Peer-to-peer lending sites: MSE guide discussion

takesyourchances

fun4everyone wrote: »

Thanks both of you. Oh well, hope the administrators keep the repayments from loans coming in!

I am considering increasing my exposure again to p2p even with all this nonsense. Probably with a new platform or two. Will have a look around.

No worries, it'll be a long road I think and think best not to expect to see anything back anytime soon and hopefully in the background the repayments and any defaults are being dealt with.



I invested for a while after it all with a few other platforms, but running down unbolted as well after the rate cuts. Personally I can't see me going into P2P again but am still in it as such until things are run down and Collateral comes to a conclusion.



I am just putting my efforts into my S&S ISA investing and growing my IT's and dividends, my own personal view is I feel this is more sustainable long term and stock drops don't don't bother me as buy more. It's just a personal preference now after the hands on experiences over the last few years. .

masonic

takesyourchances wrote: »

But if you read between the lines of these, it spells a long wait to me.

The comprehensive non-disclosure agreement signed by the members of the Creditors Committee seems to be an unusual step in an Administration and we cannot know exactly why the Joint Administrators felt it necessary. Perhaps because any and all information relaid through members of the committee will be tainted with said members own interpretations and biases. There are certainly possible scenarios where there would be a long wait before an initial distribution, but 'impossible to say' means just that.

Incidentally I have some bad debt from a loan taken out in December 2015, for which we are still none the wiser as to possible outcomes or what has been going on in the background. That's held on a platform that's very much alive.

takesyourchances wrote: »

We can only hope the right steps are being taken, I am sure the members of the committee have large enough sums invested to be taking on such a complex role. Not much is getting given out, we can only hope it'll all work out.

I'm more concerned about their knowledge and experience than how much skin they have in the game. Which explains why I voted how I voted.

fun4everyone wrote: »

Thanks both of you. Oh well, hope the administrators keep the repayments from loans coming in!

I am considering increasing my exposure again to p2p even with all this nonsense. Probably with a new platform or two. Will have a look around.

TBH, I've been reducing from most platforms, although there are one or two gems out there, like a recent FS loan renewal in which a small acquisition loan ranked head of an entire development facility for an (allegedly) almost completed development.

I've started putting some money in RS again now that I can get 6.7-6.8% and I've found the occasional loan that's of interest over at Kuflink.

fun4everyone

masonic wrote: »

TBH, I've been reducing from most platforms, although there are one or two gems out there, like a recent FS loan renewal in which a small acquisition loan ranked head of an entire development facility for an (allegedly) almost completed development.

That's a nice spot. I lost all confidence in FS property loans long ago. Having been on that platform a while though I do have a nice portfolio of italian books, rolexes and classic cars I intended to keep renewing for as long as possible .

takesyourchances

masonic wrote: »

The comprehensive non-disclosure agreement signed by the members of the Creditors Committee seems to be an unusual step in an Administration and we cannot know exactly why the Joint Administrators felt it necessary. Perhaps because any and all information relaid through members of the committee will be tainted with said members own interpretations and biases. There are certainly possible scenarios where there would be a long wait before an initial distribution, but 'impossible to say' means just that.

Incidentally I have some bad debt from a loan taken out in December 2015, for which we are still none the wiser as to possible outcomes or what has been going on in the background. That's held on a platform that's very much alive.

Good points made, I totally agree "The comprehensive non-disclosure agreement signed by the members of the Creditors Committee seems to be an unusual step in an Administration".



The answers due to this on the forum are certainly tainted, so could mean anything really. Hopefully the committee members are up to the task, I am a little out of the loop on the credentials on tne elected members selected in the end.



I am finding out too how long some defaults can take to resolve and if at all, so any problems like this could extend on a lot of time with the full wind down and there was a lot of development loans as well on their books. You would think the bling would be the easier of the lot, if they got their hands on the actual bling security.

fun4everyone

masonic wrote: »

The comprehensive non-disclosure agreement signed by the members of the Creditors Committee seems to be an unusual step in an Administration and we cannot know exactly why the Joint Administrators felt it necessary. Perhaps because any and all information relaid through members of the committee will be tainted with said members own interpretations and biases. There are certainly possible scenarios where there would be a long wait before an initial distribution, but 'impossible to say' means just that.

Could it also be because of possible criminal charges?

masonic

takesyourchances wrote: »

The answers due to this on the forum are certainly tainted, so could mean anything really. Hopefully the committee members are up to the task, I am a little out of the loop on the credentials on tne elected members selected in the end.

It only takes one experienced and clued up member to ensure the right points are raised and things aren't missed, and we have that. I don't consider it a bad thing that another member is doing what he can within the confines of the NDA to give investors some insight to what is going on. However, BDO need to protect our interests and information put into the public domain could work against our interests.

fun4everyone wrote: »

Could it also be because of possible criminal charges?

The Creditors Committee is unlikely to be directly involved in any investigation into potential criminal actions of the directors beyond those to which we have all been invited to contribute. I expect BDO will be helping the FCA with their investigation, but I don't believe its a reason for the NDA. One would hope the corporate veil can be pierced and the directors held personally liable for any shortfall. Whether that does us any good is another matter.

takesyourchances

masonic wrote: »

It only takes one experienced and clued up member to ensure the right points are raised and things aren't missed, and we have that. I don't consider it a bad thing that another member is doing what he can within the confines of the NDA to give investors some insight to what is going on. However, BDO need to protect our interests and information put into the public domain could work against our interests..

That is good to know we have someone on the committee with this ezperience to oversee the investors side of things. I think it was good to read what the member said, I understand they can't say a lot but it gives some insight at least. It is better the process takes it's course and whatever time is required to try and bring us the best possible outcome.



There must be a reason why certain information cannot go into the public domain, I am ok with that as well, I would rather there is no damage done to harm the process.



It would be good to see criminal proceedings take place against the directors who knowingly tricked us all, as I feel they should not get away with how they mislead their operation and investors.

masonic

It seems Lendy lenders are having quite a time of it at the moment:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Lendy+faces+crunch+as+peer-to-peer+lender+asks+regulator+for+help%22&tbm=nws

keyboardworrier

I've been crunching some numbers and in the very worst case scenarios I can envisage in the situations I am involved in (Collateral admin, Lendy defaults etc,MoneyThing defaults) I will still come out with a profit, which is quite remarkable. This is thanks to the lower but seemingly safer (this is just my opinion!) returns from platforms such as Ratesetter, Assetz Capital, Kuflink, Lending Works.) The FCA will be watching a certain situation closely but they will not get involved, they will likely just stop non institutional investors getting involved with P2P, which I am starting to think may be a wise idea.

I have learnt that my risk tolerance is far higher than I ever imagined due to some of these sagas which is a valuable lesson for me.

Kendall80

masonic wrote: »

It seems Lendy lenders are having quite a time of it at the moment:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Lendy+faces+crunch+as+peer-to-peer+lender+asks+regulator+for+help%22&tbm=nws

Yes i had the 'survey' e-mail a few weeks back asking if we wish to pursue the funds or settle. Cant pretend to understand everything but had the niggling suspicion that Lendy may be offloading some of the responsibility/blame should things go south. Hope i'm wrong.