happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 25, 2018 11:40:13 GMT
Wouldn't it be sensible to put in some sort of maximum exposure to any one loan setting in the lending options. That way people can set at 1%, 3%, 5%, 20% or whatever they wish. Of course setting this at 1% could potentially mean it takes a long time to get funds lent, but surely this is better than an inexperienced investor suddenly getting the shock that a large chunk of their funds is now in a suspended/defaulted loan? Agree bg. I did ask if this improvement could be added to the auto accounts a year or so ago as I suspect it would be fairly easy to code into the buying process but it was never taken up by AC. As it stands20% may be ok for someone investing say a few thousand or so but it is totally inapproriate if you are investing 5 or 6 figure sums. Even if this limit was not sensitive to someone selling a percentage of their holding it would at least allow lenders to have some control on their initial per-loan investment. With the new balancing procesz wofking this would help this to some degree
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 22, 2018 20:47:30 GMT
This is highly misleading to readers. If you wish to make these statements please can you give precise and current examples. Our loan status and default policy is quite probably the tightest in the industry and well defined on our website. Since you ask: The following loans, made to a single borrower totaling some £4.4M, were suspended ~June 2017. In the intervening 12 months, AC have not started any formal recovery process. #440 I** #439 I** #438 I** #437 I** The recovery process is very much underway with all of these loans. AC is working with the borrower, who has other loans with AC BTW, and other parties to identify the best route to realising the maximum value from the assets of each loan. I for one am very glad of the fact that AC have taken the approach they have, as the cooperation and involvement of the borrower is probably vital to fully understanding the complexities of each individual loan to achieve the best result. Initiating formal proceedings against another party just because you have the right to do so is very often not in the best interest of any of the parties involved as much of the control of the process that AC has is passed to the receivers and typically precipitates a fire-sale of assets with the significant additional receiver costs further reducing the realised value for borrowers. I have every confidence that if the situation changes and AC feel that formal process is the best way forward then they will not hesitate to follow that path as they have done a number of times in the past. However, in the case of your statement, if you mean FORMAL recovery as in forcing bankruptcy on the borrower, receivers appointed etc then I suppose you are correct in that fact, but in that fact alone. To simply put your statement out there and therefore imply that AC have actually done nothing to recover our money is grossly untrue, what is often described nowadays as FAKE NEWS I believe! Enough said.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 21, 2018 9:08:45 GMT
In my experience AC doesn't even declare a default on loans where the borrower hasn't paid for well over 12 months. Can't declare a loss, communication stops and we get nothing form the PF. As for recovery, don't make me laugh, why would they bother since recovery would take them one step closer to dipping into that PF they bang on about but no one has ever got anything from. Yet still the suckers come - just offer them a 1% bonus and they line up. At some point AC will be forced to declare their losses and you watch how fast they freeze those funds in the QAA and 30DAA. This is highly misleading to readers. If you wish to make these statements please can you give precise and current examples. Our loan status and default policy is quite probably the tightest in the industry and well defined on our website. Totally agree, these negative and unsubstantiated statements do not reflect the reality of how AC go about their business. In my many years of experience with this platform their communication to lenders sets the bar in P2P and whilst there are / have been issues with individual loans their overall approach to defaults and recovery is very reassuring. On reviewing this posters activity it seems they have taken to attacking AC on a regular basis after, like many of us and myself included, suffering some large GEIA defaults and, perhaps coupled with not fully understanding how this account could invest your money, they have obviously got a significant amount of their investment tied up in these loans. I think this poster should try to accept that there is an often long process in asset recovery and any PF protection will only come into effect once this has reached it's conclusion. If they cannot accept this is what they signed up for then I can only assume that they did not do their research and understand the marketplace and product they invested their money in. We all understand the frustration in having money tied up in recovery but this is the P2P market we chose to be in so please could you stop trying to single handedly destroy the credability and reputation of one of the best P2P platform in the business.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 14, 2018 14:03:59 GMT
The Rolling Market has just risen to 3% (2pm, 14/6) since an order I had placed there days ago has finally been taken up. A second loan @3.0% has been taken @14.40 It seems to be moving now! (this appears to be happening in real-time w/o there being a corresponding borrowing present queue 'on' the market) Interesting this isn't it. My 3%s have gone and I've got about £250k in front of me before my 3.1% offer matches!!!! So: On 7th Jun there was aroung £9.8m lender offers on the rolling market, market rate then drops to 2.4% with matching as low as around 2%. Now one week later there is only £5.9m of lender offers on the market, market rate is still at 2.4% but matching is up to 3.1%. Where has all that almost £4m gone then? Seems to be affecting rates somewhat. Could it already be time to think again about forced reinvestment of capital at Market Rate RS? Edit 3.1% all gone, now matching @ 3.2%
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 13, 2018 16:48:30 GMT
Question for you good folks.
If you sellout a loan in rolling on a normal RS account and are banned from investing for 14 days, does this same ban apply on your ISA account as well?
