sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Jun 19, 2018 21:10:59 GMT
Of course none of this should be a problem as long as the valuations hold up.
1) Valuations need to be realistic for a sale at auction taking account of associated fees.
2) The assets mustn't be so specialised or esoteric that they flood the market all at once
3) The platform need to actively manage a default and be prepared to put the assets into auction within a reasonable timescale.
If pawn loans were cross-collateralized and PGs taken that would also help to protect lenders but I can't see that happening.
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Jun 20, 2018 5:58:05 GMT
I feel the main resulting problem is the lack of transparency of true losses - and the unreasonably delayed exit opportunities (potential losses kicked down the line).
We can’t sell on SM even if prepared to take a big hit on return.
Therefore it is virtually impossible for us to compare platform performance on our net return, and allow some platforms to offer “13%” returns a grossly misleading figure after actual losses are taken into account. Would we be better taking 7% on more open platforms?
This is where (I hope) the FCA may take an interest, or a class action succeeds, or the (expensive) No Win No Fee hawks jump on the bandwagon.
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479 
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Jun 20, 2018 6:20:18 GMT
I feel the main resulting problem is the lack of transparency of true losses - and the unreasonably delayed exit opportunities (potential losses kicked down the line). We can’t sell on SM even if prepared to take a big hit on return. Therefore it is virtually impossible for us to compare platform performance on our net return, and allow some platforms to offer “13%” returns a grossly misleading figure after actual losses are taken into account. Would we be better taking 7% on more open platforms? This is where (I hope) the FCA may take an interest, or a class action succeeds, or the (expensive) No Win No Fee hawks jump on the bandwagon. True , I too was guilty of believing the headline rate and not factoring in the serious under performing loans. I have now enough years in the p2p markets to have made fairly accurate measurements of my yearly returns and as any good investor would do - I am moving my funds towards the platforms that I do acceptably well on. There was comment from some of the heavyweights on these forums a few years ago about what a realistic long term return was and it was suggested to be about 7%. I believe this now and try to target 6 to 7% in a spread of platforms , there are some easier ways of achieving this than going for the 13% returns in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jun 20, 2018 16:38:56 GMT
I feel the main resulting problem is the lack of transparency of true losses - and the unreasonably delayed exit opportunities (potential losses kicked down the line). We can’t sell on SM even if prepared to take a big hit on return. Therefore it is virtually impossible for us to compare platform performance on our net return, and allow some platforms to offer “13%” returns a grossly misleading figure after actual losses are taken into account. Would we be better taking 7% on more open platforms? This is where (I hope) the FCA may take an interest, or a class action succeeds, or the (expensive) No Win No Fee hawks jump on the bandwagon. True , I too was guilty of believing the headline rate and not factoring in the serious under performing loans. I have now enough years in the p2p markets to have made fairly accurate measurements of my yearly returns and as any good investor would do - I am moving my funds towards the platforms that I do acceptably well on. There was comment from some of the heavyweights on these forums a few years ago about what a realistic long term return was and it was suggested to be about 7%. I believe this now and try to target 6 to 7% in a spread of platforms , there are some easier ways of achieving this than going for the 13% returns in my view. Your choice of course, but would you care to give us relative newbies a hint as to which are your better performing platforms 
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 20, 2018 16:47:40 GMT
Your choice of course, but would you care to give us relative newbies a hint as to which are your better performing platforms I quantified mine here (about a month ago)
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Jun 22, 2018 8:05:50 GMT
4th Way issued New Star ratings yesterday.
“How New Ratings Shook Up The P2P Lending Comparison Tables
Growth Street is no longer number one, having been beaten to third place. See who's top now and read short summaries of all the rated lending accounts and why they have earned their ratings.”
