wapping35
Member of DD Central
Posts: 385
Likes: 210
|
Post by wapping35 on Mar 23, 2018 13:38:23 GMT
We'd just like to put your minds at ease - there is a currently an error with the annual Provision Fund surplus/deficit statistics shown on our Data Hub webpage and we are in the process of fixing this. The Coverage Ratio and Provision Fund statistics are displayed correctly on the same webpage, and are not affected by the afore mentioned error. Thank you. Thanks I was hoping it was a fat finger issue as opposed to an "issue issue". I believe the change equates to a £6m hit to the PF which is a very fat finger IMHO. W35
|
|
|
Post by propman on Mar 23, 2018 14:55:49 GMT
Now updated.
I note that they have lowered the estimate of future bad debts for 2017 b& 2018 by 0.3% of the balance, the 2016 & 2017 having higher amounts of loans 2+ in arrears. I hope tht they are not filing to put loans into default to make the numbers look better.
- PM
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Apr 7, 2018 1:17:56 GMT
Cover ratio gradually improving. Very positive.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 1,444
|
Post by jlend on Apr 23, 2018 13:34:26 GMT
Cover ratio gradually improving. Very positive. I do wonder how much of the improvement is down to more asset backed loans on RS which are handled differently now. A shortfall on a couple of large asset backed loans in the future would take a big chunk out of the PF. I dont know what allowance RS has made for this happening. Many platforms have seen quite large shortfalls in one or more asset backed loans (albeit with recovery still in progress in many) so i assume RS has allowed for this situation.
|
|
|
Post by propman on Apr 27, 2018 17:19:00 GMT
Cover ratio gradually improving. Very positive. THis covers a host of changes. Today's notice said:
"We have updated our expected loss figure following the latest quarterly Expected Loss Committee meeting. There is no material change in the Provision Fund Coverage Ratio."
In fact there has been a significant increase in the expected losses for 2017 & 2018 and similar sized reduction in the expected losses for 2015 & 2016 that have been increasing recently. I thought that the bad debt estimate was based on the performance of earlier loans made 18 - 30 months before, I find it hard to understand how this can lead to very different impacts on different years. Alternatively it is the result of revised assumptions on say the amount that they can sell the underperforming loans at. This would be more worrying as it is judgemental. In addition, I am surprised that this shouldn't have an impact on all periods as a reduction in the proportion of defaults that will be the ultimate cost.
- PM
|
|
|
Post by propman on May 11, 2018 16:25:28 GMT
There has been a significant reduction shown in the "losses" on covered loans without a consequent increase in the cash in the provision fund (I noticed the reduction in 2015 & 2016). This has lead to an increase in the projected fund surplus. Any ideas?
- PM
PS Subsequently updatred cash in Provision Fund to show about £1m more, so looks like another sle of "defaulted" loans. Usiual issue, if expected future defaults are net of recoveries from defaulted loans, how come these haven't changed? Ex[pect an increase at the next revision reducing the coverage ratio!
|
|
jsmill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 114
|
Post by jsmill on Jul 11, 2018 8:34:35 GMT
There is some particularly questionable math going on at Ratesetter at the moment. Apparently a capital coverage ratio of 259% would mean losses would need to be 259 times larger than forecast before I lose any money.
Similar story on the interest coverage numbers. You would hope investors don't pay too much attention to this nonsense but as a regulated business with the obligation to be "fair, clear and not misleading" it is a bit of a swing and a miss.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Jul 11, 2018 10:11:13 GMT
There is some particularly questionable math going on at Ratesetter at the moment. Apparently a capital coverage ratio of 259% would mean losses would need to be 259 times larger than forecast before I lose any money. Similar story on the interest coverage numbers. You would hope investors don't pay too much attention to this nonsense but as a regulated business with the obligation to be "fair, clear and not misleading" it is a bit of a swing and a miss. No, actually. 1% = 1/100 100% means 1x 259% means 2.59x The target is 3x coverage
|
|
jsmill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 114
|
Post by jsmill on Jul 11, 2018 10:14:34 GMT
That is precisely my point. Losses would need to be 2.59x larger not 259x larger
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jul 11, 2018 10:16:27 GMT
That is precisely my point. Losses would need to be 2.59x larger not 259x larger RS haven't written 259x, they've written 259 %, which is equivalent to 2.59x
|
|
jsmill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 114
|
Post by jsmill on Jul 11, 2018 10:18:34 GMT
That is precisely my point. Losses would need to be 2.59x larger not 259x larger RS haven't written 259x, they've written 259 %, which is equivalent to 2.59x No. Please read the website before making inaccurate comments. Below is a direct quote and link to relevant page: "Actual Future Losses would need to be 259 times larger than Expected Future Losses before investors’ initial investment starts to be at risk." Stats
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 1,444
|
Post by jlend on Jul 11, 2018 10:22:20 GMT
RS have confirmed the error on the website is a missing decimal point.
It should read 2.59 times not 259 times
And 1.25 times rather than 125 times
|
|
jsmill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 114
|
Post by jsmill on Jul 11, 2018 10:24:18 GMT
RS have confirmed the error on the website is a missing decimal point. It should read 2.59 times not 259 times Exactly, thanks jlend
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jul 11, 2018 10:27:05 GMT
RS haven't written 259x, they've written 259 %, which is equivalent to 2.59x No. Please read the website before making inaccurate comments. Below is a direct quote and link to relevant page: "Actual Future Losses would need to be 259 times larger than Expected Future Losses before investors’ initial investment starts to be at risk." StatsI do apologise, quite right.
|
|
jsmill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 114
|
Post by jsmill on Jul 11, 2018 10:33:39 GMT
No. Please read the website before making inaccurate comments. Below is a direct quote and link to relevant page: "Actual Future Losses would need to be 259 times larger than Expected Future Losses before investors’ initial investment starts to be at risk." StatsI do apologise, quite right. No problem, what is a decimal point between friends! I am keen to hold RS to account these days though. Whatever the business rationale behind their recent changes the way it has been managed and communicated has been poor and the website functionality and reporting of transactions has also deteriorated (at least in my opinion)
|
|