happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jan 28, 2020 12:09:11 GMT
Have you sold out ? Are you intending to sell out ? or are you going to let it continue to run down till the end ?
I still have 3 years to go before I would be all out (still got just over 8k in).
I'm interested in what others have done or plan to do.
I'm running down (withdrawing returns weekly). Less than 3 years left to go. I have a mixture of Access and Classic. I didn't see much point selling out as I consider it a fairly safe investment. I stopped re-investing when Zopa closed the safeguarded accounts as I either want pooled defaults/shared risk or to have the option to pick my loans. This was the same decision I made with FC when they went black-box and then when they stopped us being able to sell individual loans I sold out everything there. I felt the Safeguarded loans to be fairly safe so I let my mid 5 figure Zopa sum slowly pay back, only a few £k of profit left to go and should be all out well before the EU transition period expires. Never liked the new Zopa accounts and glad I never invested in them.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Dec 24, 2019 10:06:11 GMT
Yesterday I received my 30% recovery on this loan to finally bring this sorry story to a close, for us at least anyway. Who could have believed that a secured A+ development loan on FC would yield only a 30% recovery for lenders and it shows the real magnitude of risk we all take on this type of lending, i.e. lending to a highly speculative development based on LGDV = the lender loses big if the development fails to complete.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Dec 22, 2019 17:32:09 GMT
Received a recovery today of about 30% of my total loan. The rest we are told is a complete write off as the borrow has no further assets. That this loan was graded A+ by the FC team says everything you need to know about FCs DD. However on a positive note the 70% capital loss is less than the losses on the IPO (share price now well under 90p). You got me all excited there. I got £16 back out of £2100 I believe your £16 may be just the payment to you of the outstanding interest that was held on account after the loan was originally defaulted back in December 2017, yes 2 years ago! You should be receiving your 30% (£630) capital repayment any day now.... I, like you, am still waiting for my share of this recovery payment to appear in my account. On the upside though, one more property development loan to be spat out of Farcical Contortions recovery process any month now and I will be totally out of FC, save for about £1 per year recovery payments for the next 20 years or so. Joined FC in 2015 and have left with a decent enough profit (gained at the cost of a lot of hard work in the early days) but sadly wouldn't touch FC now.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Dec 3, 2019 13:33:08 GMT
Only strange thing was I did not get any email confirmation. I had to physically log into my nsi account to check. It has definitely given me some confidence to chuck a few more quid in. Nice to hear you won £500! I have really never heard anyone winning more than a hundred on PB.
Email confirmation usually comes through a few days later. I won a £500 back in July 2007. Sadly, my one and only 500. Like pom though, I usually average between 1 and 7 25's a month, but I've also had quite a few 100's over the years. I won't be cashing in my PB anytime soon.
Certainly gives a better return than the Lotto, which of course also offers the possibility of becoming a millionaire but with the almost inevitable loss of all of ones capital 🤣🤣
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Nov 29, 2019 8:26:44 GMT
I feel deceived. Not happy.
Well the alternative is when the Shield money runs out we all take a direct hit on any defaulting loans in our portfolios, just like Zopa. Based on the level of concern that model is generating right now on the Zopa pages I'm not sure any Lending Works investors would be happy with that outcome. Personally, I think the annual cohort variable intetest approach is a quite novel and also equitable way to deal with the issue going forward and I commend Lending Works for their considered approach to this problem. A much better response than we have seen from some other platforms in recent time.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Sept 4, 2019 7:26:17 GMT
Ratesetter has the advantage that it publishes the details of it accruing provision fund where Assetz capital is much higher risk because the provision find is mostly “opaque” in operation. You say AC is a bigger risk due to the (your implied) inferior structure of its PF versus RS's however I feel you are perhaps not considering the very important fact that most RS loans are unsecured and therefore in the event of a default are 100% dependant on the presence of a funded and functioning PF to protect your capital. Compare this to AC where all loans (bar a few historic loans) are asset secured and the PF will only need to cover any residual loss in the event of a default. I feel that the more accepted view is that ultimately RS has more potential risk of capital loss in it's PF model than AC, particicularly during the next inevitable downward economic cycle. This is perhaps demonstrated by RS's recent struggles to maintain it's PF at the published target funding level even during the relatively benign economic climate we have exerienced over the last few years. So much so that they reduced the target. This concern has been discussed in some detail on this forum a number of times before. I'm pretty much out of RS now, apart from some retained interest, having previously had 6 figure sum there 3-4 years ago but I still choose to invest in AC in both their MLA and automated accounts. I have no issues with AC and the visibility of where my money is invested or how the PF works and is funded, all the information is available for an investor to see. JMO....
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on May 25, 2019 10:47:05 GMT
Cowes is now sponsored by Rolex it appears. I'm sure LB has got a fair few of them, gold I would think. Probably a premier customer of theirs. You never know, you might even see him in their corporate marquee at Cowes 2019
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Feb 22, 2019 21:03:36 GMT
#57 isn't even officially overdue yet, it still has 47 months of its 99 month term left to run according to the website!
