ashe
Posts: 53
Likes: 36
|
Post by ashe on Jul 11, 2020 20:16:55 GMT
As to your repeating things countless times, I've noticed. Please see above. To be fair, the 'repeating things' applies to both sides. Although only one side appears to be able to offer screenshot evidence of how the products were actually marketed...
|
|
|
Post by jochietoch on Jul 11, 2020 20:18:52 GMT
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... Well, your posts on this forum are dripping with disdain for people with a different opinion. You may call that "polite" because you used the word "please". I don't. 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? If you google "access account", what kinds of accounts do you get? If you ask your bank to open an "access account", do you think they could get away with putting your money in a lockied-in account that happens to have no fee for withdrawals?
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 11, 2020 20:24:45 GMT
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... Well, your posts on this forum are dripping with disdain for people with a different opinion. You may call that "polite" because you used the word "please". I don't. 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? If you google "access account", what kinds of accounts do you get? If you ask your bank to open an "access account", do you think they could get away with putting your money in a lockied-in account that happens to have no fee for withdrawals? Ah, so now we're getting personal. Wonderful. I'll keep my head above water. On your second point, I now see the problem. You - like a couple of other recent posters - are conflating the argument as to whether it's fair for an account called 'Access' to have such slow withdrawals right now, with the actual argument that I am opposing, which is that the Access account was marketed as offering a quicker investment release than the other accounts. It makes more sense now as to why you cited T&C/small print in your original post. This is not what I and others are arguing against.
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 298
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Jul 11, 2020 20:31:15 GMT
If you google "access account", what kinds of accounts do you get? If you ask your bank to open an "access account", do you think they could get away with putting your money in a lockied-in account that happens to have no fee for withdrawals? Putting to one side the fact Ratesetter is not a bank, your argument essentially seems to be saying just because Bank A offers a notice account, a customer is under no responsibility to check how this account differs to Bank B's notice account. If that customer later finds out Bank B's notice account requires 1 year notice, the customer is allowed to complain because Bank A needed only 30 days notice ...?
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Jul 11, 2020 21:24:59 GMT
Why the degeneration and mudslinging folks? This is supposed to be a 'helpful' forum.
If I may make a point about the 'access' product: I never susbcribed to it b/c I had already decided to pull out of the reformed Rolling market largely due to their forcing autoreinvestment in mid 2018. I could not agree with the way they did that.
And things continued to worsen IMO as RS botched (possibly intetionally) their own platform with repeated unnotified modifications. As far as the information presented about loans held this was botched too. This was most notable when the Access (continuously rolled reinvestment) Market arrived and you could no longer accurately display future payments due (as you had been able to with Rolling and still can with 5 year) which was a useful tool to have had.
So they did not help themselves as they 'evolved' (better term: 'mutated') from the pre to post 2018 era.
|
|
|
Post by jochietoch on Jul 12, 2020 6:15:56 GMT
On your second point, I now see the problem. You - like a couple of other recent posters - are conflating the argument as to whether it's fair for an account called 'Access' to have such slow withdrawals right now, with the actual argument that I am opposing, which is that the Access account was marketed as offering a quicker investment release than the other accounts. It makes more sense now as to why you cited T&C/small print in your original post. This is not what I and others are arguing against. My point is not the contrast between access times for Access vs. the other accounts. My point is that they moved to compete with consumer savings, where words like "access" previously had a meaning that was commonly understood. They marketed their product to the very wide public through things like ads on the tube, which means they reached out to a spectrum of consumers reaching from the sophisticated to the vulnerable. They cannot then just change what an "access account" means because they're different. They should never have called any of their products that. This is how Access, Plus and Max were introduced: www.ratesetter.com/blog/Welcome-Access-Plus-Max"Liquidity: We know that access to your money is important and we’re proud to have an unrivalled track record, allowing investors to access their money within 1 day on average. Our new products increase liquidity further." Indeed they didn't say Access has quicker access than Plus or Max. They did say it would have better liquidity than the old products, which has turned out otherwise. As to starfished's point that they are not a bank, they were not making that distinction so clear when they put this ad on the tube: This is from 2015 it seems, they avoided using the word "savings" later and started adding "capital at risk", which was a big improvement. Perhaps their compliance people got uncomfortable, or perhaps the FCA had a chat with them. As to banks and notice accounts, I don't think you would find a bank that leaves any room for interpretation in the name of the notice account as to how long the money will be locked away for. It'll be a "30 day notice account" or a "90 day notice account". Because while the customer should check the terms, it is also the bank's responsibility to ensure people choose a product that's suitable for them. If you compete in that space, yes, you have the same responsibility. I don't think they quite took that up, and now it seems we're seeing quite a few people who got a nasty surprise with money they couldn't really afford being locked out of.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 12, 2020 8:42:09 GMT
My point is not the contrast between access times for Access vs. the other accounts. But this was exactly the point that was being debated on this thread when you entered the conversation by saying: 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. When in fact, as I pointed out, no one was arguing this - I (and others) were arguing a specific point about Access vs other accounts which has nothing to do with small-print. I think you'd forgive me and others for being mistaken as to what you were trying to argue, given this, and seeing your post as somewhat of a misrepresentation. As I alluded to in my previous post, your latest post clearly shows the much broader points you're trying to make about RS, which is certainly much less clear-cut than the very specific point I and others were trying to make. But it's also something that has been debated many, many times on this forum (and that I've expressed my views of in the past), so I'll bow out of this one.
