p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 218 
Likes: 187
|
Post by p2pmark on Mar 12, 2019 19:32:51 GMT
Hi lexo , that's interesting comparison. But I am confused about the definition of your representation. I've just logged in Lendy, The total loan amount (live+repaid+NPL+claims underway) issued exceeds 350+ Mil GBP I don't take into account any repaid loans on any platforms. So for L it's live+NPL+claims underway Interesting, thanks for this. So when a loan is repaid the % bad goes up? Why not include repaid? As it is, unless a platform grows quickly, the % bad will inevitably increase over time, as the absolute £ default increases.
|
|
lexo
Posts: 52
Likes: 30
|
Post by lexo on Mar 12, 2019 19:38:17 GMT
star dust, I agree that AC with their obscure algorithms is quite difficult to analyze:-)
|
|
lexo
Posts: 52
Likes: 30
|
Post by lexo on Mar 12, 2019 19:52:02 GMT
... Any feedback/suggestions/thoughts from fellow p2p investors is always welcome. Hi lexo - thanks for sharing your stats, right up my street  It's probably not the same approach that I'd take if I had the chance but that's not to say there is no value in what you've posted, and the fact you state your assumptions helps us validate your figures (and my guess is that comments will come across as overly negative!). If it were me, I'd probably move the liquidity stuff into a separate analysis, being as liquidity in P2P is fickle at best and incredibly hard to assess. I'd probably stick to "performing" and "non-performing" loans rather than default and bad. You could break down the non-performing into formally defaulted, and/or 3/6/12 months overdue). (useful starter on NPLs: www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nonperformingloan.asp)I've looked at the FS figures to compare to my own analysis, some of which is posted here. Your portfolio figure of £95.7m doesn't look correct. My own figure is £84,966,124 on 1 Mar (prepared from all loans listed on the All past loans page plus a couple of others not listed), and that derived from the FS stats page is £85,191,134 (total lent - repaid - funds recovered - lost capital). FWIW I get 56.4% overdue by more than 90 days compared to your 59.3%, close enough! I agree that a breakdown of overdue loans in 3/6/12 months overdue categories would be another good way to compare platforms. The available data from different platforms comes in different formats it's difficult to compare the platforms. This is just an effort somehow compare a few platforms and their liquidity levels. By no means it's perfect and there are a number of limitations in this analysis. You mentioned that to all past FS loans you add "a couple of others not listed". What loans are you referring to? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 12, 2019 19:56:41 GMT
Hi lexo - thanks for sharing your stats, right up my street It's probably not the same approach that I'd take if I had the chance but that's not to say there is no value in what you've posted, and the fact you state your assumptions helps us validate your figures (and my guess is that comments will come across as overly negative!). If it were me, I'd probably move the liquidity stuff into a separate analysis, being as liquidity in P2P is fickle at best and incredibly hard to assess. I'd probably stick to "performing" and "non-performing" loans rather than default and bad. You could break down the non-performing into formally defaulted, and/or 3/6/12 months overdue). (useful starter on NPLs: www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nonperformingloan.asp)I've looked at the FS figures to compare to my own analysis, some of which is posted here. Your portfolio figure of £95.7m doesn't look correct. My own figure is £84,966,124 on 1 Mar (prepared from all loans listed on the All past loans page plus a couple of others not listed), and that derived from the FS stats page is £85,191,134 (total lent - repaid - funds recovered - lost capital). FWIW I get 56.4% overdue by more than 90 days compared to your 59.3%, close enough! I agree that a breakdown of overdue loans in 3/6/12 months overdue categories would be another good way to compare platforms. The available data from different platforms comes in different formats it's difficult to compare the platforms. This is just an effort somehow compare a few platforms and their liquidity levels. By no means it's perfect and there are a number of limitations in this analysis. You mentioned that to all past FS loans you add "a couple of others not listed". What loans are you referring to? Thanks! From my stats thread: littleoldlady thanks - the figures you quote are those listed on the loan details and are a snapshot when the loan is completed. Additional recoveries made past the completed date are listed in the General Information or Loan Updates tabs but the overall figures are not updated. What I did was to re-run the figures including the additional recoveries hence the discrepancy you picked up. technik - to be fair to FS, I think these figures are just snapshots, as I outlined above. It should be possible to generate all of the figures on the loan statistics page from the All active and past loans page but this isn't possible. Some loans are not listed, for example 2675937069 and 6569367423 are missing and most likely others because my calculated Total amount lent to date is several million below that on the loan statistics page. I suspect/hope it's a case of errors on the site. If you know of/find any other loans not listed then please let me know, thanks!
|
|
lexo
Posts: 52
Likes: 30
|
Post by lexo on Mar 12, 2019 20:03:13 GMT
I don't take into account any repaid loans on any platforms. So for L it's live+NPL+claims underway Interesting, thanks for this. So when a loan is repaid the % bad goes up? Why not include repaid? As it is, unless a platform grows quickly, the % bad will inevitably increase over time, as the absolute £ default increases. Yes, like with a bank loan portfolio, when loans are repaid, the percentage of bad goes up, and when new loans are initiated the percentage of bad goes down.((( I didn't include the repaid loans, because they are about the past performance and don't necessarily reflect the current state. But the repaid loans can be analyzed too.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 13, 2019 7:27:29 GMT
I think you should either include repaid loans, ie, 'all time loan book figures' or annualise the defaults in some way. Maybe just crudely divide by the number of years the platform has been operating.
|
|
rookey123
Member of DD Central
Posts: 75
Likes: 130
|
Post by rookey123 on Mar 13, 2019 7:54:07 GMT
The stats on AC are misleading and not reflective of the true situation. A lot of the suspended loans are just suspended in the system as they are tranche drawdown loans and part of a larger facility. Unless you are doing a loan by loan analysis these numbers are just wrong and give a misleading picture.
