happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 15, 2016 10:55:07 GMT
Impressive. Where is this marvellous account alender? The best I've managed is 3% with Santander so I would be very happy indeed to find an additional provider at decent rates! That said, unless you aren't in a position to take any risk, then diversified investments in equities, property etc are likely to be a better option over the longer term. Maybe even a few quid in the likes of Ratesetter if you can stand the hassle.
If anyone has put seriously money into Ratesetter before maxing out the better options then they're probably missing a trick.So oik , you are telling me that setting "your rate" with Ratesetter and logging in every now and again to see where the market is relative to your money and making the odd adjustment is more hassle than setting up and managing multiple bank transfers and direct debits to make sure you meet all the qualifying conditions etc then I think you are trying to kid us all. Don't get me wrong, I have well over £50k in 3-5% current accounts and the like so I know what is involved there in addition to other near-cash investments such that I would not need to call on my P2P money in the next 12 months in anything other than a total crisis. But I also have a pretty decent 5 figure sum in Zopa and even more in Ratesetter and I can assure you this has earnt me a better return for my effort than any other P2P, S&S ISA, SIPP etc I own, bar none! Yes I get a better return on other P2P sites but they take time and effort, Ratesetter (and Zopa) can never be described as difficult. All these current accounts are fine until the banks change the T&Cs, just right now it suites them to give us 3% or so but I doubt this will be the case forever and that will be hastle finding new homes for our money.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 15, 2016 10:07:12 GMT
Maybe I am missing something here @butch cassidy I was under the impression the QAA invested amount has been steadily growing over recent weeks so if it is growing how is the QAA stopping MLIA investors selling loan units right now, if anything surely the QAA would have been buying loans units from the SM or somewhere else. As I understand it the only time the QAA will need to exercise it's market sell priority is when it needs to sell units to maintain liquidity, i.e people are selling out of the QAA. When I joined AC last year the SM was pretty much empty bar a few loans and this has only changed since the recdnt flood on new loans, I did not see the QAA stopping the SM back then as pretty anything worth buying got snapped up. So are you saying that the mere existence of the QAA ( and by implication I suppose the GBBA and GEIA as well) is creating an unfair market for MLIA lenders? Personally I do not agree with you if this is your view. I like being able to have a %age of my investment in all the above mentioned accounts for different reasons but as trouble says, when investing in the MLIA I accept that these loans are potentially for TERM. I only invest in terms that I am able to accept the full term, anything shorter is a bonus in my view I don't see this level of liquidity (or lack of) being here for ever, I just hope the FSA help lubricate the market somewhat with full authorisation for IFISAs No. The QAA is being used to underwrite entire loans - therefore after drawdown it tries to rebalance or re diversify (so if it underwrote a 500k loan and retail took 100k on drawdown it will try and sell the excess down to its desired level). While this happens it exercises its market sell priority and nobody else can sell - as is happening on a few loans at the moment. Good point bg, and I see this QAA sell-down is different to traditional underwriters selling down their holdings in that they would not have priority over MLIA investors hence the gripe from some. I still struggle with the issue that it is mainly only the newer loans that have any quanitity of units on the market so if MLIA investors are desperate to sell units in loans they only purchased recently it begs the question why did they buy so much in the first place. I suspect that past market dynamics have lead some lenders with money to invest right now into buying much more than they ever intended to hold long-term, safe (they thought) in the knowledge that they could sell some on when new and potentially more attractive loans came along or simply to diversify further. I see this as a valid issue for these folks. My strategy here is to use the QAA for my soon to be invested cash and accept the lower rate to make sure I don't end up investing i. more of a loan than I am comfortable longer-term just to get a return (I also use the GBBA for other money where my liquidity requirement is lower but still relevant). With my 5 figure investment in AC this does not cost me too much and allows me to progressively build a well diversified MLIA portfolio but I accept that for the bigger players keen to maximise their return now this strategy could end up costing them a lot. It just goes to show what a truely difficult job chris andrewholgate and the AC team have trying to develop a platform that is all things to all investors!
