Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
Page 33
  • jamesd
    Some might be interested in the current good supply of loans on the Ablrate secondary market. Nine loans at or below original issue price and a few more not much above it. A nice chance to get a fairly diversified start.

    It's unlikely that any of the loans will be bought from me, though maybe it'll help any future sales I might want to make.
    • MoneySavingUser
    • By MoneySavingUser 22nd Sep 16, 9:32 PM
    • 1,605 Posts
    • 644 Thanks
    MoneySavingUser
    SavingStream

    1. the ultimate borrower was described as an individual when it was in fact a limited company
    Originally posted by jamesd
    Doesn't look like this has been mentioned but the linked company (Eco Warrior Resorts Ltd) is in administration!

    Looks like Lendy Limited asked for them to put into administration. Lendy Ltd being the company that runs Saving Stream.
  • jamesd
    Yes, if I recall the discussions correctly the three non-Lendy owners of the limited company started trying to wind it up at about the same time as three relatives formed a new company of similar nature. My guess is that they would try to buy the place out of administration for a price lower than the amount advanced in the loan and maybe even lower than the price the first firm paid for it. Apparently an offer has been made by someone but it's not known who. More ... less than desirable stuff .. if it turns out that it is the new limited company set up by the relatives.

    On the more positive side of things, Ablrate's new developer team is in place and doing assorted updates to the platform at the moment.
    Last edited by jamesd; 13-10-2016 at 8:11 PM. Reason: typo
    • smjxm09
    • By smjxm09 9th Oct 16, 7:30 AM
    • 494 Posts
    • 144 Thanks
    smjxm09
    Zopa V Ratesetter - micro loans
    I have read that Zopa basically puts investors money into a big pot and then lends it out in many loans to spread the risk but does Rate Setter do the same? Reading their blurb it seems to be the case that an individual lending money is matched to a borrower. Is that really the case or am I missing something?
    • Froggitt
    • By Froggitt 9th Oct 16, 10:20 AM
    • 5,786 Posts
    • 3,062 Thanks
    Froggitt
    I think Zopa divide your stake into 100 portions and then match with other investors to a borrower.

    Ratesetter appear not to do so, so all your money may end up with one borrower. However, they still have the contingency fund if that borrower goes down. If the contingency fund is overwhelmed and goes down, they then put ALL loans into runoff, and everyone then gets a share of any losses.
    illegitimi non carborundum
    • DavidJS
    • By DavidJS 13th Oct 16, 7:51 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    DavidJS
    RebuildingSociety
    I have some money lent through RebuildingSociety over the last 12 months and I am disappointed. I lent on 25 loans of which three have gone belly up - 2 after only 1 and 2 repayments being made, and currently 3 more are suspended from trading. I have "sold off" all the others and hope I get something back from the bad and suspended loans but I do not hold my breath.
    I am happy with Saving Stream(even with the Garden Centre fiasco) and Moneything and Ablrate. I also have money with Funding Circle and Zopa although I am gradually withdrawing from these.
    • verybigchris
    • By verybigchris 17th Oct 16, 7:04 PM
    • 362 Posts
    • 412 Thanks
    verybigchris
    RateSetter have messed up again - 7pm and repayments due this morning still haven't been paid, and judging from the thread on p2pindependentforum I'm not the only one.

    This sort of thing is happening far too often with RS.
    • Sellins
    • By Sellins 23rd Nov 16, 10:43 AM
    • 3 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Sellins
    Does anyone know anything /have any experience of Archover
    • geoff_s---r
    • By geoff_s---r 8th Dec 16, 9:38 AM
    • 58 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    geoff_s---r
    Lender's reserve funds should now be seperate from the P2P directors
    I'm concerned about the reserve funds that p2p companies hold on investors' behalf.

    When p2p companies started, it was said that reserve funds may in the future be run by an independent trust. Zopa said, that as they were a fast evolving sector, the P2P owners needed direct & flexible access to administer how the investors' reserve funds were spent and to set the size of the reserve required.

