webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 14, 2014 14:11:57 GMT
This thread is not about p2p but users of this forum are, I suppose, investors looking to get a better rate of interest than is available from banks etc and so are a logical group to ask about the following. www.big60million.co.uk are offering 7% over 5 years. Has anyone invested or considered this bond? How does it compare to p2p? |
|
|
|
Post by tybalt on Sept 14, 2014 15:20:27 GMT
Broadly I believe both ThinCats and AC have wind turbine development loans at about 9.5% plus, or 7.0% plus an annual RPI adjustment. Both are subject to a risk of change of Government policy probably remote, there have been a couple of offers of the North of the Border project on the Secondary Market which went at about 9.45% from memory.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136 
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Sept 14, 2014 15:41:29 GMT
The bonds are secured on solar farms, and pay 7% pa gross (although interest will be paid net of 20% tax). This compares to 9.5-10% gross for the various wind turbines on AC and TC. Solar is probably slightly safer than wind (no moving parts, so less maintenance) but my personal view is that a 2.5-3% differential is too much.
If you do go for it, you should not invest more in any one bond than you would be comfortable having as a p2p exposure to a single reasonably high grade borrower.
As far as I can see, only one bond is actually available at the moment. If I was considering investing in more than one bond, I would read the prospectuses carefully to decide whether it is appropriate to regard the bonds as separate exposures, or together as one exposure.
Edit: crossed with Tybalt's post.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Sept 14, 2014 18:33:17 GMT
It should be noted that these bonds are non-transferable.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 15, 2014 7:15:19 GMT
Thanks for those helpful comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Sept 15, 2014 8:33:50 GMT
...... Solar is probably slightly safer than wind (no moving parts, so less maintenance) ......... Within the technology it might be safer, however it is potentially more vulnerable to vandalism and metal theft being lower to the ground and spread over a wide area.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 15, 2014 15:43:05 GMT
Hopefully they have insurance. I will ask the question though.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Sept 15, 2014 15:47:51 GMT
The problem is not just whether not they have insurance for the lost/damaged equipment but do they have insurance to cover the lost revenue if the site is out of action due to theft/vandalism and if not how quickly would they expect to be up and running in the situation where they did suffer damage/lose hardware.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 15, 2014 22:37:55 GMT
The problem is not just whether not they have insurance for the lost/damaged equipment but do they have insurance to cover the lost revenue if the site is out of action due to theft/vandalism and if not how quickly would they expect to be up and running in the situation where they did suffer damage/lose hardware. And would they be able to maintain their insurance if it happens more than once?
|
|
