Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
Page 91
    • taylornj
    • By taylornj 6th Jul 18, 9:06 AM
    • 194 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    taylornj
    The bannings mostly occurred around the time of the whole forum being taken offline for a weekend. There was a certain thread in which several of the banned members were involved and it was perceived as "mod baiting". Subsequently, some members were banned for asking where other members had gone.
    Originally posted by masonic
    I can only say what happened to myself. This was sometime after the forum being taken offline, I found the banned page was displayed with no option given to login.


    If the banned page is displayed with no login option, then it's likely a ban by IP address. If you get the login option and ban appears after the login then it's a specific ban for that forum username. Creating yourself a new username gets around that.


    My ban was for no reason other than the fact my router/modem been assigned a specific IP address.
    • shoi
    • By shoi 9th Jul 18, 1:01 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    shoi
    ..
    A bit like Bond Mason, you would think they were more suited to the CC than the average man in the street, but you can't be certain that they don't have their own agenda to pursue.
    Originally posted by agent69

    I think BM must be as keen as anyone on maximising recovery, unlike BDO. They can also afford lawyers.



    I have some money in BM, none in COL directly.
    • E&G
    • By E&G 10th Jul 18, 12:55 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    E&G
    I have experience of Lendy (formerly Savings Stream) and Ratesetter.

    I have been saving with Ratesetter for 3 or so years with a small regular monthly payment and I have no complaints at all - slightly higher risk mitigated by a well covered (til brexit-related recession, anyway) provision fund and never an issue with getting my capital and 5-6% return paid.

    On the other hand, Lendy has been a relatively expensive mistake. I pulled 5k from my S&S ISA for diversity's sake and because I thought there may be a wee downturn which hasn't arrived, and put it into Lendy across a number of loans. And it's been a terrible experience. I've taken everything I could out but still have about £1200 tied up with loans which will never likely get repaid (or lost when taking severe haircuts) . Peer to peer should be hassle free but instead I ended up trading in and out hoping to dodge the inevitable and, recently, checking every fortnight for the latest sorry excuse. Don't do it - and never trust a surveyor again.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 10th Jul 18, 6:58 AM
    • 9,484 Posts
    • 6,634 Thanks
    masonic
    On the other hand, Lendy has been a relatively expensive mistake. I pulled 5k from my S&S ISA for diversity's sake and because I thought there may be a wee downturn which hasn't arrived, and put it into Lendy across a number of loans. And it's been a terrible experience. I've taken everything I could out but still have about £1200 tied up with loans which will never likely get repaid (or lost when taking severe haircuts)
    Originally posted by E&G
    Yes, the warning signs were there a long time ago. It's a shame you didn't see my comments in this thread as I could have saved you the hassle. This used to be my favourite platform, but I took the decision to liquidate my holdings and remove my money from the platform in early February 2017. Because of my early exit, I never lost a penny, and during the rest of 2017 I watched from the sidelines as things got worse and worse, all the time warning people here about the developing issues.

    I've been caught out elsewhere though.
    • taylornj
    • By taylornj 10th Jul 18, 10:08 AM
    • 194 Posts
    • 96 Thanks
    taylornj
    Yes, the warning signs were there a long time ago. It's a shame you didn't see my comments in this thread as I could have saved you the hassle. This used to be my favourite platform, but I took the decision to liquidate my holdings and remove my money from the platform in early February 2017. Because of my early exit, I never lost a penny, and during the rest of 2017 I watched from the sidelines as things got worse and worse, all the time warning people here about the developing issues.

    I've been caught out elsewhere though.
    Originally posted by masonic
    I started my exit from Lendy in Jan 2017, it took me until Sep 2017 to exit fully when the final monthly interest was paid. Since then had a balance of £0.



    I do look in and do the calculations (loans not paying interest + non-performing loans + amount being recovered) / loan book = 52.47% Back in August 2017 that looked bad at under 30%. As last e-mail from Lendy, they seem happy at £6m repaid in the month, problem is my figures say they need to be getting £6m repaid each week if not more. 6 loans > 660 days overdue (non-performing/defaulted).



    My exit might have been slow to start with, as I waited on new loans appearing elsewhere to replace Lendy Loans. Some issue with sales queues, I only had loans up for sale on the same day, cancelling sale before midnight. Only two small loans parts up for sale ran into the next day. In the end all capital was paid back and had my interest, with a 12.76% return, that includes holding some loans with 8% and 10% rates - 12% reinvested monthly should give around 12.68% the extra is due to Invest Now Pay Later, which Lendy stopped.