    I think that now that P2P companies have become a mature sector, the investors' reserve money needs to be increasingly separated from the P2P business.

    We may end up with some of the same directors who've mess-up in a P2P company boardroom, simply moving to the room next door and voting in private as 'The Reserve Fund Board' to amend lenders' funds & patch-over the problem. They can also vote to transfer more of the lenders cash into the lenders' reserve fund at will.

    As most p2p directors have significant shareholdings in these companies, there must be a direct conflict between the value of their shares and what they do with the cash being held on behalf of the lenders.

    I wonder if a journalist (or MSE?) might research a spreadsheet, asking the big P2P companies

    1) what is the composition of the board that administers the lenders' reserve fund?

    2) What proportion of the board are independent of the P2P business and are there to act on behalf of the lenders?

    3) Are there plans to eventually have the reserve funds held and administered as an independent trust?

    As the P2P companies have formed a powerful trade group that votes on how they police themselves. I fear there's little the government is doing to make them do the right thing and separate the lenders' reserve funds from the businesses.

    Just like Bank of England has been separated from The Government. The optimum size of the lenders' reserve fund, and how it is spent should be independent of the p2p company.

    As p2p savings regrettably still remain outside the government's savings guarantee scheme, transparency like this, over what is done with lenders' cash, becomes even more vital for savers.
    Last edited by geoff_s---r; 08-12-2016 at 2:57 PM.
    • geoff_s---r
    • By geoff_s---r 8th Dec 16, 12:36 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    geoff_s---r
    Can anyone explain what this rather scary sounding new wheeze from LW actualy means?
    "Dear Lending Works investor,

    We wanted to let you know about a recent change we have made to our Lender Platform Terms and Conditions.

    We may now offer loan agreements in respect of which the interest rate charged to and payable by the borrower is less than the interest rate set out in your corresponding lending offer relevant to the loan. Where this is the case, Lending Works will pay you any interest rate shortfall. We call this an Interest Rate Top-Up"

    -----

    P2P started out as such an appealingly elegant product, where p2p companies' computers simply assisted one person '2' to lend directly to another person.

    At the start, the worrying lack of any saver guarantees could be partially balanced by the simplicity & transparency of the p2p product being invested in.

    The mature p2p companies are increasingly moving away from that simple p2p idea, (ie zopa now prevents the market setting its interest rates - & may further garble its Z.O.P.A. acronym by thinking of becoming a bank). Perhaps there's now a gap in the market for a new company that once again offers lenders the chance to invest in a simple and genuine p2p product?

    As p2p products become increasingly opaque, they become far too complicated for an average consumer to gauge the size of the risk that they are taking when they invest.
    Last edited by geoff_s---r; 08-12-2016 at 1:05 PM.
    • geoff_s---r
    • By geoff_s---r 8th Dec 16, 12:38 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    geoff_s---r
    Seems this notification has not reached the www; So the full notification is below
    from Lending Works 6 Dec 2016

    Dear investor,

    We wanted to let you know about a recent change we have made to our Lender Platform Terms and Conditions.

    From 13 December 2016, we may offer loan agreements in respect of which the interest rate charged to and payable by the borrower is less than the interest rate set out in your corresponding lending offer relevant to the loan. Where this is the case, Lending Works will pay you any interest rate shortfall. We call this an Interest Rate Top-Up. We have added clauses 9.37 – 9.41 into our Lender Platform Terms and Conditions to reflect this.

    A copy of our latest Lender Platform Terms and Conditions can be found at: https://www.lendingworks.co.uk/legal-information

    Any sums showing in your Lending Works Account as paid, due and payable in relation to loan agreements subject to an Interest Rate Top-Up will always be shown as inclusive of any Interest Rate Top-Up.

    If you have any questions about this change, please do not hesitate to call us on 020 7096 8512 or email cs@lendingworks.co.uk. Other than that, you do not have to take any further action in relation to this change.

    Thanks, Steve Cullen, Customer Services Manager
    • fairleads
    • By fairleads 8th Dec 16, 12:41 PM
    • 580 Posts
    • 148 Thanks
    fairleads
    I'm concerned about the reserve funds that p2p companies hold on investors' behalf.

