problem need to be found. I agree, and that's essentially what I said in Butch Cassidy 's poll below. It's also what I've discussed with Ed in a PM conversation. There's a real, inherent conflict here, and resolving it will not be to everybody's satisfaction. The best I have come up with so far is some variant on AC's "fund" approaches whereby a platform like MT could have two types of investment opportunity - one a fund with a stable interest rate and no premium / discount on the SM, perhaps with a provision fund in place, the other individual investment opportunities much akin to AC's MLIA, where higher rates are achievable, where there's no provision fund, and where premiums and discounts can be employed on a secondary market. I fully expect many people to disagree with the above, and I would welcome their thoughts and suggestions . EDIT: The specific point about Ts&Cs and the recent default is very well made, my comments here are about the wider issue.....
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 1,842
|
Post by archie on Aug 24, 2017 15:52:44 GMT
I voted 'Yes' but I would vote 'No if it meant premiums/discounts were introduced to the platform.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Aug 24, 2017 15:56:40 GMT
It is likely that, is this online world, there are people (investors) out there who are not clear on what they are doing. For investor protection, all trading on defaulted loans should be banned. It is also important that such people are not swayed by being offered discounts. We need more votes from those not in this loan to get a clearer result from this poll.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Aug 24, 2017 15:57:53 GMT
You may well be right. However I think an important principal is at stake. If we say investors are too careless/ignorant/whatever to understand that investing in a defaulted loan needs careful consideration, then that leads inevitably to the conclusion that only sophisticated investors should be allowed to use platforms like MoneyThing (and the rest are consigned to "simpler" platforms like RS, (soon to be) FC, etc.). I think that would be a great shame and different solutions to the problem need to be found. I agree, and that's essentially what I said in Butch Cassidy 's poll below. It's also what I've discussed with Ed in a PM conversation. There's a real, inherent conflict here, and resolving it will not be to everybody's satisfaction. The best I have come up with so far is some variant on AC's "fund" approaches whereby a platform like MT could have two types of investment opportunity - one a fund with a stable interest rate and no premium / discount on the SM, perhaps with a provision fund in place, the other individual investment opportunities much akin to AC's MLIA, where higher rates are achievable, where there's no provision fund, and where premiums and discounts can be employed on a secondary market. I fully expect many people to disagree with the above, and I would welcome their thoughts and suggestions . EDIT: The specific point about Ts&Cs and the recent default is very well made, my comments here are about the wider issue..... You may think you agree with me, but I very much disagree with you! I have no problem with AC's funds, but I have a major problem with saying that people who don't meet the FCA's criteria of a high net worth individual or a sophisticated investor shouldn't be allowed to invest in loans directly, which appears to be what you are suggesting (disclaimer: I meet those requirements). The kind of solutions I was thinking about was: 1) Create a new tab for "Defaulted Loans" next to "Live Loans" and don't list defaulted loans on the summary page (following Lendy). 2) Create a quiz that must be passed before a user is allowed to invest in a defaulted loan for the first time, triggered by clicking "Invest" (following Blend's quiz on joining the platform).
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Aug 24, 2017 16:06:57 GMT
Inevitably, those holding the loan and who would like to get shot of their holding will vote to change the rules (terms and conditions) to allow them to achieve this. I maintain that terms and conditions should not be changed during the course of a loan on the basis of such a poll.
Perhaps someone with some legal knowledge might wish to pronounce on whether the approach MT are now taking to change the terms and conditions is actually lawful.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Aug 24, 2017 16:10:06 GMT
This would allow investors to weigh up their risk-reward appetite to partake in the increased interest rate and any downside may be usable by tax payers as an offset and so still making trades beneficial as long as investors are suitably informed of current loan status.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Aug 24, 2017 16:13:09 GMT
No to t&c changes to suit No to default trading No to discounts & premiums
Quizzing sounds great though
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 626
Likes: 749
|
Post by m2btj on Aug 24, 2017 16:22:46 GMT
Personally I find it immoral....a bit like selling something you know to be broken. I fully understand caveat emptor but it leaves a bitter taste for investors who've just bought a defaulted loan. I know it can happen to new investors when they are finding their way around a platform. The gamble is, what are the chances of recovery & at what price...LTVs may not accurately reflect the true asset value in a falling property market. 70% LTV on a loan valued 12 months ago would be totally inaccurate today...look no further than the cooling London market.
|
|