    Happy with the end result at Lendy, and glad to be out of Lendy. I see no reasons to return. There are also the IT faults in the platform, and still haven't addressed withdrawals processing.
    • E&G
    • By E&G 10th Jul 18, 12:53 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    E&G
    Wish I'd seen it masonic. I cottoned on about April/May of last year that loans were looking ropey and that they were lending way beyond what a realistic valuation (of a distressed asset, at least) would be. Lesson learned: a 12% return really is too good to be true and in truth I knew that - robust businesses that deliver don't need to borrow at 18% - but I thought I could play the market and pick out the sure things but that's clearly not the case.

    For me, the Ratesetter model is about as risky as peer to peer should be: some mitigated risk for a bit if an extra return on cash. If there's anywhere advertising double digit returns then there's likely to be significant downside with only limited upside, and your money would be far better in the stock market.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 10th Jul 18, 4:22 PM
    • 4,313 Posts
    • 6,804 Thanks
    Malthusian
    An investment where your returns depend on how early you get out is either a scam or merely broken.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 10th Jul 18, 6:04 PM
    • 9,484 Posts
    • 6,634 Thanks
    masonic
    Lesson learned: a 12% return really is too good to be true and in truth I knew that - robust businesses that deliver don't need to borrow at 18% - but I thought I could play the market and pick out the sure things but that's clearly not the case.
    Originally posted by E&G
    Lendy is just one example of a platform paying and lending on those rates. Others have fared a lot better, although it should always be accepted that defaults will reduce the headline rate to something more in line with equities. With sufficient diversification (and careful loan selection) the loss potential does seem to be lower.

    I still have reasonable confidence in Moneything and Ablrate, and I still use FundingSecure although I am very selective there.

    For me, the Ratesetter model is about as risky as peer to peer should be: some mitigated risk for a bit if an extra return on cash. If there's anywhere advertising double digit returns then there's likely to be significant downside with only limited upside, and your money would be far better in the stock market.
    I pulled all of my money out of Ratesetter too when they changed their terms. I'm concerned about some of their lending practices. There is no transparency and the risk is currently being masked by their provision fund, which didn't look sustainable at my last check. TBH, I prefer the cash-blend accounts over at Assetz Capital, although there is some lack of clarity around those accounts too.

    I'm using P2P as an uncorrelated asset class, with the bulk of my investments in equities. It allows me to avoid holding cash outside of high interest current accounts and to keep my exposure to bond funds reasonably low.
  • jamesd
    For me, the Ratesetter model is about as risky as peer to peer should be: some mitigated risk for a bit if an extra return on cash. If there's anywhere advertising double digit returns then there's likely to be significant downside with only limited upside, and your money would be far better in the stock market.
    Originally posted by E&G
    The problem is more that specific platform.
  • jamesd
    I still have reasonable confidence in Moneything and Ablrate, and I still use FundingSecure although I am very selective there.
    Originally posted by masonic
    Regrettably, it seems likely that I'll eventually end up recommending against using Moneythhing on ethics grounds, shaped in part by:

    1. them planning to mislead secondary market buyers about the true risk level of loans by not disclosing promptly that payments are late. A bonus gagging clause banning lenders from disclosing it as well, that I believe to be unlawful in consumer contracts as a breach of unfair terms legislation. And I see no way for them deliberately withholding material risk information to be treating customers fairly.

    2. the new user agreement that's so riddled with terms that appear unlawful to me that it's a good example of what firms aren't allowed to do. But for health reasons I'm just not up to discussing this utter mess with them. A particularly bad joke is the legal tautology of the clause requiring consumers to assert that the terms are lawful when the OFT opined that terms like that which require consumers to use professional expertise that they can't be expected to have are unlawful breaches of consumer contracts law. It's almost as though someone read the OFT and FCA unfair terms guidance and decided to use it as a template for things to do instead of things that they must not do.

    3. the Birkenhead loan mess where Moneything must have known about the developer's overspending default on their loan but didn't disclose this key risk information to lenders after it's certain that one of their now-former directors had it. Had they and the borrower (with 5% first loss, not the developer) made timely and proper disclosure I'd have had nothing invested in this loan.

    While the terms mess is a problem, the failure to disclose material risk information is more worrying. And doing it systematically with late payments going forward rather than something that could be thought of as a past mistake is particularly so.

