|
Post by jackpease on Aug 30, 2018 12:04:42 GMT
Great tip - wow I can sell 88% (by value) - happy with that - was worried that 84 out of 163 mean't 50% were unsellable! Jack P Yes but if you take a guess as to how much of what you can't sell will end up being lost (say 40%) then that's around 5% of your total investment that you will lose. If you knock that £340 ish off your total interest whats it do to your total return percentages? What has really annoyed me about FC (and is why I have now withdrawn the 7 figure sum I had invested, save unsellables) is the increasing lack of transparency. They make people jump through hoops to get this info and the removal of the complete loan book data was the final straw for me. Aren't they all annoying? I'm not sure how transparent one can be if borrowers are running rings round them (as they inevitably will in such high risk loans). Imposing transparency on these platforms also imposes costs and i'm not sure transparency really alters the bottom line ie there will be losses. All mature platforms have defaults and issues and annoyances its just that FC is still working for me and £340 off my profits over the years is still a good result, and as FC has not gone the way of Wonga then it could be worse. Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Aug 30, 2018 11:05:45 GMT
This made me relook at my 'measures' - of about £7k invested half are flagged ("163 loans you are currently exposed to. 84 are downgraded") I've been tracking profits (very happy with my c%6 since the Big Change), defaults (gradually going down) but not tracked the downgraded number. I'd love to know whether this has been stable over time (in percentage times). I'm happy with Funding Circle btw, does what it says on the tin for me! J The best thing to do is click sell (you don't actually have to sell anything) and on the right it will say "Total amount of your active loan parts available for sale". That will quickly tell you what amount of your total loans is late or downgraded (Portfolio total - amount available for sale). I think if more people did this they would quickly realise that the picture is much worse than they thought. Great tip - wow I can sell 88% (by value) - happy with that - was worried that 84 out of 163 mean't 50% were unsellable! Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Aug 30, 2018 9:39:29 GMT
Out of interest, can you tell me what percentage of you loan book is currently sellable? This made me relook at my 'measures' - of about £7k invested half are flagged ("163 loans you are currently exposed to. 84 are downgraded") I've been tracking profits (very happy with my c%6 since the Big Change), defaults (gradually going down) but not tracked the downgraded number. I'd love to know whether this has been stable over time (in percentage times). I'm happy with Funding Circle btw, does what it says on the tin for me! J
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jul 29, 2018 18:14:23 GMT
jackpease , i am having difficulty following your argument. why would those of us who have identified the wild west want to go back into it ?!?! speaking for myself, ive been there, done that, got the postcard. I’ve no desire to be exposed to that’s shoddy behaviour ever again and it is incomprehensible to me why anyone would want continuation of the status-quo which is so evidently broken. as a p2p lender you are supposed to be a “sophisticated investor”. so you should already be in a position where you recognise the systemic risks to lenders if the present situation is permitted to continue. those of us who have been involved in the markets can certainly see how the present situation is a disaster waiting to happen, not if but when ! as a “sophisticated investor”you should not be chasing yields. in the bond markets, returns over 12% (your random number) would be known as “junk bonds” (or non-IG bonds to be politically correct). those bonds yield over 12% in recognition of the stupid outsized risks you are taking rather than the generosity of the issuer ! the same goes for the equities markets where if you were chasing 12% growth on an annualised basis, you would most likely be taking stupid risks unless you were one of those very rare breed of talented stock pickers. the trouble with p2p is as the fca have spelled out in their document, it has attracted a great deal of “less than sophisticated” yield chasers. and also, even for the “sophisticated”, as the fca spells out, there are a great number of conduct risks and systemic risks that need addressing. the fca have effectively said that no matter who you are, the status-quo with all its conduct risks and systemic risks has become unsustainable. the fca have finally recognised this, and so should all the apologists (as ozboy puts it) >why would they go back into it? Well take Lendy - 12% - feeding frenzy - goes wrong - angry frenzy - up pops moneything - feeding frenzy - goes wrong - people getting angry .... and round and round each time a new platform pops up and offers 12%, which gets snapped up especially with warm words on this board from platform reps who have nothing but good news to dispense. >less than sophisticated investor.... Well there's loads of people who saw the due diligence playing out in real time on some Lendy loans - saw some gaping holes being pointed out on this forum - and invested anyway because it was 12%.... I don't think its just 'unsophisticated' investors, there's plenty on this board who were caught out and now angry. >>the fca have finally recognised this, and so should all the apologists..... I guess I am being an apologist for saying that I am comfortable with high risk high return, I am less comfortable if controls are imposed that prevent high risk high return, not quite sure why i should be required to want high risk high return to be regulated out of existence. Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jul 29, 2018 6:06:59 GMT
Unfortunately bigfoot12 yours is exactly the sort of attitude that is aiding and abetting the less than honest Platforms and allowing them to continue flourishing. Fortunately however most on here want the industry cleaned up, for the benefit of all. [ EDIT / PS: As has been said on here before, the dodgy Platforms love contributions like yours bigfoot12. ] "Most on here" will indeed become the apparent prevalent view if those who don't agree are characterised in this way. So in this new utopia with 'regulated p2p medium returns ' there will be an opening for new platforms offering 'wildwest p2p >12% returns'. I suspect most - including those who are angry - will start over with the wildwest option - and get angry all over again when it goes wrong. Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jul 26, 2018 6:52:41 GMT
On a loan this size the majority of the the funding will have come from BH (big hitters / professional investors) who will take a less emotional / more pragmatic view of the situation.
