I have been looking at Bondora's report of today (20.4.18) entitled "No F or HR rated loans issued in Estonia in Q4 of 2017 – More stats here"
I have been checking out the section "Actual and targeted net returns across the board per quarter", in particular the results for the 1st quarter 2016. Why this one? It happens to be old enough to give 'stable' numbers and the last one in which I had substantial PM bids.
For Est they give actual returns of 17.42% (C loans) and 20.45% (D) For Fin they give actual returns of 8.11% (C loans) and 11.45% (D)
During the 1st quarter 2016 I had the PM bidding on C and D loans from Est and Fin and I look at my results
I group loans into Good (current + repaid) and defaults. I have no overdues in this group.
For my Est loans: Good - 15 Default - 9
For my Fin loans: Good - 2 Default - 11
Together: Good - 17 Default - 20
Can anyone propose how their favourable results and my awful ones can be reconciled ?
Just an off-the-cuff quick gut response, but I assume B. will be using values rather than numbers so the calculation for "Return" can use their favoured default "loss" value (being the amount not yet repaid that should have been rather than the writing off the total amount) which will yield a far more favourable apparent "Return".
If the interests are high enough you can earn 2digit returns even if a good part of the loans default. And - bondora only counts the amount that was due as a loss. So if the loans defaulted rather late, no inconsistence.