|
|
|
Post by stevepn on Jul 12, 2020 9:08:40 GMT
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. It should have been renamed Feeless, not Access.
|
|
|
Post by jochietoch on Jul 12, 2020 9:12:30 GMT
My point is not the contrast between access times for Access vs. the other accounts. But this was exactly the point that was being debated on this thread when you entered the conversation by saying: 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. When in fact, as I pointed out, no one was arguing this - I (and others) were arguing a specific point about Access vs other accounts which has nothing to do with small-print. That was the point you and a couple of others were making, but it was not the only point being made. I was responding in particular to these posts by honda2ner and sd2 and I also recall this point being laboured before, so I thought my contribution was not entirely irrelevant.
I certainly didn't expect to be jumped upon with a post calling my argument "ridiculous", a "misrepresentation", and "inexcusable", to be followed up with "too lazy to bother to differentiate". On rereading I still don't think that was appropriate. I think you'd forgive me and others for being mistaken as to what you were trying to argue, given this, and seeing your post as somewhat of a misrepresentation. I think you may find that kind of forgiveness more forthcoming if you tone down the aggression and sarcasm in your response to people.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 12, 2020 9:19:27 GMT
But this was exactly the point that was being debated on this thread when you entered the conversation by saying: When in fact, as I pointed out, no one was arguing this - I (and others) were arguing a specific point about Access vs other accounts which has nothing to do with small-print. That was the point you and a couple of others were making, but it was not the only point being made. I was responding in particular to these posts by honda2ner and sd2 and I also recall this point being laboured before, so I thought my contribution was not entirely irrelevant.
I certainly didn't expect to be jumped upon with a post calling my argument "ridiculous", a "misrepresentation", and "inexcusable", to be followed up with "too lazy to bother to differentiate". On rereading I still don't think that was appropriate. I think you'd forgive me and others for being mistaken as to what you were trying to argue, given this, and seeing your post as somewhat of a misrepresentation. I think you may find that kind of forgiveness more forthcoming if you tone down the aggression and sarcasm in your response to people. I was hoping we'd stopped going personal after the intervention above, but I suppose not. Again, I'll keep away from this. Please note, though, that the words 'inexcusable' and 'too lazy to bother to differentiate' were (I thought, quite clearly) not directed at you, they were direct at a make-believe customer. I don't think the other terms are especially strong, but there we go.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 12, 2020 9:21:46 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. It should have been renamed Feeless, not Access. It certainly could have been, but I don't agree it had to be. Again, AC is an interesting comparison here. If 'Access' so clearly means quick access, why did they feel the need to call their account "Quick Access"?
|
|
|
Post by jochietoch on Jul 12, 2020 9:22:59 GMT
I was hoping we'd stopped going personal after the intervention above, but I suppose not. Again, I'll keep away from this. This is what I don't get though. Both cases I called out the aggressive tone of your post - that is not "going personal". I would argue calling people "lazy" (whether that's directed at me or others) is, though.
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,496
Likes: 923
|
Post by aju on Jul 12, 2020 9:25:44 GMT
Is this the appropriate place to be discussing this, I thought this thread was started by RS to declare its investment release times. I agree with the sentiment of the arguments but am forced to wade through quite a bit of back and forth arguments over what is effectively a simple fact that P2P is not a bank and therefore does not have to have instant access to funds in such times as we are living through and probably never will. Surely we have all signed a declaration that we understood this. Ton ⓉⓞⓃ are we perhaps way off the core subject of the ability for RS to declare its daily figures in this thread. Just a thought. For those really interested in RS figures then I suggest this link RS recent RYI release data will help to see the relevant data quicker as RS does not really say that much other than report this data at the moment so the latest will be the first item in most cases. Anyone interested in seeing the daily releases relative to the Weekly Volumes I keep track of this here not sure it tells me much but the weekly volume does seem to be getting larger and the releases reducing - sort of.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 12, 2020 9:47:29 GMT
I was hoping we'd stopped going personal after the intervention above, but I suppose not. Again, I'll keep away from this. This is what I don't get though. Both cases I called out the aggressive tone of your post - that is not "going personal". I would argue calling people "lazy" (whether that's directed at me or others) is, though. In the grand scheme of what is written on this forum - including people referring to users in the last few pages of this thread as 'stupid' and 'idiots' - I find it very odd that you are so gunning for me for calling a fictional customer doing a certain thing 'lazy'. This isn't personal because this person doesn't exist. I also haven't said anything rude about you - I've just expressed strong (but polite) opinions about your opinions. That's the difference - whereas you keep attacking me as a person. I'm not sure if you have some other vendetta against me for some reason, but this is becoming a little odd. Edit: Also, with regard to 'aggressive tones', this is an occupational hazard of the internet, but you may want to consider that the tone you read something in is not necessarily the tone it's written in. I promise if you met me you'd realise I'm fairly far from aggressive
|
|
|
Post by shanghaiscouse on Jul 12, 2020 10:02:27 GMT
Guys! Guys! Squabbling! Bickering like children! what's happened to us? we never used to be like this! (name that tv show)
|
|