|
Post by kadhim on Jan 24, 2017 11:31:16 GMT
kadhim , I think when SS said the Bond allows investors to indirectly participate in the peer-to-peer marketplace without any active management I think that they meant management by the customer.
The proposed bond will definitely not be a passively managed fund in the normal sense: it will be actively managed by SS and thus carries the associated cost and, presumably, a lower risk. Thus it naturally has a lower return.
The proposed bond is an actively managed fund, relieving the investor of the trouble, and is thus more expensive than the traditional SS P2P investment where the customer manages the investment and carries the extra risk associated with being a non professional investor. I'm not sure the risk in the bond is lower. After all it's just a loan to the company. Here's how it seems to me. Anyone funding loans directly is exposed to: a) the risk a loan will go bad; b) the risk that the platform will go bust. In an ideal world, the risk of b) would be zero/minimal because the platform would have a backup servicer in place. Anyone lending to the platform so that it can invest in loans would seem to have the following things to consider: a) loans might go bad; b) you don't know what loans you're exposed to; c) the platform might go bust. In this case, the 'going bust' risk is not zero/minimal because you have no security over the company and no direct recourse to the underlying loans.
|
|
|
Lendy (L) in Administration
Mini bond
Jan 23, 2017 17:12:59 GMT
gb007 likes this
Post by kadhim on Jan 23, 2017 17:12:59 GMT
And per the FT article "Saving Stream is a “peer-to-peer” lending startup that provides “short-term bridging loans, secured against UK property” and is fully authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority.". Oh, since when? Or does 'fully' now include 'interim'? Apologies, that was an mistake on my part. Just to avoid any doubt, Saving Stream didn't make any claim to me that they were fully authorised. I've corrected the post now.
|
|