happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 30, 2016 16:57:03 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
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 25, 2016 21:27:23 GMT
or is it me? My dashboard doesn't seem to have updated since yesterday morning. usually it moves by a few pennies daily. looking at the account statements, there is the usual welter of micro transactions up to early yesterday morning, then absolutely nothing. or has Chris's solution to diversification reached equilibrium at last? Brian I have not seen any sign of the diversification solution being let out of the cage yet, the only recent activity on my GBBA is some purchases against existing loan repayments.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 19, 2016 10:11:01 GMT
... or could it mean that a greater proportion of loans are being offered first as whole loans? Surely not! It is random allocation isn't it? :-)
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 18, 2016 18:10:44 GMT
Also a quick scan of the number sequences recently shows a significant number of loans this week are whole loan rejects. I noticed about 10 in one day, think it was Wednesday IIRC, so maybe the Institutional investors are getting a bit choosy of late.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 18, 2016 16:05:23 GMT
41 unfilled loans on the the PM at the moment. I cant remember this many since the good old days of variable rates! Is Farting Constantly getting a bit constipated right now?
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 17, 2016 7:21:17 GMT
chris I appreciate that you are working on a solution to make the GBBA portfolios more diversified. However, can you confirm my basic understanding that if there is a 'default with a shortfall' event then different investors in GBBA will see different level of losses? If so, then will the solution you are working on mitigate this problem (by making portfolios more diversified) or eliminate it (by making portfolios similar across all investors)? Thanks If there is a default with a crystalised loss (i.e. not enough security to cover the capital) and the provision fund is fully depleted and the platform doesn't inject more funds into the provision fund then yes the losses would be based upon individual holdings and would not be equal amongst all lenders in the GBBA. The solution I'm working on will trend towards, but never attain, equal portfolios for all investors. There is a time lag due to the processing time of the solution, so after a new investment is made your account can be out of balance for a few hours until the system has traded your "excess" with other lenders so that all lenders have broadly the same holdings. Because the system is a moving target and because the system will be optimised to make as few inter lender trades as possible rather than optimised for perfection, it will never be perfectly balanced amongst all lenders like the QAA is - it will strive to be good enough. The QAA uses a slightly different investment mechanism that allows us to keep everything perfectly balanced without clogging up everyone's statements with millions of trades. I think this sounds great Chris, a few hours or even a day or so would be perfectly acceptable for me.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 16, 2016 20:16:29 GMT
Hi smrutib . Your concern was at the root of my initial question when kicking off this thread as I have some severe lumpiness in my GBBA as well that I am uncomfortable with longer term so was considering whether I would need to sell-out some of my GBBA to try and get the bigger loans reduced. chris promised that there was a back-end automated diversification tool on the way in a matter of weeks but we have seen nothing so far. Chris, were are we on this functionality? Still being tested whilst I work on other things in parallel. As it's affecting lender funds there's no scope for error so it takes quite a while to test, resolve any issues found (such as being too slow), and then testing again. If I had an uninterrupted run at it there's probably less than a day of work left, but that's likely to still take a couple of weeks to resolve especially as I'm dependent on others helping to test. Thanks for the update chris, I appreciate you have many IT pots boiling at the moment, IFISA amongst them.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 16, 2016 20:10:32 GMT
The rule seems to be that bridging loans are rated as A, but if they are refinancing a previous property development loan they're listed as the same rate as the property development loan. Hence A-rated loans at 8%. In the case of this one there's an equity release element, which would be an arguable justification for a rate increase. Additionally the investment report gives the GDV of the original project as £2.4m, and the current valuation as £3.9m. The valuation of the retail element strikes me as rich, but I do hear that London yields are low. I don't know offhand what reasonable values are for London flats. Thanks for the perspective am. Yes I did not feel totally comfortable with this one, felt they were pulling a bit of a fast one personally. I also think that the headline LTV against GDV looks good on most development deals offered recently but if you look at LTV against underlying property/land values (where you can see these easily) these development loans particularly around the London development hotspots would look quite scary in the context of a property downturn and development slump. Certainly avoiding most +12 month London developments ATM.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 16, 2016 19:57:02 GMT
I am relatively new to AC and am not able to grasp how the provision fund will work given the lack of diversification in GBBA. Say there are two investors, one of whom has 20% in Loan X and the other who has 1% in the same loan. I assume this is possible based on when these two investors came onto the GBBA platform. Is it? Now say the worst case happens. Loan X defaults, security sale doesn't cover the capital and provision fund is not able to make up the shortfall. Will the first investor see a bigger loss than the second investor? I obviously don't think it's fair if thats the case but I will wait for the experts to comment before engaging in any rants. Thanks Hi smrutib. Your concern was at the root of my initial question when kicking off this thread as I have some severe lumpiness in my GBBA as well that I am uncomfortable with longer term so was considering whether I would need to sell-out some of my GBBA to try and get the bigger loans reduced. chris promised that there was a back-end automated diversification tool on the way in a matter of weeks but we have seen nothing so far. Chris, were are we on this functionality?