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Mar 13, 2019 8:34:50 GMT
Thanks for doing this - I think the FCA should read this thread before issuing their long awaited guidance so a DIRECT comparison between sites can easily be made for TRANSPARENCY and evaluation of risk/reward by consumers.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 13, 2019 9:11:15 GMT
Thanks for doing this - I think the FCA should read this thread before issuing their long awaited guidance so a DIRECT comparison between sites can easily be made for TRANSPARENCY and evaluation of risk/reward by consumers. But I think the main takeaway from this is that platforms aren't easily comparable and people can skew/interpret stats to reinforce their viewpoint (not that I am saying this is the case here). The definitions are not consistent across platforms and all the platforms have different loan sizes and terms of engagement. Why say an illiquid loan on AC is any loan with £20k+ available is bad on AC but on ABL say any amount can be available but there has to be loans for sale at a 1% discount to call a loan bad? Why not use the same metric? I think it's bonkers to classify 78% of AC's loan book as 'bad'. It's even more bonkers to say AC's loan book is in a worse state than MT's! The model AC use is to fully fund loans (either through the access account or by underwriters) before releasing to to the crowd. Having loan units available to buy is their stated aim and will always be the case for newly drawn loans. It's always going to be the case that a large loan is more likely to have more units for sale than a smaller loan...people want to diversify so it takes a lot more investors to fill a larger loan. It is wrong to classify a £10m loan with £30k available as bad while a £40k loan with £15k available is fine. As has been stated there is a huge amount of volume going through the platform, even for loans with a huge amount of availability. I have sold just short of £700k of loans in the last month - and most of those loans would be classified as bad and illiquid by this metric. They're not bad to me and I imagine the people buying them don't consider them bad either. Similarly as mentioned, a suspended loan can't be considered defaulted. It may be suspended because of imminent repayment, there may be a lender vote under way, there may be a tranche drawdown due.
|
|
lexo
Posts: 52
Likes: 30
|
Post by lexo on Mar 13, 2019 9:48:53 GMT
It's obvious that using the same metrics for each platform would be the best way to compare and analyze them. But each platform operates differently.
E.g., a large number of units available on L's SM usually means that a large number of investors are willing to forgo interests on those loans for a chance to sell (you're not getting any interest while your loan is on the SM) while not many investors are interested in buying them. A large number of units available on FS or ABL doesn't necessarily mean that a lot of investors want to sell the loan. Sellers may put large premiums on the loan and just wait for a chance of a price hike; some sellers there don't really want to sell.
It would be great if all platforms release the same data in the same format at least whenever possible. How high is the chance that the FCA will force them to do so in the near future?:-)))
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Mar 13, 2019 10:03:02 GMT
It's obvious that using the same metrics for each platform would be the best way to compare and analyze them. But each platform operates differently.E.g., a large number of units available on L's SM usually means that a large number of investors are willing to forgo interests on those loans for a chance to sell (you're not getting any interest while your loan is on the SM) while not many investors are interested in buying them. A large number of units available on FS or ABL doesn't necessarily mean that a lot of investors want to sell the loan. Sellers may put large premiums on the loan and just wait for a chance of a price hike; some sellers there don't really want to sell. It would be great if all platforms release the same data in the same format at least whenever possible. How high is the chance that the FCA will force them to do so in the near future?:-))) Herein lies the difficulty. These platforms work in very different ways, which is IMHO a good thing. It provides choice, diversity, innovation and flexibility. Forcing them to report comparable figures could only work if you also forced them to have similar operating models, which would be a backward step. I think the crude comparisons made in the OP of this thread are, TBH, worse than useless - I can understand the motivation but sometimes the world is just more complex than we would like it to be.
|
|
lexo
Posts: 52
Likes: 30
|
Post by lexo on Mar 13, 2019 10:36:50 GMT
ceejay, thanks for the compliment regarding "worse than useless". The platforms I compared while having some differences are pretty much in the same business. They all provide secured loans mostly backed by properties. E.g., unsecured consumer loans is quite a different business. While most of us appreciate choice, diversity, innovation, and flexibility and despite the world's complexity at the end of the day most investors look for the best combination of risk and return. Therefore, some common reporting, e.g., defaults, NPL, write-offs, would certainly help the investors to make better decisions. To have that platforms don't need to operate in the same way. I don't think that many would be interested in investing on a platform that offers a lot of innovation, choice, and flexibility, but poor risk-return:-)
|
|
lexo
Posts: 52
Likes: 30
|
Post by lexo on Mar 13, 2019 10:52:00 GMT
Some people on MT leave their loan parts in the sale queue, until they get close to the end, to give them more options later on. They don’t really want to sell them at all at and there are some £100,000 ante big hitters on there. So the MT figures can be disregarded too. I can only partially agree with this. Some loans have queues of few hundred thousands. If they were car or pawn loans with reasonable LTVs I think they would be gone pretty quickly and there would be no queue. You can only be in a queue with relatively unpopular loans.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 13, 2019 15:06:22 GMT
One of the more creative attempts to reach 50 posts 😉
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Mar 13, 2019 16:36:59 GMT
As Alice said, a default is what ever I want a default to be.
For non professionals a common metric is an essential, so meaningful risk comparisons can be made. Queue FCA?
I might be cynical in suspecting some platforms don’t want to be compared..........
I have a lot of faith in 4th Way saying it how they see it. Other takes like the OP’s are good to be aired and debated.
|
|
It's probably not the same approach that I'd take if I had the chance but that's not to say there is no value in what you've posted, and the fact you state your assumptions helps us validate your figures (and my guess is that comments will come across as overly negative!).
