registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,186
Likes: 5,994
|
Post by registerme on Dec 16, 2017 1:10:02 GMT
As I type, the poll results here, 649 votes from 246 voters.
|
|
|
Post by df on Dec 16, 2017 5:09:38 GMT
To be clear, I wasn't knocking MT. My 1st place goes to COL and my runners-up position goes to MT. I thought the poll results had them the wrong way round. I think it has a lot to do with number of investors. You can't vote your approval for a platform if you have no experience of using it. Probably MT won because they have more users than COL. MT has had a challenging year but remains a first class platform and I think would have been worthy winners of the runners up prize. IMO, the negatives for MT this year have been 1. the first significant defaults; 2. The aborted loan to the man with connections to a criminal gang which ran off with another gangs' drugs money and 3. Shortage of new loan flow. Whereas COL have had only minor defaults I think (car loans) and lots of new land/property loans at mouth watering rates of interest. Most platforms have great beginnings but as the loanbooks age the defaults inevitably start to kick in and investor enthusiasm starts to wane a bit. 2 years ago SS/LY was king. Then MT was king. I think 2017 was COL's year and probably they should have won the award. Proportional representation could produce a different result, but I don't think it has much to do with number of investors in each platform if you look at the number of voters in this poll. One of the reasons for MT getting more votes vs COL could be that it has slightly longer history of being good. Both are in my top 3, but if my vote was proportional MT would rank above COL. I have more funds in COL than in MT because of loan flow differences, but I am a bit nervous about COL's rapid expansion to property market. It will be interesting to see how these multiple tranches at different rates and terms will end up.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 16, 2017 14:59:33 GMT
For me the real story in these poll results isn't MT or COL in the top two or L in 8th place, it is AC in third place. Which flys in the face of the wisdom that it's only the newer platforms that can win this popularity contest before defaults diminish the enthusiasm.
My AC balance is currently half what it was at its peak, and I'm paying minimal attention to the new loan flow. However, the level of disclosure and ongoing monitoring of loans is pretty much unprecedented in the p2p sector. The MLIA reinvesting to a target on each loan as and when there is SM availability is pretty unique. The QAA/30DAA has (apparently) fantastic liquidity The only downside for now is the headline rates of typically 6 to 8% for the new loans don't appeal to me.
I voted for just two platforms, AC and FS, both of which have full FCA authorisation. FS is now my biggest p2p platform, and their deal flow of brand new loans (i.e. excluding renewals / extra tranches) is somewhere in the same ball park as AC of say 1 to 4 every week. The FS model of (in effect) interest being due six months in arrears is appealing to borrowers, and is more efficeint than the retained interest model of many platforms.
Disclosure: I am an AC shareholder.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 16, 2017 16:16:30 GMT
For me the real story in these poll results isn't MT or COL in the top two or L in 8th place, it is AC in third place. Which flys in the face of the wisdom that it's only the newer platforms that can win this popularity contest before defaults diminish the enthusiasm. My AC balance is currently half what it was at its peak, and I'm paying minimal attention to the new loan flow. However, the level of disclosure and ongoing monitoring of loans is pretty much unprecedented in the p2p sector. The MLIA reinvesting to a target on each loan as and when there is SM availability is pretty unique. The QAA/30DAA has (apparently) fantastic liquidity The only downside for now is the headline rates of typically 6 to 8% for the new loans don't appeal to me. I voted for just two platforms, AC and FS, both of which have full FCA authorisation. FS is now my biggest p2p platform, and their deal flow of brand new loans (i.e. excluding renewals / extra tranches) is somewhere in the same ball park as AC of say 1 to 4 every week. The FS model of (in effect) interest being due six months in arrears is appealing to borrowers, and is more efficeint than the retained interest model of many platforms. Disclosure: I am an AC shareholder. (Retracted my comment, word blindness mistook Borrowers for Lenders)
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 483
Likes: 400
|
Post by sapphire on Dec 16, 2017 16:38:53 GMT
Some suggestions:
*I think it would be very helpful if a similar poll is conducted more often - say on a quarterly basis.