I cannot quite buy this. Is a less emotional/more pragmatic response to trust what the platform says without doing your own DD? As more and more loans default (Lendy and all other mature platforms) what seems to happen is that this forum clogs up with angry investors. Even ex-darling Moneything now has angry investors. Some people mightconsider reading this forum as due diligence by treating this forum as a bellweather for whether a loan/platform is safe - and i'm not sure this board is any longer a fair representation of reality. Reading this board and you may come across the impression that defaults are due to incompetence or deliberate fraud - and that subsequent silence after a default means a platform is doing SFA. I think this vote is an important reminder that this board no longer represents a fair snapshot of what the majority of investors are thinking - the danger with that is that at best forum users may miss out on good investments - at worst the genuine shockers could get lost amidst the blanket anger. Eg when the Swiss Chalet came up it stood out as being very smelly indeed. I'm not sure such a loan would stick out any more amidst the loud background noise. Also new, younger platforms shine out as being apparently safe merely because the inevitable defaults (and hence anger) have yet to materialise. jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jul 18, 2018 7:30:20 GMT
For my part my defence of the 'baddies' is not because i approve of what is happening but because I'm not sure what could or should be done about it. More regulation/scrutiny/rules whatever will just bring it into the mainstream and it'll cease to be alternative finance.
I can buy goods either in shops (more expensive, with regulation, protection and money back guarantees) or a boot sale (cheap and absolutely no comeback). If i buy from a boot sale then I do so with my eyes open. If i buy a (say) vacuum cleaner from a boot sale for a fiver, get it home and it doesn't work I am really cross. But did the seller intend to defraud me? Were they just shifting a job lot and had no idea? Do i turn my anger onto the boot sale operator or do i just destress and say 'that's the risk with boot sales, if you regulate them then they cease to be boot sales'
Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jul 16, 2018 16:05:16 GMT
I think if any call is made on the public purse for compensation would be unwise. An MP is motivated by public opinion and surely they would see massive risks in any suggestion of help (directly or indirectly) for 'rich' (in relative terms) people who seek better returns on alternative markets. Expecting increased regulation without some sort of levy to pay for that would be unrealistic and p2p participants may not wish to pay a levy. Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jun 26, 2018 6:33:32 GMT
Poison chalice for whoever does do it, they'll need a thick skin - they'll have their motives endlessly questioned even before they take part in a process that will leave most investors disappointed/angry Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jun 21, 2018 6:33:59 GMT
>>>If people decide to withdrawal at once and cannot it will affect confidence. I think that is a when not an if! But as we are all savvy investors we all know that at some point in the cycle there will be a run, and of course as savvy investors we won't turn on Assetz and blame them will we??? Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jun 4, 2018 14:30:46 GMT
I don't have much invested via my ltd company at the moment but a limiting factor could be your accountant's appetite for tolerating the vagaries of p2p lending and whether you can be bothered with the additional hassle/risk of prompting a tax inquiry which'd lead to all sorts of extra paperwork/accountant's time. For me losses less than £100 or so would be my threshold. Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jun 1, 2018 6:14:36 GMT
I'm astounded that we keep getting doom and gloom threads like this and yet Lendy remain silent allowing speculation to escalate. What is there to say? An update that there is no update? Until something happens it is not certain, updates on things that don't end up happening inflame more than no updates. Even if there was progress it'd be hard/foolhardy for Lendy to give blow-by-blow updates. Funding Circle led the way on this and there is an argument to say that pulling back entirely leads the platform to be mildly disliked but engaging can simply fan the fire. There's plenty to hate FC about but as the forum user stats bear out, most don't even bother to vent their rage as it is even more pointless than kicking off against Lendy (or any other platform with defaults, which is most of them). Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on May 31, 2018 10:57:31 GMT
Ahhh in happier days they sent out some lovely cake from a baker that we were all funding! Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on May 31, 2018 10:13:39 GMT
>>> when a platform starts threatening legal action against forum staff for "damaging their business". Okay which platform(s)? You are completely protected from libel because you are dealing not just with a fact, but also a fact that you can prove (the complaint). Please post! Jack P
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on May 30, 2018 7:59:29 GMT
Is there a specific example of a legal threat which makes this change necessary? As a working journalist I have to know how libel works and what is always underestimated is that touchy people can fire off 'warning letters' whether or not there is any justification - and those warning letters must be dealt with. The bar we have to work to (unless supported by an in house lawyer - yeh right!) is not just to avoid an actual libel, but avoiding annoying people enough to claim you are libelling them. So calling into question the motives of platforms/platform reps/receivers/admins etc etc is extremely dodgy territory and it is happening more and more often on this board. However i'm not sure any sort of charging model/ltd liability incorporation is going to change that. I've said before that posting under my real name is quite cathartic in not saying anything rude, if i annoy you, you can find me! I don't know what the answer is as I think the forum has become quite populist in that compared to early days, there's loud voices doing a lot of mudslinging and even with struggling mods there's less and less fact and more and more populist ranting. I never felt nervous about posting in the early days - now there are quite a few threads where it think the view is so entrenched you'd be a brave soul to post. I suspect it is inevitable that mods will get fed up with the onslaught (payment model or no payment model) and that we'll end up un-modded, in which case the only way i may feel confident to contribute would be the ability to like/dislike posts so that we could have some idea whether those that shout loudest really do represent the view of the people. Jack P .
|
|