adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,915
Likes: 4,141
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 22, 2020 19:17:00 GMT
Sounds highly plausible to me - am I being realistic in expecting the APM queue to slow down for a year and then speed up...or maybe a lot of the one yr loans are being paid down early with CBILS money?
|
|
|
Post by james91 on Oct 22, 2020 19:34:19 GMT
As someone that started at about 1,650 in the 'published' queue (16th March request), I had assumed that it was probably unlikely I'd see a RYI - especially given how slowly it seemed to be moving for the first couple of months.
The last few weeks have made me more hopeful though, and now down to position 1,011.
I do find it slightly irritating how vague Ratesetter were in those initial weeks, when it must have been immediately clear that someone people would be waiting many months, likely years.
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Oct 22, 2020 19:49:11 GMT
As someone that started at about 1,650 in the 'published' queue (16th March request), I had assumed that it was probably unlikely I'd see a RYI - especially given how slowly it seemed to be moving for the first couple of months. The last few weeks have made me more hopeful though, and now down to position 1,011. I do find it slightly irritating how vague Ratesetter were in those initial weeks, when it must have been immediately clear that someone people would be waiting many months, likely years. in the initial weeks they had no idea , just like the gov. Whatever anyone did in March wad guess work
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Oct 22, 2020 19:50:25 GMT
Sounds highly plausible to me - am I being realistic in expecting the APM queue to slow down for a year and then speed up...or maybe a lot of the one yr loans are being paid down early with CBILS money? 1 year is property stuff , with the duty cuts it could have resulted in greater sales too
|
|
|
Post by james91 on Oct 22, 2020 20:10:00 GMT
As someone that started at about 1,650 in the 'published' queue (16th March request), I had assumed that it was probably unlikely I'd see a RYI - especially given how slowly it seemed to be moving for the first couple of months. The last few weeks have made me more hopeful though, and now down to position 1,011. I do find it slightly irritating how vague Ratesetter were in those initial weeks, when it must have been immediately clear that someone people would be waiting many months, likely years. in the initial weeks they had no idea , just like the gov. Whatever anyone did in March wad guess work We are only on requests from the 14th March, and they've returned £110m, getting towards 15% of their portfolio back in March. By time we reach returns requested from the start of lockdown, that figure may well be doubled. Therefore, Ratesetter knew in the 1st week that investors had requested possibly a third of the portfolio. They would have known immediately that it would be a very long time before that was returned.
|
|
johnt
Investing in Ratesetter, Zopa and Assetz Capital since 2013
Posts: 127
Likes: 71
|
Post by johnt on Oct 23, 2020 8:10:50 GMT
in the initial weeks they had no idea , just like the gov. Whatever anyone did in March wad guess work We are only on requests from the 14th March, and they've returned £110m, getting towards 15% of their portfolio back in March. By time we reach returns requested from the start of lockdown, that figure may well be doubled. Therefore, Ratesetter knew in the 1st week that investors had requested possibly a third of the portfolio. They would have known immediately that it would be a very long time before that was returned. Let's face it, RS knew exactly what the situation was in March but if they were completely transparent and said exactly how many investors had opted to RYI then it would have prompted everyone else to do the same. It's the equivalent of the news broadcasting that there's a shortage of toilet roll, it just exacerbates the problem.
|
|
|
Post by diversifier on Oct 23, 2020 11:40:28 GMT
We are only on requests from the 14th March, and they've returned £110m, getting towards 15% of their portfolio back in March. By time we reach returns requested from the start of lockdown, that figure may well be doubled. Therefore, Ratesetter knew in the 1st week that investors had requested possibly a third of the portfolio. They would have known immediately that it would be a very long time before that was returned. Let's face it, RS knew exactly what the situation was in March but if they were completely transparent and said exactly how many investors had opted to RYI then it would have prompted everyone else to do the same. It's the equivalent of the news broadcasting that there's a shortage of toilet roll, it just exacerbates the problem. True, but completely misses the point. Ratesetter had an alternative option in March, which they explicitly chose not to take. Ratesetter have £50m per month cash flow from repaying loans, which they chose to force-continue, splitting (allegedly) 50/50 between RYI Claims and new loans. If they had just *stopped issuing new loans* on the 10th March, on the day they knew they had a problem, this would have returned £350m to investors in the last 7 months, not £110m. That’s mathematically derivable from their published Performance Data, and is simply a fact. It’s not up for debate. The more astute will note that £110m is *not 50%* of £350m, but let’s put that to one side. £350m would have been more than sufficient to cover the RYI claims. Now, whether you think that would have been a good policy or not, is a completely separate matter. I believe that action would have recovered their business to Zero RYI liquidity issue and a fully functioning ongoing business, already by July. Possibly even by May/June, as the total RYI would have been smaller. No need for rescue by Metro at all. They would however have had to accept on 10th March that their business was going to be at least 20% smaller than they thought it was just a week before. They went all emotional and failed to accept that truth, which their data laid in front of them in precise detail, and as a consequence they lost 95-98% of the value of their company six months later. Bad for us, bad for them. As I say, you don’t have to accept my view that the alternative option in March was acceptable in the circumstances, and would have led to better outcome. But to pretend that there was *no* other option at all, and they were just buoyed along in an uncontrollable tsunami of misfortune, is just factually incorrect.
