|
Post by propman on Sept 17, 2019 16:20:51 GMT
You don't have to lend via ratesetter. You can sell up and put your money into a savings account. at least they are safe. I think the interest rates are excellent given MY perceived risk. Why don't you put your money into a higher interest p2p. Some pay 12 to 15% Bargain! PS they are not making a profit. Ratesetter that is. I would like them to do so. One of their backers is Woodford. Won't be getting any extra cash from him for a while! You are right nobody has to lend on Ratesetter. But my post was made back in May since the further cuts to rates have been announced ie 3%, 4%, and 5% all fixed. How much of your money has earned these rates over the last 2 years on Ratesetter? Bearing in mind base rates have gone up twice. I have managed to keep above 6% in 5 years 5% in 1 year and rates between 4% and 6.5% in rolling. My Point was about how Investors are taking the risk yet Ratesetter are reaping all the rewards and I was proved right I do not believe that this is the proposal, although it remains to be seen how difficult it will be to set your own rate, they have confirmed you will be able to set your own rates on both offers and reinvesting on the automatic reinvestment.
I am concerned that they are already instigating their approach as a much lower proportion of lending has been on the 5 year market in the last year than I can remember since 2013.
|
|
Stonk
Stonking
Posts: 735
Likes: 658
|
Post by Stonk on Sept 23, 2019 18:56:38 GMT
Big PF jump with September's update: 132% interest (was 126%) and 278% capital (was don't know).
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Sept 23, 2019 20:03:25 GMT
Big PF jump with September's update: 132% interest (was 126%) and 278% capital (was don't know). Not really. There's been an increase in the ICR, which is a stat that on its own doesn't really tell the whole story. Key headlines for me are: 1) Provision Fund cash is down £400k month-on-month. 2) Forecast Provision Fund inflows are down £200k month-on-month The only thing that is ostensibly improved, as usual, is the forecast outflows which are down £1.9m. Or in other words, RS have yet again improved the only part of their equation that is unaudited and unverifiable. As such, this improvement should be treated with a huge pinch of salt. Coming back to the ICR, as I've highlighted before, this is IMV a flawed calculation that overvalues changes to their forecasts, hence why it keeps going up when in reality the PF is going down. Further, what is interesting at the moment is that loans under management seems to have stopped growing in the past 3 months. We've been hovering around £890m for quite some time now, when previously leaps and bounds of circa £20m each month were being seen. Total loans issued is still going up steadily, so seems to be loans defaulting/repaying just as quickly as they are being originated. I'd personally conclude from the latest stats that RS are looking okay. Bear in mind that the PF trend is still steadily downwards. For example, in April 2019, we had £13.1m cash in the kitty to cover £854m of loans. We now have £11.9m to cover £890m loans. In the same period btw, RS believe they have improved their future loss projection from -£34.5m to -£29.5m. Some of that gap is presumably realisations of future losses as actual hits to the PF, but it still seems like they feel they can reduce their losses by at least £4m further than they thought just a few months ago. Which seems a rather bold view in the current climate, but we have no way of knowing what they are basing this on. If anyone is going to their investor event, I would be interested to know..
|
|
Stonk
Stonking
Posts: 735
Likes: 658
|
Post by Stonk on Sept 23, 2019 21:01:50 GMT
Big PF jump with September's update: 132% interest (was 126%) and 278% capital (was don't know). Not really. There's been an increase in the ICR, which is a stat that on its own doesn't really tell the whole story. Key headlines for me are: 1) Provision Fund cash is down £400k month-on-month. 2) Forecast Provision Fund inflows are down £200k month-on-month The only thing that is ostensibly improved, as usual, is the forecast outflows which are down £1.9m. Or in other words, RS have yet again improved the only part of their equation that is unaudited and unverifiable. As such, this improvement should be treated with a huge pinch of salt. Coming back to the ICR, as I've highlighted before, this is IMV a flawed calculation that overvalues changes to their forecasts, hence why it keeps going up when in reality the PF is going down. Further, what is interesting at the moment is that loans under management seems to have stopped growing in the past 3 months. We've been hovering around £890m for quite some time now, when previously leaps and bounds of circa £20m each month were being seen. Total loans issued is still going up steadily, so seems to be loans defaulting/repaying just as quickly as they are being originated. I'd personally conclude from the latest stats that RS are looking okay. Bear in mind that the PF trend is still steadily downwards. For example, in April 2019, we had £13.1m cash in the kitty to cover £854m of loans. We now have £11.9m to cover £890m loans. In the same period btw, RS believe they have improved their future loss projection from -£34.5m to -£29.5m. Some of that gap is presumably realisations of future losses as actual hits to the PF, but it still seems like they feel they can reduce their losses by at least £4m further than they thought just a few months ago. Which seems a rather bold view in the current climate, but we have no way of knowing what they are basing this on. If anyone is going to their investor event, I would be interested to know..
