j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Jul 13, 2014 0:22:41 GMT
Rates on loans seem to be falling. Where we've had loans regularly @ 12%+ with an average 70% ltv, we now seem to get such loans at 9-10%. Is this a sign of the times & due to increased competition? Have we simply been spoilt till recently & should not expect loans to pay higher than the 10% anymore?
Opinions welcome
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jul 13, 2014 1:40:57 GMT
Rates on loans seem to be falling. Where we've had loans regularly @ 12%+ with an average 70% ltv, we now seem to get such loans at 9-10%. Is this a sign of the times & due to increased competition? Have we simply been spoilt till recently & should not expect loans to pay higher than the 10% anymore? Opinions welcome I think it's a case of borrowers and/or AC trying to work out what the market will bear, so we're probably looking at a swinging pendulum. There are four loans available at the moment -- all offering in the 9-10% range -- and none are attracting a lot of lenders. Yes, large wind turbine loans always have required underwriting, but seeing three small loans -- £135k, £200k, and £335k -- not funded quickly is a big change from what would have been expected just a few months ago. Bringing in underwriters to allow those small loans to proceed is an expense for AC, and they have to weigh up the balance between that cost and the cost of offering lenders more interest so that underwriters aren't necessary. It's a trial and error process, made more difficult by being in a market/competitive situation that has variability to it. It looks to me like the pendulum has swung too far toward low rates, and if AC continue to have trouble filling loans quickly they may find they need to be more attractive to lenders in order to be more attractive to borrowers by showing that they can fund loan requests easily and without delay.
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Jul 13, 2014 8:21:06 GMT
There are four loans available at the moment -- all offering in the 9-10% range -- and none are attracting a lot of lenders. Yes, large wind turbine loans always have required underwriting, but seeing three small loans -- £135k, £200k, and £335k -- not funded quickly is a big change from what would have been expected just a few months ago. Bringing in underwriters to allow those small loans to proceed is an expense for AC, and they have to weigh up the balance between that cost and the cost of offering lenders more interest so that underwriters aren't necessary. It's a trial and error process, made more difficult by being in a market/competitive situation that has variability to it. It looks to me like the pendulum has swung too far toward low rates, and if AC continue to have trouble filling loans quickly they may find they need to be more attractive to lenders in order to be more attractive to borrowers by showing that they can fund loan requests easily and without delay. AH said there's been a change in how things work. From memory I would explain it like this that now loans are sold on the AM more not so much emphasis on the auction or expectatation of selling it all before it gets to the AM. This seems to mean that every loan that's listed can expect u/wing and has a good chance to fly. I'm sure there will be exception. So if this happens/works you can factor out dead-time thus another reason/excuse for dropping rates.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,044
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 13, 2014 8:25:54 GMT
Interesting contrast.
On AC nothing on offer above 10%, on TC (if you ignore TLC 23) nothing below 10%.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,044
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 13, 2014 8:34:21 GMT
There are four loans available at the moment -- all offering in the 9-10% range -- and none are attracting a lot of lenders. Yes, large wind turbine loans always have required underwriting, but seeing three small loans -- £135k, £200k, and £335k -- not funded quickly is a big change from what would have been expected just a few months ago. Bringing in underwriters to allow those small loans to proceed is an expense for AC, and they have to weigh up the balance between that cost and the cost of offering lenders more interest so that underwriters aren't necessary. It's a trial and error process, made more difficult by being in a market/competitive situation that has variability to it. It looks to me like the pendulum has swung too far toward low rates, and if AC continue to have trouble filling loans quickly they may find they need to be more attractive to lenders in order to be more attractive to borrowers by showing that they can fund loan requests easily and without delay. now loans are sold on the AM more Looking at the AM I would say this doesn't appear to be working too well. It makes you wonder how deep the underwriters pockets are? They must have a load of cash tied up with AM loans. How keen will the UW'S be to fund the next bit of trade finance when there's £850k from the first offering going nowhere fast?
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Jul 13, 2014 9:02:49 GMT
There are four loans available at the moment -- all offering in the 9-10% range -- and none are attracting a lot of lenders. Yes, large wind turbine loans always have required underwriting, but seeing three small loans -- £135k, £200k, and £335k -- not funded quickly is a big change from what would have been expected just a few months ago. From my perspective bidding is limited on the small loans because I have no more shadow bid availability. it's all queued up on loans which await drawdown - and some are waiting forever. By the way, what determines the shadow bid limit? Is it a percentage of actual (current) investment? I cannot relate my limit to anything and can find nothing on the AC website to explain (not that the website explains much anyway).
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 13, 2014 9:46:54 GMT
By the way, what determines the shadow bid limit? Is it a percentage of actual (current) investment? Yes, the starting point is a percentage of current loan book (I think 25%) ... so periodically as your loan book grows, you should be able to ask for an increase in the shadow bid limit.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Jul 13, 2014 9:54:42 GMT
Thanks everyone for your contribution. The way I see it is that we are reaching/almost reached a saturation point whereby AC have become far too reliant on underwriters & u/w, as someone said, do not have bottomless pockets. I, for one, decided to reduce how much I put into each loan to much smaller amounts & sometimes none at all as the AM is awash with units that are selling at a snail's pace. This, coupled with lower rates, and higher rates offered elsewhere for similar proposals, is causing stagnation.
