|
|
Post by jordan on Nov 26, 2018 11:05:39 GMT
Hi forumites, We’ve received some great feedback and engagement from this forum since starting Orca a couple of years ago. Having listened intently to your views on P2P, we’re asking for your help once more… -- As some may be aware, we launched the Orca Investment Platform (aggregator) earlier this year. The first iteration of the product is a passive, hands-off solution, enabling diversification across multiple major lenders in the UK market. Now, we’re looking to the future, with a couple of key iterations lined up:- IFISA which wraps multiple P2P accounts - ability to build your own portfolio with our Self-Select product (choose the platforms yourself) We'd be grateful if you'd provide feedback on these improvements. Here is a preview of what this might look like during the sign up process. Video - 'Sign up process' Still mockups - Self-Select product (build own portfolio)   This is an excellent forum for businesses like Orca's to test our ideas before implementing them. A few minutes of your time would mean an awful lot. Get in touch directly - if you prefer, feel free to email me with any comments as well jordan@orcamoney.com Thanks in advance, Jordan |
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Nov 26, 2018 12:25:44 GMT
Essentials for an ISA are: must be flexible, charges for transfers are a put off, better to cover the costs opaquely, and a charge for running the ISA itself is a complete no no.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866 
Likes: 1,861
|
Post by archie on Nov 26, 2018 12:36:20 GMT
Looks like a great idea to me.  For lenders who like maximum diversification it's ideal. Anyone who already has exposure to any of the platforms may want to allocate 0% to those to avoid double exposure. Probably best to have some sort of risk rating for each platform although I'm not sure how you could measure that. It's just to avoid the temptation for lenders to concentrate on the higher rates. |
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Nov 26, 2018 12:38:19 GMT
Transfers out of IFISA should be free. Also, what happens with non performing loans that can’t be sold. AIUI on FC, for example non performing loans are transferred into a non isa account and all tax benefits are lost. So:
£20,000 initial isa investment.
two years later value is £22,500.
transfer request is made. BUT £1,000 of non performing loans that can’t be sold are transferred to a non isa FC account. The balance of £21,500 is transferred to the new platform.
ie tax benefits on £1,000 permanently lost, and recovered capital and income accrues in a taxable account.
but there are different rules on different platforms. How is this managed in an aggregated account?
|
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Nov 26, 2018 13:23:54 GMT
Thanks for the initial feedback folks, taking your points in turn: littleoldladyEssentials for an ISA are: must be flexible, charges for transfers are a put off, better to cover the costs opaquely, and a charge for running the ISA itself is a complete no no.- All good points and noted. Q: In terms of the concept, could you see yourself subscribing current tax year or transferring old ISA subscriptions to an aggregator in time? Is it something you'd take advantage of if the points you raised were satisfied? -- archieLooks like a great idea to me. For lenders who like maximum diversification it's ideal. Anyone who already has exposure to any of the platforms may want to allocate 0% to those to avoid double exposure.Probably best to have some sort of risk rating for each platform although I'm not sure how you could measure that. It's just to avoid the temptation for lenders to concentrate on the higher rates.- Appreciate the kind words! The ability to control the allocations, via Orca's upcoming 'Self-Select' (name TBD) product, could be the answer to mitigating double exposure.. - In terms of risk ratings, we have considered this in the past, but opted not to - the market is maturing, but it's problematic applying a standard risk rating against platforms/product when the lending models can vary significantly. Food for thought though... Q: If you would consider yourself as someone who wants higher rates, what would be an attractive return? -- ashtondavTransfers out of IFISA should be free. Also, what happens with non performing loans that can’t be sold. AIUI on FC, for example non performing loans are transferred into a non isa account and all tax benefits are lost. So:
£20,000 initial isa investment.
two years later value is £22,500.
transfer request is made. BUT £1,000 of non performing loans that can’t be sold are transferred to a non isa FC account. The balance of £21,500 is transferred to the new platform.
ie tax benefits on £1,000 permanently lost, and recovered capital and income accrues in a taxable account.
but there are different rules on different platforms. How is this managed in an aggregated account?