|
|
savernake
Member of DD Central
Posts: 174
Likes: 142
|
Post by savernake on Oct 23, 2020 12:35:05 GMT
When the world gets back to normal (post-vaccine), I wonder what lessons will be learnt by those managing P2P platforms? Following the 2008 financial crash the high street banks were forced to adopt new regulations to ensure they wouldn't go bust in the event of another financial crisis. Perhaps similar regulations should be brought in for fintechs too? As for RS, I hope their founders manage to escape from their new Metro bosses and start up a new P2P platform in a few years time. RS was always my favourite platform until March of this year, and they will leave a big hole in the P2P market. I hope we haven't seen the end of the platforms with provision funds as this was what attracted me to P2P in the first place.
On a different note, I'm slightly surprised Metro haven't used this takeover as an opportunity to cross-sell their savings products to RS lenders. A new Ratesetter branded product range, FSCS protected, to compete with those being offered by Zopa perhaps?
|
|
johnt
Investing in Ratesetter, Zopa and Assetz Capital since 2013
Posts: 127
Likes: 71
|
Post by johnt on Oct 23, 2020 13:23:05 GMT
Let's face it, RS knew exactly what the situation was in March but if they were completely transparent and said exactly how many investors had opted to RYI then it would have prompted everyone else to do the same. It's the equivalent of the news broadcasting that there's a shortage of toilet roll, it just exacerbates the problem. True, but completely misses the point. Ratesetter had an alternative option in March, which they explicitly chose not to take. Ratesetter have £50m per month cash flow from repaying loans, which they chose to force-continue, splitting (allegedly) 50/50 between RYI Claims and new loans. If they had just *stopped issuing new loans* on the 10th March, on the day they knew they had a problem, this would have returned £350m to investors in the last 7 months, not £110m. That’s mathematically derivable from their published Performance Data, and is simply a fact. It’s not up for debate. The more astute will note that £110m is *not 50%* of £350m, but let’s put that to one side. £350m would have been more than sufficient to cover the RYI claims. Now, whether you think that would have been a good policy or not, is a completely separate matter. I believe that action would have recovered their business to Zero RYI liquidity issue and a fully functioning ongoing business, already by July. Possibly even by May/June, as the total RYI would have been smaller. No need for rescue by Metro at all. They would however have had to accept on 10th March that their business was going to be at least 20% smaller than they thought it was just a week before. They went all emotional and failed to accept that truth, which their data laid in front of them in precise detail, and as a consequence they lost 95-98% of the value of their company six months later. Bad for us, bad for them. As I say, you don’t have to accept my view that the alternative option in March was acceptable in the circumstances, and would have led to better outcome. But to pretend that there was *no* other option at all, and they were just buoyed along in an uncontrollable tsunami of misfortune, is just factually incorrect. I agree that RS should not have continued to issue new loans but I think I remember reading somewhere that in doing so would have spelt game over for them so they had to try to keep the status quo by continued albeit at a reduced rate.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 972
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Oct 23, 2020 13:27:12 GMT
Let's face it, RS knew exactly what the situation was in March but if they were completely transparent and said exactly how many investors had opted to RYI then it would have prompted everyone else to do the same. It's the equivalent of the news broadcasting that there's a shortage of toilet roll, it just exacerbates the problem. True, but completely misses the point. Ratesetter had an alternative option in March, which they explicitly chose not to take. Ratesetter have £50m per month cash flow from repaying loans, which they chose to force-continue, splitting (allegedly) 50/50 between RYI Claims and new loans. If they had just *stopped issuing new loans* on the 10th March, on the day they knew they had a problem, this would have returned £350m to investors in the last 7 months, not £110m. That’s mathematically derivable from their published Performance Data, and is simply a fact. It’s not up for debate. The more astute will note that £110m is *not 50%* of £350m, but let’s put that to one side. £350m would have been more than sufficient to cover the RYI claims. Now, whether you think that would have been a good policy or not, is a completely separate matter. I believe that action would have recovered their business to Zero RYI liquidity issue and a fully functioning ongoing business, already by July. Possibly even by May/June, as the total RYI would have been smaller. No need for rescue by Metro at all. They would however have had to accept on 10th March that their business was going to be at least 20% smaller than they thought it was just a week before. They went all emotional and failed to accept that truth, which their data laid in front of them in precise detail, and as a consequence they lost 95-98% of the value of their company six months later. Bad for us, bad for them. As I say, you don’t have to accept my view that the alternative option in March was acceptable in the circumstances, and would have led to better outcome. But to pretend that there was *no* other option at all, and they were just buoyed along in an uncontrollable tsunami of misfortune, is just factually incorrect. Was it not the case that they had/have contractual obligations to keep lending through some channels? (Giffgaff??) In which case a total cessation of lending would have had a bunch of other effects that I think you may be missing.
