jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
General P2x Discussion
Lendable
Jul 19, 2019 5:30:35 GMT
Post by jjc on Jul 19, 2019 5:30:35 GMT
Had a quick look at the team the other day mary , young guys & gals but looked sensible & got the feeling they might have a reasonably well-oiled loan application (& maybe management) op with borrowers up & running. Have good TrustPilot reviews. Not signed up, but interested in hearing what the rates to lenders are & how much they've lent to date / are targeting in future. This is a competitive market, strong GS & co backing will help, but won't be easy to make money & scaling here will be critical. They seem to have taken £700m in funding lines over last month or so, so would guess they're lending say £300m pa atm. Planning to launch a Luxembourg based fund later this summer. Imagine they'll be looking to avoid dealing with large numbers of lenders, so might have a high min clip (250-500k+?) & are perhaps not even looking to turn those taps on given they're now wading in cash?
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Feb 21, 2019 0:50:09 GMT
Some reasonable points sl75, but also perhaps a few questionable assumptions. First, who says underwriters are suffering funding shortages? Selling loans at a discount can be for any number of reasons. Ditto on over-committing. I’d expect (if anything) they are being more careful now wrt their exposure in an uncertain political climate.* Second, you are missing that over £15m has come onto the platform since 17th Jan (from investors that had signed up in 2018 or earlier) under the cash back promo. Given that the QAA+30D counter has remained largely flat, that means the new money has gone into PSA/GBBA/MLA accounts, showing healthy demand from lenders. Many a p2p platform would like to be bringing in half a million a day in new cash from existing lenders. (Visible) cash (on the platform) is tight atm, but as you rightly say AC have a number of levers they can pull, including slowing down origination. So far this year we’ve had a healthy rate of deal flow, with ~£23m drawn to date. Maybe that will slow, or perhaps a large repayment will move the dial back in & allow more releases? Wrt the current crop of deals, I’ve looked at most & am reassured by what is (imv) a string of quality loans of much lower risk profile than you usually see on p2p. I’m not offended by the fact that I can pick some of these up at a discount. * a view strongly backed by own data I have as a member of the underwriting panel. There’s much more money that could be brought on.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Feb 14, 2019 6:32:59 GMT
mary , a few comments on your points, if they help: 1. Looking at my suspended loans on QAA (which will be the same as everyone else’s) they include some loans suspended for voting, some I’m not at all concerned about & others that are about to be extended (after which trading will resume). There are ofcourse some troubled loans there too (as these accounts hold everything in the loan book), but on many of these the QAA/30D is holding marginal sums. Deduct the loans I’ve mentioned, adjust for at least 5 cases of multiple loans connected to the same borrower & you’re left with about 20 loans, from a total of 475 in AC’s live loan book (& 320 more in the Repaid loans tab). Many are relative tiddlers. Others have had most of their capital already paid back. If we look around the world of p2p I think you’ll find much worse. Wrt only hitting the withdraw button, you also must have had the sweep function turned on. You can turn this off by choosing the “Do not invest idle cash” option in QAA on your dashboard. 2. PF cover at 30/9/18 on expected losses for the QAA/30D was 3.22. In addition to the £2m cover for the 30D there was £1.1m for the QAA (so total £3.1m across these). That was an increase of £1.1m on the cover reported 5 months earlier at 30/4, assuming a similar rate of increase since Sep (it might be higher) we’re probably at about £4m now. All the other packaged accounts have their own PF cover, which at e/Sep was higher still for GBBA2 & PSA (3.3 – 3.8). Total cover across the packaged accounts was £4.8m at 30/9 & I’d estimate £6.5m now. The cover actually increased significantly in the 5M to 30/9 & I suspect has continued to since. This is good news for those awaiting a pay-out (& possibly a reason why it’s happening). This PF cover is, naturally, aside from any security, backed by (tmk, I’ve used 15 platforms over the last 5Y) arguably the best recoveries team in the P2P business. 3. Not sure where you got your 0.5% number. copacetic ’s link has the right one for the 30D, from which you can hop to the relevant PFs on the other accounts clicking on Invest top left, choosing the account & then clicking on Read More under “How the account works”. As to the “after just 24 hours”, I have bad news. AC will diversify you across all loans in about a second (or as quick as you can look), that’s just how the QAA works. It will (in normal market conditions) allow you to exit just as quickly. I have lots of sympathy for those caught out by the old diversification algo. They are right to feel aggrieved. But PF cover going north & expected losses south ought to be reassuring, & one day (soon?) the unbelievable will happen & the title of this thread will come true.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Dec 21, 2018 17:06:15 GMT