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Jun 23, 2018 8:37:22 GMT
Your choice of course, but would you care to give us relative newbies a hint as to which are your better performing platforms I have tacked something on the back of the thread that SteveT mentioned. Its more appropriate there than here.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jun 28, 2018 19:43:28 GMT
1789961411 Silver table ornaments - Renewal 2004299995 Collection of Diamond Jewellery - Renewal 3260538360 Collection of Diamond/Gem Rings - Renewal 3809516324 Art Work - 2nd charge - Renewal 6825175747 Jewellery Collection - Renewal Currently awaiting activation and have been for several days (a week or more even?). I surmise these are to the same borrower unless fundingsecure would like to confirm otherwise. |
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Jun 28, 2018 21:48:24 GMT
1789961411 Silver table ornaments - Renewal 2004299995 Collection of Diamond Jewellery - Renewal 3260538360 Collection of Diamond/Gem Rings - Renewal 3809516324 Art Work - 2nd charge - Renewal 6825175747 Jewellery Collection - Renewal Currently awaiting activation and have been for several days (a week or more even?). I surmise these are to the same borrower unless fundingsecure would like to confirm otherwise. 'Borrower confidentiality and/or they don't have that information to hand' is the response I got at the start of my foray into the art loans and look where that's ended up! Good luck with your question but this subterfuge and non disclosure needs to stop. Their were 13 loans at one point on the platform yesterday evening and I didn't have one penny invested in any of them
|
|
lucky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 79
Likes: 46
|
Post by lucky on Jun 28, 2018 22:59:50 GMT
1789961411 Silver table ornaments - Renewal 2004299995 Collection of Diamond Jewellery - Renewal 3260538360 Collection of Diamond/Gem Rings - Renewal 3809516324 Art Work - 2nd charge - Renewal 6825175747 Jewellery Collection - Renewal Currently awaiting activation and have been for several days (a week or more even?). I surmise these are to the same borrower unless fundingsecure would like to confirm otherwise. 'Borrower confidentiality and/or they don't have that information to hand' is the response I got at the start of my foray into the art loans and look where that's ended up! Good luck with your question but this subterfuge and non disclosure needs to stop. Their were 13 loans at one point on the platform yesterday evening and I didn't have one penny invested in any of them ditto
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jun 29, 2018 8:31:19 GMT
'Borrower confidentiality and/or they don't have that information to hand' is the response I got at the start of my foray into the art loans and look where that's ended up! Good luck with your question but this subterfuge and non disclosure needs to stop. Their were 13 loans at one point on the platform yesterday evening and I didn't have one penny invested in any of them I agree, fundingsecure , something needs to change. P2P UK has matured somewhat, and lenders tend to know far more about their prospective borrowers than in the past. For property, given that the vast majority of loans are to limited companies, the information around the borrower and their Fundingsecure charges are a matter of public record. All of Fundingsecure's charges are able to be found by a simple google search. Also deducible often from planning applications. To not share this information with us directly now just appears childish - especially when other platforms are quite happy to do so. It's not confidential. Second, in the case of personal pawn loans, we don't necessarily need to know the ID of the borrower, just that this is the Nth loan to borrower X, so that we can avoid too greater a concentration of borrowers in our portfolio.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jun 29, 2018 8:52:22 GMT
1789961411 Silver table ornaments - Renewal 2004299995 Collection of Diamond Jewellery - Renewal 3260538360 Collection of Diamond/Gem Rings - Renewal 3809516324 Art Work - 2nd charge - Renewal 6825175747 Jewellery Collection - Renewal Currently awaiting activation and have been for several days (a week or more even?). I surmise these are to the same borrower unless fundingsecure would like to confirm otherwise. 'Borrower confidentiality and/or they don't have that information to hand' is the response I got at the start of my foray into the art loans and look where that's ended up! Good luck with your question but this subterfuge and non disclosure needs to stop. Their were 13 loans at one point on the platform yesterday evening and I didn't have one penny invested in any of them I agree with you and the last thing I expect is for fundingsecure to roll over and say on here "yes, they are to a single borrower". The reason for banging the same drum time after time is to keep up the pressure on them to disclose information that should be in the lender domain. To be clear, I'm not requesting that we are told the identity of the borrower but merely what other loans the borrower has on the platform to be able to avoid concentration risk. I will call them out every time I suspect a linked borrower for their pawn loans. At some point they will wake up and realise that damage is being done to their platform. It's give and take and I suggest they need to give a little more, the suggestion is not unreasonable. It's difficult to see why they take this line, is one of the borrowers being obstructive in this regard, or do they have so few borrowers to make diversification a mockery? Perhaps they only have one or two borrowers on the entire pawn loan book but in this regard a default is going to lead to one hell of a S**t storm.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Jun 29, 2018 10:24:05 GMT
'Borrower confidentiality and/or they don't have that information to hand' is the response I got at the start of my foray into the art loans and look where that's ended up! Good luck with your question but this subterfuge and non disclosure needs to stop. Their were 13 loans at one point on the platform yesterday evening and I didn't have one penny invested in any of them I agree with you and the last thing I expect is for fundingsecure to roll over and say on here "yes, they are to a single borrower". The reason for banging the same drum time after time is to keep up the pressure on them to disclose information that should be in the lender domain. To be clear, I'm not requesting that we are told the identity of the borrower but merely what other loans the borrower has on the platform to be able to avoid concentration risk. I will call them out every time I suspect a linked borrower for their pawn loans. At some point they will wake up and realise that damage is being done to their platform. It's give and take and I suggest they need to give a little more, the suggestion is not unreasonable. It's difficult to see why they take this line, is one of the borrowers being obstructive in this regard, or do they have so few borrowers to make diversification a mockery? Perhaps they only have one or two borrowers on the entire pawn loan book but in this regard a default is going to lead to one hell of a S**t storm.IF your last sentence is (in part) a polite but subtle reference to the art loans, then I would suggest that unless they are resolved satisfactorily, I cant think of a stronger candidate for a class action right now. Issuing four (as far as we have been led to believe ) high value loans to the same borrower without informing prospective lenders on any of the loans to the increased potential risk factor is at best an inexcusable lack of clarity and at worst.. fill in as required.