Good question, not sure though as don't have an RS IFISA so can't test it for you.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 13, 2018 5:19:02 GMT
just sold out my rolling account, just over £400k. Pushed the going rolling rate up from 2.1 to 2.6 for a little while!! I'm off. A valiant effort but unfortunately it didn't stop market rate dropping again today, 2.4% now
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 12, 2018 16:22:03 GMT
This is what I think they mean here, it is money leaving the system when they don't intend (want) it to leave. To some this might just be considered sematics but I believed all along that this is the real reason for this recent change, here is my reasoning: etc............. I would agree with your reasoning. I do however wonder if this is not just going to backfire on them. I for one am reinvesting less than I would have at 3%plus rates, so effectively nothing. The current trend suggests a 2% level next week sometime, at that point funds will evaporate very quickly I suspect. Trust will have evaporated and they may well create the very scenario they intended to avoid. Well thinking about it some more you might be right.To see the interest rate changes we have seen already suggest a very different market dynamic, how much is down to market rate we cannot tell. But lets assume the 7% who RS say (used to) set their own rate are part of the 20% of the standard 80:20 model distribution. That would give them around 28% of the funds on the market. If the real figure based on 'active' investors with more than a few hundred of quid in their account is nearer 10% or so then we could see 40% or more of the market funds being provided by these wealthy folks. Now I'm sure most of them don't stay wealthy earning 2%............ Pure speculation on the numbers of course but it will be interesting to see if perhaps forced market rate reinvestment was a step too far by RS.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 12, 2018 14:52:23 GMT
www.p2pfinancenews.co.uk/2018/06/11/rolling-market-overhaul-ratesetter/ “At a platform level, we believe that we are reducing the risk of not being able to access your funds when you want them because we are ensuring that money does not leave the system unintentionally,” said RateSetter.Struggling to understand the bit in bold - does anyone know what that means? This is what I think they mean here, it is money leaving the system when they don't intend (want) it to leave. To some this might just be considered sematics but I believed all along that this is the real reason for this recent change, here is my reasoning: Under the old system at the end of your month(ish) contract RS gave you your money back when your loan contract had expired. All expiring loans were put back on the market to be matched to new money. Assuming most investors retured their money to the market at a reasonable rate this would ensure that investor money was back earning interest and that RS could service the daily funding requirements of the rolling market. So market liquidity was a critical ongoing concern for the rolling marketplace. Now as we all know the rolling market consists of loans of a much longer duration, up to 5 years in many, if not more recently in the majority of cases. Two key issues potential arise from these longer dates loans being matched to a shorter dated money supply ( aka maturity transformation), namely variability in the money supply and the variability of the cost of that money. So under the old system if enough lenders either failed to return enough money to the market or returned it at a higher rate than the underlying loans this would cause significant issues for RS potentially causing thd rolling marketplace to collapse in the event of insufficient funds or for RS to end up losing money if rates went too high The cost of maintaining a credit line to underwrite this exposure in itself could itself have become a cost issue for RS as the roling market has grown to become a significant percentage of their loan book. Under the new system each underlying loan is matched to one or more loan contracts that will only terminate when either the loan ends or if that contract is bought out by another lender. So RS have totally eliminated the maturity transformation risk of rolling as there is no longer any maturity transformation happening. They also have a known cost of funding for the duration of the loan contract and one could assume there is enough margin in the rates they are getting on the underlying loanbook for them to absorb any likely interest rate compensation required to maintain the access to funds element of the rolling account. In essence they have created a product similar to the old Zopa Access account albeit a variable rate one where you don't know the rate you will get on any given day. Where RS really win with their new rolling setup however is that they have removed the volatility of the rolling market by eliminating the daily high volume churn of re-matching monthly loans and these reduced volumes coupled with their capturing of rolling capital repayments directly into their market rate mechanism can only impart a moderating and downward pressure on rates over time. For this lower rate trend to reverse we will need to see a wholesale removal of money from the market or a significant uptick in underwriting by RS, personally I am don"t see either of these happening in the short-term. Edit: for the record if I was the RS COO I would have had then change the rolling market years ago, way too risky as it was. But while I can see the reason for changing rolling I cannot agree with a forced market rate on repayments
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 12, 2018 11:00:54 GMT
Like "Happy" have been using rolling to collect 3 and 5 year repayments with an average rate of 3%. Only had about £7k in rolling but took the lot out last week and put it into a FSCS protected one year bond at 1.85% pending a plan D. Atom bank paying a FSCS 2.05% this morning - why would anyone take a rolling rate of 2.4% or am I missing something. I use Assetz QAA to hold most spare cash waiting for a home. Happy with the 4.1% Of course the other effect of my original plan of auto reinvesting into rolling and then taking lumps of cash as needed is that with the new lower rates I would be taking out my old, higher rate loans first and leaving my newer, lower rate loans until last (loans sold in chronological order I believe). So I'm better off taking my repayments straight out to an interest bearing bank account paying say 1.5% and leaving my existing rolling fund at 3.1% until I need it. Switched off reinvestment again! Like I said before, these changes to the rolling market have not made RS a better place for investors and I think the effect of this is already being seen on all markets. I predict there will be just one market at RS in the near future, Rolling!