Woah! You look a lot deeper than I ever do with the PF. I think I understand most things in RS, but I do not understand the PF. All I know is that the headline figure moving up is better than moving down. Well, now I'm not so sure ...
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Sept 23, 2019 21:11:37 GMT
Woah! You look a lot deeper than I ever do with the PF. I think I understand most things in RS, but I do not understand the PF. All I know is that the headline figure moving up is better than moving down. Well, now I'm not so sure ...
It's not rocket science, but you need to remember to save a copy of each months stats to compare against as otherwise you'd just never know, and have the time/inclination to do so of course! Here, I've inserted the stats from April so you can see what I'm talking about: ratesetter statistics april 2019.pdf (427.13 KB)
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Sept 24, 2019 8:17:49 GMT
Good summary Roolish67
The lower loan origination could be, lets say hopefully is, an attempt to write better quality loans, and tighten the lending criteria a little.
The other factor at play could be they believe they are at the sorts of volume that can be profitable, just if they can get the lenders rates at the right point... One way to get rates down from lenders is to suppress the volume of loans written, just look at the April MR graph to see what a large difference between funds and demand will do.
My only slight difference in opinion surrounds the cash element of the provision fund. Whilst it needs to be liquid to be able to pay out, I am not sure the actual movement specifically means a lot in isolation. With the changes to upfront fees being replaced by constant contributions you would need to see some fairly detailed historical data on loan defaults etc to know if the changes are following that trend or better or worse, and hence is the movment in cash predictable and what would it look like end state if no more loans were written today. (IE would it be expected to be in surplus still at the end, and at all points between now and the end)
We do know that they say that beyond a certain point most loans do not go bad, and as such these will continue to pay into the fund, my suspicion is we probably haven't or have only just started to get loans at this point, as such the PF has taken the hit from the loans that go bad and take out more than they paid in, but we haven't yet had the contribution from the loans that go to term and only ever pay into the reserve. BUT I share your concerns on RS being open about this type of thing, its quite possible, in fact probable, they are taking these loans into effect in the calculations, and in normal circumstances probably correctly, but the risk to the PF is a cash one, and a shock to the system could change that rapidly.
Personally I see the PF as a short term comfort blanket. If its starts to reduce significantly, and headwinds appear more strongly in the economy then the warning signs could start flashing.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Sept 24, 2019 8:29:47 GMT
Good summary Roolish67 The lower loan origination could be, lets say hopefully is, an attempt to write better quality loans, and tighten the lending criteria a little. The other factor at play could be they believe they are at the sorts of volume that can be profitable, just if they can get the lenders rates at the right point... One way to get rates down from lenders is to suppress the volume of loans written, just look at the April MR graph to see what a large difference between funds and demand will do. My only slight difference in opinion surrounds the cash element of the provision fund. Whilst it needs to be liquid to be able to pay out, I am not sure the actual movement specifically means a lot in isolation. With the changes to upfront fees being replaced by constant contributions you would need to see some fairly detailed historical data on loan defaults etc to know if the changes are following that trend or better or worse, and hence is the movment in cash predictable and what would it look like end state if no more loans were written today. (IE would it be expected to be in surplus still at the end, and at all points between now and the end) We do know that they say that beyond a certain point most loans do not go bad, and as such these will continue to pay into the fund, my suspicion is we probably haven't or have only just started to get loans at this point, as such the PF has taken the hit from the loans that go bad and take out more than they paid in, but we haven't yet had the contribution from the loans that go to term and only ever pay into the reserve. BUT I share your concerns on RS being open about this type of thing, its quite possible, in fact probable, they are taking these loans into effect in the calculations, and in normal circumstances probably correctly, but the risk to the PF is a cash one, and a shock to the system could change that rapidly. Personally I see the PF as a short term comfort blanket. If its starts to reduce significantly, and headwinds appear more strongly in the economy then the warning signs could start flashing. Thanks. Re: would it still be in surplus at the end, the answer according to RS is yes as PF cash (£11.9m) plus projected inflows (£26.9m) less expected future outflows (£29.4m) = £9.4m. The same numbers also tell us that we can expect to see the PF cash fall further in the near term (simply as outflows outweigh inflows) - unless origination gears up pretty quickly that is. You're right that it's not the only thing worth worrying about, but it is still important and the reason I often bang on about it is that I think it's a little too easy to just trust RS's headline ICR, a figure which would have one believe that RS's performance is absolutely sterling in recent months. What surprises me about RS's performance, in a positive way, is that their by-year expected vs actual loss rate isn't that far off. They seem to have done much better in keeping to their estimates than Zopa, FC, or LW somehow.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,460
