Ratesetter Release Delays

wizzards

Aceace said:

wizzards said:

Aceace said:

wizzards said:

Ratesetter just asked me to confirm my investor type otherwise I would not be able to make new investments.  If I skip that does that mean they can't invest any of my money anymore ?  Surely if I have not made a declaration then investing stops ?  I am slowly withdrawing my funds daily.  I have withdrawn about a 1/3 of the total sum.  I hope by end of year to have got most of it out of the so called "ACCESS" account.

Sadly not. I think it just means you won't be able to invest any newly added cash. They will still reinvest existing cash. 

But interest is not existing cash ?    How does that work then ?  This is where I would need someone to give a legal opinion.  Overall by using the workaround of setting the rate high the cash is coming out at a few hundred a week and I am about position 4000 in the queue now.  The sum I have entered to withdraw is more than I have left but originally I put in a request for a fixed sum and then a second request for all the funds so either way I should get the cash back before they go bust or wind it up.  I just can't see it being sustainable longer term to leave the cash in.  The risk is no longer worth 1.5 % or whatever it is I get after paying tax etc.

I completely agree with everything you've said, but it seems that RS see it differently. Regardless of legal opinion, unless you're a whale of an investor you're probably not going to take them to court over reinvesting the tiny amount of interest that they're paying. At least you're in the queue. I feel sorry for those that don't realise the risk they're taking for the pathetically low return. There are much better P2P options paying higher rates for lower risk IMO. 

I got burn't before to the tune of about 10K aka "Saving Stream" later called Lendy.  I still get about 20 - 50 quid or so out of that every month when they manage to offload some of the properties etc.  Years ago I nearly got burnt with Icesave the icelandic bank but that was protected by HM government and paid the savings plus the 7% or so interest back so actually turned out at the time in the end to be a fantastic rate of return despite a few months wait.

But I see it subjectively just like any investment is a risk.  Overall if you are a winner then its OK.  But yes I also feel for those who lost jobs and invested and need cash and can't get it.  Even I who thought of myself as a moderately competent or fairly experienced investor did not quite realise the terms I actually signed upto on the "Access" account when it changed to that name.

masonic

wizzards said:

Ratesetter just asked me to confirm my investor type otherwise I would not be able to make new investments.  If I skip that does that mean they can't invest any of my money anymore ?  Surely if I have not made a declaration then investing stops ?  I am slowly withdrawing my funds daily.  I have withdrawn about a 1/3 of the total sum.  I hope by end of year to have got most of it out of the so called "ACCESS" account.

The investor type declaration is an FCA requirement and relates to the receipt of financial promotions about new investments, see https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/COBS/4/7.html

It is now a requirement that in order to make a *new* investment decision on the basis of a financial promotion, a Restricted Investor must agree not to invest more than 10% of their net assets in non-readily realisable securities like P2P.

Existing loan agreements held within your Access account were entered into previously and will be in force for up to 5 years. These are not being renewed, but you are slowly receiving capital + interest payments, plus provision fund payments for any that default, which has enabled you to withdraw money as it is repaid to you. Overarching these loan agreements is the agreement pertaining to the Access account itself, which was entered into when you first invested the funds you are now trying to withdraw and is a legacy agreement also.

Therefore there is nothing in the day to day operation of the account that constitutes a new investment decision on your part and so the continuation won't be subject to you carrying out the investor classification. There is no need to complete it if you don't want to invest any new money with RateSetter.

It is a shame RateSetter hasn't introduced a mechanism by which other lenders can buy existing lenders out of a loan at a discount as Assetz Capital has done with their Access accounts. This has been very useful for those which have needed to access their capital, and the discounts required have been modest.

wizzards

So realistically if I have some loans that have 52 months left.  I will have to wait 52 months unless the borrower pays early or defaults then or I get to the front of the queue.   I am 3920 or so approx in the queue.  On the 5 year I have some loans that are I think so small they have to wait till they end it seems.  The queue on the access is now moving a bit faster.

dunstonh

But I see it subjectively just like any investment is a risk.  Overall if you are a winner then its OK.  But yes I also feel for those who lost jobs and invested and need cash and can't get it.  Even I who thought of myself as a moderately competent or fairly experienced investor did not quite realise the terms I actually signed upto on the "Access" account when it changed to that name.