Assetz has an unbeaten record in avoiding any loan ever becoming overdue!
This extension of a genuine defaulted loan to an arbitrary period like 99 months is standard practice on the AC platform for loans that are the subject of on-going recovery operations of potentially unknown duration. It is done to stop the loan expiring on the system, interest rate going to zero and other undesirable effects aiui). It has nothing to do with any kicking of anything metal down any real or imaginary road. Ultimately these loans will have all productive recovery options exhausted and will be closed off and then formally written off. Once AC release their soon-to-be released features to cater for this write-off we should be able to see this in action. Edit. And if you really enjoy watching the art of professional can kicking then in my experience there are quite a few places way way better at it than AC and you can spend your time watching how your hard-earned and long-lost investments never really seem to get any closer to coming back to you.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Feb 14, 2019 7:32:19 GMT
So AC Can't win as I see it; when people can't sell holdings in suspended loans within the GBBA/GEA/PSA style accounts they complain, when they are allowed to do the same with the QAA/30 Day accounts then AC is accused of smoke and mirrors and an implied underhand con of investors. Firstly I do not believe you fully understand how the PF specifically supports and protects any suspended but still tradeable loans within the instant access accounts. Secondly, by way of comparison, if you look at RS and see how it deals with its rapidly growing portfolio of larger development loans with its PF when anyone tries to sell a defaulted loan you will see that it too allows for these potentially defaulted loans to be sold on to "unsuspecting "poor sap" as you put it. You try to make too many points. However... 1. A loan is “Suspended” for a good reason, usually not a positive event. I, therefore, do not expect to have money I am “Cashing-In” moved into such loans, all I did was hit the “Withdraw” button. 2. The AC PF is woefully under covered against most comparable estimates of potential future losses, at far less than 1%. Given that, at this point in the economic cycle, we are likely, at best experiencing a slowdown and at worst a recession exasperated by Brexit . Secured loans are returning anything from 0-100% of Capital on other platforms. Less than 1% average loss is looking at a gold bar through a clear window. 3. I had 3% of my QAA account in “Suspended” loans after just 24 hours in the QAA. The PF, by AC’s stats, is less than 0.5%. Ergo, the PF has no chance of ever covering the exposure to these loans. Liquidity from some poor sap picking up the slack is their backstop, when this disappears it’s the end. The question is - will you be able to spot the tipping point? 4. The RS PF can only buy defaulted loans where it has the real cash to cover the potential loss in full. When it did not, as has been fully admitted by RS last year, they capitalised the loans onto their own books to ensure no Lenders lost money. I’m not sure AC have the deep pockets, or desire, to do that. Projecting losses soooo small ensures that they are kicking the can far down the road in the hope that no one notices. Firstly, if you don't want your cash held in the QAA then turn your automatic cash sweep into QAA option off, then it will stay as cash for you In an attempt to not make too many points again and other points being covered by OPs I will now just answer your point 4. You say the RS PF can only buy defaulted loans where it has the cash to cover the loss. This used to be true for all defaulting loans and, before the changes were made that I describe below, when any loan defaults it would be "bought" by the PF to protect the lender against loss. New investors adding funds to RS would only invest in active healthy loans, not defaulted loans. When RS started moving more into large secured loans to business,such as property development loans which are an increasingly important part of their future growth AIUI, they quickly realised their PF of only a few % of the loan book would be totally overwhelmed by just one or two large defaults forcing an unwanted Resolution Event due to loss of PF liquidity so they changed the way it worked for these large secured loans. What happens now is the PF does not buy these defaulted loans but the lender(s) keep hold of them until they are recovered, if you sell your defaulted loans then new investors will buy these parts without being aware of this or having any control. I think the PF may be involved in covering interest payments but not any capital which will be repaid when the loan is recovered. This change was described in a blog entry on RS web site at the time (a year or so ago) but I am not aware of it being described anywhere else by RS and most people seem not to realise this difference in behaviour. As I said before, your ability to see your holding of these defaulted secured loans in RS is pretty much hidden from investors view so if this ever became a significant issue we would be none the wiser.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Feb 13, 2019 19:13:51 GMT
A second problem is the smoke and mirrors behind the quick access accounts.The quick access accounts ('instant' and 30 Day) hold a proportion of the non trade-able loans, shared proportionately among all lenders. These loans are attributed full value even if they are worthless. As long as new money coming in matches withdrawals, a game of pass the parcel sends these bad parts to another lender, who hopes, in turn, that his share of bad loans can be appropriately dumped at a later stage. You are correct! I was stunned, when I withdrew a reasonable sum from my GBBA2 account a few weeks ago, the cash generated was “swept” into the QAA. On analysing the QAA loans I had 3% of my funds in ~40 Suspended Loans! These loans were all suspended prior to Christmas and therefore should not have been tradable. Yet my immediate request to withdraw all the cash was honoured in full (thankfully), but obviously some poor sap has unknowingly picked up these Suspended loans. When the music stops it’s not going to be pretty! So AC Can't win as I see it; when people can't sell holdings in suspended loans within the