*As not all of the providers offer an IFISA, and amongst those that do the proposition varies (flexible IFISA or not, annual and transfer fees etc.) suggest having a separate poll including only those offering an IFISA. Again this could be on a quarterly basis.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 16, 2017 17:18:35 GMT
Hi mrclondon , would you be willing to expand upon why you have awarded Funding Secure the biggest portion of your p2p funding pot, what are the pro's and cons of this platform as you view them? Thank you, all the best, J. FS has a large deal flow, and the majority of the loans are big enough that FS don't deploy bid limits allowing me to get the several thousand pounds slice per loan I'm looking for. Whilst an eye has to be kept on exposure to the same borrower or connected SPV via multiple loans, the deal flow allows a level of diversification to borrowers that is simply not available other than (as my previous post alluded) via AC or in the extreme say FC. The quality of loans on FS varies dramatically, and I'm fortunate that I have both the time and the inclination to do enough research to be able to assign a low/medium/high to the two parameters "risk of default" and "risk of loss on default" to practically every loan FS (and the other 10%+ platforms) offer. Stating the obvious the level of risk can improve/deteriorate through the life of a loan, and the FS model forces me the review and update my risk analysis on each loan at least every six months. This analysis includes looking at companies house filings, planning permissions, architect qualifications etc, as well as paying for the land registry title records where there is an element of doubt. I am currently a basic rate tax payer, and for now I'm able to use the liquidity of the SM to reduce the tax liability on the FS income significantly, and reduce my actual default risk to practically zero. (I'm not buying that much on the SM so the CGT liability on reslling SM purchases is well within my CGT allowance). However the SM liquidity could dry up at any time, and I suspect it will once more popular platforms launch IFISA's. So whilst my strategy is currently to use the SM to reduce the default risk, I will not invest in loans that I classify as having a high risk of "loss on default". I end up classifying a significant proportion of loans on p2p platforms as having a high risk of "loss on default", and I simply can not get a sensible level of diversification across MT/COL/L/TC - there simply aren't enough good loans given the limited deal flow. FS have what I have termed "lapses of concentration" in their due dilligence and subsequent monitoring of live loans, and I would not recommend it to those that don't have the time to do their own due dilligence and monitoring on each and every loan. However, for those that can spend the time on DD, FS offers some exceptional value amongst the loans it offers, which combined with the current tax and default risk advantages of selling on the SM makes it an appealing choice.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 483
Likes: 400
|
Post by sapphire on Dec 16, 2017 17:52:44 GMT
Hi mrclondon , would you be willing to expand upon why you have awarded Funding Secure the biggest portion of your p2p funding pot, what are the pro's and cons of this platform as you view them? Thank you, all the best, J. FS has a large deal flow, and the majority of the loans are big enough that FS don't deploy bid limits allowing me to get the several thousand pounds slice per loan I'm looking for. Whilst an eye has to be kept on exposure to the same borrower or connected SPV via multiple loans, the deal flow allows a level of diversification to borrowers that is simply not available other than (as my previous post alluded) via AC or in the extreme say FC. The quality of loans on FS varies dramatically, and I'm fortunate that I have both the time and the inclination to do enough research to be able to assign a low/medium/high to the two parameters "risk of default" and "risk of loss on default" to practically every loan FS (and the other 10%+ platforms) offer. Stating the obvious the level of risk can improve/deteriorate through the life of a loan, and the FS model forces me the review and update my risk analysis on each loan at least every six months. This analysis includes looking at companies house filings, planning permissions, architect qualifications etc, as well as paying for the land registry title records where there is an element of doubt. I am currently a basic rate tax payer, and for now I'm able to use the liquidity of the SM to reduce the tax liability on the FS income significantly, and reduce my actual default risk to practically zero. (I'm not buying that much on the SM so the CGT liability on reslling SM purchases is well within my CGT allowance). However the SM liquidity could dry up at any time, and I suspect it will once more popular platforms launch IFISA's. So whilst my