bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Sept 22, 2019 19:32:50 GMT
Its why my investible capital remains 100% shares 0% P2P (the only things remaining in P2P are, like bugs4me a few zombie loans which I can't wait to be able to dispose of in any fashion, I'm beyond carign about any value).
Out of interest, aside from the individual zombie loans, have you also forsworn any of the currently more popular collective accounts e.g. Assetz QAA, Ratesetter, LendingWorks? If so, do you believe these are equally doomed? Jumping in and just taking a straightforward example - in my view the QAA's are simply black box accounts run by P2P platforms. The AC 30 day account is and I quote from their website - 'The 30-Day Access Account gives you a fair return on your investment. While access times cannot be guaranteed, it provides access to your cash with 30 days' notice in normal market conditions' (my bold). So they are in effect acting as underwriters in loans without being open about it. Who knows which loans they are funding.
I did question this personal assessment on three occasions with a CEO and never received an acknowledgement let alone an answer. So until there is a definition of the 'normal market conditions' I wouldn't touch them.
Normal disclaimer - this is not investment advice - simply a personal viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 22, 2019 22:10:52 GMT
Assetz Capital has been the best platform for me. Currently though my exposure in P2P is going to only ever be AC via its blackbox accounts (Access, not GBBA or property). It has attractive rates on the QAA inside a balance risk exposure. I like the monthly payments as well as the non-capital risk exposure (from a valuation standpoint) that bonds suffer from as of (well since 09 lets be honest). The problem with Bonds to me is Q/A essientaly warps them into unbalance. (manipulating the valuations) My 2 cents is Central banks will use the lessons of Q/E to prevent recessions. (even though deemed non critcal unlike the likes of 08) Because of this, Bonds are a subdued amount of my exposure like 5-10 percent, Peer to Peer is currently more than that for me (all in A/C). As we see, the ECB is following Q/E again, further distoring any bonds held in that currency. QAA has been often a bed for my short term funds whilst money is cycled into long term Stock exposure. Manually selecting loans was something I used to do in 2016 up until early 2018. Doing so after this date is deemed to risky, it is just too much time invested for such a small amount return (and usally negative as most replies on this forum seem to indicate.) I use manual for nearly three years now and not disappointed. I invest small amount in every loan/borrower offering 7%+ and put them for sale (at par) three months prior to maturity. Several are non-performing, but even if they all turn to 100% capital loss my return on MLA won't be largely affected.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692 
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Sept 23, 2019 7:16:40 GMT
Out of interest, aside from the individual zombie loans, have you also forsworn any of the currently more popular collective accounts e.g. Assetz QAA, Ratesetter, LendingWorks? If so, do you believe these are equally doomed? Jumping in and just taking a straightforward example - in my view the QAA's are simply black box accounts run by P2P platforms. The AC 30 day account is and I quote from their website - 'The 30-Day Access Account gives you a fair return on your investment. While access times cannot be guaranteed, it provides access to your cash with 30 days' notice in normal market conditions' (my bold). So they are in effect acting as underwriters in loans without being open about it. Who knows which loans they are funding.
I did question this personal assessment on three occasions with a CEO and never received an acknowledgement let alone an answer. So until there is a definition of the 'normal market conditions' I wouldn't touch them.
Normal disclaimer - this is not investment advice - simply a personal viewpoint.
Not quite sure I follow you. If you invest in any of the QAA you can see exactly what you're invested in. Currently about 85% of your cash is directly allocated to existing loans, and 15% remains in cash for liquidity purposes to allow people to make withdrawals, in normal market conditions. Abnormal conditions could arise when, for whatever reason, more people want out than that liquidity allows. There are lots of possible reasons for that e.g. large recession, No-Deal Brexit, big downturn in loanbook performance, so probably little reason to define them further than that I would argue - ?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Sept 23, 2019 7:22:44 GMT
Out of interest, aside from the individual zombie loans, have you also forsworn any of the currently more popular collective accounts e.g. Assetz QAA, Ratesetter, LendingWorks? If so, do you believe these are equally doomed?
I'm not too keen on the "P2P pretending to be a bank" thing.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.
In some respects, the risk could potentially be higher on those sorts of places given they are, in effect, selling you derivatives.
Well, not sure I agree that a diversified investment in Assetz QAA is a higher risk than investing in some of the garbage that other platforms have been churning out. I do agree that some P2P platforms are trying to act a little like banks, although I personally don't see anything wrong with that. The problem is with 'some people' . 'Some people' seem to think that, despite all of the warnings, they actually are banks and proceed to put their life and/or time-critical savings into them. But then, 'some people' do all sorts of silly things with money all the time.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Sept 23, 2019 7:58:41 GMT
Jumping in and just taking a straightforward example - in my view the QAA's are simply black box accounts run by P2P platforms. The AC 30 day account is and I quote from their website - 'The 30-Day Access Account gives you a fair return on your investment. While access times cannot be guaranteed, it provides access to your cash with 30 days' notice in normal market conditions' (my bold). So they are in effect acting as underwriters in loans without being open about it. Who knows which loans they are funding.
