Peer-to-peer lending sites: MSE guide discussion

masonic

AdrianC wrote: »

Again, hardly a unique opinion outside the world of P2P. But they're the best we have.

The difference in the world of P2P is that it is "light touch" regulation. The FCA might as well have not bothered. Though I agree that the FCA is generally useless, it is just even more useless when it comes to regulating P2P.

I don't believe I've ever expressed an opinion on FS. I don't hold one.

Perhaps I am confusing you with another Adrian from P2PIF. (edit: indeed I am, apologies)

mobilejunkie

AdrianC wrote: »

If I hadn't bothered to read even the most basic information before signing up, then I'd be fuming with myself.

I always read the information. If you're implying I didn't know it was higher risk, you're wrong. I am a risk taker - BUT I don't expect to be denied what is promised for taking a higher risk.

Albermarle

I am still invested in P2P and so far all OK , but I avoided the 'wild west' end of it . Maybe just lucky so far though.
Also I followed the traditional advice about alternative investments, and restricted it to a max 10% of investable assets and currently at 9% from a peak of 11% . In fact if I take pensions into account it is more like 3% , diversified over four platforms , so I still sleep OK .
I was always amazed at some of the posters on the P2P forum , lining up for a 'fastest finger first ' deadline to pump tens of thousands into unknown borrowers of property development loans.

firestone

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I always read the information. If you're implying I didn't know it was higher risk, you're wrong. I am a risk taker - BUT I don't expect to be denied what is promised for taking a higher risk.

The problem in making a claim against RS maybe the fact that presumably you invested in 1 or 5 years at which point you would be given your rate and you pick your reinvestment setting as well.Could be worth asking to speak to someone else but good luck

masonic

mobilejunkie's plight is also discussed a bit here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76580779#Comment_76580779

AdrianC

masonic wrote: »

mobilejunkie's plight is also discussed a bit here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76580779#Comment_76580779

Thought as much.

They didn't understand how to use it, didn't bother to take the time to read, ignored the "uninvested money" emails, and didn't reinvest.

It also explains why they think that others are similarly unable to read, hence require the "no FSCS" warning.

The "self-cert sophisticated investor" prequal is a good thing. At least then people who don't understand will be able to be told "But you swore blind you did. Why did you lie?" passed back to them.

firestone

Albermarle wrote: »

I am still invested in P2P and so far all OK , but I avoided the 'wild west' end of it . Maybe just lucky so far though.
Also I followed the traditional advice about alternative investments, and restricted it to a max 10% of investable assets and currently at 9% from a peak of 11% . In fact if I take pensions into account it is more like 3% , diversified over four platforms , so I still sleep OK .
I was always amazed at some of the posters on the P2P forum , lining up for a 'fastest finger first ' deadline to pump tens of thousands into unknown borrowers of property development loans.

it is interesting that from tv shows & films the property development investment has always been portrayed as dodgy with shades of Arthur Daley but as you say there was still a FFF movement of people chasing 12 - 15%
At the lower risk end the companies are just following a tried and tested method of lending but the difference is they are trying to use investors money but if that drys up then what?.As has been proved by Landbay institutional money will lend and be happy with 4% but the public seem to think more is better.Some of the bigger P2P platforms will survive but will probably revert to being companies rather then p2p platforms as seen with the likes of Lendinvest,Market invoice and now Landbay

soulsaver

AdrianC wrote: »

Thought as much.

They didn't understand how to use it, didn't bother to take the time to read, ignored the "uninvested money" emails, and didn't reinvest.

It also explains why they think that others are similarly unable to read, hence require the "no FSCS" warning.

The "self-cert sophisticated investor" prequal is a good thing. At least then people who don't understand will be able to be told "But you swore blind you did. Why did you lie?" passed back to them.

Ratesetter has been failing for months to send the 'loan cpmpleted early' and I've NEVER had an 'uninvested funds' email - whilst I did have uninvested funds.

I complained about it months ago.

jennyjj

soulsaver wrote: »

Adjusting the Going Rates of Plus and Max

"Dear Edward,

I am writing to let you know that the interest rates on our Plus and Max products are changing.

As of ​2 ​December ​2019, the interest rates will be:
Product Going Rate, current Going Rate, 02/12/2019
Plus 4.0% 3.5%
Max 5.0% 4.0%
There is no change to the interest rate for Access which remains at 3.0%.

Stable interest rates are important so we don’t intend to change them often, but we also need to be responsive to make sure the interest rates continue to support our objective of delivering the most consistent returns and most liquid investment in peer-to-peer.'

Well, that was quick...

I've been with Ratesetter for a few years, but something's just fishy about the new products:-
With the old products, there were 3 distinct 'supply and demand' queues. Interest rates moved within narrow ranges depending on that supply and demand. It threw up odd anomalies, but made sense. But now each product has 'fixed' interest rates and nicely rounded numbers.
How can that be reconciled with the shifting supply and demand queue?

E.g. the 'Access' product has a going rate of 3.0% and remarkably there is generally a couple of £million waiting to be lent at 3.0% and never anything waiting to be lent at <=2.9% (Though they'll happily match such rates)
This just strikes me as manipulated, but I cannot yet figure out how they are doing it. It should surely be with the ebb and flow of funds that occasionally the 'going rate' should be other than the fixed 3%
I did think I could understand how the higher rate products could get fixed, if the platform was pushing borrowers between products, but how the heck can each tier have a fixed rate like this?

Froggitt

soulsaver wrote: »

Ratesetter has been failing for months to send the 'loan cpmpleted early' and I've NEVER had an 'uninvested funds' email - whilst I did have uninvested funds.

I complained about it months ago.

mobilejunkie wrote: »

I am fuming with Ratesetter. One year ago I put in £1,000 based on a bonus offer via MSE. The website is appalling and obscure - you can't really see where your money is or who it's invested with, what rate it's actually earning or much else. I earned about half what I expected. Now I've just been told that the person/body it was lent to (they chose them and I have no idea who or what it even was) repaid their loan early - in June. Since I didn't reinvest the money it's been sitting there earning zilch ever since AND because it wasn't invested (I thought it was and didn't change any settings from when i originally set up the account) they won't pay the bonus.

Absolutely disgusted with them. Note for those who don't realise, this is a higher risk investment without FCS protection. Unlike most investments, you are left in the dark as to where your money is invested or what rate it is actually attracting. ANY inducement is something they have no intention of paying. It is not worth the risk and definitley completely untransparent.

I have naturally made a formal complaint which I will pursue to the FOS if necessary. I have withrdrawn my money and as a seasoned and experienced investor (Since the early 80's) I will never go near them again - and would strongly advise everyone else not to get sucked in.

I have just posted this on another thread. I would now avoide P2P lenders as a result of my appalling experience with Ratesetter.

Ratesetter used to send "Your investment completed early" emails and "Fully matched order" emails, which you could turn off if you wanted.

They have now made "a business decision" to cease both of these.

Very poor, makes it as transparent as a brick.