|
Post by jlend on Sept 24, 2019 9:15:25 GMT
Good summary Roolish67 The lower loan origination could be, lets say hopefully is, an attempt to write better quality loans, and tighten the lending criteria a little. The other factor at play could be they believe they are at the sorts of volume that can be profitable, just if they can get the lenders rates at the right point... One way to get rates down from lenders is to suppress the volume of loans written, just look at the April MR graph to see what a large difference between funds and demand will do. My only slight difference in opinion surrounds the cash element of the provision fund. Whilst it needs to be liquid to be able to pay out, I am not sure the actual movement specifically means a lot in isolation. With the changes to upfront fees being replaced by constant contributions you would need to see some fairly detailed historical data on loan defaults etc to know if the changes are following that trend or better or worse, and hence is the movment in cash predictable and what would it look like end state if no more loans were written today. (IE would it be expected to be in surplus still at the end, and at all points between now and the end) We do know that they say that beyond a certain point most loans do not go bad, and as such these will continue to pay into the fund, my suspicion is we probably haven't or have only just started to get loans at this point, as such the PF has taken the hit from the loans that go bad and take out more than they paid in, but we haven't yet had the contribution from the loans that go to term and only ever pay into the reserve. BUT I share your concerns on RS being open about this type of thing, its quite possible, in fact probable, they are taking these loans into effect in the calculations, and in normal circumstances probably correctly, but the risk to the PF is a cash one, and a shock to the system could change that rapidly. Personally I see the PF as a short term comfort blanket. If its starts to reduce significantly, and headwinds appear more strongly in the economy then the warning signs could start flashing. On your point about loans going to term RS have lent 3.515 billion to date and have 890m outstanding so I would have thought they have a reasonable understanding of the risks of the multitude of channels they lend via these days and which can be profitable. They also have a better idea about the number of good loans that pay back early which they have said have also hit PF contributions to some extent in the past. I have more faith in their stats than I did in the early days which where perhaps a bit optimistic. I also think their risk management and PF oversight is better now although could do with more independent audits. Not that I am ever complacent about the risks.... Am content about the PF cash balance falling, am sure most of us would like it higher, but it is not a great use of capital, and the reality is very few if any borrowers would be willing to stump up a large PF contribution upfront. As for a secured property default, these do not get immediately picked up by the PF, unlike unsecured loans. Defaulted secured property loans stay on the market so RS would have a fair amount of time to sort out any issues before a major hit to the PF cash balance. This time of year is historicaly low for personal loans and I assume demand for secured loans isn't exactly hot at the moment. I also assume RS would want to get lending rates down to close to the Going Rates in advance of October, I would if I were them. So am not surprised at the current volumes and rates this month.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Sept 24, 2019 12:56:52 GMT
Good summary Roolish67 The lower loan origination could be, lets say hopefully is, an attempt to write better quality loans, and tighten the lending criteria a little. The other factor at play could be they believe they are at the sorts of volume that can be profitable, just if they can get the lenders rates at the right point... One way to get rates down from lenders is to suppress the volume of loans written, just look at the April MR graph to see what a large difference between funds and demand will do. My only slight difference in opinion surrounds the cash element of the provision fund. Whilst it needs to be liquid to be able to pay out, I am not sure the actual movement specifically means a lot in isolation. With the changes to upfront fees being replaced by constant contributions you would need to see some fairly detailed historical data on loan defaults etc to know if the changes are following that trend or better or worse, and hence is the movment in cash predictable and what would it look like end state if no more loans were written today. (IE would it be expected to be in