|
Post by davee39 on Jul 11, 2020 9:31:10 GMT
From the Archive page
Easy to withdraw
We make withdrawing easy. Of course, instant access is not guaranteed but to date investors have released their investment within 24 hours on average.
How should we interpret this?
My view is that it suggests you can usually expect to release cash within a couple of days, perhaps a little longer.
Deeper in the Terms and Conditions there is an indication that in exceptional circumstances withdrawal might not be possible, but few can have expected the current exceptional situation.
I have now exited from 5 yr, not because I needed the cash, or could get a better rate elsewhere, but to remove the risk of capital loss in the event of provision fund or platform failure. It is probably the same reasoning which has prompted the rush to the exit and worsened the liquidity issue.
The root cause was not Covid. I see it as the continuing reduction in PF cover and massaging of figures as RS has attempted to reduce upfront loan costs to remain competative.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 11, 2020 9:39:02 GMT
From the Archive page Easy to withdraw We make withdrawing easy. Of course, instant access is not guaranteed but to date investors have released their investment within 24 hours on average.How should we interpret this? My view is that it suggests you can usually expect to release cash within a couple of days, perhaps a little longer. Deeper in the Terms and Conditions there is an indication that in exceptional circumstances withdrawal might not be possible, but few can have expected the current exceptional situation. I have now exited from 5 yr, not because I needed the cash, or could get a better rate elsewhere, but to remove the risk of capital loss in the event of provision fund or platform failure. It is probably the same reasoning which has prompted the rush to the exit and worsened the liquidity issue. The root cause was not Covid. I see it as the continuing reduction in PF cover and massaging of figures as RS has attempted to reduce upfront loan costs to remain competative. This is a slightly different point, though. This is wording (correct me if I'm wrong) about RS's withdrawal mechanism for all markets. If anything this only adds to my point that RS never marketed any difference between Access accounts and other accounts in terms of speed of withdrawal. The point that was alluded to above by @jennifer was that Access specifically was positioned as a product to give you speedy withdrawals vs. other products. This is what I'm demonstrating is incorrect.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 11, 2020 9:47:51 GMT
Of course there seem to have been people who invested when they shouldn't have - but why do you lay the blame for this with RS? Many people mistakenly think that Sydney is the capital of Australia - is this the Australian government's fault, or the fault of those people for not bothering to check whether their assumption is correct? As to naming the account 'Access' - I think I've already answered this question several times. Because 'access', in this case, is about accessing for free (i.e. without a fee). This is fairly clear from even the briefest of glances as the RS platform, and if people can't even be bothered to do that when putting significant sums of their cash somewhere, then frankly I think the mistake is on them. As for not allowing new investors, once again, this has been discussed ad nauseam. You even started a new thread on it if I recall correctly - joy of joys, yet another one. Please feel free to go there and remind yourself what I and others said, rather than going round the merry-go-round once again. You have failed to explain why they renamed the Rolling Market to ACCESS while at the same time making the product less accessible. While I understood the product I do feel that RS are guilty of deception. I'll try one last time: Because 'access' in this case was never about speed of access, it was about accessing without a fee.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 11, 2020 10:09:13 GMT
I'll try one last time: Because 'access' in this case was never about speed of access, it was about accessing without a fee. Maybe, and I'll say it again - I understand that it was accessing without a fee. But why rename the account to ACCESS? What was wrong with Rolling Market (still acceptable in Australia)? Why when changing the name of the Rolling Market to ACCESS did they change their T&C's to make access more difficult? I give up. Good luck getting your RYI release out!
|
|
|
Post by inquiete on Jul 11, 2020 13:46:49 GMT
I am with Jennifer on this one.
Whilst technically RS can hide behind details in their T&C's the headlines of their promotions have been disingenuous at the least and to my mind were designed to mislead.
The introduction of their new products back in 2019 proudly stated: "we have an unrivalled track record of allowing investors to access their money within one day on average and the new products increase liquidity further."
I wonder how they will promote their liquidity capabilities in the future. Within one year maybe would work for them. Doesn't sound quite as good does it.
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jul 11, 2020 16:06:25 GMT
The way the new access accounts worked were very clear for those that could be bothered to read. Most of them had enough sense to not invest in them. Frankly, basing an investment decision on one word is hilarious.