    For the moment I'm waiting to see whether there's any useful acceptance by borrower (not developer) and platform that that they materially misled lenders about the risk in the Birkenhead case. That one will inevitably go at least to the FOS if lenders who believe they were misled lose money and there is no such acceptance after complaint to the platform.

    I'm still hoping that they will change approach instead of seeming to try to reverse their good start.
    Last edited by jamesd; 11-07-2018 at 1:19 AM.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 11th Jul 18, 7:44 AM
    • 9,484 Posts
    • 6,634 Thanks
    masonic
    1. them planning to mislead secondary market buyers about the true risk level of loans by not disclosing promptly that payments are late.
    Originally posted by jamesd
    The 14 calendar day 'tolerance period' is not ideal and I would have preferred a record of the date payments fell due and were received as we see on other platforms, but this wasn't of significant concern to me.

    A bonus gagging clause banning lenders from disclosing it as well, that I believe to be unlawful in consumer contracts as a breach of unfair terms legislation.
    I don't believe there is such a clause. The statement about non-performing loans refers to clause 19 suggesting late payments can be discussed providing you don't reveal the identity of the borrower and appears to be in relation only to information provided by MT, not information obtained independently.

    For example, I don't believe there is anything stopping me sharing in public that MT loan XXX123 keeps slipping into non-performing status, so the borrower might be struggling to keep up interest payments.

    I do have a problem with not being able to disclose the identity of a MT borrower when that information is in the public domain, for example by way of a legal charge registered at CH, especially when a non-lender can do so freely.

    A particularly bad joke is the legal tautology of the clause requiring consumers to assert that the terms are lawful when the OFT opined that terms like that which require consumers to use professional expertise that they can't be expected to have are unlawful breaches of consumer contracts law. It's almost as though someone read the OFT and FCA unfair terms guidance and decided to use it as a template for things to do instead of things that they must not do.
    Perhaps I missed the bit in the terms requiring me to assert they are lawful?

    3. the Birkenhead loan mess where Moneything must have known about the developer's overspending default on their loan but didn't disclose this key risk information to lenders after it's certain that one of their now-former directors had it. Had they and the borrower (with 5% first loss, not the developer) made timely and proper disclosure I'd have had nothing invested in this loan.
    I've not been involved in Birkenhead and, unusually, didn't put my usual £1 "don't go there" stake in any of the loans. So I may have missed out on some of the aspects of this default shared with lenders. I need to do some further reading of discussion around this as I've been blissfully unaware of this situation.
    Last edited by masonic; 11-07-2018 at 7:47 AM.
    • E&G
    • By E&G 11th Jul 18, 12:34 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 13 Thanks
    E&G
    Given your views on Lendy and your response to Masonic, where would you advise for peer to peer saving then James?

    (I am also getting out of Ratesetter given the additional risks and losses they incurred last year, but given the fees for early release am auto-withdrawing - just the four years to go!)
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 11th Jul 18, 3:25 PM
    • 4,313 Posts
    • 6,804 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Given your views on Lendy and your response to Masonic, where would you advise for peer to peer saving then James?
    Originally posted by E&G
    Bear in mind that wherever James advises you to put your money, he will advising you to get the hell out of in a year or two, as happened with Lendy (nee Savingstream) and Collateral.
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 11th Jul 18, 4:16 PM
    • 4,441 Posts
    • 3,989 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    Bear in mind that wherever James advises you to put your money, he will advising you to get the hell out of in a year or two, as happened with Lendy (nee Savingstream) and Collateral.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    if you're thinking of putting money into p2p, a good question to ask yourself is: would you know what to do if jamesd stopped posting?
  • jamesd
    I don't believe there is such a clause. The statement about non-performing loans refers to clause 19 suggesting late payments can be discussed providing you don't reveal the identity of the borrower and appears to be in relation only to information provided by MT, not information obtained independently.

    For example, I don't believe there is anything stopping me sharing in public that MT loan XXX123 keeps slipping into non-performing status, so the borrower might be struggling to keep up interest payments.
    Originally posted by masonic
    My bold:

    "12.1 We will inform you via the Platform if all or part of an interest payment or capital repayment due on a Loan is overdue by more than 14 calendar days. We will mark such Loan as “nonperforming” on the Platform. Until such time, a Loan will be “performing”. Such information is strictly private and confidential and you must comply with the provisions of clause 19 (Confidentiality) of these Terms in relation to such information and any other information we provide to you in relation to a Borrower."