surplus still at the end, and at all points between now and the end) We do know that they say that beyond a certain point most loans do not go bad, and as such these will continue to pay into the fund, my suspicion is we probably haven't or have only just started to get loans at this point, as such the PF has taken the hit from the loans that go bad and take out more than they paid in, but we haven't yet had the contribution from the loans that go to term and only ever pay into the reserve. BUT I share your concerns on RS being open about this type of thing, its quite possible, in fact probable, they are taking these loans into effect in the calculations, and in normal circumstances probably correctly, but the risk to the PF is a cash one, and a shock to the system could change that rapidly. Personally I see the PF as a short term comfort blanket. If its starts to reduce significantly, and headwinds appear more strongly in the economy then the warning signs could start flashing. Thanks. Re: would it still be in surplus at the end, the answer according to RS is yes as PF cash (£11.9m) plus projected inflows (£26.9m) less expected future outflows (£29.4m) = £9.4m. The same numbers also tell us that we can expect to see the PF cash fall further in the near term (simply as outflows outweigh inflows) - unless origination gears up pretty quickly that is. You're right that it's not the only thing worth worrying about, but it is still important and the reason I often bang on about it is that I think it's a little too easy to just trust RS's headline ICR, a figure which would have one believe that RS's performance is absolutely sterling in recent months. What surprises me about RS's performance, in a positive way, is that their by-year expected vs actual loss rate isn't that far off. They seem to have done much better in keeping to their estimates than Zopa, FC, or LW somehow. As said before, the expected fund inflows is only that from loans already made. As such, this would only be expected to go down if a smaller amount is lent than repaid or less is being paid into the PF as a proportion. The overall lending has dropped, but by a smaller proportion, so the reason is that less has been taken from the new borrowers than is paid out on defaults or late payments.
In addition, despite the narrative, the "expected bad debts at the point the loans were written" is nothing of the sort. It is actually the expected bad debts for the year's loans on the last day of that year. For at least the last 4 years this has increased significantly in the final months to the year end as the bad debts on the earlier loans started to crystallise. As such I don't think we can take muuch comfort from their record except in December! further, this means that historically the ICR has dipped at the year end then risen through the new year as a low expected losses figure increases the expected surplus in the PF relative to the contributions received and expeceted. Personally I like to see the expected inflows increase as this suggests that RS is confident enough in the liquidity of the PF to take a higher proportion of PF contributions over the loan term rather than upfront. The upfront contribution is added to the loan and so is only funded by the borrower as they make their regular monthly payments. In practice RS gets to allocate the "upfront fee" between PF contribution and their own fees, presumably balanced by a reallocation of the difference between the investors interest and that paid by the borrower again between the fee to RS and contribution to the fund.
Finally, the cash is critical as I would expect a significant delay in the receipts relative to the payouts. when the bullet loans are late, the investors are paid out in full when due and then the PF is repaid when from any subsequent receipts. Confusingly they are not shown as defaults despite having been paid out until they have info on the progression of the security recovery. As such, both these and the late monthly repayments decrease the PF before the losses are shown in the stats.
- PM
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,460
|
Post by jlend on Sept 24, 2019 13:25:56 GMT
Thanks. Re: would it still be in surplus at the end, the answer according to RS is yes as PF cash (£11.9m) plus projected inflows (£26.9m) less expected future outflows (£29.4m) = £9.4m. The same numbers also tell us that we can expect to see the PF cash fall further in the near term (simply as outflows outweigh inflows) - unless origination gears up pretty quickly that is. You're right that it's not the only thing worth worrying about, but it is still important and the reason I often bang on about it is that I think it's a little too easy to just trust RS's headline ICR, a figure which would have one believe that RS's performance is absolutely sterling in recent months. What surprises me about RS's performance, in a positive way, is that their by-year expected vs actual loss rate isn't that far off. They seem to have done much better in keeping to their estimates than Zopa, FC, or LW somehow. As said before, the expected fund inflows is only that from loans already made. As such, this would only be expected to go down if a smaller amount is lent than repaid or less is being paid into the PF as a proportion. The overall lending has dropped, but by a smaller proportion, so the reason is that less has been taken from the new borrowers than is paid out on defaults or late payments.
