|
Post by bobthebuilder on Mar 29, 2018 10:38:23 GMT
Assuming that this means they are on a cash hunt - why not raise the rates back towards where they were? May be more attractive than a 12 month commitment? Does anyone know if the bonuses get listed as (taxable) income?And why list all the tiers when it's 2% bonus regardless ? I suspect it is bonus interest (taxable) rather than cashback paid at time of investment (not taxable). I'd be more inclined to interpret it as cashback (not taxable) even though it's paid after a year. If you get £50 regardless of whether you invest £2500 or £4999.99, it can't be interest.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Mar 25, 2018 3:25:52 GMT
BM can't be considered a suitable home for short-term funds because it takes so long to get invested. Also bear in mind that the 6.5% is not guaranteed, and is the net of an interest target of 8% p.a. and fees (on investments up to £25K) of 1.5%. The fees can't be offset against the interest for tax purposes, so the net return is considerably less than 6.5%, especially if you are a higher rate taxpayer.
Are you sure about the treatment of the 1.5%? BM says otherwise.
In which case their website is guilty of misleading by omission. The tax position was confirmed by Steve Findlay here (although the fee was only 1% when he wrote this):
p2pindependentforum.com/post/118003/thread
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Mar 23, 2018 22:13:33 GMT
Admittedly you need £5k but doesn’t Bondmason get you 6.5% and free, almost instant liquidation under normal circumstances? And wide diversification?
BM can't be considered a suitable home for short-term funds because it takes so long to get invested. Also bear in mind that the 6.5% is not guaranteed, and is the net of an interest target of 8% p.a. and fees (on investments up to £25K) of 1.5%. The fees can't be offset against the interest for tax purposes, so the net return is considerably less than 6.5%, especially if you are a higher rate taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Feb 27, 2018 12:16:14 GMT
Simple question is will RS allow you to open an IFISA without funding it? I don't think there is an issue with opening an IFISA account and not funding it as far as HMRC goes as the rules relate to multiple subscriptions being prohibited. (Currently out so can't access rules) Yes, I have done it. Thanks ilmoro, IFISAcava. I'll do that then.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Feb 26, 2018 20:06:51 GMT
I found this, which suggests you can't open/fund one IFISA, then open without funding another "You are only permitted to hold one Innovative Finance ISA account each tax year. Lenders will be able to open a new Innovative Finance ISA with a different P2P platform each tax year." innovativefinanceisa.org.uk/the-isa/If it were me, I'd use the HMRC online chat (when available) and ask them. That information is plainly incorrect. You can hold as many IFISAs as you want each tax year if they are funded from prior year subscriptions.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Feb 26, 2018 18:18:01 GMT
Tagging ilmoro as he seems to be the expert on IFISA rules. I was advised by RS at the start of January that IFISA applications would be considered in the following order: 1. Existing active investors (excluding transfers in) 2. Existing inactive investors (excluding transfers in) 3. New investors (excluding transfers in) 4. Existing investors – transfers in in chronological order of opening ISA.This clearly indicates that you won’t be able to transfer in existing ISA money unless you open a current year ISA first (either in 2017/18 or 2018/19). I have no interest in opening a current year ISA with RS because even though it is described as “flexible”, amounts withdrawn can’t be deposited into an IFISA with another provider as you can only subscribe to one each tax year. You also can’t transfer only part of a current year ISA, so if I wanted to transfer the ISA to someone else I’d have to sell out of any loans and incur the fee for doing so. In order to secure my 2017/18 ISA allowance I recently deposited £20K into an IFISA with AC, partly because it will become prior year money in little more than a month’s time and therefore transferable in any way I think fit, and partly because while I am waiting for it to become transferable I can earn more on the money with AC’s 30DAA than I can on the RS rolling market. However, it occurs to me that if I want to retain the possibility of transferring money into a RS IFISA in the 2018/19 tax year, I could open a second current year IFISA with RS now but not pay any money into it. I could then transfer prior year money into the RS IFISA in the next tax year if I felt so inclined. Does anyone know if this would breach ISA rules? I tried putting this question to RS Customer Services but the reply I received seemed decidedly ambiguous.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Feb 24, 2018 14:15:51 GMT
