|
Post by Financial Thing on Dec 19, 2018 19:07:13 GMT
Agreed about the apples to pears but my point was directed towards the mindset of panic selling in the event of believing a sector would be ok long-term. Granted a Brexit resolution will occur but do we really know when? If it takes a long time for the Brexit issue to be settled and one were (able) to sell 100% of their p2p holdings, one could be sitting in cash for several months with minimal returns. There is an opportunity cost of trying to time such events. Some experts recommended sitting out of the stock market and sitting in cash back in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Dec 19, 2018 14:46:35 GMT
Warren Buffett once said that as an investor, it is wise to be “Fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”
I've spoken with the heads of some p2p companies who argue that Brexit will be beneficial to many p2p companies. If you have faith that p2p is a sector that will survive and flourish long-term then why panic sell? I have some friends who panicked during the 2008 stock market crash and sold their stock portfolios near bottom. They said it was one of the worst financial decisions of their lives. Financial markets have short memories. Once the Brexit situation is settled, and it will be eventually, those who stayed the course may well be the ones who benefit the most.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on May 24, 2018 17:34:39 GMT
Thanks for your input. The other question becomes, what exactly qualifies as default action to contribute to these numbers? If a loan is repaid two weeks late after the AC recovery team negotiated this late repayment, does this count as an official default?
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on May 24, 2018 15:14:16 GMT
I was recently looking at AC's stats page and was quite surprised by the high actual lifetime default rates. Just wanted your opinions on if you think these numbers are troublesome or inline with your expectations? ACTUAL LIFETIME DEFAULT RATE 2013: 42.7%, 2014: 33.0%, 2015: 9.2%, 2016: 12.5%, 2017: 3.0%
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 18, 2018 7:12:13 GMT
Just received this email from PM. Apparently, they are shutting down their SM due to cost / regulatory issues. Read more hereWhile I understand that fiscal survival is most important and I never had any luck selling anything on the SM anyways, this is not good news.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 7, 2018 22:44:11 GMT
I know this area well. My sister has had her house on the market for months (£700k range). She said houses in the higher price ranges aren't selling quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 8, 2018 16:03:32 GMT
Was driving by today so thought I would snap a photo. There were workers onsite and building progress being made. imgur.com/a/sLrnz
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Aug 2, 2017 18:20:11 GMT
In the SPV 30 updates, there is mention of a £5k repair due to an electrical issue caused by a previous commercial tenant. This repair cost is being fronted by PM to investors as an interest-free loan which will be repaid by future rents, meaning investors won't receive rental dividends for several months. There's no mention of PM going after the tenant for the costs. Also, I feel the letting agent probably allowed a poor tenant into the unit just to get the rent flowing and now the investors are paying the price. I feel very disgruntled.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jul 21, 2017 21:52:01 GMT
Completely different (thankfully). The government of the uk stands behind FSCS. No uk government will let little old ladies lose money from deposits in uk banks and building societies. You are 100% safe in such accounts. No deposit is 100% safe. Ask the German people alive during the 1930's and 40's. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jun 1, 2017 17:35:19 GMT
Wellesley has anoounced they are making major changes to the platform in pursuit of FCA full authorisation and have paused lending until implemented. Key points ... interest paid at term rather than monthly, provision fund stopping, switching to true P2P model with Well no longer acting as lender & borrower, though it will continue to prefund loans before novating these to lenders. New property bond, first charge, senior secured, listed, ISA eligible, will fund Well initial lending and allow lenders to have monthly interest, fixed terms and security against residential property. Cant be used to fund first loss on lending. www.altfi.com/article/2995_peer_to_peer_lender_wellesley_co_publishes_financial_results_and_loan_book_cfo_resignsSo the bond may have first charges on property, but you are buying a share listed on a stock exchange, so technically, if Wellesley went pop, the bond would go to zero and your money would be lost correct?
|
|
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
Renew All
May 23, 2017 20:55:45 GMT
Post by Financial Thing on May 23, 2017 20:55:45 GMT
Seems like a bit of a tech glitch (at least on my Mac). I click the renew box to remove renewal but then I refresh the page, the box is still ticked.
Could someone else test?
|
|
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
Renew All
May 23, 2017 20:29:29 GMT
elliotn likes this
Post by Financial Thing on May 23, 2017 20:29:29 GMT
Sounds like a good opportunity to exit loans that might be flush on the SM and then hop into some new ones.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on May 22, 2017 14:06:40 GMT
Jupiter India has lagged the S&P500 which returned 29.33% over 3 years. That's before the fees: front end investment charge (5%+) and a crippling 1.87% AMC. Jupiter is a good example why these types of funds are unlikely to beat the indexes over a long period of time. The fees are too high to overcome. These mega funds are great at advertising though. They've been duping the general public for decades, To be honest, I have never bought a fund with 5% initial charge, because the provider usually waives the initial charge. There are so many different classes (Class A/B/C/D/I/T/X/R/Z) for the same fund, just pick the one with the lowest charges. Some providers are terrible with choices of fund. For example Jupiter India Class X Acc has 0.69% Net ongoing charge with ZERO initial charge on HL. 3 year Annualised return 29.33%, cumulative performance is +113.7% Just curious...why would you choose an actively managed fund with such a high AMC when these funds consistently lag the indexes? Also do you account for the high risk these funds present?
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on May 22, 2017 0:12:58 GMT
True, 1% AMC can be damaging. However, it all depends on the performance of the fund itself. Jupiter India Acc 3 year Annuliased return is 27.86% It's probably time to invest low cost good return ETFs on iWeb and pay no more ongoing fees to the platform. Just £25 registration and one off £5 dealing charge. Jupiter India has lagged the S&P500 which returned 29.33% over 3 years. That's before the fees: front end investment charge (5%+) and a crippling 1.87% AMC. Jupiter is a good example why these types of funds are unlikely to beat the indexes over a long period of time. The fees are too high to overcome. These mega funds are great at advertising though. They've been duping the general public for decades,
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on May 19, 2017 14:09:28 GMT
While 1% AMC's look insignificant, they end up costing you a fortune over 30+ years. Clever big company unit trust advertising. I try to think of fees as a percentage of the growth of an investment (by that I mean capital and income). 1% doesn't sound much but if your investment returns 5% then you lose 20% in fees. HL are slick but must be to charge 0.45% on funds uncapped (capped on ETFs and ITs I believe). Compare that to Vanguard trackers that charge under 0.1% and can now be held on their own platform for 0.15%. Agreed. Best to use a compound interest calculator and compare estimated investment totals after (x) years using say a 6% return vs a 5% return. Then you will really see how damaging a 1% AMC fee is to your long term growth.
|
|