One solution is to prop up rates to the 12% mark again & more importantly minimise the dreaded drawdown windows to get the 'normal' investor contribution going again
|
|
thebillet
Member of DD Central
Posts: 64
Likes: 21
|
Post by thebillet on Jul 13, 2014 10:01:01 GMT
Just on the shadow account limit I have got less than 15% than my loan book and I have got substantial amounts invested.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 13, 2014 10:27:18 GMT
There are four loans available at the moment -- all offering in the 9-10% range -- and none are attracting a lot of lenders. Yes, large wind turbine loans always have required underwriting, but seeing three small loans -- £135k, £200k, and £335k -- not funded quickly is a big change from what would have been expected just a few months ago. But to a certain extent loans that fill slightly slower is a good thing as it provides more time for due dilligence and reflection rather than the panic buying of "yesterday". Remember Bolton, a similiar size to these, filled in less than 5 minutes if I recall correctly. £135k (West London) 9% anonymous borrower / anonymous property as security (a few more details given in Q&A now as a result of my question a few days ago). Speculative / bubble pricing in most of inner London this year (asking prices typically 25% up on Zoopla estimates, so 35% up on prices 12 months ago) gives short term risk of over valuation of security. But its a five year loan, so I'm in. £200k (Notts) 10% young "property tycoon" could find cashflow tight as interest rates rise, but loan covenants should force the sale of part of the portfolio. Bidding has been open 7 days and no sign of the security valuation report (I've just asked a Q to give AC a prod). I'm in (despite the missing valuation report, because I had expected this to fill quickly, and as a small loan I'll be able to exit via SM in due course if I decide against) £335k (Worcs) 9.5% retained interest. Haven't had chance to study this in detail yet. Valuation report not available. For those without shadow accounts, the drawdown period for the latter two as 18 and 12 month loans respectively shaves a noticable amount off already lowish rates. When a competitor platform is able to offer 12% from the moment funds are committed to a loan, it is hardly surprising that these AC loans are not flying off the shalf. I'm fast approaching being fully invested, but about a third of my P2P loans are due to mature in the next six months, so I'm unlikely to participate in many of the larger underwritten loans on AC in the immediate future until some of the 6 month bridges on AC and SS release funds.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 13, 2014 10:41:20 GMT
How keen will the UW'S be to fund the next bit of trade finance when there's £850k from the first offering going nowhere fast? From the way the next four tranches are presented as previews, I had assumed that the underwriters are already getting the commitment uplift having already been allocated to the loans. In s similiar vain, anyone ready for the next £500k tranche of London Retail ? ............ No, I thought not !
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Jul 13, 2014 12:13:11 GMT
How keen will the UW'S be to fund the next bit of trade finance when there's £850k from the first offering going nowhere fast? From the way the next four tranches are presented as previews, I had assumed that the underwriters are already getting the commitment uplift having already been allocated to the loans. In s similiar vain, anyone ready for the next £500k tranche of London Retail ? ............ No, I thought not ! I think there's a general aire of underestimation of our friends the underwriters. Their pockets are bottomless. I think AC is happy enough for the second tranche of London Retail & the second, third and fourth of Midlands to never fully sell down on the AM if need be. I think AC are doing somethings to ensure they have a great reputatation in 'banking' This is a very new medium and we haven't had our first scandal yet so it's best to be scrupulous, if you can afford to be.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Jul 13, 2014 13:42:56 GMT
I do wonder abut the depth of the underwriters' pockets, and I am getting very jumpy about property - especialy in the London bubble. Unlike mcrlondon I feel no more comfortable lending for 5 years against property than lending for 12 months; if anything the reverse.
Once risk is taken into account I am currently most tempted by (in this order):
- renewables on TC or AC - RS 5 years - selective lending to good businesses on TC or AC - business turnaround loans with good property security on AC (if the price is right)
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Jul 13, 2014 14:19:04 GMT
I think completion may also be a factor. There have been a number of new entrants over the last year all keen to make a mark. Additionally FC have encroached on AC's patch by entering the property finance market at rates between 6 and 8%. Finally in the current climate the failure of FF cannot be helping. However once FF is sorted out and investors see the benefit of investing with a business that seeks tangible securities to back its loans then the situation may well become a very positive one.
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Jul 13, 2014 14:34:43 GMT
Could I ask why lenders are happy to take much lower rates on other platforms that are relatively unsecured, but on AC where there is security there are questions about rates being low? In the past, I know we have offered 10%+ on a number of loans and much higher as well, but please remember we price for risk, not liquidity. If I priced for liquidity, the reverse auction would be in full swing.
Looking round the market, the starting rates for lenders for 5 years vary from 4% on unsecured personal lending to 6% on secured. We are offering 9%+ on secured lending. As yet we have not lost a single penny, and the one very bad case looks likely that a full recovery in achievable. So we are 100% higher than unsecured personal lending and 50% higher than other secured lenders.
I will listen to the arguments made here, but my perception is we are offering market leading rates and security on loans. The market is more competitive, but also we are attracting better quality loans as well. Some will state London retail isn't for them and everyone is entitled to their opinions however we will continue to offer such loans in future.
Andrew
|
|