GBBA/GEA/PSA style accounts they complain, when they are allowed to do the same with the QAA/30 Day accounts then AC is accused of smoke and mirrors and an implied underhand con of investors. Firstly I do not believe you fully understand how the PF specifically supports and protects any suspended but still tradeable loans within the instant access accounts. This is achieved by a process of PF ring-fencing of PF funds to ensure future investors in these access accounts are protected from the risk of investing into these suspended loans that you rightly identified as being potentially unfair. If you want more info on how this works you could call the AC support desk where I am sure they could help you understand it better. As I understand it there is theoretically a point at which the tradeability of suspended loans in the access accounts could stop; this being if the PF was unable to ring-fence sufficient funds to protect future investors. At that point whoever holds the loan will have to keep it until the loan is either tradeable again, redeemed, recovered or the PF status improves sufficiently to cover the suspended loan. Again, my understanding of how things work based on various bits of information taken from this forum and provided by AC, not a quoted or specific statement from AC. Secondly, by way of comparison, if you look at RS and see how it deals with its rapidly growing portfolio of larger development loans with its PF when anyone tries to sell a defaulted loan you will see that it too allows for these potentially defaulted loans to be sold on to "unsuspecting "poor sap" as you put it. The difference is that unlike AC who allow you to see the status of all your loan holdings this information is pretty much impossible to see in RS and they don't really mention it or provide specific information on suspended or defaulted loans, we would never know how few or how many defaulted loans we were buying into. Personally speaking, at least I can see what is going on at a loan level with AC and if you ring them up they will make a pretty good job of trying to provide you with the help and information you need.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Oct 20, 2018 15:03:58 GMT
While I'm sure we all agree that Assetz would be well advised to try to get back the 4 million pounds they gave away, the loan conditions specifically say they would not give the money away in such a manner. Therefore they are probably legally but certainly morally obliged to reimburse all investors for their actions. I am not sure if we actually have any real proof that AC did not follow to the letter what the loan documentation said they would do. This loan was operated via an escrow account and as I understand it an escrow is a contractual arrangement in which a third party, or escrow agent, receives and then disburses, in this case, money, for the primary parties, with that disbursement dependent on conditions agreed to by the transacting parties. So in this case, AC (primary party 1) would have transferred all the loan money to the (third party) escrow agent and then the MS (primary party 2) would have requested monies from the escrow account to fund the build activity. So AC would have transferred all the loan monies to the escrow account at or shortly after drawdown (as was the case) and most likely would not have been involved in the subsequent drawing of funds from the escrow account, perhaps safe in the knowledge that funds would only be released according to the rules defined beforehand. As to what the rules for accessing the escrow funds were and the visibility AC had, or should have had, of how the funds were being utilised is another discussion altogether.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Oct 11, 2018 19:21:13 GMT
Well it was raining outside and that never makes many people happy does it.
My real point is that we really don't know what the future hold and we can only effectively plan defensively for relatively minor shocks to the system. And when it comes to Brexit despite all the expert views out there I still think we are none the wiser about what will really happen come the day, regardless of the outcome of negotiations.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
General P2x Discussion
House price
Oct 11, 2018 15:40:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by happy on Oct 11, 2018 15:40:39 GMT
Other market conditions = Global pandemic = 20% population loss in 1st world economies = no housing shortage = price crash.
Just a thought, we are long overdue it according to many experts.☹
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Oct 11, 2018 15:32:06 GMT
Err ... so, I am actually right on both counts.
In your point 1, the borrower I refer to would be RS, who like any borrower would be progressively disinclined to borrow as rates increase. If RS are finding they have to pay a high price to borrow, they will be quoting a correspondingly high price to the real borrower, thus reducing "real" demand.
I think the subtle distinction here is that by the time borrowers are getting their money they have already had a quote locked in (for up 14 days I think.)
So if I was quoted 6% a week ago by RS and decided yesterday to go ahead with the loan, RS would have no choice other than to take the money at the rates on offer.
Or RS can put it out to the Rolling market for about 3.x%, as with the new "improved and simlified" rolling market they don't have the monthly transformation risk as lenders only get out of the 5 year loans if someone else's money is there to buy you out. Personally I'm surprised RS even bother with the 5 year market any more when they can push 5 year loans onto Rolling for less than half the cost and perhaps if they hadn't shot themselves in the foot with their ill-conceived Rolling changes causing a mass exodus and destroying liquidity maybe that was their plan. Once there is more money coming back to Rolling in the months ahead I can see the 5 year loans reducing to a trickle.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Aug 18, 2018 12:31:27 GMT
Just got matched at 4.7% on rolling, even though I have been serving a ban for the last 17 days due to being a serial RYI'er Think they need all the money they can get ATM. They have probably suspended all bans to help liquidity but CBA to tell us, or dont want to lose face.....again
|
|