Peer-to-peer lending sites: MSE guide discussion

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.

masonic

Kendall80 wrote: »

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.

A 'survey' is no substitute for a robust legal agreement that spells out what happens to delinquent borrowers and which is adhered to.

I haven't voted in any survey since I realised it could open me up to direct legal action. These votes are not a secret ballot, and the platform might be compelled to provide the names and addresses of the lenders who are responsible for the outcome if the borrower turns out to be the litigious type.

Even worse in this case, as I understand Lendy ignores the outcome of such surveys when it doesn't like the result.

takesyourchances

keyboardworrier wrote: »

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.

Interesting, yes the least hassles it would seem would be from the likes of Lending Works at the moment and those styles of accounts. Did you work out your P2P rate of return taking in the worst case scenarios and what profit you would of came out with?


My P2P overall profit will depend if I get anything back from Collateral as I would of made profit on the rest asides MT until such times the other MT defaults are sorted out. Collateral was my biggest blow like many, but thankfully it was £4500 odd out of 17K in P2P at the time due to spreading platforms.



I can take risk and learnt from it as well, I decided also after a bit of time to stop chasing losses in P2P, as far as I am concerned Collateral is a loss until something is returned and that helped put the hammer down on me with it. I take it as a lesson as I would of likely went higher into P2P and got deeper into more problems down the line I feel.



You gotta ask yourself was all the hassles and time worth the real rate of return of your overall P2P compared to other options. .