01-04-2019, 08:04 AM
P2P transparency under threat
|
01-04-2019, 08:40 AM
It could be summarised as follows.
Children (investors) should be seen (hand over their money) but not heard.
The opinions and observations that I display on this forum are personal and do not necessarily concur with the proprietors of the forum. I represent no platform or other organisation in my postings and my remarks should not be taken as advice. I accept no responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability of the information contained in my posts. Or for people acting or refraining to act upon them.
1 user Likes yorkshireman's post - ozboy
01-04-2019, 10:52 AM
Like the internet in general, forums can and often do provide useful information and the exchange of ideas, unfortunately they are susceptible to gossip, the indy "London Loan" being an example and are no different to the female characters portrayed by Les Dawson and Roy Barraclough or for anyone old enough to remember, Norman Evans.
A far bigger issue is the transparency of the platforms themselves as brilliantly caricatured by @dualinvestor
01-04-2019, 03:41 PM
(01-04-2019, 08:40 AM)dualinvestor Wrote: It could be summarised as follows. While I do agree to a certain degree, you have to admit that some of the comments on some of the loans (I am taking Ly as an example here!) have been almost (If not actually) libellous! Some investors on the Indy (I could name some but wont.........Ok he has a dog called snoopy!) are throwing accusations around like sowing seeds, but then others claim they are kept in the dark. So, if they are in the dark, where are all the "Facts" coming from about how badly the platform is doing? I am all for holding a company to account, but when the actions can bring about the demise of a company that people have £200m+ invested in it needs to be substantiated and not just gossip.
I'm an engineer by trade, so don't normally have money. If you lose any money because you listened to something I have said, more fool you!!
01-04-2019, 04:27 PM
There is a potential reward for taking a risk, but only if the risk pays off. The problem is many don't comprehend (or assess the true) risks, and just want the reward - when reality hits home, they find a forum and vent. I was really concerned by one poster continuing to preach his "strategy" and bragging about how it works for him; I fear others may have been sucked into the same "pass the parcel" mindset and may be the same individuals crying blue murder on every high-risk platform
There are arguments to be had, and platforms do need to be held accountable for any bad decisions they make or not highlighting the risks involved. The problem is these rational arguments are lost in the forest of "I lost my money and it's somebody else's fault" - and then nobody can see the wood for the trees It is a tad annoying that moderators don't do more to try and quell the noise (instead of banning other more rational sorts )
PLEASE NOTE : The opinions and observations that I display on this forum are of a personal nature. I am not a professional within the financial sector, I represent no platform and my remarks should not be taken as advice. I accept no responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in my posts.
01-04-2019, 05:49 PM
(01-04-2019, 03:41 PM)Skint4achange Wrote:(01-04-2019, 08:40 AM)dualinvestor Wrote: It could be summarised as follows. I don't think anyone with a "peanuts" character as his posting name will be taken seriously. But the contents of his posts are certainly less damaging to the reputation of the platform than its own actions and arrogance, even hubris. Any platform whose co chief executive posts the are "the most profitable platform in the universe" on the same forum as the aforementioned cartoon character is just setting itself up as a target, especially when a little way down the road more than half its loan book is unperforming and, either the same or the other co chief executive, is forced to send a mea culpe email to all existing and former investors, clearly written by a PR spin doctor, in the last few days. There may be £200million of investors money at risk, although I thought it was slightly lower at its peak a couple of years ago but I have not kept track, but as @CoolingDude has said it is a result at least in part of people seeking return without regard to the risk. A lot of what has been said by the ilk of those whose fictional alter egos literally talk to the birds is the result of their own naivety in not understanding what they invested in. However at the end of the day it was their own fault that they handed money over to two chancers who they knew less well than those they met down the pub, lending to borrowers prepared to pay 30% APRs, when the market level was under 10%, and whose financial incentive, the chancers that is, were directly opposite to the lenders giving a huge conflict of interest. The vast bulk of the £200million being invested whilst the company had virtually no more regulation than an application to the FCA. We have seen that even if they were fully regulated it actually means very little anyway. If people had read and took notice of the forum then there would not be £200million at stake but that is the benefit of retrospective spectacles. However it is one thing to question the platform and post your concerns, as I have done for a considerable time, but it is something else entirely to talk openly and freely about recoveries when that discussion may materially affect the levels thereof. Most people here are aware that I, along with @Monetus and @redskyatnight and two others are on the creditors committee of Collateral. In the course of our duties we are privvy to enormous amounts of detail on the loans, debtors and process of recovery. Notwithstanding the NDA it is my certain knowledge that if one or all of us were to publish that information there would be a significant detrimental effect on the amount of money investors would recover, the same would probably be true of recoveries of most defaulted loans on most platforms. That is not to say that discussion should be stifled on any loan on any platform but it is extremely unlikely to enhance recovery, but then again in my opinion not likely to damage prospects much either. There have been some egregious actions by platforms, e.g. holding investors votes giving options and then deciding unilaterally on the one with the fewest votes, pretending that compulsory liquidation of a debtor is an effective debt recovery method, ignoring previous fiancial misfeasance of a debtor stating that "its the security that matters" etc. All of these are worthy of public discussion, if only to avoid the same mistakes in the future, and as the debtors are professional defaulters unlikely to affect recoveries. I conclude with my first comment on the subject the platforms attitude is "Investors should be seen but not heard," with the addition "nanny knows best", although clearly in a lot of cases she doesn't.
The opinions and observations that I display on this forum are personal and do not necessarily concur with the proprietors of the forum. I represent no platform or other organisation in my postings and my remarks should not be taken as advice. I accept no responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability of the information contained in my posts. Or for people acting or refraining to act upon them.
|