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 12, 2018 9:59:07 GMT
So having posted my displeasure at this change on page 4 of this thread I stated that I was turning reinvestment off, well I had a rethink:
As I was drawing down 3 and 5 year repayments and acumulating these into rolling to then take out in lump sums as needed I realised if I stopped auto reinvesting into rolling so I could still set my rate with the repayments then every time I made a withdrawal I would have to wait 14 days to invest any repayments into rolling. So I reluctantly decided to just accept market rate on reinvestments and then I would be able to draw from my accumulating rolling fund without additional penalty.
So imagine my disappointment when today's auto reinvestments went in at market rate of 2.5% but the market is matching at or below 2% with over £1m in the queue in front of me. There are over 4000 lender offers currently sitting at market rate right now with virtually no borrowers (about £8k) at 1.8% or lower.
So having managed 3.1% average over the last 12 months or so and never less than 2.9% on rolling I am going to have to accept less than 2% to get a match today or sit waiting. Not good!
I think this is not worth it compared to FSCS accounts available offering similar rates even when holding very short-term cash prior to withdrawal, I think I need a Plan C.
EDIT: Can you believe there is £9m of lender money on the rolling market right now and another £8m+ on 1 and 5 year! Why!!!
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 9, 2018 7:00:18 GMT
Does anyone else think the markets should now be names 5 year, 1 year and 'Who knows'? RS are expecting us to invest for an unknown time. Is that even a sensible idea? It could be argued that the 1 year and 5 year are now effectively redundant. Maybe just the one offering called 'Lucky Dip' would suffice. I think that is where RS are going. One market and one variable rate, very likely to stay around or below 3%. Looking at my Rolling loans the majority are in the 5 year market range so RS are getting a lot of 5 year money pretty cheaply. Compared to my historical 3 and 5 year market rates of over 6% it seems RS have managed to cut their borrowing costs in half over the last year or so. Makes good commercial sense if you can keep enough lenders happy, not this one though, I will keep my steady progress towards the exit.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 7, 2018 6:02:37 GMT
So as of yesterday I have been achieving around 3.1% for my 5 figure Rolling pot. Yesterday the new rules market rate was 3%
24 hours later and market rate is already down to 2.7%, market currently matching at 2.5%, think I know which way it is going tomorrow.
Oh dear, doesn't look like a win for RS investors then! But at least they have simplified the market for us as it was so difficult to understand before
Edit 07:05 make that matching at 2.3% now
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 6, 2018 21:09:20 GMT
This is just my personal experience with the sites I've used. I've tried P2P since about 2014 across I think 6 different sites. Overall I'll probably have lost money, especially compared to inflation. Some of them which promised a lot ended up being bad. No surprises there. Some are outright shocking. Only really two have made me a profit and I don't want to name them since I have no idea where they're going either.
I was diversified and checked on sites before I put money in.
Overall I would say P2P has been a failure for me, and I would have been better off putting the money in a 1% a year bank account.
Sorry but useless post (and thread) unless you provide data. Mos people here have had bad days but have overall been fairly successful. Trashing P2P generically without providing enough input for folks to analyse can be understood as either too simple minded or hiding an agenda. So is that "Promised you a Miracle" by Simple Minds. All about promises unfulfilled I do believe. www.google.co.uk/search?q=promised+you+a+miracle&oq=promised&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l3.8613j0j8&client=tablet-android-asus-rev&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 6, 2018 19:31:19 GMT
So if you invested in a 30day access account and requested a 30day withdrawal, you would expect to get your money at the end of the 30 days? However, youd be ok if Natwest told you it was now a five year term and you wouldnt be guarenteed to get your money out after 30 days anymore so your planned withdrawal wasnt going to happen? That's not a useful example: A - You can get your money out. Press the sellout button. B - RS don't do loans of 30 days so it was never a 30day access account. Before June 6 it was an 'up-to-5 years-access-account'. Now it's still 'up-to-5 years-access-account'. C - The difference is that the money reinvests itself until you want it back. See A So now it looks like a Zopa account... I don't get what everyone's freaking out about. But I prefer to reinvest my repayments from other markets at my own rate. If I hit the sellout button as you suggest I cannot then invest anything in Rolling for 14 days as punishment for withdrawing my cash, unless of course I accept the market rate that they are forcing on me. Personally I think that being like Zopa is in no way a good thing, I was exiting Zopa faster than I was RS, now it looks like it will be more like a dead heat at the finish line. Sorry to disagree but these changes are not making RS a better place to invest.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jun 6, 2018 11:03:28 GMT
Based on what happened to my repayments today then no, they won't be repaid to holding. I had all my repayment settings set to holding and most of my £3k rolling repayment went straight back into rolling at market rate of 3% in the early hours today. The remaining £80 or so didn't get matched as it seems there was more money than loans today. Where did that £80 end up? In holding which is a bit odd I thought!
|
|