I've never understood why there are so many people willing to advertise their foolishness all over forums, it's like running into a crowded room shouting "I'm an idiot" over and over again. For the overwhelming majority of people on this forum this is extremely tedious.
|
|
ashe
Posts: 53
Likes: 36
|
Post by ashe on Jul 11, 2020 16:52:50 GMT
I am with Jennifer on this one. Whilst technically RS can hide behind details in their T&C's the headlines of their promotions have been disingenuous at the least and to my mind were designed to mislead. The introduction of their new products back in 2019 proudly stated: "we have an unrivalled track record of allowing investors to access their money within one day on average and the new products increase liquidity further." I wonder how they will promote their liquidity capabilities in the future. Within one year maybe would work for them. Doesn't sound quite as good does it. That's not actually the argument she's making. You're talking about all the new products, whereas she's alleging about RS misleading about the word "Access" in a specific product, without actually providing any evidence of there being any promises by RS of faster access to that specific product type. Looking at previous webpage snapshots, it's clear that, in comparison to their other products, they marketed Access on the basis of no fee to access.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Jul 11, 2020 17:46:02 GMT
People who thought they had an "easy access account" on ratesetter were just to lazy to read the t and c. Like me!but I just assumed it was "under normal market conditions"
|
|
ashe
Posts: 53
Likes: 36
|
Post by ashe on Jul 11, 2020 19:07:18 GMT
That's not actually the argument she's making. You're talking about all the new products, whereas she's alleging about RS misleading about the word "Access" in a specific product, without actually providing any evidence of there being any promises by RS of faster access to that specific product type. Looking at previous webpage snapshots, it's clear that, in comparison to their other products, they marketed Access on the basis of no fee to access. Actually the argument I am making is that RS were devious in changing the name of the Rolling Market to Access while at the same time making it less accessible. They then buried this in the small print while pretending that it was a great new product. inquiete is correct. Oh, so exactly like how I described 'alleging about RS misleading about the word "Access"' (whereas inquiete didn't even mention Access specifically at all?!) Bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by jochietoch on Jul 11, 2020 19:19:24 GMT
Well, I'm out of RS, so maybe I shouldn't get involved... but the FC forums are dead these days...
What surprises me is that so many people appear to make the argument that the name of the account does not matter, all that matters is what in the T&Cs. That really to me is giving financial companies a licence to deceive.
I agree one *should* read the small print before investing, and for myself I never thought liquidity was guaranteed on RS - but equally if a large group of people did not understand RS's messaging the problem is likely with RS. It should be kept in mind they were marketing to *retail* investors - we're talking people who do things like keep money in savings accounts while having maxed out their credit cards. Unfortunately financial hygiene does not appear to be on the school curriculum. And so it is an agreed principle in the UK's approach to consumer finance that people should be protected against themselves. If you call an account "Access", you really should expect a lot of people to take that word just to mean what it says in the dictionary. *Perhaps* those people are all stupid, but that does not give you the right to deceive them.
It's probably not completely fair to single out RS for this criticism, as there are so much worse companies - it seems P2P is dense with real crooks, which I agree RS aren't. But "well they are worse than I" is not the strongest of defences either to what I think is fair criticism of their messaging.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 11, 2020 19:28:33 GMT
Well, I'm out of RS, so maybe I shouldn't get involved... but the FC forums are dead these days...
What surprises me is that so many people appear to make the argument that the name of the account does not matter, all that matters is what in the T&Cs. That really to me is giving financial companies a licence to deceive.
I agree one *should* read the small print before investing, and for myself I never thought liquidity was guaranteed on RS - but equally if a large group of people did not understand RS's messaging the problem is likely with RS. It should be kept in mind they were marketing to *retail* investors - we're talking people who do things like keep money in savings accounts while having maxed out their credit cards. Unfortunately financial hygiene does not appear to be on the school curriculum. And so it is an agreed principle in the UK's approach to consumer finance that people should be protected against themselves. If you call an account "Access", you really should expect a lot of people to take that word just to mean what it says in the dictionary. *Perhaps* those people are all stupid, but that does not give you the right to deceive them.
It's probably not completely fair to single out RS for this criticism, as there are so much worse companies - it seems P2P is dense with real crooks, which I agree RS aren't. But "well they are worse than I" is not the strongest of defences either to what I think is fair criticism of their messaging.
The bit I've bolded is a complete mischaracterisation. We're not talking about small print/T&C here, we're talking about large lettering right on the main screen where the different markets are listed that clearly indicates that what differentiates the different market offerings in terms of 'accessibility' is whether you have to pay a fee or not, and if so how much. Please see earlier posts where screenshots of this have even been posted. It's also ridiculous to suggest that the dictionary definition of 'access' means that you should be able to get your money instantly. As I have repeated countless times, 'access' could mean that, but it could also relate to whether you have to pay a penalty/fee to 'access' your money. This is very common in savings accounts too, where you sometimes have to pay a penalty to access your money. Both speed and charges are potentially relevant here, therefore. To just assume that one is the case when the fact that you're wrong is staring you right in the face is pretty inexcusable.
|
|
ashe
Posts: 53
Likes: 36
|
Post by ashe on Jul 11, 2020 19:29:14 GMT
Well, I'm out of RS, so maybe I shouldn't get involved... but the FC forums are dead these days...
What surprises me is that so many people appear to make the argument that the name of the account does not matter, all that matters is what in the T&Cs. That really to me is giving financial companies a licence to deceive.