This is why you never invest your emergency fund.   Plus, you should never use illiquid assets on money you cannot afford to have tied up for the long term and ideally dont invest more than 10% of your investable assets in P2P  (this last bit is just a circa figure).

Aceace

dunstonh said:

But I see it subjectively just like any investment is a risk.  Overall if you are a winner then its OK.  But yes I also feel for those who lost jobs and invested and need cash and can't get it.  Even I who thought of myself as a moderately competent or fairly experienced investor did not quite realise the terms I actually signed upto on the "Access" account when it changed to that name.

This is why you never invest your emergency fund.   Plus, you should never use illiquid assets on money you cannot afford to have tied up for the long term and ideally dont invest more than 10% of your investable assets in P2P  (this last bit is just a circa figure).

That's good advice, but I don't see any need for sophisticated investors to limit themselves to 10%. I've been studying P2P very closely for the past 3 years and I'm now very happy to have nearly 50% of my investable assets in P2P. It's proving to be a very enjoyable and profitable hobby for me. 

wizzards

Aceace said:

dunstonh said:

But I see it subjectively just like any investment is a risk.  Overall if you are a winner then its OK.  But yes I also feel for those who lost jobs and invested and need cash and can't get it.  Even I who thought of myself as a moderately competent or fairly experienced investor did not quite realise the terms I actually signed upto on the "Access" account when it changed to that name.

This is why you never invest your emergency fund.   Plus, you should never use illiquid assets on money you cannot afford to have tied up for the long term and ideally dont invest more than 10% of your investable assets in P2P  (this last bit is just a circa figure).

That's good advice, but I don't see any need for sophisticated investors to limit themselves to 10%. I've been studying P2P very closely for the past 3 years and I'm now very happy to have nearly 50% of my investable assets in P2P. It's proving to be a very enjoyable and profitable hobby for me. 

The trouble is "What exactly is a sophisticated investor ?"  Everyone has to make own judgement.  If you can't afford to risk your cash and lose some of it occasionally or all of it then maybe you shouldn't invest it.  But then again some of the most successful persons in the world gambled every penny they have to get where the are financially.  The difference comes if you have family and dependents and a big mortgage and loans then foolish investments such as ratesetter because your mate said it was a good idea or they offered you £100 quid cashback for introducing your friends might not be such a great idea.  From my own personal experience most investments over the long term have provided a good return.  But items such as some of Neil Woodfoods funds I lost a bit for example and lendy being another example.  In the case of Neil Woodfoods funds many persons said they were the best funds but then to my cost suddenly they weren't the flavour of the month anymore and plummeted despite being peddled to investors by many expert investors and websites.

Aceace

wizzards said:

Aceace said:

dunstonh said:

But I see it subjectively just like any investment is a risk.  Overall if you are a winner then its OK.  But yes I also feel for those who lost jobs and invested and need cash and can't get it.  Even I who thought of myself as a moderately competent or fairly experienced investor did not quite realise the terms I actually signed upto on the "Access" account when it changed to that name.

This is why you never invest your emergency fund.   Plus, you should never use illiquid assets on money you cannot afford to have tied up for the long term and ideally dont invest more than 10% of your investable assets in P2P  (this last bit is just a circa figure).

That's good advice, but I don't see any need for sophisticated investors to limit themselves to 10%. I've been studying P2P very closely for the past 3 years and I'm now very happy to have nearly 50% of my investable assets in P2P. It's proving to be a very enjoyable and profitable hobby for me. 

The trouble is "What exactly is a sophisticated investor ?"  Everyone has to make own judgement.  If you can't afford to risk your cash and lose some of it occasionally or all of it then maybe you shouldn't invest it.  But then again some of the most successful persons in the world gambled every penny they have to get where the are financially.  The difference comes if you have family and dependents and a big mortgage and loans then foolish investments such as ratesetter because your mate said it was a good idea or they offered you £100 quid cashback for introducing your friends might not be such a great idea.  From my own personal experience most investments over the long term have provided a good return.  But items such as some of Neil Woodfoods funds I lost a bit for example and lendy being another example.  In the case of Neil Woodfoods funds many persons said they were the best funds but then to my cost suddenly they weren't the flavour of the month anymore and plummeted despite being peddled to investors by many expert investors and websites.