    When p2p companies started, it was said that reserve funds may in the future be run by an independent trust. Zopa said, that as they were a fast evolving sector, the P2P owners needed direct & flexible access to administer how the investors' reserve funds were spent and to set the size of the reserve required.

    I think that now that P2P companies have become a mature sector, the investors' reserve money needs to be increasingly separated from the P2P business.

    We may end up with some of the same directors who've mess-up in a P2P company boardroom, simply moving to the room next door and voting in private as 'The Reserve Fund Board' to amend lenders' funds & patch-over the problem. They can also vote to transfer more of the lenders cash into the lenders' reserve fund at will.

    As most p2p directors have significant shareholdings in these companies, there must be a direct conflict between the value of their shares and what they do with the cash being held on behalf of the lenders.

    I wonder if a journalist (or MSE?) might research a spreadsheet, asking the big P2P companies

    1) what is the composition of the board that administers the lenders' reserve fund?

    2) What proportion of the board are independent of the P2P business and are there to act on behalf of the lenders?

    3) Are there plans to eventually have the reserve funds held and administered as an independent trust?

    As the P2P companies have formed a powerful trade group that votes on how they police themselves. I fear there's little the government is doing to make them do the right thing and separate the lenders' reserve funds from the businesses.

    Just like Bank of England has been separated from The Government. The optimum size of the lenders' reserve fund, and how it is spent should be independent if the p2p company.

    As p2p savings regrettably still remain outside the government's savings guarantee scheme, transparency like this, over what is done with lenders' cash, becomes even more vital for savers.
    Originally posted by geoff_s---r
    Why bother, wouldn't touch p2p with a bargepole.
    • geoff_s---r
    • By geoff_s---r 8th Dec 16, 2:53 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    geoff_s---r
    Why bother, wouldn't touch p2p with a bargepole.
    Originally posted by fairleads
    - odd response to a p2p thread?

    But to answer, I bother because I love the refreshing new concept of p2p, & so have supported it by lending to it. But I think the lack of regulations makes it important that users lobby for P2Ps to become as transparent, & therefore as safe, as possible.

    It seems not safe or transparent, for p2p staff to say, 'I am employed to work solely to benefit my shareholders', and a minute later say 'I am now an independent trustee of lenders cash & as such I'm working solely on behalf of lenders'. The majority on such board of trustees do need to be independent of the business?
    Last edited by geoff_s---r; 08-12-2016 at 3:23 PM.
    • JohnRo
    • By JohnRo 8th Dec 16, 3:10 PM
    • 2,427 Posts
    • 2,180 Thanks
    JohnRo
    I joined ratesetter in the early stages when rates were high and there was much talk by them of the provisional fund, as initially marketed, being a protection scheme for lender's which would in future years, as it grew, be used to pay out lender dividends or bonuses. That didn't last long...

    I ditched ratesetter for that reason, it's telling that as their provision fund grew to what is now a substantial sum and secretive company financing and backing arrangements have been made, such talk has completely vanished along with provision fund profits.
    'We don't need to be smarter than the rest; we need to be more disciplined than the rest.' - WB
    • geoff_s---r
    • By geoff_s---r 8th Dec 16, 4:47 PM
    • 58 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    geoff_s---r
    ...such talk has completely vanished .
    Originally posted by JohnRo
    That's disappointing John.

    In that case, perhaps its time for the regulator to start pushing for the majority on the boards of such trusts to be independents? It wouldn't necessarily increase p2p costs or complexity, but would add vital transparency. It may even benefit the companies? Zopa did after all loose you as a customer, through not doing this.

    I asked above if research could be done (or has been done?) on p2p trusts, as I'd consider moving too if I could identify a p2p company that uses an independent reserve trust, rather than just a pretend trust. I couldn't easily identify one.