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 16, 2016 17:41:19 GMT
First cashback of 2016: 21294 (but it needs it; £407k A 12 months at only 8% ?!) [Begs the obvious question why, if the original financing was A+ 8%, the downgrade to A on the refinance has had no impact on the rate] I was about to ask a similar question myself. The current state of property loan rates seems to have got as unhinged as the SME loan bands. How can Fudging Constantly have a fixed rate risk banding system when loan offers in different risk bands get offered at the same rate? What is the poing of risk bands I ask. I do understand that bridge loans have typically been at 10% but I am sure that A development loans always ussd to be at 9% minimum (+ CB a lot of the time) . Is this just Flipping Careless just sticking a couple of digits in the air at any investors that cares what they are buying as I'm sure autobodge will happily buy A loans at 8% all day. I think if this carries on I will reconsider my new strategy to keep investing in FC property only for platform diverification, particularly when I now see we have completed development refinance loans that are effectively 12 month bridge loans going out at 8% as well, e.g. 21243, perhaps showing the future rates for FC bridging loans. Seems to me that Fighting Cocks is in a race to the bottom in their bid for world domination, problem is I don't feel this journey is going to be much fun!
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 13, 2016 15:24:07 GMT
Probably my fault. Most things are my fault. We can't have been that naughty otherwise oldgrumpy would have had a good old moan for sure
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 12, 2016 23:03:06 GMT
What's going on here? This is the FC board and I was all excited about a lively discussion about FC, and find it's all about the nuts and bolts of AC. Off you go now! Back to the AC board and please do not intrude on the private grief of the remaining FC lenders, with their risk bands removed. I'm on the naughty step now! Sorry, but chris started it
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 12, 2016 22:49:09 GMT
I wonder if Frightening Comparisons have ever heard the phrase "return OF your capital is far more important than return ON your capital". I cant imagine that aspect of P2P investing featuring in any FC marketing blurb any time soon. I am still hoping one day I will actually see an Asset Purchase loan request on FC where they actually secured the asset being purchased, wouldn't that be a great idea! There has been at least one genuine Asset Finance loan on FC. But their intention to diversify into that market seems to have drained away into the sands of time. Damn I missed them....probably would have thought it was a Technical Error anyway and ignored it!
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 12, 2016 22:31:39 GMT
I wonder if Frightening Comparisons have ever heard the phrase "return OF your capital is far more important than return ON your capital". I cant imagine that aspect of P2P investing featuring in any FC marketing blurb any time soon.
I am still hoping one day I will actually see an Asset Purchase loan request on FC where they actually secured the asset being purchased, wouldn't that be a great idea!
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Mar 12, 2016 22:14:43 GMT
Heh. There's no scheme in place at the moment but the board has just approved a marketing team project to devise one for the board to approve down the road. Probably another month or two and something will be in place. How about I do something instead - what one feature would lenders like me to prioritise to make the platform better for them? It would have to be something implementable within a reasonable time frame (i.e. less than 1 man week); it would have to have little to no on going cost (so no large banking fees or anything like that); and it should not require board level approval (no changes to our terms and conditions, etc.). I know there are a handful of requested features that are still on our to do lists around improving MLIA functions, and those are on my to do list to be completed within the next two months, but I'll get one member of our team to drop everything either next week or the week after to implement a user nominated feature. Don't mind how you decide which feature but SteveT I am putting you in change of choosing and your final decision, subject to my approval that it meets the above criteria, is what will stand. EASY: 1.Stop prolonged loan suspensions - Destroys liquidity & investor confidence, you have the most sophisticated trading system known to mankind but at the first sign of trouble immediately prevent investors from using it.
& 2. speed up decision making/implementation - I know of very few organisation that take so long over everything that they do, from loan sourcing/drawdowns, recovery, voting all aspects are mired in delays - I suspect the over cautious compliance based approach shoulders much of the blame but to be a winner in the P2P marketplace over the next few years will require innovation, decisive & competent platform procedures.
chris , SteveT, another improvement suggestion - on loan suspensions perhaps you could have another status of 'trading paused' for these less severe and short-lived events that we see quite often. It would be a lot less scary for new and experienced investors than ''trading suspended'. This could then be reserved for situations that involve the loan being materially distressed in some way.
|
|