    The connecting word is "and". As it is, the fact of late payment seems to be "strictly private and confidential" as well as the clause 19 borrower naming restriction applying.

    So far as I'm aware nobody subject to the April terms has yet done what you describe.

    Perhaps I missed the bit in the terms requiring me to assert they are lawful?
    Originally posted by masonic
    My bold:

    "7. YOUR REPRESENTATIONS & WARRANTIES
    Representations and warranties are statements and promises made by you to us upon which we rely on being accurate in our dealings with you. Therefore, you make the following representations and warranties
    "

    "7.11 Execution, delivery and performance of these Terms, each Loan Contract and (where applicable) each Security Document will not violate any law, ordinance, charter, by-law or rule applicable to you or the grantor of the same, or any other agreement by which you or such grantor are bound or by which any of your or their assets are affected; "

    And of course none of us can make any meaningful representations about the loan contracts because MT just doesn't routinely provide them. Not sure either how we can know the future, "will not".

    I've not been involved in Birkenhead and, unusually, didn't put my usual £1 "don't go there" stake in any of the loans. So I may have missed out on some of the aspects of this default shared with lenders. I need to do some further reading of discussion around this as I've been blissfully unaware of this situation.
    Originally posted by masonic
    The developer overspending default, I think before the third tranche of the MT loans to the borrower (with 5% first loss, not the developer) first potentially became known to lenders in a report from the administrators, who also mentioned a history of overspending even before the first MT tranche. So far as I'm aware this was never disclosed by borrower or MT prior to the administrator doing it. That dramatically increased the potential for the developer to continue doing that and run out of money, which is what ultimately seems to have happened, through the builder telling the developer that they were stopping work. Those who bought the second loss tranches were particularly badly misled as the ones whose money was most exposed after the 5% first loss.

    The relevant portion of the Administrator's proposals on page 1 is, redacted by me in bold:

    "During quarter two in 2016, delays were experienced in the development works being progressed. Moreover, it became apparent that the development of the Property was underfunded and additional finance would be required. In September 2016, the Company refinanced its debt to Hope Capital through a refinance undertaken with Borrower. The Company granted security to Borrower equivalent to that previously granted to Hope Capital.

    Borrower also agreed to provide additional development funding of £350,000 to the Company under a loan agreement dated 23 September 2016, on a secured basis, in order to allow the Company to complete the development works. Under an agreement dated 11 November 2016, Borrower agreed to provide additional development funding totalling £301,505 to assist with the completion of the development works at the Property. Under this agreement dated 11 November 2016, the Company acknowledged that an event of default had occurred under its original loan agreement dated 23 September 2016 and that the Company's loan facilities were now repayable on demand.

    Events leading to the appointment of the Administrators

    Notwithstanding the provision of the additional development funding provided by Borrower in November 2016, the Company continued to encounter further delays in completing the development works during the first quarter of 2017, with unexplained delays and growing uncertainty over the level of costs required to complete the development works and the realistic timeframe to reach practical completion.

    In March/ April 2016, the Company was in dispute with Ridgemere in respect of works completed and monies owed. On 15 May 2017, Ridgemere issued a notice of intention to suspend performance under the contract dated 10 December 2015 as a result of the dispute. On 30 May 2017, Ridgemere suspended works at the Property due to the non-payment of an outstanding debt.
    "

    Ridgemere is the building firm contracted by the developer to do the work. The 11 November 2016 drawing was funded by the 22 November 2016 MT loan tranche.
  • jamesd
    Given your views on Lendy and your response to Masonic, where would you advise for peer to peer saving then James?
    Originally posted by E&G
    I mentioned some possibilities here. Ablrate is in general the one I like best.
    • KTF
    • By KTF 11th Jul 18, 5:13 PM
    • 4,665 Posts
    • 1,908 Thanks
    KTF
    Not keen on Assetz Capital then?
  • jamesd
    Bear in mind that wherever James advises you to put your money, he will advising you to get the hell out of in a year or two, as happened with Lendy (nee Savingstream) and Collateral.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Earlier in this discussion masonic linked to a cautionary post they made on 4 Feb 2017. I'd recommended against using that platform in a post on 2 Aug 2016 and a range of others.

    One thing I'm aware of is that people do pay attention to investments that I mention, as implied by grey gym sock's post after yours. So I may well change my views about an investment over time, and also change what I write about them here as my views change, generally saying why. The biggest example of that is me reducing my equity holdings greatly due to current market conditions..