I did question this personal assessment on three occasions with a CEO and never received an acknowledgement let alone an answer. So until there is a definition of the 'normal market conditions' I wouldn't touch them.
Normal disclaimer - this is not investment advice - simply a personal viewpoint.
Not quite sure I follow you. If you invest in any of the QAA you can see exactly what you're invested in. Currently about 85% of your cash is directly allocated to existing loans, and 15% remains in cash for liquidity purposes to allow people to make withdrawals, in normal market conditions. Abnormal conditions could arise when, for whatever reason, more people want out than that liquidity allows. There are lots of possible reasons for that e.g. large recession, No-Deal Brexit, big downturn in loanbook performance, so probably little reason to define them further than that I would argue - ? - point taken as it's been a while since I had a look. Thanks for the correction.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 23, 2019 8:37:50 GMT
I'm not too keen on the "P2P pretending to be a bank" thing.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.
In some respects, the risk could potentially be higher on those sorts of places given they are, in effect, selling you derivatives.
Well, not sure I agree that a diversified investment in Assetz QAA is a higher risk than investing in some of the garbage that other platforms have been churning out. I do agree that some P2P platforms are trying to act a little like banks, although I personally don't see anything wrong with that. The problem is with 'some people' . 'Some people' seem to think that, despite all of the warnings, they actually are banks and proceed to put their life and/or time-critical savings into them. But then, 'some people' do all sorts of silly things with money all the time.Quite! "So convinced was Mr Howard of its merits that the 76-year-old local man cashed in his entire £30,000 pension pot to buy shares in Sirius Minerals, the company behind the massive fertiliser scheme." www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49766418
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Sept 23, 2019 9:09:13 GMT
The FCA's present involvment in P2P is the textbook definition of "too little, too late". I maintain my position that the FCA should have been involved from Day Zero instead of first allowing the extraordinarily deluded "we're observing you in the UK from a beach in Australia" approach. I disagree; I think that the FCA did too little, too early. I think that the FCA is there to protect the majority who "try to do the right thing". If some idiot (like me) want to give his money to some bloke (like Giles Andrews) knowing he will, in turn, give it to people he has never met in the hope that they will pay it all back with interest, then let them. Only when newspapers start telling their readers to invest should the FCA consider doing something. But once the FCA decides to allow platforms to claim that they are regulated by it (and HMRC) then they should make sure those in charge are competent with a decent knowledge of their industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Sept 23, 2019 13:12:21 GMT
Most of us are aware of the light-touch regulation by the FCA. It's no doubt for good reason(s)... avoid punitive fees (regulation is expensive), don't regulate away innovation, lack of FCA staff with sufficient expertise, and there are probably many other reasons. I accept all of that but what I want to see is not... "<platform name> is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority" but something like this... "<platform name> is authorised and lightly regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority" ... I'm sure there are better descriptors but you get the point, and yes, it must be mandated by FCA. There should be some limit to investor expectations, the markets of P2P firms are not as tightly regulated as other markets but investors only get to find this out when it's too late. |
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Sept 23, 2019 14:04:28 GMT
I would do manual investments in AC, I simply don't have the time. I pulling out the majority of my earnings from the account and capping the max amount allowed in P2P (10 percent, but I'm going to freeze the value amount so even this will shrink as wealth grows elsewhere). I have 15k worth if ISA funds in AC which I plan on keeping there as interest income.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Sept 23, 2019 21:09:36 GMT
Jumping in and just taking a straightforward example - in my view the QAA's are simply black box accounts run by P2P platforms. The AC 30 day account is and I quote from their website - 'The 30-Day Access Account gives you a fair return on your investment. While access times cannot be guaranteed, it provides access to your cash with 30 days' notice in normal market conditions' (my bold). So they are in effect acting as underwriters in loans without being open about it. Who knows which loans they are funding.
I did question this personal assessment on three occasions with a CEO and never received an acknowledgement let alone an answer. So until there is a definition of the 'normal market conditions' I wouldn't touch them.
Normal disclaimer - this is not investment advice - simply a personal viewpoint.