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 14, 2016 20:29:28 GMT
Maybe I am missing something here @butch cassidy I was under the impression the QAA invested amount has been steadily growing over recent weeks so if it is growing how is the QAA stopping MLIA investors selling loan units right now, if anything surely the QAA would have been buying loans units from the SM or somewhere else. As I understand it the only time the QAA will need to exercise it's market sell priority is when it needs to sell units to maintain liquidity, i.e people are selling out of the QAA. When I joined AC last year the SM was pretty much empty bar a few loans and this has only changed since the recdnt flood on new loans, I did not see the QAA stopping the SM back then as pretty anything worth buying got snapped up. So are you saying that the mere existence of the QAA ( and by implication I suppose the GBBA and GEIA as well) is creating an unfair market for MLIA lenders? Personally I do not agree with you if this is your view. I like being able to have a %age of my investment in all the above mentioned accounts for different reasons but as trouble says, when investing in the MLIA I accept that these loans are potentially for TERM. I only invest in terms that I am able to accept the full term, anything shorter is a bonus in my view I don't see this level of liquidity (or lack of) being here for ever, I just hope the FSA help lubricate the market somewhat with full authorisation for IFISAs
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 8, 2016 14:32:33 GMT
I've had five defaults since joining FC in August 2014. The borrowers have stopped paying after 7, 6, 5, 4 and 2 payments. For the last few months I've changed strategy and sold all loan parts after two payments and not a default in sight. Until now that is and B credit scored 18908 has just managed one repayment. The third instalment is due Monday so I'm not holding much hope. Almost fraudulent borrowing. This is the reason I have stopped unsecured lending to SME on FC. I had 3 A loans default within a few months of each other, one made 1 payment (cashflow issues), the second made 3 payments and then went into administration and the third was defaulted by FC after making only 4 payments over 7 months. Little chance of significant recovery although to be fair FC are pursuing the loan guarantors for bankruptcy so all may not be lost. I will probably still lend to selected lower LTV secured property loans to provide some platform diversification but I personally feel FCs SME due diligence is just not strong enough for me and it's A+/A loans are too risky for the return offered. If I can suffer a 1% loans default rate within a few months on selected A ranked loans in these relatively benign market conditions I shudder to think what could happen in more challenging market conditions. I'm not saying don't lend on FC but diversify across loans and platforms and choose who you lend to with great care especially where that lending is not secured against assets. Good Luck!
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Funding Circle (FC)
Tax
Apr 6, 2016 12:01:59 GMT
Post by happy on Apr 6, 2016 12:01:59 GMT
So for FC can anyone confirn if tax is liable on interest net of service fee less capital losses or simply on gross interest less capital losses? Thanks.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Assetz Capital (AC)
dashboard
Apr 5, 2016 10:05:54 GMT
Post by happy on Apr 5, 2016 10:05:54 GMT
Always has been the case AFAIK. As QAA does not give you visibility of your underlying investments I assumed this figure only gives the total of MLIA, GBBA & GEIA holdings
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 5, 2016 7:32:09 GMT
As I see it the QAA was always going to be a problem/opportunity for the conspiracy theorists but I feel we need to look at the bigger picture here: * We always knew QAA had sell priority over the rest of the market as (I think) we all understood liquidity was key to this account , nothing being hidden by AC here in my opinion. * QAA sell priority is only an issue due to the large number of loan units available, in a more (normal) balanced scenario we would not be having this discussion. IMO once IFISAs are launched there is every likelyhood we will be looking at an almost empty marketplace again! * If AC agreed to stop QAA ever having priority then the same people complaining now would likely be screaming at chris when QAA liquidity dried up and their swept MLIA funds can't be sold out to go buy units in new loans, so AC always needs flexibility to change priorities (IMHO a throttling mechanism would allow more suble effects to be achived and keep most people happy most of the time) * I think that we have to accept that all platforms have to manage their markets to a greater or lesser extent depending on the prevailing conditions. This is in their interests but also in ours as platforms that do not offer a degree of market stability loose borrower and investor confidence and quickly fail and that is the worst outcome for all of us, bar none! What