Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,978 
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Oct 18, 2014 11:42:24 GMT
I had a quick look at assigning L/M/H (perceived) risk and (potential) reward categories to a range of platforms, this is arbitrary and subjective I'm not sure if I have got it right even from my own perspective, but I changed my view on a couple of the platforms as a result of this process. | Platform | Risk
| Reward
| Abundance
| L
| M
| Archover
| L
| L
| Assetz
| L
| M
| Funding Circle
| H
| H
| Funding Knight
| H
| H
| LendInvest
| L
| M
| Ratesetter
| L
| L
| Thincats
| M
| M
| Wellesley
| L
| L
| Zopa
| L
| L
|
|
|
|
|
Post by valerieb on Oct 18, 2014 13:57:48 GMT
Currently my figures are,
in p2b 32% (stable)
on one platform 49% (falling)
in one loan 5% (this applies to just a few loans, usually less than 1%)
I invest across 4 platforms, 2 of which I monitor closely. FC preoccupies most of my time but, as others have already said, the higher risk element is offset by the entertainment value! I too have been guilty of spending much longer deliberating on small p2p losses whilst the plummeting of my stock market investments goes largely unremarked. I did notice though that my emerging markets funds have now only lost about 8%, up from some 17% earlier in the year; I think I'll crack open a banana to celebrate.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Oct 19, 2014 18:27:53 GMT
I had a quick look at assigning L/M/H (perceived) risk and (potential) reward categories to a range of platforms, this is arbitrary and subjective I'm not sure if I have got it right even from my own perspective, but I changed my view on a couple of the platforms as a result of this process. | Platform | Risk
| Reward
| Abundance
| L
| M
| Archover
| L
| L
| Assetz
| L
| M
| Funding Circle
| H
| H
| Funding Knight
| H
| H
| LendInvest
| L
| M
| Ratesetter
| L
| L
| Thincats
| M
| M
| Wellesley
| L
| L
| Zopa
| L
| L
|
That's interesting. The 3 where the reward is M and the risk is L are ones I don't currently use. I use and agree with your ratings on Zopa, Ratesetter and Wellesley but returns are not great. Can you tell me more about why you think that Abundance, Assetz and LendInvest compare with the others as low risk? I might give them a try. Z and RS have generous PFs and W's loans are asset backed with W taking the first hit themselves.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Oct 21, 2014 10:10:48 GMT
I had a quick look at assigning L/M/H (perceived) risk and (potential) reward categories to a range of platforms, this is arbitrary and subjective I'm not sure if I have got it right even from my own perspective, but I changed my view on a couple of the platforms as a result of this process. | Platform | Risk
| Reward
| Abundance
| L
| M
| Archover
| L
| L
| Assetz
| L
| M
| Funding Circle
| H
| H
| Funding Knight
| H
| H
| LendInvest
| L
| M
| Ratesetter
| L
| L
| Thincats
| M
| M
| Wellesley
| L
| L
| Zopa
| L
| L
|
That's interesting. The 3 where the reward is M and the risk is L are ones I don't currently use. I use and agree with your ratings on Zopa, Ratesetter and Wellesley but returns are not great. Can you tell me more about why you think that Abundance, Assetz and LendInvest compare with the others as low risk? I might give them a try. Z and RS have generous PFs and W's loans are asset backed with W taking the first hit themselves. Abundance offers c20 year debentures for solar and wind projects backed by FIT payments with IRR of c7-9%, I consider this to be comparatively low risk and a reasonable return over a much longer period than other platforms. LendInvest offers secured loans at c6% usually over terms of c6-12 months. Assetz offers secured loans with higher rates but often with delays. It may be possible to improve returns by careful use of the secondary market. Of course the LMH assignments are arbitrary, for example, FC also offer secured loans at c7%.
|
|
