carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Nov 16, 2018 13:28:02 GMT
The current situation is the clear culmination of:
- A leave campaign who felt no need to present a coherent plan, and no compulsion towards the truth. - A PM who quickly imposed ridiculous red lines - A government which invoked a time limited process without a plan, then wasted almost all of the two years available bickering with itself - A gang of brexiteers who, despite every opportunity, have been unable to decide what they want, or how they want it, or even to seriously engage with the process. Instead they've consistently preferred to huff and puff and lie, and then grandstand and quit.
It is remarkable that none of the resigning MPs have managed to propose any actual alternative to the current deal.
It is unsuprising that none of them have been willing to face up to the fact that the "sunlit upland" exists only in fantasy and that in reality you can't eat nostalgia (although perhaps you can drink plucky spirit?).
The deal is the only one on the table, unless you want a disastrous hard brexit, or no brexit. You only have to listen to the noises from the EU to see that there won't be another.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Nov 9, 2018 13:20:42 GMT
In which case you appear to be making a different point, which is that you don't want the SM to be overrun by bots. I haven't heard anything to suggest MT are changing their policy on this. Why should sellers be forced to sell at a price completely disconnected from true value? (my bold)I'm not sure how sellers would be 'forced' to sell. If I believe a loan I want to sell is worth more than par, I offer it at a premium. If nobody wants it at that price I can drop the premium, just sit tight, or remove it from sale. If I believe a loan is worth less than par, or I want funds in a hurry, I offer at a discount - anyone can then make their own judgment about the loan's value and get themselves what they see as a bargain. As for 'true value': how should this be determined? Surely it's up to each lender to decide for themselves? I think you've misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to the current setup: if I want to sell, I am currently forced to sell at par, regardless of my belief in the fair price. I'm all in favour of allowing discounts and premia.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Nov 9, 2018 11:50:28 GMT
Surely in the case of bling loans, what you're mourning is the loss of ability to buy them at par? But the reason you want to be able to buy popular loans at par is because you believe par is less than their true value, so you get a good deal, whilst the seller is forced to lose out. Who should get the benefit of good-value loans? The pool of lender who are taking on the risk, or the person who happens to have built a better flipperbot? In which case you appear to be making a different point, which is that you don't want the SM to be overrun by bots. I haven't heard anything to suggest MT are changing their policy on this. Why should sellers be forced to sell at a price completely disconnected from true value?
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Nov 9, 2018 10:10:26 GMT
<sigh> Here come the Flipperbots. Just like the "good ol' days" of FC, especially for the smaller loans and BlingThing loans. Surely in the case of bling loans, what you're mourning is the loss of ability to buy them at par? But the reason you want to be able to buy popular loans at par is because you believe par is less than their true value, so you get a good deal, whilst the seller is forced to lose out.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Nov 9, 2018 10:07:43 GMT
Morning, Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. The results of the survey are ready and have been emailed to lenders. The results reflect the results on this poll, with about 65% of lenders in favour of change. We’ve read all the comments posted here and we will try and incorporate the feedback in the design. I have asked Shuang to start development and we will be releasing discounts only to start with, adding premium functionality as a stage two. If all goes to plan, we should be ready to release the new system in the New Year. Kind regards, Ed Great decision IMO. Thank you!
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Nov 5, 2018 10:28:32 GMT
Loan parts have an intrinsic value based on, amongst other things, the coupon, the principal to be repaid, the risk of loss and the time to maturity. Most of the time, this value is not par.
Restricting SM sales to par does not somehow mean that their fair value is par. Instead it obfuscates the fact that the loans are forced to trade at a discount or premium from their true price. Variable pricing increases the amount of information investors have, since they can see what the market price is, rather than having to buy something at 100 that might actually be worth only 90, or having to sell something worth 110 at 100. Currently in every SM trade, someone is getting a good deal and someone is losing out.
Edit: added an important "not"!
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Oct 13, 2018 14:21:05 GMT
A high risk loan paying a mighty 12% defaulted. There was an almost unbelievable,over 96%, capital recovery. Accrued outstanding interest on top?! Would you like a cherry on your interest and a balloon as well 😐 I do think that in the case of loans that have defaulted investors should adopt realistic expectations. To me, an outcome where you get more than 75% of your capital back is a very good result in itself. 50% to 75% I would regard as par for the course. If I was lending 100% asset value, then yes I'd be happy with 70% capital recovery - but I lend on a valuation of c.60-70% of asset value, so a 60-70% asset recovery results in 100% capital recovery for me So did you believe this to be risk free?