AC are doing here is no different to RS always finding borrowers just below the current market rate or reserving the right to lock-in the monthly market in a liquidity crisis and it is certainly behaving better than FC with thier manipulation of autobodge and depriving the SM of autobodge money when they are trying to fill new loans (which they won't even officially acknowledge that they do). *AC is creating an inovative platform that offers a range of investment options that are simply not available on a single platform elsewhere but it is evolving and it is very much work in progress. As such there will be times where market dynamics cause behaviours that was not predicted or planned for, When these things happen and affect us we need to be part of the solution with constructive dialogue not distructive ranting about how the evil platform owners are trying to screw us all again. * QAA,, GBBA, GEIA, IFISA, yet to be announced XXXX accounts. These accounts are not being created to keep the institutional investors happy, they are being created to encorage a strong and diverse population of retail investors with differing levels of sophistication and risk appetite who can all co-exist alongside the institutions. Unlike some other platforms AC obviously understands diverity of funds is vital to it's long-term survival. Bottom line for me is: I have leant so much from this forum over the last 12 months and it has been invaluable to my understanding of P2P so I thank all the active contributors but I find it increasingly difficult to keep tuning out the emotion that is so evident on many posts recently. It is hard for the likes of Chris to not be defensive of what they do within their organisations when they are so regularly being accused of doing things to deliberately game the system to the platforms advantage and our disadvantage. AC staff are not sitting on their yachts spending the profits they make from our money, they, and many like them, are working extremely hard trying to build viable and profitable P2P businesses which is what we all want them to achive, isn't it? We are part of the solution through constructive dialogue but we will get nothing here if we drive valuable platform representation off this forum. Enough said I think.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 4, 2016 9:56:55 GMT
If I had a pound for every time somebody from AC has said that I could probably afford to pay off all my suspended loans. Granny, suck and eggs spring to mind. The SM offerings for the loans I referred to must be almost wholly from the underwriting teams. If you have record income and still can't shift them then what will things be like when income returns to normal (incidentally would you like to confirm what percentage of the record income went in the QAA and what percentage was used to buy loans on the SMS?). What would I like to see? How about bridging loans at the same rate as SS, or the choice of SME loans and the rates that TC have to offer. Or how about a loan to a successful expanding business, rather than to bail out a previous business failure. Definitely no restaurants or scrap metal dealers, and nothing secured against aboriginal paintings. Why would in bound deposits fall? We're ramping up spending on bringing new lenders on to the platform, so if successful then this current level of deposits, record or not, will look small. In the past month over £8m of loan units have been traded on the open market. The market may be lagging behind drawdowns a little bit, in terms of timing, but the volumes are there and rising across the board. We're not SS and currently have no ambition to compete with them in their niche. Our property team has taken a good look at their loans and whilst there's a small percentage that we probably would have lent on the majority aren't for us, and our team think that the default rate over the next couple of years will be relatively high with potential for substantial losses. Time will tell - we're either going to be proven right or we're going to look foolish for having missed out on that opportunity. Perhaps that will ride upon how soon and how sharp the next recession will be. And whilst many SS lenders seem to be counting on market liquidity allowing them to exit before term that isn't a viable underwriting strategy for us - we have to look after the loan over its full lifecycle not create opportunity for lenders to bail and pass on excessive risk to other unsuspecting lenders. Even if you take the Duff***d loan which is probably the closest we've come to offering a SS style loan you will have seen the amount of risk mitigation we put in prior to the loan drawing down that you do not see on SS. Where we see that opportunity with an exit strategy we believe is viable then we'll lend but we will not compromise the quality of our credit process. Likewise TC are for the most part targeting loans we aren't interested in. There's more overlap there with them than with SS, but TC have had their own issues with defaults and recoveries that we're aiming to avoid. Our most recent drawdown, Proj**t