who is the actual borrower? It would certainly be nice to know whether the borrower has any other loans with FS.These are valid points mentioned numerous times to FS. In this case perhaps particularly concerning given the (seemingly) special efforts made to conceal the borrower's identity - see the specific measurements of the stone not being disclosed & (for confidentiality reasons) the photo not being of the actual stone. As a layman I'm struggling to understand why these details were not disclosed. FS issue their loans to anonymous borrowers as normal procedure, what benefit is there to concealing this info (it's generally easier/easy to identify a borrower on a property loan)? Is it possible FS themselves received the redacted valuation from the valuer (& don't know the measurements)? If so, doesn't this point to possibly less wholesome behaviour on the part of the borrower (&/or valuer)? eg the former wanting to get rid (of possibly many more stones on the market) & the latter helping out? Maybe even over a course of months/years over a wide number of stones... fundingsecure a simple explanation should be possible? arby, thanks but it's not just the (likely zero cost) renewals (where FS get their fee upfront in any case). The issue is the (possibly very large) spread they're earning on the loan whilst it gets serviced. This spread can be so high that ultimately it entices (if not pushes) the borrower into default. FS have got their rich pickings already, lenders in the final tranche take a big hit. Not a healthy business model (for FS or the P2P sector).
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Dec 21, 2018 16:36:13 GMT
We will never know. Seems like the borrower walked of laughing.Possibly. But maybe not. What we're missing here is the rate the borrower was paying for the loan. I've gone thru the loan's history (started back in Jul'15 as a 45k 12% loan, with a further 15k added at 14% a month later until both loans were eventually consolidated in Apr'17 at 13%) & the borrower has paid lenders have received £20,474 in interest over approximately 1247 days. Which amounts to 10%. But the borrower will presumably have been paying much more than the lender rate (with FS pocketing the difference, in addition to any fees earned for bringing the loan on). If the borrower's rate was actually 25%, he/she actually paid £40,438 over the 984 days during which interest was paid (I am assuming no interest was ever paid since 2/4/18). Which means FS made a profit of c. £20k (£19,964 to be exact, & ignoring any fees) vs a lender loss of c.£50k for those unlucky to be in the last loan. If the borrower's rate was actually 30%, he/she actually paid £48,526 over the 984 days during which interest was paid. Which means FS made a profit of c. £28k (£28,052 to be exact, & ignoring any fees) vs a lender loss of c.£50k for those unlucky to be in the last loan. Now I don't mind FS making a profit (profitability is one of the platform risk boxes I look to tick, & on this count FS have been much more successful than other P2P platforms), but on loans like this that have gone so badly awry (a sales price of under 12% the valuation, jeez) surely there is a case for FS to refund any profit they've made on the interest rate spread, or at the very least declare what that profit (or the borrower's rate of interest) actually amounted to.Failing that, the door is open for platforms to charge (unbeknownst to lenders) punitive rates of interest to borrowers that can realistically never be serviced, leading to high default rates (& losses) for lenders, whilst the platform takes rich pickings. "Fairness" arguments aside, this would not bode well for the P2P sector, & is arguably an important blind spot the regulator has to date not fully appreciated. Naturally, I have no issues with FS taking reasonable upfront fees for bringing a new loan on (there are costs associated with this service). But charging potentially very high rates of interest (without telling lenders when this is happening) is to me a big no-no that ought to be addressed. tagging fundingsecure (& mrclondon if of interest)
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Dec 3, 2018 21:02:05 GMT
Original model was 6% (interest) fee, 2% initial, 2% exit, with default fees on top. Not all loans charge this level but still decent margin.
That's how I remember it. On top of that there's the monthly interest LY save on listed loans, which on the close to £5m currently there in itself probably pays for a couple of (full year) salaries.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Dec 3, 2018 19:49:57 GMT
Ganging up on an individual poster because you dislike the content
No ganging up (intended, or I think done) Mr_N. I simply pointed out why I thought your initiative might be our business, & asked some questions (explaining why they were asked). You have not answered them (as is perfectly within your rights), but the fact you have tried to dodge them with irrelevant reasoning does perhaps make your position appear suspect. You are not the first or last to take your case to the Ombudsman, that is your right & I wish you the best with it. But, if the evidence & reasoning you have supplied here is anything to go by, it may be you will find less satisfaction than you were hoping for. Just by way of assistance if it helps, in addition to LY’s substantial cash reserves already noted, your belief that LY only make 1% on their loans is incorrect. LY take fees (iirc) on bringing a new loan on, a likely large spread on the borrower’s rate & exit fees (not sure if they take monitoring fees too). Would guess they add up to 10% or more, hence their cash reserves & historic (they might call it “universal”, spin aside it was certainly a less than common case in the world of p2p) profitability.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Dec 3, 2018 18:22:46 GMT
I'm not willing to provide any information which can enable Lendy to identify individual investors, whether or not others choose to prejudice their situation is up to them.