strategy is currently to use the SM to reduce the default risk, I will not invest in loans that I classify as having a high risk of "loss on default". I end up classifying a significant proportion of loans on p2p platforms as having a high risk of "loss on default", and I simply can not get a sensible level of diversification across MT/COL/L/TC - there simply aren't enough good loans given the limited deal flow. FS have what I have termed "lapses of concentration" in their due dilligence and subsequent monitoring of live loans, and I would not recommend it to those that don't have the time to do their own due dilligence and monitoring on each and every loan. However, for those that can spend the time on DD, FS offers some exceptional value amongst the loans it offers, which combined with the current tax and default risk advantages of selling on the SM makes it an appealing choice. mrclondon, Many thanks for sharing the rationale underlying your approach. Its very useful. It would be very helpful if you are able to share: - the maximum percentage of your P2P portfolio you have invested in a single FS loan, you considered attractive - %age of defaults and losses, if any, sustained to date on your selection of FS loans - the overall net rate of return you have achieved on your portfolio of FS loans in the past 12 months, net of any losses.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 16, 2017 18:46:38 GMT
mrclondon, Many thanks for sharing the rationale underlying your approach. Its very useful. It would be very helpful if you are able to share: - the maximum percentage of your P2P portfolio you have invested in a single FS loan, you considered attractive - %age of defaults and losses, if any, sustained to date on your selection of FS loans - the overall net rate of return you have achieved on your portfolio of FS loans in the past 12 months, net of any losses. The maximum I have in any p2p loan on any platform (and FS is no different here) is 1% of my p2p pot. However, my "normal preferred" per loan size is 0.7% of p2p pot. However, my exposure to a single borrower via multiple SPVs can reach 2% of p2p pot (well actually 2.1% i.e. 3 x 0.7% to each of a maximum of 3 SPVs ) I joined FS as of their 2nd loan after launch, and since then have suffered two capital losses (modern art 30% loss with FS taking the art onto their own books to sell when the market improved) and the NI Turbine (70% loss) but the latter on a trivially small part of the loan bought on a daft whim on the SM at a 3% discount. I think I've had one other loan that returned no interest, and a few small loans in the early days that FS made good the capital loss. Capital losses as a percentage of received income since July 2013 = 6%. (or very crudely equivalent to 0.75% pa reduction on gross yield) I'm in the two distressed powerboat loans, but remain hopeful of a full recovery of capital and accrued interest eventually. FS XIRR for the 11.5 months 1/1/17 to today = 10.5% (based on date of cashflows in and out of FS). This might seem on the low side, but bear in mind I am mostly selling on the SM at a discount to offset the tax liability I am passing on. I can't do the calc for the calendar year, but for the current tax year 88% of my FS income is tax free. Hence a very crude calc pushes that 10.5% back to c. 12.7% gross equivalent. (Which is what I'd expect as that is roughly the average rate of the loans I'm in, and my losses this year are just one insignificant slice of the turbine loan)
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Dec 16, 2017 19:12:25 GMT
Hi mrclondon , would you be willing to expand upon why you have awarded Funding Secure the biggest portion of your p2p funding pot, what are the pro's and cons of this platform as you view them? Thank you, all the best, J. FS has a large deal flow, and the majority of the loans are big enough that FS don't deploy bid limits allowing me to get the several thousand pounds slice per loan I'm looking for. Whilst an eye has to be kept on exposure to the same borrower or connected SPV via multiple loans, the deal flow allows a level of diversification to borrowers that is simply not available other than (as my previous post alluded) via AC or in the extreme say FC. The quality of loans on FS varies dramatically, and I'm fortunate that I have both the time and the inclination to do enough research to be able to assign a low/medium/high to the two parameters "risk of default" and "risk of loss on default" to practically every loan FS (and the other 10%+ platforms) offer. Stating the obvious the level of risk can improve/deteriorate through the life of a loan, and the FS model forces me the review and update my risk analysis on each loan at least every six months. This analysis includes looking at companies house filings, planning permissions, architect qualifications etc, as well as paying for the land registry title records where there is an element of doubt. I am currently a basic rate tax