I'm slightly mystified by this change as the renew tick boxes remain on the website. Does this mean that there is a difference between a "rollover extension" and a "renewal" ? LW That is a nice easy question, I like those. A renewal is any loan that will almost certainly be popular and fill quickly should any be available. A rollover extension is a loan nobody wants anymore. Sadly a renewal doesn't mean what it used to either. I was hoping to pick up some of the RCC loan that renewed today from the handful of lenders who decided they didn't want to keep it, but all that happened was that the end date changed. The chance of being online when parts of this loan are on sale on the SM is slim, so I'd much rather take my chances in the FFF at 12.00 p.m. MoneyThing, can this policy change be applied only to property loans? To apply it to loans that you can confidently predict will fill on renewal does seem like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Feb 23, 2018 12:43:04 GMT
Collateral Rep I see from the loan updates posted today that on 1/3 DL8-10 are supposed to be redeeming by way of refinance. May I assume that this also applies to related loans BL00046, DL00016 and DL00030? (Apologies for the duplication - it seems this question has also been asked on the thread specifically for BL00046)
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Feb 14, 2018 17:57:50 GMT
However, the gap I can see is normal interest whilst in default. If loan X defaults and takes a year to either recover capital or have the PF close the gap with capital, then whilst the capital has been made whole, I’m missing 7% of X (if GEA). Do I read the FAQ correctly stuartassetzcapital and think that this “normal interest whilst in default” is not covered by the PF and won’t ever be paid out, unless the asset recovery is sufficient to cover it? Yes you have read this correctly I believe. Whilst a loan is in default then interest accrues and if recovered alongside and on top of the full capital being recovered then it would be paid at that time but the PF will not pay out interest during that recovery process as it was designed to handle late / missed interest on pre-defaulted loans as per the FAQs, and not to make payments of interest during a recovery process. Capital payments are prioritised during the recovery process and making monthly interest payments during recovery/ post default would be putting interest ahead of capital. Bearing in mind that we are a secured lender and have a loan book that is under 60% Loan to Value we have expectations (based upon our loan valuations and other credit approval analysis) when extending loans that recoveries would generally materially support capital recovery as well as late interest and fees for the recovery process. Clearly life isn't always that perfect and in some cases that full extent of recovery may not be possible. I hope this helps. If the PF isn't going to cover any interest accrued after the default date, wouldn't it be reasonable for investors in the PF-protected accounts to accrue interest thereafter at the default rate instead of 7% (or 5.5%/6.25%)? After all, their post-default interest is as much at risk as that of MLIA investors.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Dec 29, 2017 1:12:05 GMT
I was looking to see where the daily Market Rate figure was published, but all I can find referenced is the "Lend right now" figure which leads me to suspect that what actually happens on renewal in those cases is a race to the botton via that process. I have enquired to RS via the "contact us" form, but no response as yet.
Try this link: members.ratesetter.com/ratesetter_info/rate_trends.aspxThe 'Download Market Rates' section is towards the bottom of the page.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Dec 4, 2017 19:20:22 GMT
As an update to my post above, I made a test transfer for £1 to sort code 20-82-48, and the funds reached my account. Whether for the time being they also would if you paid sort code 20-82-14 is not clear.
Edit: cross-posted with Chris
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Dec 4, 2017 18:59:37 GMT
I was about to make a payment from Barclays to AC tonight when I noticed that the sort code on my payees list for AC had been changed from 20-82-14 to 20-82-48. When I rang Barclays to query this, they thought that the sort code might have changed as part of their ring-fencing exercise, but they couldn't say this was definitely the case and couldn't advise me whether to pay the old sort code or the new one. The sort code on AC's website remains 20-82-14 and there's been no update to my payee details with Nationwide, from where I also make transfers to AC. chris do you know which sort code is correct?
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Nov 12, 2017 9:57:59 GMT
"If you would like to withdraw a specific amount as your contracts are repaid without changing your reinvestment settings, you can do so by selecting the "Withdraw" menu item on the left." Does anyone know where this option has gone? It's been renamed "Money Out" because RS thought "Withdrawal" made it sound too much like a bank account.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Oct 24, 2017 17:45:49 GMT
Seems it's a deliberate ploy by RS. I've just received an e-mail inviting me to invest some more money at 6.5%. I'm such a sucker for a decent rate that I did so more than an hour ago
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Oct 16, 2017 7:11:38 GMT
If anybody at RS is monitoring this thread, can you give the box a kick please? The overnight process tonight isn't slow - it hasn't even started. You can tell this is the case because market rates for the 16th haven't been published, and this is the first thing that happens during the overnight processing.
|
|