|
|
Post by mashclint on Jan 10, 2015 10:46:05 GMT
I note in a couple of recent auctions there has been some large bids, which in a way is good for borrowers, however some bids total up on smaller loans have been in excess of 50% of the loan. To me this is not what p2p investing is about for the smaller investor and would like Rebs nickrebuildings to consider putting some limits on bids to be 50% of loan value on loans <100k. Funding secure quite often have equivalent limits to allow all investors an opportunity to invest. |
|
markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766 
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on Jan 10, 2015 20:00:04 GMT
In my view, the large investors on ReBS are very "well behaved". They act as underwriters, getting loans filled up by bidding at high rates, usually the top rate or near to it. Unlike FC's flippers though, they generally don't chase the rates down or bid too low, and don't come in to a loan until it's been active for a while to allow other bidders in. I don't see them as a problem at all, and you can always outbid them if you like the loan.
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Jan 10, 2015 20:24:25 GMT
Do you mean applications 440 (D***** M******) & 429 (T*****r M***)?
Both are unusual, in that the security offered by the borrower was improved (in one case very considerably) during the course of the auction, solely as a result of proposals by one lender, via dialog in the Discussions section - proposals which received a positive response from the other parties : broker, borrower & ReBS. The lender then placed large bids at a rate around that consistent with the enhanced level of security, which influenced subsequent bidding.
Was this a good thing? Possibly so, in these cases : but I would have much preferred that the initating players - ReBS, the Borrower & the Borrower - had agreed the secured offer at the outset, and then left the outcome to a free market uninfluenced by unequal bids.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jan 10, 2015 22:05:01 GMT
Do you mean applications 440 (D***** M******) & 429 (T*****r M***)? Both are unusual, in that the security offered by the borrower was improved (in one case very considerably) during the course of the auction, solely as a result of proposals by one lender, via dialog in the Discussions section - proposals which received a positive response from the other parties : broker, borrower & ReBS. The lender then placed large bids at a rate around that consistent with the enhanced level of security, which influenced subsequent bidding. Was this a good thing? Possibly so, in these cases : but I would have much preferred that the initating players - ReBS, the Borrower & the Borrower - had agreed the secured offer at the outset, and then left the outcome to a free market uninfluenced by unequal bids. I agree the security should get secured at the outset. This is not the first time it's happened either. About two months ago an auction completed with r****t taking a very large chunk near the end. Personally, I think the current rate on one of the auctions is absurdly low, so "not for me clive"
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Jan 10, 2015 22:39:41 GMT
Completely agree with the above. These loans are effectively getting hijacked late on, with a rate fixed by one person. If that happened all the time, I would quit Rebs, though I guess its just with particular loans where the security is good. Still not a bad rate on one of them, and someone seems very confidant in them!
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jan 11, 2015 2:06:02 GMT
Completely agree with the above. These loans are effectively getting hijacked late on, with a rate fixed by one person. If that happened all the time, I would quit Rebs, though I guess its just with particular loans where the security is good. Still not a bad rate on one of them, and someone seems very confidant in them! It is a bad rate. It could be weeks before a 2nd charge gets applied, and the 1st chargeholder may not agree. I believe this happened with another ReBs loan which got abandoned after several weeks and then relaunched 3 months later.
