|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 19, 2017 19:25:13 GMT
Results from this month's Fund Manager survey:
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 18, 2017 19:40:51 GMT
After recent events it would be a strange coincidence that one of the pipeline loans has stalled due to DD, and another is being surveyed again...
MT shaking down loans a bit more maybe, maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 17, 2017 23:21:25 GMT
Good that Aegon trust FC and it's processes enough to invest their money.
Loans will fill even quicker though now.
|
|
|
Funding Circle (FC)
FC vs Zopa
Aug 16, 2017 11:07:02 GMT
Post by beeje13 on Aug 16, 2017 11:07:02 GMT
Thanks, I'm not interested in spending hours on DD, so if autobid can't deliver 6.9%ish I'll stick with z or maybe look at AssetzCapital. Ta for your time. Definitely look at Assetz capital. I think they have higher standards than FC when it comes to picking borrowers. And the loans are secured there whereas on FC they are not. It's good to hear you're getting good results with Zopa+, some users on here have had very low or even negative returns.
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 15, 2017 9:57:54 GMT
I once came across my username being taken somewhere, so I tried 'therealbeeje13' and that worked.
|
|
|
RateSetter (RS)
5 year rates!
Aug 13, 2017 11:28:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by beeje13 on Aug 13, 2017 11:28:37 GMT
Wishful thinking or could we see tastier rates later this month? Well this is really a crystal ball question, and yours is a good as mine or anyone elses! I would not want to be lending money unsecured for 5 years regardless of rates. I do not think Ratesetter will be around in 5 years, I expect a number of platforms to fail (no one is making money), and anything much over 18 months feels risky to me. No crystal ball, just reading the runes. A few platforms are making money. A few more would be were they not reinvesting for growth. If you are using FCA certified platforms, you could argue platform failure isn't a huge problen due to wind-up processes being in place and your lending is directly with the borrower anyway. Obviously it's not ideal, and Ratesetter is not FCA certified but it is trying to be. Capital coverage of the Ratesetter provision fund is over 300% of expected losses last time I looked.
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 12, 2017 11:44:05 GMT
Hmmm, I was going to argue long-term performance was average, but it has beat ftse 100 and ftse all-share over 10 years. That is a surprise to me.
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 12, 2017 7:22:58 GMT
Just checked Troy Trojan and indeed it more or less kept it's value 2007-09 (although the sector average did not). The problem is you would need to know when a crash is coming, and if you got the call too early you miss out on gains anyway. do you have a graph of the fund's performance those years? www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F0GBR06OFH&tab=13Just set the dates as you like. I did it for 1st January 07 to August 09. Maximum loss is around 10%, compared to sector average of 30%. By the end of the period it's 5% up.
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 11, 2017 19:27:18 GMT
Income? with a yield of 0.36%! Are you thinking of the related Equity income fund? (yielding 3.71%). An interesting tool on Morningstar: It analyses the underlying holding's value metrics. For example with the Troy Trojan income fund:
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 11, 2017 16:41:32 GMT
Just checked Troy Trojan and indeed it more or less kept it's value 2007-09 (although the sector average did not).
The problem is you would need to know when a crash is coming, and if you got the call too early you miss out on gains anyway.
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 10, 2017 14:28:20 GMT
Those Targeted/Guaranteed/Absolute return funds seem to be some of the worst performing funds going.
I have one (as a token/trial investment for curiosity): JPM Global Macro Opportunities and it's performance is bizarre.
Another embarrassing holding: I have a UK tracker that charges 1.5%, held in an older Scottish Friendly ISA. The UK active fund also charges the same. I am very much considering a transfer out!
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 9, 2017 18:20:24 GMT
Ah I get you now, makes sense.
All an active fund that charges 0.6%, compared to a passive fund that charges 0.1%, has to do is add 0.5% value in a year.
Also when active funds are compared against trackers, you usually have the best performing (usually cheapest) tracker stacked up against vs the average performance of all active funds, which includes all the 1.5% charging closet trackers, default pension/life funds, and absolute jokers like Manek Growth.
I may very well end up in 40 years time realising I have been no better off by using actives, but where's the fun in that!
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 8, 2017 19:36:10 GMT
Dan, the market isn't just made by Funds though: Traders, Institutions, Governments etc...
I'm not sure that active funds are the dominant factor in setting market prices?
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 8, 2017 19:15:13 GMT
It will be interesting to see how markets cope with the reduction of QE and interest rate rises.
Did you know that the Bank Of Japan is the biggest shareholder in dozens of Japanese companies, due to their QE programme buying ETFs!
|
|
|
Post by beeje13 on Aug 8, 2017 18:28:09 GMT
Passive funds: guaranteed to underperform the index (average), they buy up everything, including the poor stocks.
Autobid (e.g. on Funding Circle): Buys up all the loan parts, including the ones that send alarm bells ringing when you do DD on them.
Yes passives outperform the majority of actively managed funds, in the USA. In the UK it's 50%, In Europe 70% of actives outperform. Source: The Telegraph and Morningstar.
I am not saying trackers are worse by any means, there's a place for both.
|
|