- Great comments. We're working through these concerns at the moment and will have more info on this down the line (in advance of launch). At present, we're seeking feedback on the concept mostly. Really appreciate you flagging though. Q: Is the concept attractive if your concern above (and any additional ones) was satisfied? |
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Nov 26, 2018 14:18:24 GMT
Having an ISA wrapper around multiple platforms would be a great benefit. It could cover the case where a platform doesn't have an ISA yet, but more importantly the ability to move especially current-year subscriptions between platforms, which at the moment is limited because it has to be all-or-nothing.
The $64k question, though, is how much would you charge for this service (by fee or percentage)? I suspect I wouldn't want to pay very much, though I could understand that someone who was especially time-poor might feel otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Nov 26, 2018 15:39:56 GMT
Having an ISA wrapper around multiple platforms would be a great benefit. It could cover the case where a platform doesn't have an ISA yet, but more importantly the ability to move especially current-year subscriptions between platforms, which at the moment is limited because it has to be all-or-nothing.
The $64k question, though, is how much would you charge for this service (by fee or percentage)? I suspect I wouldn't want to pay very much, though I could understand that someone who was especially time-poor might feel otherwise.
Appreciate the comments ceejayIt's key to the proposition; the ability to divide current tax-year subs between multiple platforms, from the Orca ISA (as you correctly point out, mitigating the "all-or-nothing" transfer to a single other ISA provider). Our fee is 0.65% on the value invested, taken annually. Q: Would you prefer to select the platforms you hold in your Orca ISA (assuming you choose Orca ISA)? Are there any platforms you'd particularly like to see held in the Orca portfolio?
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,500
Likes: 924
|
Post by aju on Nov 26, 2018 17:22:40 GMT
Having an ISA wrapper around multiple platforms would be a great benefit. It could cover the case where a platform doesn't have an ISA yet, but more importantly the ability to move especially current-year subscriptions between platforms, which at the moment is limited because it has to be all-or-nothing.
The $64k question, though, is how much would you charge for this service (by fee or percentage)? I suspect I wouldn't want to pay very much, though I could understand that someone who was especially time-poor might feel otherwise.
Appreciate the comments ceejay It's key to the proposition; the ability to divide current tax-year subs between multiple platforms, from the Orca ISA (as you correctly point out, mitigating the "all-or-nothing" transfer to a single other ISA provider). Our fee is 0.65% on the value invested, taken annually. Q: Would you prefer to select the platforms you hold in your Orca ISA (assuming you choose Orca ISA)? Are there any platforms you'd particularly like to see held in the Orca portfolio? Hmm!, Good question and to be honest I'd not thought of costs . Zopa as an investment with a 0.65%/year and the defaults some Zopa forumites are reporting might be bit of an issue, I can't remember if any PF protected platforms were on the list. Not sure I would be taker on this anyway but losing 0.65% on my investment means I am probably not the target audience. and all the fun I have had on this stuff over the last few years will be lost if i aggregated.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Nov 26, 2018 18:54:26 GMT
Having an ISA wrapper around multiple platforms would be a great benefit. It could cover the case where a platform doesn't have an ISA yet, but more importantly the ability to move especially current-year subscriptions between platforms, which at the moment is limited because it has to be all-or-nothing.
The $64k question, though, is how much would you charge for this service (by fee or percentage)? I suspect I wouldn't want to pay very much, though I could understand that someone who was especially time-poor might feel otherwise.
Appreciate the comments ceejay It's key to the proposition; the ability to divide current tax-year subs between multiple platforms, from the Orca ISA (as you correctly point out, mitigating the "all-or-nothing" transfer to a single other ISA provider). Our fee is 0.65% on the value invested, taken annually. Q: Would you prefer to select the platforms you hold in your Orca ISA (assuming you choose Orca ISA)? Are there any platforms you'd particularly like to see held in the Orca portfolio? Well, to answer the direct question, for me being able to select the platforms would be non-negotiable. I would have absolutely no interest in a product that dumped me in platforms I hadn't chosen.