|
|
|
Post by freefalljunkie on Oct 23, 2020 13:47:04 GMT
Let's face it, RS knew exactly what the situation was in March but if they were completely transparent and said exactly how many investors had opted to RYI then it would have prompted everyone else to do the same. It's the equivalent of the news broadcasting that there's a shortage of toilet roll, it just exacerbates the problem. True, but completely misses the point. Ratesetter had an alternative option in March, which they explicitly chose not to take. Ratesetter have £50m per month cash flow from repaying loans, which they chose to force-continue, splitting (allegedly) 50/50 between RYI Claims and new loans. If they had just *stopped issuing new loans* on the 10th March, on the day they knew they had a problem, this would have returned £350m to investors in the last 7 months, not £110m. That’s mathematically derivable from their published Performance Data, and is simply a fact. It’s not up for debate. The more astute will note that £110m is *not 50%* of £350m, but let’s put that to one side. £350m would have been more than sufficient to cover the RYI claims. Now, whether you think that would have been a good policy or not, is a completely separate matter. I believe that action would have recovered their business to Zero RYI liquidity issue and a fully functioning ongoing business, already by July. Possibly even by May/June, as the total RYI would have been smaller. No need for rescue by Metro at all. They would however have had to accept on 10th March that their business was going to be at least 20% smaller than they thought it was just a week before. They went all emotional and failed to accept that truth, which their data laid in front of them in precise detail, and as a consequence they lost 95-98% of the value of their company six months later. Bad for us, bad for them. As I say, you don’t have to accept my view that the alternative option in March was acceptable in the circumstances, and would have led to better outcome. But to pretend that there was *no* other option at all, and they were just buoyed along in an uncontrollable tsunami of misfortune, is just factually incorrect. Absolutely nail on head Diversifier. Ratesetter completely screwed up their handling of this crisis and have paid the price with their business going down the pan. In addition to the point about them choosing to carry on lending instead of diverting more funds to RYI, their communication, or total lack of it in the early stages was a major factor. Instead of Rhydian Lewis sticking his head above the the parapet to communicate directly with investors about what RS were going to do about the obviously increased risk of loan defaults, for the first few weeks all we got was deafening silence other than some ludicrous bluster in the press about how P2P would come out of the crisis stronger than ever. Rather than take swift and decisive action the RS management behaved like a rabbit in the headlights. I have no doubt that the lack of clear, direct and open communication was a major factor in encouraging investors to rush for the exit door. It was an epic failure of business leadership, and the buck stops with the guy at the top.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulinvestor on Oct 23, 2020 14:22:04 GMT
When the world gets back to normal (post-vaccine), I wonder what lessons will be learnt by those managing P2P platforms? Following the 2008 financial crash the high street banks were forced to adopt new regulations to ensure they wouldn't go bust in the event of another financial crisis. Perhaps similar regulations should be brought in for fintechs too? As for RS, I hope their founders manage to escape from their new Metro bosses and start up a new P2P platform in a few years time. RS was always my favourite platform until March of this year, and they will leave a big hole in the P2P market. I hope we haven't seen the end of the platforms with provision funds as this was what attracted me to P2P in the first place. On a different note, I'm slightly surprised Metro haven't used this takeover as an opportunity to cross-sell their savings products to RS lenders. A new Ratesetter branded product range, FSCS protected, to compete with those being offered by Zopa perhaps? I agree - Metro have missed an opportunity to offer products to RS investors who are on the whole mid to high wealth individuals. Too late now.
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Oct 23, 2020 16:08:35 GMT
I don't think they were interested. Agree they should have. Easy marketing. That said... who will want to and metro can't lend their current funds anyway... hence buying ratesetter
|
|
|
Post by RateSetter on Oct 23, 2020 16:20:00 GMT
Good afternoon. Today we have delivered £1.2m and the full update is below:
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Oct 23, 2020 16:23:05 GMT
Good afternoon. Today we have delivered £1.2m and the full update is below: well well well the 1 year takes the lead. 0 lending and it moved 3 months in 2 weeks it will be back to its old self soon.
|
|