As Roolers has mentioned above, we're not interested in who the borrower is, only that as investors, we can make a more informed decision, where multiple loans make a mockery of the declared LTV based entirely on one single loan. As has also been mentioned property loans generally are easier to research due in the main to the excellent DD by mrclondon and others as well as information available in the public domain but I still feel that more info on interconnected loans should be available at the outset. Maybe it's me or the weather or the World Cup or just the particular loans in the market place atm..but I sense the uptake has slowed markedly over the last few weeks
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jun 29, 2018 11:25:17 GMT
I agree with you and the last thing I expect is for fundingsecure to roll over and say on here "yes, they are to a single borrower". The reason for banging the same drum time after time is to keep up the pressure on them to disclose information that should be in the lender domain. To be clear, I'm not requesting that we are told the identity of the borrower but merely what other loans the borrower has on the platform to be able to avoid concentration risk. I will call them out every time I suspect a linked borrower for their pawn loans. At some point they will wake up and realise that damage is being done to their platform. It's give and take and I suggest they need to give a little more, the suggestion is not unreasonable. It's difficult to see why they take this line, is one of the borrowers being obstructive in this regard, or do they have so few borrowers to make diversification a mockery? Perhaps they only have one or two borrowers on the entire pawn loan book but in this regard a default is going to lead to one hell of a S**t storm.IF your last sentence is (in part) a polite but subtle reference to the art loans, then I would suggest that unless they are resolved satisfactorily, I cant think of a stronger candidate for a class action right now. Issuing four (as far as we have been led to believe ) high value loans to the same borrower without informing prospective lenders on any of the loans to the increased potential risk factor is at best an inexcusable lack of clarity and at worst.. fill in as required.
As Roolers has mentioned above, we're not interested in who the borrower is, only that as investors, we can make a more informed decision, where multiple loans make a mockery of the declared LTV based entirely on one single loan. As has also been mentioned property loans generally are easier to research due in the main to the excellent DD by mrclondon and others as well as information available in the public domain but I still feel that more info on interconnected loans should be available at the outset. Maybe it's me or the weather or the World Cup or just the particular loans in the market place atm..but I sense the uptake has slowed markedly over the last few weeks And how would you react if you found out the borrower on the art loans were also the borrower on, say, Whitehaven or any of the other long overdue loans? Let me make it clear that I have no evidence to suggest any of the pawn loans are connected to any of the property loans but without an explicit statement from fundingsecure it is a distinct possibility that we can't discount.
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Jul 2, 2018 19:38:50 GMT
Strikes me investing in p2p where DD of the platform can’t be relied on is simple gambling rather than investing.
I am new to p2p, have tried to diversify both in platforms and as far as possible within the platform, having well over a hundred separate investments with FS. Only I’m now certain they are NOT as separate as I thought.
For about £100 or less I’m not spending dollar time on dime DD.
Besides if it’s any good it gone in seconds. If it ain’t it hangs around (or is very large). Wasted time. No thanks. I’m trying Proplend and HNW, and feel more confident I can rely on the DD already being done. Time will tell.
With FS if I elect to RENEW, and the borrow doesn’t pay on time I wish I had not set it to renew, otoh if I don’t select RENEW, and they renew on time, I feel I should have trusted them. But it’s all gone. Taint easy risking losing money trying to get 13%. Seems a whole lot easier to aim for the 7%ers and relax.
in the short time with FS I seem to have acquired a lot of late renewers. (98 out of 315 loan parts should have ended before July) A late payer (without a good reason given in Updates) is a prospective defaulter. Few Updates give me any confidence FS hold more cards than the minority(?) of delinquent borrowers.
|
|