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Oct 9, 2018 12:54:57 GMT
It all feels a little surreal, I can’t see that any of the options will put money back in my bank, and in a weird way I want to stay invested and see how this fictional adventure Peter pans out. I agree!
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Oct 5, 2018 11:12:13 GMT
I'm surprised that your bank charges you £28 for electronic payments. I wasn't aware there were any UK banks that charge for faster payments, and especially not such a huge amount. If you're operating from a non-uk account then it might be worth checking out Transferwise borderless as a way to manage them at a far lower cost.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Sept 27, 2018 10:09:16 GMT
For those who regard it as too much like a gamble I would compare it far more to stocks & shares than popping into the bookies & if you are comfortable with P2P investments this is no different a risk/reward profile but the gains can be significantly more. The main drawback is it can be quite addictive & you develop an unhealthy obsession in the result of Spal v Frosinone or whether Neymar has a bruised toe or not. If you view it as an investment, rather than a gamble, I'm curious as to whether you have read the definition of terms, which make it clear that what you are doing is placing a bet. Again, I will note that football index is regulated by the Gambling Commission, not by the FCA. They dress things up in financial terms, like "share", "dividend" etc but that is simply to make it appear less like gambling.
To the best of my knowledge, most stocks and shares based investments also tend not to expire with your money if you don't sell them within three years. I notice too that were a player to retire unexpectedly, your money would also be lost.
I can only reiterate what Mike and IFISAcava have said. There is no underlying asset, this is not an investment.
If you wish to make money from bookmakers or casinos then it is entirely possible to do so, but it requires a clear understanding of the realities of what you are doing. I wouldn't touch Football Index with a bargepole.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Sept 18, 2018 10:41:07 GMT
Your guess is totally wrong I am invested here and have been in other defaulted loans. The difference is I wait for the full facts which we have clearly been told will be released when the administrators have completed their work. We have not lost any money on this loan as yet and we do not know how Moneything will deal with the issues raised in this thread which there are several. But going out of your way to continually try to damage the reputation of any company without waiting to find out the facts ie in this case if a loss has occurred after recovery. What actions are taken regarding the difference in valuation in freehold and leasehold. Whos error was it the valuers solicitors or Moneythings. If these issues are not dealt with then I will be following this up. But I will collect all the facts to be able to asses the actions necessary. What? I don't believe MT did anything wrong here. The freehold/leasehold confusion was a genuine error as the property had been freehold but converted to leasehold. I'm in this loan too. From context, I suspect johni has quoted the wrong post, and intended to respond to the one below yours.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Sept 12, 2018 15:48:41 GMT
Cashback cards like Nationwide, Aqua won't
Aqua definitely do - I've had numerous increases over the last couple of years without having to make any request.
michaelc I'm not sure from your post whether you have a reason for wanting to, specifically, use a credit card when you go abroad. If, however, you are just looking for fee free transactions at the Mastercard exchange rate (which is the rate I assume the CC uses), you might like to have a look at either Monzo or Starling banks. Both of them have fee free exchange at Mastercard rate, although they are bank accounts with debit cards, not credit card issuers.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Sept 10, 2018 16:55:06 GMT
Slight delay - funds now expected on Monday (10th). [cough] Great, that'll happen then. O ye, of little faith!
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Sept 1, 2018 12:28:42 GMT
I'm beginning to suspect there's some complication behind the scenes that MT are unwilling to make us aware of until they've confirmed a definite solution e.g. BO haven't taken their first loss or some investor has disputed that they can repay the B tranche before repaying interest on A or something of the sort. Just speculation on my part but a specific absence of news does kind of prompt it. Sounds very plausible. In which case they were lying to debaura on Friday... I don't think that's necessarily true. It could easily be the case that something came up which it was thought would be quickly resolved and has turned out to be more complicated than expected. I have yet to hear a plausible reason that MT would have for deliberately dragging things out by a few days. I'm sure MT are not blind to the concerns this loan is causing people, and I'd imagine they're just as keen to make progress as we are.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Sept 1, 2018 12:03:51 GMT
Good lord, don't set this off. Yes, you're probably correct. I sort of felt that the spewing of nonsense conspiracy theories on a forum aimed at intelligent discussion probably shouldn't go entirely unchallenged, however.
|
|