Peer-to-peer lending sites: MSE guide discussion

fun4everyone

Fellow Collateral posters...

As was pointed out a few pages out there is some quite significant evidence the FCA failed us. There are screenshots of their website showing collateral as authorised, video clips of an FCA dude claiming being listed on their site means everything is ok, screenshots of database entries that have been altered after he fact etc etc. Their is a good thread with all this information on the P2P collateral forum and several posters are complaining via a form to complain about the FCA themselves and also by emailing the Treasury Select Commitee. There are even suggestions the FCA could be liable for any financial loss that comes about when the dust settles.

Have any of you done this? I am sure it is possibly worthwhile but with all the complaints already in if the FCA are eventually deemed liable would this not be applied to all investors rather than just the ones who complained? I could be persuaded to put mine in but I dunno....

masonic

fun4everyone wrote: »

What is this mystical site you speak of?

Ablrate stands out on the point of managing recoveries. Despite having to deal with a particularly unscrupulous borrower in the early days, it has at least been thorough and persistent in pursuing that recovery. Since then it has had a good track record of managing defaults through to a successful outcome.

masonic

fun4everyone wrote: »

Have any of you done this? I am sure it is possibly worthwhile but with all the complaints already in if the FCA are eventually deemed liable would this not be applied to all investors rather than just the ones who complained? I could be persuaded to put mine in but I dunno....

I've put in a complaint about the FCA. I haven't bothered to raise the matter with the TSC as I think a sufficient number of people have already done so. Failing to put in a complaint would mean losing out on any redress should it be decided the FCA has some responsibility for losses.

fun4everyone

masonic wrote: »

Ablrate stands out on the point of managing recoveries. Despite having to deal with a particularly unscrupulous borrower in the early days, it has at least been thorough and persistent in pursuing that recovery. Since then it has had a good track record of managing defaults through to a successful outcome.

itwasntme001

masonic wrote: »

I've put in a complaint about the FCA. I haven't bothered to raise the matter with the TSC as I think a sufficient number of people have already done so. Failing to put in a complaint would mean losing out on any redress should it be decided the FCA has some responsibility for losses.

How did you put in a complaint about the FCA? I might do the same.

Snow_Dog

bxboards wrote: »

Yes, I remember you used my sign-up when the thread was still active - I probably will still go in with any 7% self-selects but these seem rare. And I don't do second charges or development loans generally. When I first joined when they got going 7% was the rule, rather than the exception.

I'm favoring Assetz Capital at the moment for new money in - still can get 8%+ in numerous loans. I don't do anything less than 8% on Assetz if investing manually. With some many more loans on Assstz it's easier getting diversified.

Sounds like you and I have similar approaches - second charges I totally avoid and yes, I have seen mostly 6% odd loans on Kuflink as compared to when I joined mostly 6.8% to 7.2%.


Also favouring Assetz, have done from the moment I started using their platform, only thing is I dont want to be too heavy in one single platform but havent seen any others that I like as much. Love the way the MLA ticks over through the month.

Snow_Dog

Jordan_Stodart wrote: »

What financial publications do people generally read on this forum?

Are there any specific ones where I can find good information on P2P?

I know of the P2P Independent Forum and some other sites that provide useful comparison, but actual online magazine publications...?

The website financialthing is pretty good, the chap who does that is invested in about 20 different p2p platforms, interestingly I have just looked and my two highest invested p2p are the same as his.


He also does a good guide and I think he has done video interviews and tours of some of the p2p companies.

masonic

itwasntme001 wrote: »

How did you put in a complaint about the FCA? I might do the same.

https://www.fca.org.uk/about/complain-about-regulators

jamesd

fun4everyone wrote: »

There are even suggestions the FCA could be liable for any financial loss that comes about when the dust settles.

Have any of you done this?

Not likely to be all of any loss for a few reasons but does seem likely to be something in the region of 25-50%.

I think that it's now better to wait to see how the FCA responds to the first wave of complaints so that later complaints can learn from those responses. There is a twelve month deadline, though.

One concern I have is that the first complaints might not have made enough mention of the FCAs negligent design of the interim permissions database:

1. not providing the company number, so blocking cross-checking by consumers of company details with companies House. Given the state of investor due diligence this would have been done and would have revealed the mismatch, unless the FCA was also negligent in allowing the number to be changed even though permissions are granted to a specific company.

2. the design allowing a change of company name from Regal Pawnbroker Limited to Collateral (UK) Limited by an outside individual on 24 March 2016 even though the permissions are linked to a specific company. The design either not highlighting this for human review or the reviewing human failing.

3. not building in a cross-check with Companies House to alert the FCA and consumers that the entry no longer appeared to be valid after Regal Pawnbroker Limited became dormant in 2015 and after the name change to Fitzwilliam Black Limited was dissolved on 14 March 2017.

4. not building in a cross-check to alert to the company name mismatch when Regal Pawnbroker Limited changed its name to Fitzwilliam Black Limited after 25 November 2015

5. in its designs the FCA needs to anticipate attempts to mislead via its databases because that's one of the forms of improper activity that can be expected to be attempted to facilitate further misconduct by reassuring investors with the database entry.

6. as a result of these failings the FCA informed consumers via its database that Collateral (UK) Ltd held interim permissions when it was never eligible for them and didn't hold them.

Key to FCA redress is the extent to which the FCA was negligent. Designing negligence into the interim permissions database system is a related but different issue to the misuse that it facilitated. Each merits attention.

fun4everyone

I have still to put my complaint in james so your points are useful thanks.