I agree one *should* read the small print before investing, and for myself I never thought liquidity was guaranteed on RS - but equally if a large group of people did not understand RS's messaging the problem is likely with RS. It should be kept in mind they were marketing to *retail* investors - we're talking people who do things like keep money in savings accounts while having maxed out their credit cards. Unfortunately financial hygiene does not appear to be on the school curriculum. And so it is an agreed principle in the UK's approach to consumer finance that people should be protected against themselves. If you call an account "Access", you really should expect a lot of people to take that word just to mean what it says in the dictionary. *Perhaps* those people are all stupid, but that does not give you the right to deceive them.
It's probably not completely fair to single out RS for this criticism, as there are so much worse companies - it seems P2P is dense with real crooks, which I agree RS aren't. But "well they are worse than I" is not the strongest of defences either to what I think is fair criticism of their messaging.T
People aren't making the argument that the name of the account doesn't matter. There's a perfectly valid reason why it was called Access, that of there being no fee to access it, compared to the other products. Now, if you look at a P2P company like AssetzCapital, they have a 'Quick Access' account - which I would consider misleading. I don't see anything on their Dec 2019 pages that I would consider RS as trying to deceive people. There's considerable warning spelt out throughout it, and although they reference their past record, it was true. web.archive.org/web/20191231142801/https://www.ratesetter.com/invest/everyday-investing
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 11, 2020 19:31:13 GMT
Well, I'm out of RS, so maybe I shouldn't get involved... but the FC forums are dead these days...
What surprises me is that so many people appear to make the argument that the name of the account does not matter, all that matters is what in the T&Cs. That really to me is giving financial companies a licence to deceive.
I agree one *should* read the small print before investing, and for myself I never thought liquidity was guaranteed on RS - but equally if a large group of people did not understand RS's messaging the problem is likely with RS. It should be kept in mind they were marketing to *retail* investors - we're talking people who do things like keep money in savings accounts while having maxed out their credit cards. Unfortunately financial hygiene does not appear to be on the school curriculum. And so it is an agreed principle in the UK's approach to consumer finance that people should be protected against themselves. If you call an account "Access", you really should expect a lot of people to take that word just to mean what it says in the dictionary. *Perhaps* those people are all stupid, but that does not give you the right to deceive them.
It's probably not completely fair to single out RS for this criticism, as there are so much worse companies - it seems P2P is dense with real crooks, which I agree RS aren't. But "well they are worse than I" is not the strongest of defences either to what I think is fair criticism of their messaging.T
People aren't making the argument that the name of the account doesn't matter. There's a perfectly valid reason why it was called Access, that of there being no fee to access it, compared to the other products. Now, if you look at a P2P company like AssetzCapital, they have a 'Quick Access' account - which I would consider misleading. I don't see anything on their Dec 2019 pages that I would consider RS as trying to deceive people. There's considerable warning spelt out throughout it, and although they reference their past record, it was true. web.archive.org/web/20191231142801/https://www.ratesetter.com/invest/everyday-investingYes! The difference between 'Access' and 'Quick Access' is huge! I wouldn't be making any of these arguments in the case of an account called 'Quick Access'! Edit: Actually, this is the perfect contrast. AC's accounts were marketed quite clearly as differentiating in terms of speed of access - Quick Access, 30 Day Access, 90 Day Access. This is noticeably different from RS which marketed its different products in terms of the different fee (or no fee) you would have to pay to access your money. Perhaps some people are too lazy to bother to differentiate between different P2P sites and just guess at what they're investing in! But that's obviously RS's fault...
|
|
|
Post by jochietoch on Jul 11, 2020 19:59:42 GMT
Please see earlier posts where screenshots of this have even been posted. I've read your earlier posts. Surprising as it may seem, when people disagree with you this does not necessarily mean they haven't paid attention to what you wrote. Sometimes people actually just disagree with you, without them being stupid. Try the thought on for a bit. It's also ridiculous to suggest that the dictionary definition of 'access' means that you should be able to get your money instantly. As I have repeated countless times, ... That is literally what an "access account" is. As to your repeating things countless times, I've noticed. Please see above.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 11, 2020 20:06:34 GMT
Please see earlier posts where screenshots of this have even been posted. I've read your earlier posts. Surprising as it may seem, when people disagree with you this does not necessarily mean they haven't paid attention to what you wrote. Sometimes people actually just disagree with you, without them being stupid. Try the thought on for a bit. I'm confused - I was referring to someone else's post. I directed you to it politely to explain my point. I didn't accuse you of not reading any of my posts... Nor did I accuse you of being stupid. Again, someone else used this word in an earlier post, not me... It's also ridiculous to suggest that the dictionary definition of 'access' means that you should be able to get your money instantly. As I have repeated countless times, ... That is literally what an "access account" is. As to your repeating things countless times, I've noticed. Please see above. Just because you say this is the literal or dictionary definition of a word does not make it so. You don't seem to actually be dealing with my point that RS clearly marketed the Access account as an account accessible with no fee, not an account with instant access. These are both types of 'access' - why do you think only one of them is somehow the automatic definition? Attachments:
|
|