Blo*****ry, is a successful business that is expanding. If it's about rates then we're likely to be drifting slowly away from you I'm afraid. Our aim is to offer more loans across all rates, including those at the higher end, so perhaps there'll be enough volume for you to be very selective as to which of our loans interests you. However the market, both borrower and lender, will determine the various sweet spots that resonate and therefore where we find a volume of loans that we can fund. I have been in P2P for around a year, done a huge amount of research and and have invested in 8 differnt platforms with a significant total sum now invested. I am struggling to understand why AC is taking so much heat from a number of forum members recently on this thread and a few others. Let me explain my views and then hopefully you can help me learn some more about P2P investing. It seems that most of the criticism of AC recently has been about rates....not as good as MT/SS or arguments of now pricing for liquidity not risk etc. and I don't fully understand why, taken in the wider view of the P2P market, some of you now find AC so uncompetitve. My abridged view of the market risk vs. rates is this, I am focused on asset-backed lending only so no FC SME: In the 4-6% range you have Zopa and RS etc with predominantly retail lending and PFs (if you ignore Z+ with it's mix of unsecured auto-allocated loans) but you also have the likes of secured property backed BTL/Property specialists Landbay and also Wellesley offering 4.25% to upwards of 5%. This I believe to be low risk P2P with proportionally lower returns. I expect the majority of P2P investors have some of their portfolio in these types of platforms. At the higher end of the returns scale there are the likes of MT,SS,TC,ALB etc offering around 12% and including pawn-style lending against assets like cars and jewellery, shipping containers, planes etc but also SME and property development loans, bridge loans etc etc. I have researched most of these other platforms and overall I think I understand why the rates are what they are, the risks are in my view generally higher but, more importantly for me, my ability go judge the risks is much lower due to both the information provided by the platform and the markets they are lending to. I feel more uncomfortable judging risk when if comes to the likes of works of art, exotic cars, shipping containers, planes or complex property development loans. I feel that these platforms are for the seriously experienced and/or less risk averse investors or, perhaps maybe, I have misjudged some of them. So that brings me to AC. GBBA and GEIA at 7% I think competes very well with other low-risk, PF protected, asset-backed easy to manage accounts and with the MLIA I am currently achieving 9.5% average in the MLIA well diversified with everything from 7%BTL loans & renewables to SMEs at 10%+. The QAA is an added bonus that helps get a return on idle money and increase overall return. Generally I feel very comfortable with how AC go about their business and the information provided to investors and on balance feel it offers a fair risk/return compared to the market highs and lows that are out there. I do accept that there are loans on AC, as most platforms, that some investors won't want to invest in. My view on the 12% rates in SS, MT etc is that it cannot be sustainable and/or must come at the cost of higher risk. With the likes of FC drving down borrowing costs for P2P generally (with rock bottom unsecured SME lending and high LT(GD)V development loans and bridge loans are going out at 8% pretty much daily) platforms that try and compete at the higher rates are going to have to take bigger and bigger risks to keep their rate-hungry investors happy. If Landbay can do BTL for under 5% and be growing very very fast then much higher rates than this must surely either be justified by much higher risk or they are simply unsustainable. It seems that BTL at 7% on AC today is seen by some as not very attractive even though older 7%BTL loans on AC have been pretty much fully subscribed since I joined. I understand there a lots of far more experienced investors out there than me and perhaps I am missing something that would aid my understanding and change my future platform choices so I would really would appreciate some experienced investors views on this.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Assetz Capital (AC)
GBBA
Apr 3, 2016 11:14:35 GMT
Post by happy on Apr 3, 2016 11:14:35 GMT
Agreed re 7 days as a possible answer. However clarity that the protection kicks in at that point (if that is the case) would be helpful. I understand the PF to be discretionary therefore I wouldn't expect to see any hard and fast rules on how or when payments will be made. Considering ACs obvious interest in ensuring the GBBA/GEIA accounts perform to their stated return I would expect where there is any real likelyhood of a payment not being made then PF payment would be considered. chris, do you have any further info on PF operation guidelines for GBBA/GEIA you could share with us?