On the other point which you didn't ask - 0.65% would almost certainly be more than I'd be prepared to pay, though (as I suggested) others might. It might sound like a small number but if you were to say that my target return were in the region of 6.5% then you'd be taking 10% of my income. More, if (as is likely) the gross return were less than 6.5%.
|
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Nov 26, 2018 20:27:33 GMT
Appreciate the comments ceejay It's key to the proposition; the ability to divide current tax-year subs between multiple platforms, from the Orca ISA (as you correctly point out, mitigating the "all-or-nothing" transfer to a single other ISA provider). Our fee is 0.65% on the value invested, taken annually. Q: Would you prefer to select the platforms you hold in your Orca ISA (assuming you choose Orca ISA)? Are there any platforms you'd particularly like to see held in the Orca portfolio? Hmm!, Good question and to be honest I'd not thought of costs . Zopa as an investment with a 0.65%/year and the defaults some Zopa forumites are reporting might be bit of an issue, I can't remember if any PF protected platforms were on the list. Not sure I would be taker on this anyway but losing 0.65% on my investment means I am probably not the target audience. and all the fun I have had on this stuff over the last few years will be lost if i aggregated. Thanks aju reliable as ever when feedback is requested Orca integrates with Assetz Capital, Landbay, Lending Works, Octopus Choice and LendingCrowd; so a couple of PF protected platforms in there. Very conscious of rising defaults, this is where we plan to use our Analytics service (historic and still going) to ensure we're kept abreast of any rising defaults/bad debt. Providing loan books are still made available, we can conduct thorough analyses. Appreciate your concerns regards fee. If there was no fee, would you go for it (hypothetically)? By the way, I very much understand that many on here are more than capable of managing their portfolio themselves, and can achieve a higher return, but it's always useful to understand where and how people could be enticed
|
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Nov 26, 2018 20:33:13 GMT
Appreciate the comments ceejay It's key to the proposition; the ability to divide current tax-year subs between multiple platforms, from the Orca ISA (as you correctly point out, mitigating the "all-or-nothing" transfer to a single other ISA provider). Our fee is 0.65% on the value invested, taken annually. Q: Would you prefer to select the platforms you hold in your Orca ISA (assuming you choose Orca ISA)? Are there any platforms you'd particularly like to see held in the Orca portfolio? Well, to answer the direct question, for me being able to select the platforms would be non-negotiable. I would have absolutely no interest in a product that dumped me in platforms I hadn't chosen.
On the other point which you didn't ask - 0.65% would almost certainly be more than I'd be prepared to pay, though (as I suggested) others might. It might sound like a small number but if you were to say that my target return were in the region of 6.5% then you'd be taking 10% of my income. More, if (as is likely) the gross return were less than 6.5%.
Fair point ceejay, this is why we're developing the Self-Select (or "portfolio builder"), so you have control over the platforms you choose to hold. It would be interesting to know which platforms you'd like to see integrated with Orca? The fee is something we're continuously reviewing, to ensure we're delivering value for money, so I thank you for raising it. What level of fee would you be comfortable paying? Or better, what would you expect in return for the current fee?
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,500
Likes: 924
|
Post by aju on Nov 26, 2018 21:06:51 GMT
Appreciate the comments ceejay It's key to the proposition; the ability to divide current tax-year subs between multiple platforms, from the Orca ISA (as you correctly point out, mitigating the "all-or-nothing" transfer to a single other ISA provider). Our fee is 0.65% on the value invested, taken annually. Q: Would you prefer to select the platforms you hold in your Orca ISA (assuming you choose Orca ISA)? Are there any platforms you'd particularly like to see held in the Orca portfolio? Well, to answer the direct question, for me being able to select the platforms would be non-negotiable. I would have absolutely no interest in a product that dumped me in platforms I hadn't chosen.
