|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 3, 2018 14:28:33 GMT
Well done ablrate .. doubtless that'll empty the SM (well 'push the prices up') until these new loans roll out.
|
|
garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on May 3, 2018 15:17:25 GMT
Well done ablrate .. doubtless that'll empty the SM (well 'push the prices up') until these new loans roll out. Haven't you seen the e-mail about a new loan launched this afternoon? Bidding from 10am tomorrow.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 971
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on May 3, 2018 16:39:41 GMT
Well done ablrate .. doubtless that'll empty the SM (well 'push the prices up') until these new loans roll out. Haven't you seen the e-mail about a new loan launched this afternoon? Bidding from 10am tomorrow. If only it were a new loan, I'd have somewhere to put my returns from '79. As it is, it's just a refinance of '40 from the same borrowers who seem to be holding half of ablrate's loan book. Really struggling to deploy my funds here.
|
|
garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on May 3, 2018 19:46:29 GMT
Haven't you seen the e-mail about a new loan launched this afternoon? Bidding from 10am tomorrow. If only it were a new loan, I'd have somewhere to put my returns from '79. As it is, it's just a refinance of '40 from the same borrowers who seem to be holding half of ablrate's loan book. Really struggling to deploy my funds here. I was referring to the comment about the SM. Sorry if this wasn't clear. Whilst I'd be interested in ABL's response, have you looked at the Company Trading Report, for example on loan 40? I'll be reinvesting 79 in 102, no problem.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 971
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on May 4, 2018 7:05:27 GMT
If only it were a new loan, I'd have somewhere to put my returns from '79. As it is, it's just a refinance of '40 from the same borrowers who seem to be holding half of ablrate's loan book. Really struggling to deploy my funds here. I was referring to the comment about the SM. Sorry if this wasn't clear. Whilst I'd be interested in ABL's response, have you looked at the Company Trading Report, for example on loan 40? I'll be reinvesting 79 in 102, no problem. I've nothing against 102 itself, and if I had money coming out of 40 then yes I'd probably put it back in 102. Except of course that you can't, because there isn't a rollover facility. I suppose this is where 79 repaying comes in - it may create a float to allow people to do this. However this all misses my concern, which is the extraordinary number of loans from the same borrower - I already have more than I am really comfortable with in these loans. They may have distinct security, which is great, but a failure of the borrower themselves is a non-trivial risk which I can't bring myself to ignore. There is the added concern that the platform themselves are overdependent on this one borrower, but that is another matter. I understand that others may view this differently.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 4, 2018 7:45:35 GMT
I liked your post ceejay , which seemed an excellent and balanced summary of the position. 102 is welcome as an inefficient rollover of 40 (though reduced), which has served us well. However, I have to disagree with your last sentence 'I understand that others may view this differently.' I don't think I know of any poster, perhaps even including Albrate, who does not share your view of the present situation. More new borrowers have been promised - they are 'in the pipeline'.
|
|
garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on May 4, 2018 8:34:24 GMT
I'm not disagreeing with you, ceejay, and I too look forward to distinct new loans/borrowers. There are a lot more connected loans than these (and it's not obvious just from the borrower names), many of which I'm staying out of altogether as I regard them as much higher risk.
|
|