There might be a fair (general) point you’re making there Mr_N , but 4 of the 5 (& both the 2 follow-on) questions I posed would not (afaics) risk your cover being blown. Reposted below for convenience. On a related note, are you expecting your cover not to be blown when the story is shared with BBC Watchdog? If the story is a sad unfortunate one of an innocent cash-strapped Ordinary Joe seeing an ad on facebook & investing without checking things out more closely, I’d have thought disclosing your identity would be in your best interests (& Watchdog’s preferred take on the story)? But maybe the “I've had £17k in it” you mention here suggests you are not such an Ordinary Joe (or love taking risks)? p2pindependentforum.com/post/300528/thread1. how much you have invested in LY/P2P & the (rough) % of your investable assets these sums represent
2. how you got to hear about LY & P2P
3. what checks/advice you got on investing in LY/P2P before taking the plunge. Did you or any of these people (whether friends, professionals, advisors etc) have any prior experience in p2p (or lending to unlisted cos)?
4. Which other platforms did you consider/discard/invest in?
As you may know the issue of how P2P is marketed is a hot topic of discussion atm. Interested to hear your views on this, & whether your particular concerns on LY are driven more by the size of the loss you are expecting to take, or the lost income having your funds tied up in non-performing loans is causing you.
www.p2pfinancenews.co.uk/2018/10/29/p2p-sector-data-investor-restrictions/
Feel free to phrase your answer to q1 (low/mid/high 6/7 fig) as you so wish to avoid any problems. I doubt you’d be that easy to identify. On the 2015 point, a minimum of research (2 secs) would show that many of those you’re talking to have been around for much longer than that. And might question why (when many from well before then were questioning how long this game of pass the parcel / musical chairs could last on a portfolio made up of such obviously large & speculative loans) you didn’t get out (or at least reduce your stake) earlier. There have been very large red flashing lights for at least a couple of years as I recall.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Dec 3, 2018 16:10:34 GMT
mind your own business
Well, seeing as he’s put it so eloquently, I’m going to go to the trouble of explaining to Mr_N why those questions might not be my, but the business of all of us here. At a guess I’d say there’s at least a 9 fig sum (£100m+ it’s not loose change) invested by forumites across the various p2p platforms. The vast majority I’d wager have taken losses on their investments to one extent or another (some heavily), & there will be many of us with their money tied up in non-performing & otherwise troubled loans (LY/Coll/FS/MT/AC/TC just some examples). And many of us, with greater or lesser reason, will feel that the platform in question on loan X or Y will have been partly or greatly to blame for the reasons why we have our money tied up, or already lost it, on those loans. I doubt there’s anyone here who hasn’t sympathised with other investors when they’ve made losses (on at least some of the loans). Whilst people will have different opinions on whether forumite A or B has made good investment decisions, done the necessary research into a loan before investing, complains about the platform too much or otoh is probably being fairly reasonable etc etc I personally think that the vast majority of members here are now (if they weren’t before) keenly aware that investing in p2p is high-risk, these are not liquid loans, & when they go into recovery we cannot expect to get our money back in short order. These are points which widely respected people like mrclondon (& many more) have been warning us all about for many years. And yet we seem to have here a case of someone rocking up out of nowhere, canvassing to pull the roof down on a platform & go on nationwide TV (with who knows what knock-on effects not only on fellow LY investors but other P2P platforms too) without so much as the briefest of explanations as to how he got into this muddle & why we should support him. That hasn’t stopped him making questionable allegations (eg that, it seems, he thought LY was a 12% instant access savings account) or show a troubling misunderstanding on some concepts (how administration works, LY’s loan structure & fees, that valuations can’t always be relied on, that risk warnings are there for a reason, that LY at last filed accounts had £5.5m in cash aside from the PF etc etc) but heck since when has freedom of speech meant what you say doesn’t not have to be nonsense. I will ignore the somewhat condescending “boys & girls” from someone that seems to display a measure of ignorance on some fairly basic points, & simply point out that if Mr N is trying to get our support he’s going about it in a strange way. The questions posed were simply to get an understanding into how he got to the position of asking us to pull the roof down to protect his investments. As to his net investable assets this would not, in the ordinary state of affairs, be of the slightest interest to me – & was mentioned solely on the basis that it’s a salient point (from the FCA’s own perspective) on how to best regulate P2P. So, whilst inviting him once again (& politely) to answer the questions, I’d reiterate that I think it is very much our business to understand why supporting him on his mission to (as he sees it) better protect his money, we might be concerned that it doesn’t lead to other investors losing their money. edit: small disclosure: I have very modest sums invested on LY. This is not about my money, it's about ours.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Dec 2, 2018 19:37:32 GMT