    However, you made this assertion, which appears to be false:

    "as happened with Lendy (nee Savingstream) and Collateral"

    To the best of my recollection I never recommended Lendy but suggested not using them and didn't recommend against Collateral. There was a time when I was considering using Lendy, though, and thought that they were worth investigating. I linked to my conclusion against earlier.

    There was a time, though, when some use of Lendy would have been profitable, which changed over time, and I've no great issue with anyone who suggested using them during the first period and not in the second.

    However, I have recommended Moneything and as you can see I'm considering changing that as a result of subsequent developments, chiefly whether I think that they can be trusted to promptly disclose all material risk information so that lenders can make proper risk decisions. Similarly, back in 2008 I probably recommended looking at Zopa and subsequently changed that as expected returns dropped.

    On the Collateral end, investors were clearly misled by the entry with their name in the FCA register, including me. So for us the order described in FCA ordered to pay £22k for failing to update register is interesting. Whether this one will eventually go the same way is unknown.

    While I don't provide any quality of service undertakings, what I suggest people consider is likely to continue to change over time as things change.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 11th Jul 18, 6:40 PM
    • 9,484 Posts
    • 6,634 Thanks
    masonic
    My bold:

    "12.1 We will inform you via the Platform if all or part of an interest payment or capital repayment due on a Loan is overdue by more than 14 calendar days. We will mark such Loan as “nonperforming” on the Platform. Until such time, a Loan will be “performing”. Such information is strictly private and confidential and you must comply with the provisions of clause 19 (Confidentiality) of these Terms in relation to such information and any other information we provide to you in relation to a Borrower."

    The connecting word is "and". As it is, the fact of late payment seems to be "strictly private and confidential" as well as the clause 19 borrower naming restriction applying.

    So far as I'm aware nobody subject to the April terms has yet done what you describe.
    Originally posted by jamesd
    My interpretation of that was that the requirement for privacy, confidentiality and clause 19 were "in relation to a Borrower" and non-identification of the borrower in any statement relating to non-performance would fulfil those conditions. However, I take your point about the alternative interpretation viz. that it is the information itself that is private and confidential and that, in addition, clause 19 applies to such information. Even though the latter is redundant.

    "7. YOUR REPRESENTATIONS & WARRANTIES
    Representations and warranties are statements and promises made by you to us upon which we rely on being accurate in our dealings with you. Therefore, you make the following representations and warranties
    "

    "7.11 Execution, delivery and performance of these Terms, each Loan Contract and (where applicable) each Security Document will not violate any law, ordinance, charter, by-law or rule applicable to you or the grantor of the same, or any other agreement by which you or such grantor are bound or by which any of your or their assets are affected; "

    And of course none of us can make any meaningful representations about the loan contracts because MT just doesn't routinely provide them. Not sure either how we can know the future, "will not".
    I do wonder if MT is familiar with the plain English campaign. I probably read this in the manner intended (i.e. with an implicit "knowingly" in there). I agree with you, as written this is an unfair term and obviously would be struck from the agreement on challenge, which ironically is what it is inserted into the agreement in order to try to prevent.

    The developer overspending default, I think before the third tranche of the MT loans to the borrower (with 5% first loss, not the developer) first potentially became known to lenders in a report from the administrators, who also mentioned a history of overspending even before the first MT tranche. So far as I'm aware this was never disclosed by borrower or MT prior to the administrator doing it.
    <snip>
    Yes, this is indeed very concerning.
    • masonic
    • By masonic 11th Jul 18, 8:52 PM
    • 9,484 Posts
    • 6,634 Thanks
    masonic
    Huddle Capital Data Protection Act Breach
    I think this is worthy of mentioning here, for those who have not come across discussions in other forums:

    A significant number of former investors in the Collateral P2P platform have received unsolicited emails from Huddle Capital. There are instances in which email addresses used were specifically created for use solely with Collateral.

    Huddle Capital purportedly runs a legitimate P2P lending platform in the capacity of an Authorised Representative.

    It appears that Huddle Capital is unlawfully collecting and processing data in contravention of the Data Protection Act 2018.

    I am one of the affected data subjects.

    As a general rule of thumb, if you are contacted out of the blue by a financial services company trying to sell you a product, there is a good chance such a firm is dodgy.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

648Posts Today

7,432Users online

Martin's Twitter