payer, and for now I'm able to use the liquidity of the SM to reduce the tax liability on the FS income significantly, and reduce my actual default risk to practically zero. (I'm not buying that much on the SM so the CGT liability on reslling SM purchases is well within my CGT allowance). However the SM liquidity could dry up at any time, and I suspect it will once more popular platforms launch IFISA's. So whilst my strategy is currently to use the SM to reduce the default risk, I will not invest in loans that I classify as having a high risk of "loss on default". I end up classifying a significant proportion of loans on p2p platforms as having a high risk of "loss on default", and I simply can not get a sensible level of diversification across MT/COL/L/TC - there simply aren't enough good loans given the limited deal flow. FS have what I have termed "lapses of concentration" in their due dilligence and subsequent monitoring of live loans, and I would not recommend it to those that don't have the time to do their own due dilligence and monitoring on each and every loan. However, for those that can spend the time on DD, FS offers some exceptional value amongst the loans it offers, which combined with the current tax and default risk advantages of selling on the SM makes it an appealing choice. An excellent and well reasoned guide to FS investing for those new to p2p. You offer lots of good tips in the answer. Could you elaborate, maybe, on how you do your basic due dilligence giving some websites and basic methodology? I think there may be some pointers that I have seen before but cannot now locate. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 16, 2017 19:44:00 GMT
stub8535 I have just pasted what you refer to into a new sticky thread ( DD Hints, Tips and Resources) on this board, and have "unstickied" this one now the poll has been closed for a couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Dec 18, 2017 12:23:40 GMT
Stunned to find out the result of this poll when reading an email from MT this morning. I get the impression that the guys at money thing are as stunned and shocked as I am to find out they have won. As far as I was concerned and I think everybody else close to the industry, this was a one horse race and the only horse in the race was called COL. Regardless of what the poll says the platform of the year has been Collateral by whatever indicator you wish to manage it by. A High performing high Returns high amount of new business platform with a level of customer service that frankly is second to none. I am just over to Collateral now to invest in the new 14% loan. easteregg quick get the trophy back, GeorgeT has emphatically overruled the public vote which was categorically incorrect. Moneything have won a one horse race they weren't even in! Our singular voice of p2p has stated that MoneyThing & SophieThing should rescind their thankyou's and humbly forward the trophy to Collateral! Should make the poll easier to run in future yrs .... simply poll GeorgeT to declare the winner on our behalf.... done! 😉😉😉
The award trophies have already been engraved and are due to be delivered to P2P money HQ this afternoon. I'll post a photograph on here and then send them out to the winning companies!
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Jan 15, 2018 12:29:55 GMT
Personally the photo from Assetz Capital is infinately better than the one from P2P money HQ!
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 1, 2018 7:01:00 GMT
Stunned to find out the result of this poll when reading an email from MT this morning. I get the impression that the guys at money thing are as stunned and shocked as I am to find out they have won. As far as I was concerned and I think everybody else close to the industry, this was a one horse race and the only horse in the race was called COL. Regardless of what the poll says the platform of the year has been Collateral by whatever indicator you wish to manage it by. A High performing high Returns high amount of new business platform with a level of customer service that frankly is second to none. I am just over to Collateral now to invest in the new 14% loan. George, You left Ly (publicly trashing them as you closed the door) and MT (although perhaps the SM prevented a full exit). As someone that has never lost a penny, could you help others with how your stratgies are performing? I always try to learn from them (if only to act in the contrary - for example, by avoiding the junior 14% tranches you allude to).
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 1, 2018 8:30:58 GMT
I wonder how much the administrator will get for Collateral's trophy? Perhaps they should put it on eBay.
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Mar 1, 2018 9:42:55 GMT
I wonder how much the administrator will get for Collateral's trophy? Perhaps they should put it on eBay. It is worth around £75, but it goes to show that even the "best" platforms can stumble.
|
|