|
Post by fatbritabroad on Apr 3, 2018 11:00:36 GMT
Yes they still do and thanks sorry to be clear short term is next 5 years and this is 4k out of 16k total so i would only get this out in unlikely event of a fairly y major emergency such as redundancy and i could last a good few months without this so happy to take the risk
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 3, 2018 11:05:26 GMT
I use FC now to hold cash, since they removed the charge on sales. Low cash drag and excellent liquidity. But as in 'Life is like a opening a tin of sardines' there is always that bit that you cannot get out of the corner of the tin. FC used to be my principal platform and Ablrate the secondary. Now it's the other way round.
|
|
|
Post by fatbritabroad on Apr 3, 2018 11:12:43 GMT
I got put off by the stories of defaults on fc. I was considering ratesetter but then was directed to lending works which is slightly higher interest and loos good to me
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 3, 2018 11:21:59 GMT
I got put off by the stories of defaults on fc. I was considering ratesetter but then was directed to lending works which is slightly higher interest and loos good to me I haven't tried the loos at FC, but reckon they would be top notch.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Apr 3, 2018 11:37:36 GMT
I got put off by the stories of defaults on fc. I was considering ratesetter but then was directed to lending works which is slightly higher interest and loos good to me I haven't tried the loos at FC, but reckon they would be top notch. Lets hope the **** don't hit the fan for you to find out
|
|
|
Post by fatbritabroad on Apr 3, 2018 11:59:43 GMT
Invest with us and youll be flush?
Ive now got ring of fire running through my head for some unknown reason lol
|
|
|
Post by df on Apr 5, 2018 3:30:37 GMT
It looks very much like new 'fairer' FC, except that fees are a bit higher and net rates a bit lower. Oh, and you can diversify over 100 loans with just ' a few clicks' - and a wait of about four weeks. Given that FC is a much larger platform, about to float, and takes about two days, why would anyone choose BM? I use both, each shares 10% of my p2p portfolio. I wouldn't allow FC to go over 10% and BM fits my risk/return criteria. I prefer to diversify rather than chasing highest returns.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 5, 2018 7:46:17 GMT
It looks very much like new 'fairer' FC, except that fees are a bit higher and net rates a bit lower. Oh, and you can diversify over 100 loans with just ' a few clicks' - and a wait of about four weeks. Given that FC is a much larger platform, about to float, and takes about two days, why would anyone choose BM? I use both, each shares 10% of my p2p portfolio. I wouldn't allow FC to go over 10% and BM fits my risk/return criteria. I prefer to diversify rather than chasing highest returns. Diversity among platforms and among loans is a good and recommended practice. When it comes to the split between two platforms, you can just go for an equal split. However, if one platform has, say, a ten times greater risk of going pop than another, then you actually increase your overall risk substantially - though the amount affected is halved. My view is that if you go from Auntie FC to any of the smaller platforms then you are increasing your platform risk and you need higher rates from those platforms. I regard my funds in FC as similar to bank risk. Of course it depends on your position and your risk appetite.
|
|
brianlom1
Member of DD Central
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Posts: 387
Likes: 388
|
Post by brianlom1 on Apr 5, 2018 22:47:07 GMT
I use both, each shares 10% of my p2p portfolio. I wouldn't allow FC to go over 10% and BM fits my risk/return criteria. I prefer to diversify rather than chasing highest returns. Diversity among platforms and among loans is a good and recommended practice. When it comes to the split between two platforms, you can just go for an equal split. However, if one platform has, say, a ten times greater risk of going pop than another, then you actually increase your overall risk substantially - though the amount affected is halved. My view is that if you go from Auntie FC to any of the smaller platforms then you are increasing your platform risk and you need higher rates from those platforms. I regard my funds in FC as similar to bank risk. Of course it depends on your position and your risk appetite.
Not sure I agree with your assessment of FC as 'similar to bank risk' (unless you're referring to Northern Rock). If anyone is thinking of investing their hard-earned cash with FC, I suggest they read this thread first: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/6867/short-property-london-14978-forever
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Apr 6, 2018 7:07:14 GMT
I believe he meant the risk of platform failure, rather than loan default .. Fatcat Club as a platform looks solid, and well backed, and shortly a public company. Their loanbook looks no better than it should, for a 7% yield target. Yes, there are some lemons, as there are everywhere.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 6, 2018 7:52:28 GMT
Yes, thanks GSV, though in new 'fairer' FC that notorious loan from the past would be limited to one two-hundredth of your portfolio. Strange how the banks have been rehabilitated. Baring, Leeman, NatWestBOS, LLoyds, Iceland banks. I suppose that the losses incurred through a public bailout and a ten year recession are no problem as long as the actual number of pounds in the account does not change. In Ireland they had a compulsory whip-round, which made it more real. The p2p sector will 'consume its own smoke' when there are problems.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 6, 2018 13:08:01 GMT
To put this thread back on topic. One of these loans has reached the end of the shelf and jumped. We expect the wings to work. Started 22nd March for an existing borrower wanting £725K. An ok performance I think. One of the others has a rather wider shelf to cross.
|
|
|
Post by df on Apr 6, 2018 13:44:59 GMT
To put this thread back on topic. One of these loans has reached the end of the shelf and jumped. We expect the wings to work. Started 22nd March for an existing borrower wanting £725K. An ok performance I think. One of the others has a rather wider shelf to cross. I doubt 98 will make it. Short term property loan to an existing borrower and is too large for ABL to fill (even at 15% rate).
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Apr 6, 2018 13:53:27 GMT
To put this thread back on topic. One of these loans has reached the end of the shelf and jumped. We expect the wings to work. Started 22nd March for an existing borrower wanting £725K. An ok performance I think. One of the others has a rather wider shelf to cross. I doubt 98 will make it. Short term property loan to an existing borrower and is too large for ABL to fill (even at 15% rate). Slow and sure wins the race, I think it will fill.
|
|
|
Post by df on Apr 6, 2018 14:04:15 GMT
I use both, each shares 10% of my p2p portfolio. I wouldn't allow FC to go over 10% and BM fits my risk/return criteria. I prefer to diversify rather than chasing highest returns. Diversity among platforms and among loans is a good and recommended practice. When it comes to the split between two platforms, you can just go for an equal split. However, if one platform has, say, a ten times greater risk of going pop than another, then you actually increase your overall risk substantially - though the amount affected is halved. My view is that if you go from Auntie FC to any of the smaller platforms then you are increasing your platform risk and you need higher rates from those platforms. I regard my funds in FC as similar to bank risk. Of course it depends on your position and your risk appetite.
I absolutely agree, collapse of platform is much bigger risk than failure of few loans, but IMO BM is a solid firm and I don't anticipate it to collapse. It is logical that platforms with larger loan book and operating for longer period of time are more likely to stay, but there is no guarantee. In my assessment, which might be completely wrong, BM and FC are on a similar risk level.
|
|