    A healthy P2P company should be the just the platform that arranges loans & shouldn't be actively controlling lenders cash that is held in reserve.
    Last edited by geoff_s---r; 08-12-2016 at 4:57 PM.
    • Biggles
    • By Biggles 8th Dec 16, 5:02 PM
    • 7,392 Posts
    • 4,779 Thanks
    Biggles
    Why bother, wouldn't touch p2p with a bargepole.
    Originally posted by fairleads
    Why bother to respond, then?
  • jamesd
    As per my experience in the field of finance, P2P lending is increasing day by day. This process helps people to get personal loans easily. ...
    Originally posted by Moonchild10
    Then you need to learn more about the range of what's on offer via P2P. Places like Zopa normally have something like a 90%+ decline rate for personal loan applicants.

    Cons of P2P Lending
    Unsecured
    Originally posted by Moonchild10
    Most P2P lending is secured, not unsecured. Most often on either land and buildings or cars but also a wide range of other things, as for instance invoice financing. Even a place that made its name with unsecured personal loans like Zopa now does some secured lending to Uber drivers for vehicles.

    Generally did not follow any strong legal bond
    Originally posted by Moonchild10
    Note sure what you mean by that but the legal ties depend on the deal and include:

    1. First charge over a building and land, just like any mortgage. Or sometimes second charge, perhaps with a cap agreed by the first charge holder on what they can claim to protect the P2P with the second charge.
    2. Charges registered at Companies House where Land Registry use doesn't apply. Often named item charges that are near the top of the precedence in insolvency rather than generic charges that are closer to the middle or bottom.
    3. In both the secured and unsecured cases the usual legal measures are available. For example, I know of a case where the P2P firm went to the Queen's Bench court in London to get an emergency freezing order and is now working through the winding up process and getting the directors made personally liable so their assets can also be seized, as normally happens in the circumstances involved. You don't get much stronger ties than directors having their own personal bank accounts frozen except for limited living expenses and perhaps having their home sold to pay the debt.

    Fear of delivering the money in wrong hands
    Originally posted by Moonchild10
    This is possible as is the fear of it but I've been doing P2P since 2008 and have never heard of an example of the money not being paid to details other than those supplied at the time of application. Identity fraud does happen sometimes though, as a low level matter of routine in the unsecured lending to individuals area, to the extent that the usual identity checks don't stop it.

    Can’t determine the chances of fraud
    Originally posted by Moonchild10
    Well, no more than with traditional lending, though of course the usual money laundering and identification checks are required.
    Last edited by jamesd; 08-12-2016 at 9:09 PM.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 9th Dec 16, 10:14 AM
    • 2,885 Posts
    • 4,126 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Moonchild10 is a spammer inflating their postcount. Their post is copy and pasted from quora.com. Bizarrely MSE have deleted about 6 of the 8 banal posts they had yesterday instead of just banning them.
    • fairleads
    • By fairleads 9th Dec 16, 2:15 PM
    • 580 Posts
    • 148 Thanks
    fairleads
    Geoff
    Given what you have noted, combined with what i have read in the terms and conditions that govern an "investment" in p2p, i repeat, why bother even considering putting money into these schemes.
    Just because an individual says that p2p is less risky than BTL, or another individual says they have 100k on loan to p2p, is not a good enough reason (justification) to place money at risk in a scheme where you could loose all.
    Last edited by fairleads; 09-12-2016 at 2:19 PM.
    • Daz2009
    • By Daz2009 9th Dec 16, 4:41 PM
    • 921 Posts
    • 335 Thanks
    Daz2009
    Geoff
    Given what you have noted, combined with what i have read in the terms and conditions that govern an "investment" in p2p, i repeat, why bother even considering putting money into these schemes.
    Just because an individual says that p2p is less risky than BTL, or another individual says they have 100k on loan to p2p, is not a good enough reason (justification) to place money at risk in a scheme where you could loose all.
    Originally posted by fairleads
    A sensible investor would diversify.
    Multiple loans on multiple platforms is the way to go
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,637Posts Today

7,223Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: 'Sometimes the best gift is releasing somebody else from the obligation of having to give to you' says @MartinSLewis. Do y?

  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Follow Martin