Well, according to the highly paid muppets at the FCA, if you've invested in RS in the past 2 years your very next investment in an unlisted company would make you sophisticated! I'm not sure what the definition should be, but I'm pretty sure there must be something better than that. 

masonic

wizzards said:

Aceace said:

dunstonh said:

But I see it subjectively just like any investment is a risk.  Overall if you are a winner then its OK.  But yes I also feel for those who lost jobs and invested and need cash and can't get it.  Even I who thought of myself as a moderately competent or fairly experienced investor did not quite realise the terms I actually signed upto on the "Access" account when it changed to that name.

This is why you never invest your emergency fund.   Plus, you should never use illiquid assets on money you cannot afford to have tied up for the long term and ideally dont invest more than 10% of your investable assets in P2P  (this last bit is just a circa figure).

That's good advice, but I don't see any need for sophisticated investors to limit themselves to 10%. I've been studying P2P very closely for the past 3 years and I'm now very happy to have nearly 50% of my investable assets in P2P. It's proving to be a very enjoyable and profitable hobby for me. 

The trouble is "What exactly is a sophisticated investor ?"  Everyone has to make own judgement. 

The FCA criteria are (at least one of the following):

1. I am a member of a network or syndicate of business angels and have been so for at least the last six months prior to the date below;
2. I have made more than one investment in an unlisted company in the two years prior to the date below;
3. I am working, or have worked in the two years prior to the date below, in a professional capacity in the private equity sector, or in the provision of finance for small and medium enterprises;
4. I am currently, or have been in the two years prior to the date below, a director of a company with an annual turnover of at least £1 million.

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/COBS/4/12.html?date=2020-11-18#DES586

When self-certifying as sophisticated, an investor must agree to the statement "I accept that the investments to which the promotions will relate may expose me to a significant risk of losing all of the money or other property invested"

So it should come as no surprise if such investments go badly wrong. A sophisticated investor will believe their experience and knowledge will allow them to navigate the shark-infested waters and avoid the peril.

wizzards said:

If you can't afford to risk your cash and lose some of it occasionally or all of it then maybe you shouldn't invest it.  But then again some of the most successful persons in the world gambled every penny they have to get where the are financially.  The difference comes if you have family and dependents and a big mortgage and loans then foolish investments such as ratesetter because your mate said it was a good idea or they offered you £100 quid cashback for introducing your friends might not be such a great idea.  From my own personal experience most investments over the long term have provided a good return.  But items such as some of Neil Woodfoods funds I lost a bit for example and lendy being another example.  In the case of Neil Woodfoods funds many persons said they were the best funds but then to my cost suddenly they weren't the flavour of the month anymore and plummeted despite being peddled to investors by many expert investors and websites.

It is never advisable to invest money you cannot survive without. It is never advisable to invest in something you don't understand.

On the subject of Neil Woodford's funds, this clearly demonstrated that a lot of people invested in the funds blindly without understanding what they were investing in, which is also a big no no. The funds he set up at his new firm were very different to the funds he ran at Invesco. He published his full list of holdings, so anyone could have established this for themselves before investing. You should never make an investment decision based on popularity or advertising.

Coming back to RateSetter, the old Rolling account always contained loan contracts that were longer than 1 month, and access to money in the old Rolling account was always subject to RS being able to transfer loan contracts to someone else. This was reinforced through a change in the terms and conditions and the launch of the new Access account. Many people didn't take the time to sit down and really understand how these accounts worked before investing, and many have unfortunately paid the price.

Pkman

My RYI has been paid out. Not a lot, just under £2k. Only opened RS for the £100 bonus, and I quite likely their concept and put a bit more in their ISA. 
It jumped 850 place to paid out in one day.
Requested 18 March, ref 381600(last two digits are not mine)
I truly believe RS will pay everyone out with no loss. 
Still waiting for growth street £320, Asset Capital £970, and lendy £670

Grogged

Today's Update:
Week commencing 14 December: Processing of investment releases has been temporarily paused to allow us to undertake technical work on the loan settlement process which should help speed up delivery of release requests.  The technical work is taking place this week, following which delivery of release requests will recommence.