On the other point which you didn't ask - 0.65% would almost certainly be more than I'd be prepared to pay, though (as I suggested) others might. It might sound like a small number but if you were to say that my target return were in the region of 6.5% then you'd be taking 10% of my income. More, if (as is likely) the gross return were less than 6.5%.
Yep, I'm always happy to have a view and will comment when I have understood it better (i'm away from machines at the moment) but in reality i prefer to be in more control so the self select would be for me rather than the hands off. I had not framed the fees that way and glad you did as 10% of 6.5% makes it much easier to see its almost certainly not for me. I'm in Zopa and very recently am also trying out Ratesetter so that view makes it much easier to see that its probably very subjective looking at it like that. I probably will not be paying anyone for something that i can do myself and get a great deal of pleasure out of managing it on my small scale and finding ways to better my chances too.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Nov 26, 2018 22:29:06 GMT
with regards the fee - are you being paid by the platforms and if not could they not pay you a commission and an ongoing fee instead for introducing the customer?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 26, 2018 22:29:55 GMT
Hi jordan, I like the idea of a self-select product in an IFISA wrapper, particularly if you were able to provide an IFISA wrapper for platforms that didn't offer an IFISA directly. Splitting a current year's ISA allowance over multiple platforms would be particularly attractive. However, I would not use it myself with your current free structure. The 0.65% annual fee is way to high for me when I can avoid this completely by investing directly. The 0.25% early cash-in fee seems to be unavoidable unless you intend to provide a facility to turn of auto-relending for each platform (Again, I wouldn't invest without this). I accept that there are likely to be some who are prepared to pay these fees, but I doubt that you will find many on this forum. I personally favour higher return platforms where I can manually select my loans, but these are unlikely to fit Orca's model. However, I do directly invest in most of the platforms that are currently available via Orca for the benefit of platform diversification. If Orca's fee structure was revised to make it comparable with direct investing then I would like to see the following platforms included: Unbolted, Welendus, Proplend and CrowdProperty. CrowdProperty seems to be very similar to Octopus Choice, but with twice the returns! It would be interesting to know whether Orca's analysis can throw any light on the justification for the difference. I guess that I'm asking for too much, but you did ask 😉 Good luck |
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Nov 27, 2018 0:07:31 GMT
Well, to answer the direct question, for me being able to select the platforms would be non-negotiable. I would have absolutely no interest in a product that dumped me in platforms I hadn't chosen.
On the other point which you didn't ask - 0.65% would almost certainly be more than I'd be prepared to pay, though (as I suggested) others might. It might sound like a small number but if you were to say that my target return were in the region of 6.5% then you'd be taking 10% of my income. More, if (as is likely) the gross return were less than 6.5%.
Fair point ceejay , this is why we're developing the Self-Select (or "portfolio builder"), so you have control over the platforms you choose to hold. It would be interesting to know which platforms you'd like to see integrated with Orca? The fee is something we're continuously reviewing, to ensure we're delivering value for money, so I thank you for raising it. What level of fee would you be comfortable paying? Or better, what would you expect in return for the current fee? Which platforms - is a subjective question as we all have our own favourites. I think the ones that would work best in this environment would be the fully hands off ones like AC 30DAA/QAA. I also use Growth Street in this way. I'm not sure how this would work with platforms where the best results require quite a bit of manual intervention - Ratesetter I'm thinking of here. I don't use Zopa or Octopus Choice (though I have tried both) but I guess they would fit in this model.
Fee - well, to earn a fee you've either got to make me a better return or save me time which I put a value on. I'm struggling to see how you can get a better return, perhaps you can come up with ideas. So its time saved that is the big value. Lets say I put in £20k. Your charge would be £130 pa. If I value my personal time at £10ph then you have to save me 13h/yr, which is tough. If I value it at £50/h then its a lot easier! Straight away you can see how hugely different your fees are going to appear to different people...
Here's another question. Those of us with a few quid (or more!) in COL are acutely aware of platform risk at the moment. Using an aggregator adds an extra level of risk which needs to be considered. You'd need to offer something very convincing.
|
|