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Assetz Capital (AC)
GBBA
Apr 3, 2016 7:46:09 GMT
Ton ⓉⓞⓃ likes this
Post by happy on Apr 3, 2016 7:46:09 GMT
I hav loan 165 in my GBBA. This should pay interest on the first of the month. For whatever reason the loan didn't pay out yesterday. Now I personally don't have a massive concern. However, GBBA is marketed to have a PF which amongst other things... Protect investors from income delays This would seem to be an income delay... Where is the protection? If you take a look at the repayment tab of any loan you will see that AC provides the borrower up to a 7 days period of grace on loan repayments. I assume this this is in their borrower T&Cs. It seems reasonable therefore that any "protection payments" under the GBBA would only come into effect when loan repayment terms had been breached, so lets see what happens if payment is not received by the 8th April.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 31, 2016 11:09:16 GMT
Good shout actually greenwood2 Maybe a little Z+ investment then, "in the interests of research"
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 31, 2016 10:18:12 GMT
It's my first Z+ loan showing as 'withdrawn' so I expect he (she?) has been down to B&Q already with the money. Maybe you'll get a 25% soon, so don't despair! Personally I would be fairly nervous about being randomly allocated part of a loan to someone who I know nothing about and who is prepared to borrow money at 25% plus fees etc without me having any safeguard or asset security. I never felt willing to trust FC autobid even with A+/A loans so Zopa+ is an absolute no no for me purely on the basis of it's unknown capital risk profile. I think I will stay with Zopa Classic while the interest rate stays around 5% and then wind down.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 31, 2016 10:07:22 GMT
That of course is a very good point. I doubt that there are any VAX's left running - are there ? Surely not ? So they must have found the source code.....or a clever capability to reverse engineer and port.... Thankfully I don't bank with Barclays.....but guess what, ALL the banks have had similar scenarios. So Ive been told. It is of course just unsubstantiated rumour, not claimed as fact. I am not too sure about there not being any VAXs still running. Way back when DEC had officially stopped making PDP-11s for some years, I discovered that they were still being supplied (in quantity) for specialist applications. Most hospital X-ray machines at the time had a PDP-11 at the core. This included new ones being installed. I do not know if this is still the case. I cannot personally vouch for this, but I was told that out nuclear submarine fleet was also a customer. Most VAX code would also run on the DEC Alphas (Remember them? A demonstration how close Windows NT was to VMS that the same machine would run either.) I would expect that there is probably a few of those still running somewhere. Fortunately we have "Year 2000" to thank for all banking organisations legally having to validate every piece of code in their infrastructure for Y2K compliance and this forced a lot of 'reverse engineering' of those little "source code free" boxes in the corner that nobody dared to turn off.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 31, 2016 7:34:29 GMT
Dont hang about though. When (if) #6 repays next week, there will undoubtably be a stampede by the lenders in that loan to reinvest in the new BTL's and earn an extra .5% interest (assuming they arent tempted by #204 & its lower LTV) I thought the attraction of the early BTL's was the juicy slice of cashback that came with them (3%?). Can't see the latest 3 shifting any time soon. As I am in diversification building phase on AC these loans are fine for a small holding in each and as I wasn't on AC to catch any CB on the previous BTLs I don't feel too hard done by buying these CB free. Personally I think the IFISA launch has put a hold on a load of money right now and this will change, even the FC sausage machine hardly filled a single loan over the easter period with 30+ available and I only sold one B loan part at discount! Not seen this behavior before.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 30, 2016 17:30:22 GMT
Hi, did anyone ask for and get anything on loans 247, 248 & 249, Lxxxxxxxx BTL 1-3? I had a small invest instruction on each of them and they are now showing on the live loans list with my invest instruction not fulfilled. I.E. I got nothing! Anyone ever seen this before? Thx Assume you have cash available and order isnt paused? Just went to check on your Paused theory and the loan instructions have been fulfilled. Looks like a delay in the AC machine somewhere. Thx
|
|