In addition, despite the narrative, the "expected bad debts at the point the loans were written" is nothing of the sort. It is actually the expected bad debts for the year's loans on the last day of that year. For at least the last 4 years this has increased significantly in the final months to the year end as the bad debts on the earlier loans started to crystallise. As such I don't think we can take muuch comfort from their record except in December! further, this means that historically the ICR has dipped at the year end then risen through the new year as a low expected losses figure increases the expected surplus in the PF relative to the contributions received and expeceted. Personally I like to see the expected inflows increase as this suggests that RS is confident enough in the liquidity of the PF to take a higher proportion of PF contributions over the loan term rather than upfront. The upfront contribution is added to the loan and so is only funded by the borrower as they make their regular monthly payments. In practice RS gets to allocate the "upfront fee" between PF contribution and their own fees, presumably balanced by a reallocation of the difference between the investors interest and that paid by the borrower again between the fee to RS and contribution to the fund.
Finally, the cash is critical as I would expect a significant delay in the receipts relative to the payouts. when the bullet loans are late, the investors are paid out in full when due and then the PF is repaid when from any subsequent receipts. Confusingly they are not shown as defaults despite having been paid out until they have info on the progression of the security recovery. As such, both these and the late monthly repayments decrease the PF before the losses are shown in the stats.
- PM
Am curious, are you still adding to your RS lending?
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,460
|
Post by jlend on Sept 24, 2019 14:03:54 GMT
Thanks. Re: would it still be in surplus at the end, the answer according to RS is yes as PF cash (£11.9m) plus projected inflows (£26.9m) less expected future outflows (£29.4m) = £9.4m. The same numbers also tell us that we can expect to see the PF cash fall further in the near term (simply as outflows outweigh inflows) - unless origination gears up pretty quickly that is. You're right that it's not the only thing worth worrying about, but it is still important and the reason I often bang on about it is that I think it's a little too easy to just trust RS's headline ICR, a figure which would have one believe that RS's performance is absolutely sterling in recent months. What surprises me about RS's performance, in a positive way, is that their by-year expected vs actual loss rate isn't that far off. They seem to have done much better in keeping to their estimates than Zopa, FC, or LW somehow. As said before, the expected fund inflows is only that from loans already made. As such, this would only be expected to go down if a smaller amount is lent than repaid or less is being paid into the PF as a proportion. The overall lending has dropped, but by a smaller proportion, so the reason is that less has been taken from the new borrowers than is paid out on defaults or late payments.
In addition, despite the narrative, the "expected bad debts at the point the loans were written" is nothing of the sort. It is actually the expected bad debts for the year's loans on the last day of that year. For at least the last 4 years this has increased significantly in the final months to the year end as the bad debts on the earlier loans started to crystallise. As such I don't think we can take muuch comfort from their record except in December! further, this means that historically the ICR has dipped at the year end then risen through the new year as a low expected losses figure increases the expected surplus in the PF relative to the contributions received and expeceted. Personally I like to see the expected inflows increase as this suggests that RS is confident enough in the liquidity of the PF to take a higher proportion of PF contributions over the loan term rather than upfront. The upfront contribution is added to the loan and so is only funded by the borrower as they make their regular monthly payments. In practice RS gets to allocate the "upfront fee" between PF contribution and their own fees, presumably balanced by a reallocation of the difference between the investors interest and that paid by the borrower again between the fee to RS and contribution to the fund.
Finally, the cash is critical as I would expect a significant delay in the receipts relative to the payouts. when the bullet loans are late, the investors are paid out in full when due and then the PF is repaid when from any subsequent receipts. Confusingly they are not shown as defaults despite having been paid out until they have info on the progression of the security recovery. As such, both these and the late monthly repayments decrease the PF before the losses are shown in the stats.