|
|
ianb
Posts: 161
Likes: 54
|
Post by ianb on Jan 11, 2015 17:25:43 GMT
Do you mean applications 440 (D***** M******) & 429 (T*****r M***)? Both are unusual, in that the security offered by the borrower was improved (in one case very considerably) during the course of the auction, solely as a result of proposals by one lender, via dialog in the Discussions section - proposals which received a positive response from the other parties : broker, borrower & ReBS. The lender then placed large bids at a rate around that consistent with the enhanced level of security, which influenced subsequent bidding. Was this a good thing? Possibly so, in these cases : but I would have much preferred that the initating players - ReBS, the Borrower & the Borrower - had agreed the secured offer at the outset, and then left the outcome to a free market uninfluenced by unequal bids. I agree the security should get secured at the outset. This is not the first time it's happened either. About two months ago an auction completed with r****t taking a very large chunk near the end. Personally, I think the current rate on one of the auctions is absurdly low, so "not for me clive"
I concur 100%, this loan has lost all interest for me an' all. The guy certainly helps to fill some of the loans, but on this one its like buying a hand at poker, and he can have it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rugbylad on Jan 12, 2015 12:00:12 GMT
Do you mean applications 440 (D***** M******) & 429 (T*****r M***)? Both are unusual, in that the security offered by the borrower was improved (in one case very considerably) during the course of the auction, solely as a result of proposals by one lender, via dialog in the Discussions section - proposals which received a positive response from the other parties : broker, borrower & ReBS. The lender then placed large bids at a rate around that consistent with the enhanced level of security, which influenced subsequent bidding. Was this a good thing? Possibly so, in these cases : but I would have much preferred that the initating players - ReBS, the Borrower & the Borrower - had agreed the secured offer at the outset, and then left the outcome to a free market uninfluenced by unequal bids. I agree the security should get secured at the outset. This is not the first time it's happened either. About two months ago an auction completed with r****t taking a very large chunk near the end. Personally, I think the current rate on one of the auctions is absurdly low, so "not for me clive"
As an introducer to ReBS. and other platforms, I see this as a good thing, it helps "concentrate" the mind of the borrower and see that there is an added advantage to offering additional security. Not all borrowers agree. There seems to be a growing reliance at ReBS on 2nd charge security on a platform that was introduced to compete in the unsecured p2p marketplace. High rates for the borrowers and the good returns for the lenders should mitigate this.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jan 12, 2015 12:10:46 GMT
I agree the security should get secured at the outset. This is not the first time it's happened either. About two months ago an auction completed with r****t taking a very large chunk near the end. Personally, I think the current rate on one of the auctions is absurdly low, so "not for me clive"
As an introducer to ReBS. and other platforms, I see this as a good thing, it helps "concentrate" the mind of the borrower and see that there is an added advantage to offering additional security. Not all borrowers agree. There seems to be a growing reliance at ReBS on 2nd charge security on a platform that was introduced to compete in the unsecured p2p marketplace. High rates for the borrowers and the good returns for the lenders should mitigate this. I'm not saying a 2nd charge is a bad thing, it's clearly a good thing, but it must get sorted out before the loan goes to auction. Otherwise lender funds get tied up for weeks. Oh, what's this email I've just received. Loan ID: 233545 Cancelled, reason: banks refusal to allow a 2nd charge on the property).
|
|
|
|
Post by rugbylad on Jan 12, 2015 12:29:21 GMT
As an introducer to ReBS. and other platforms, I see this as a good thing, it helps "concentrate" the mind of the borrower and see that there is an added advantage to offering additional security. Not all borrowers agree. There seems to be a growing reliance at ReBS on 2nd charge security on a platform that was introduced to compete in the unsecured p2p marketplace. High rates for the borrowers and the good returns for the lenders should mitigate this. I'm not saying a 2nd charge is a bad thing, it's clearly a good thing, but it must get sorted out before the loan goes to auction. Otherwise lender funds get tied up for weeks. Oh, what's this email I've just received. Loan ID: 233545 Cancelled, reason: banks refusal to allow a 2nd charge on the property). Fully understood and it can be very frustrating from both sides. Personally, I obtain a land reg and go for consent at the start of the auction to avoid these delays. is 233545 a current Auction ?
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jan 12, 2015 14:31:30 GMT
I'm not saying a 2nd charge is a bad thing, it's clearly a good thing, but it must get sorted out before the loan goes to auction. Otherwise lender funds get tied up for weeks. Oh, what's this email I've just received. Loan ID: 233545 Cancelled, reason: banks refusal to allow a 2nd charge on the property). Fully understood and it can be very frustrating from both sides. Personally, I obtain a land reg and go for consent at the start of the auction to avoid these delays. is 233545 a current Auction ? Auction 233545 was fully funded and ended about a week or two ago. It was waiting for drawdown.
|
|