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Dec 2, 2018 19:22:53 GMT
A bit late to this thread & possibly missed things but Mr_N , to understand things better can you advise 1. how much you have invested in LY/P2P & the (rough) % of your investable assets these sums represent 2. how you got to hear about LY & P2P 3. what checks/advice you got on investing in LY/P2P before taking the plunge. Did you or any of these people (whether friends, professionals, advisors etc) have any prior experience in p2p (or lending to unlisted cos)? 4. Which other platforms did you consider/discard/invest in? As you may know the issue of how P2P is marketed is a hot topic of discussion atm. Interested to hear your views on this, & whether your particular concerns on LY are driven more by the size of the loss you are expecting to take, or the lost income having your funds tied up in non-performing loans is causing you. www.p2pfinancenews.co.uk/2018/10/29/p2p-sector-data-investor-restrictions/
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 29, 2018 9:18:44 GMT
Sorry Village. I wasn't intending to reflect your whole post but merely pick up on a couple of points (which I largely agree with), & which I (humbly) think might be in many people's minds about this very loan (as demonstrated by GSV, who I also - & perhaps even more largely - agree with). But best stop there before these cross-references get us in a muddle.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 29, 2018 6:05:42 GMT
defaulting would seem a bit extreme... I'm reasonably comfortable the loans in general are being handled well..
Maybe (& hopefully true). But there may be a feeling amongst some lenders that MT have been pipped to the post (by events &/or borrowers) once-thrice too often already, & if there's the whiff of that happening again they'd rather see swift action next time around before we get re-pipped.
We can all be nice & friendly chummy folk, but the nature of the lending game is that you must, on occasion, be able to show your teeth. I suspect that MT themselves would admit that in their evening pillow talk, & with the benefit of the rewind button, they've acknowledged they ought to have pressed the eject button earlier on at least 3 occasions (& perhaps never hit play on a couple more).
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 29, 2018 0:18:33 GMT
The EU is generally very good at figuring out ways for things to work if they want them to. The key thing politically seems to be that it would be a "sincere" revocation/extension - either for a particular purpose like a general election/second referendum or just abandoning the whole shooting match. What they, naturally, don't want is for it to be abused just to reset the clock on negotiations etc.
Agree with most of that, but the fact of the matter aiui (which that Good Law project seems to have missed) is that the Commission's & Council's lawyers yesterday strongly argued for Art 50 not being revocable without unanimous agreement from all member states. Remember the 2Y Art 50 fixed term when added to a cumbersome withdrawal "negotiation" process is a powerful tool against errant EU states. If they were to allow unilateral irrevocability it opens up the door for any member state to leverage Art 50 for its own ends as & when they wish, only to pull back once they've got what they wanted.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 19, 2018 18:38:49 GMT
The full section of that quote reads as follows Presumably "what assets" are whatever he was forced to list in this full schedule. Funding Secure make it sound like they can force sale other things he owns to pay this debt, due to what he signed with them. Does this make his bankruptcy hearing happening today relevant?Probably. I don't really want to engage in speculation here beepbeepimajeep, but do think it's worthwhile focusing attention on any apparent anomalies (just to understand things better). On the point mentioned it was the "contract" (what contract & what structure) that interested me in particular. Have actually been watching these loans for some time now (well before the loans went wobbly), & (whilst happy to hear why I should be feeling otherwise) am struggling to see how the story going public today can be seen to be good news. Just to remind folk there was also a £550k loan secured on a Francis Bacon painting (also to be stored at Constantine's during the duration of the loan) pulled by FS in Aug'17. If this was to the same borrower then perhaps worth bearing in mind / not forgetting. You can find it in the All Active & Past Loans list.
|
|