- PM
Am curious about the last paragraph. There use to be more stats provided by RS. IMHO there are less these days. So assessing late loans, vs defaults vs losses is quite difficult these days for me anyway. You use the terms late, default and loss. I think it is important to remember not all late loans default and not all defaulted loans result in a loss. The bullet loans are typically secured property loans on RS which as we know from the pure property platforms are very often late for example, but relatively infrequently default hopefully. You say RS don't book late monthly repayments as losses. Am not surprised to be honest. RS probably have hundreds of late loans every month. Do you look to assess late loans vs defaults vs losses? Am curious how you do it
|
|
|
Post by propman on Sept 24, 2019 16:12:54 GMT
I am not adding any new funds to RS until I have better rates or more info.
Ever since they removed the statistics on the loanbook I have not been able to get an accurate picture of the losses to date, however you can get some estimate by comparing the PF used proportion with losses to date and multiplying by loans originated in that period. Unfortunately the margin of error is large on over half the remaining loans (2019) as losses to date is only shown to the nearest percent. I am probably incorrect in using the term "default", I meant loans that had been included in the losses to date stats. I agree that lates are not the same thing, but the impact on the PF is the same for a bullet loan as all is payable on the same day. I assume the expected recovery is included in the expected losses and so explains part of the difference between the current position and expected one for earlier years being less than estimate of losses on ongoing loans (but probably much less than recoveries from defaults to date).
The concern with bullet loans is that if they agree to extend the loan, then nothing appears in their statistics for a year as the PF repayment is covered by the new loan. Kicking the can to make the numbers look better. I hope the increases in property loans doesn't include too many of these!
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,460
|
Post by jlend on Sept 24, 2019 16:54:01 GMT
I am not adding any new funds to RS until I have better rates or more info.
Ever since they removed the statistics on the loanbook I have not been able to get an accurate picture of the losses to date, however you can get some estimate by comparing the PF used proportion with losses to date and multiplying by loans originated in that period. Unfortunately the margin of error is large on over half the remaining loans (2019) as losses to date is only shown to the nearest percent. I am probably incorrect in using the term "default", I meant loans that had been included in the losses to date stats. I agree that lates are not the same thing, but the impact on the PF is the same for a bullet loan as all is payable on the same day. I assume the expected recovery is included in the expected losses and so explains part of the difference between the current position and expected one for earlier years being less than estimate of losses on ongoing loans (but probably much less than recoveries from defaults to date).
The concern with bullet loans is that if they agree to extend the loan, then nothing appears in their statistics for a year as the PF repayment is covered by the new loan. Kicking the can to make the numbers look better. I hope the increases in property loans doesn't include too many of these!
Interesting to hear your thoughts on property loan extentions in p2p. In my experience they are common even for good loans. In my experience on AC for example most extensions are done for a good reason and have turned out fine over the years. If you are wary about loan extensions then property p2p may be challenging in general... I havent heard anything negative about RS property loans. Have you heard about RS kicking some loans? I don't think any platform provides much in the way of stats overall for extended loans, I doubt you will find that with any platform, particularly black box ones. I don't think formally extending a loan necessarily means kicking the can down the road. I don't have a problem in general with loan extensions. If a loan is formally extended it will never have defaulted and should not be in the PF stats as the PF would never have made a payment. As you say the PF stats are difficult to assess. You have to be careful using the PF used portion. RS have already made clear this was impacted in some years by early repayments of good loans so doesn't really work for assessing actual losses on the loan book with any accuracy. Hopefully the new FCA reporting requirements in December might give bit more insight into the stats again.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Sept 25, 2019 7:54:12 GMT
No I have no info on extended loans. In reality many property development loans are required for over a year, so they needed refinancing. The onlyt question is whether this is by RS or by another provider. I agree that this is not an issue per se. The question is whether any are extended when they would not have met the requirements for a new loan and particularly if they are late rather than arranging before the loan was due.
AIUI the eary repayments reduced the expected future inflows into the PF NOT the losses to date, so the movements can be split, although I agree the redution in expected PF inflows might be due to more early repayments than expected.
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,496
Likes: 923
|
Post by aju on Jan 4, 2020 0:51:51 GMT
So todays emailed December 2019 Statements are advising that the PF interest Coverage ratio has been reduced to 123% which is below the target of 125%!. Not sure if the Capital Coverage changed - I guess not.
|
|