Not quite sure I follow you. If you invest in any of the QAA you can see exactly what you're invested in. Currently about 85% of your cash is directly allocated to existing loans, and 15% remains in cash for liquidity purposes to allow people to make withdrawals, in normal market conditions. Abnormal conditions could arise when, for whatever reason, more people want out than that liquidity allows. There are lots of possible reasons for that e.g. large recession, No-Deal Brexit, big downturn in loanbook performance, so probably little reason to define them further than that I would argue - ? It is easy to define normal market conditions, it is when the private investors are NOT panicking. You only have to look at Funding Circle. Everyone suddenly wants out because bad debt has risen. You would think it was collateral or Lendy!! In the case of Assertz capital I suspect there will be an increase in withdrawals as the cashbacks end. Not necessarily a panic but some will have noted what's go on at funding circle. Personally I am getting ready for decent stock market fall so I can put my money into investment trusts. Mainly owned by retail investors and where share prices fall way way below nav.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Sept 23, 2019 21:16:50 GMT
Well, not sure I agree that a diversified investment in Assetz QAA is a higher risk than investing in some of the garbage that other platforms have been churning out. I do agree that some P2P platforms are trying to act a little like banks, although I personally don't see anything wrong with that. The problem is with 'some people' . 'Some people' seem to think that, despite all of the warnings, they actually are banks and proceed to put their life and/or time-critical savings into them. But then, 'some people' do all sorts of silly things with money all the time.Quite! "So convinced was Mr Howard of its merits that the 76-year-old local man cashed in his entire £30,000 pension pot to buy shares in Sirius Minerals, the company behind the massive fertiliser scheme." www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49766418Oh God. I wonder if he also does the lottery?
|
|
|
|
Post by propman on Sept 24, 2019 13:06:14 GMT
Depending on his age and health prospects, £30k probably wouldn't have gone far anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 24, 2019 21:55:31 GMT
Not quite sure I follow you. If you invest in any of the QAA you can see exactly what you're invested in. Currently about 85% of your cash is directly allocated to existing loans, and 15% remains in cash for liquidity purposes to allow people to make withdrawals, in normal market conditions. Abnormal conditions could arise when, for whatever reason, more people want out than that liquidity allows. There are lots of possible reasons for that e.g. large recession, No-Deal Brexit, big downturn in loanbook performance, so probably little reason to define them further than that I would argue - ? It is easy to define normal market conditions, it is when the private investors are NOT panicking. You only have to look at Funding Circle. Everyone suddenly wants out because bad debt has risen. You would think it was collateral or Lendy!! In the case of Assertz capital I suspect there will be an increase in withdrawals as the cashbacks end. Not necessarily a panic but some will have noted what's go on at funding circle. Personally I am getting ready for decent stock market fall so I can put my money into investment trusts. Mainly owned by retail investors and where share prices fall way way below nav. Not quite  Bad debt reached an alarming point about two years ago, and yet many people are still actively investing on FC. Similarly, there were clear signs at Q2 2017 of SS/Lendy business is going wrong, yet investments kept going. There could be an increase in withdrawals on AC when bonuses end, but this could be stopped by introducing new bonuses as it happened before. Also bonuses are rather small to have a significant influence on investors decisions. Just a thought, I might be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Sept 25, 2019 15:46:05 GMT
Incase anybody is interested, the postions I've invested my previous Peer to Peer money from the 4.1 percent blackbox QAA account is inside; "ROYAL LONDON STERLING EXTRA YIELD BOND" Not advice, but I feel the price value and interest payment is that roughly to P2P except backed by more realistic securties which were not effected during the markets stutters this year (of course benefited as of recent, as did nearly all bonds) I've been a big investor in Peer to Peer since early 2016; My main fear with Peer to Peer is when you are invested in 1 percent per company, diverfication, it only takes a couple of loans to go wrong and your interest is Wiped out, under normal market conditions. When the market or economy whichever first takes a medium or long term head dive. Many of these loans will come tubling down on these marginal returns giving us r ealistic negative returns when calculating inflation, loss of capital for accuring interest capability (compounds too). But above all the increase in platform risk is VERY real. In some cases the refinancing of troubled loans across platforms reminds me of refinance schemes in unsustainble bonds/property which inevitably have to come crashing down on unreasonble or non-existant LTV, "security recovery" and P.G (worthless in most cases around P2P)/ Already the profitability and future of Peer to Peer is questionble, this will only increase as calls for regulation inevitiable increase. My fear is that, when the above happens, the regulation will come into compound losses for platforms and possibliy even lead to some platforms requesting FCA assistance (pick your choose, administration, liquidation) All the risk for returns similar to bond funds with solid security behide them (one example at start) just makes zero sence. The risk is so high that you had might as well just dump your money into global equities and sit on it. Platform risk!!!!!Already plenty of investors here have taken those burns, some more than others, some individals have had heaps of wealth wiped out due to platform risk. Some members have made a pretty profit on P2P too (myself included) but I know now is the time to run down my capital amount for sure, if not to nil ( possiblely thats where I'm headed if im honest.) Capping my peer to peer investments is the best I can do, no advice but its my views. Sorry for my terrible English  |
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Sept 25, 2019 22:42:04 GMT
p2p has been very profitable up to now. Although most are only a year old. I was in funding circle near the start making 15.7% annualized return on mainly A+ loans. Sniping at the end of the auctions with large loans. Then selling most on the secondary market. I was using money from zero interest credit cards, so someone elses money to boot. If I remember correctly the credit card market turned against me, ie shorter periods on zero interest cards. Also it was very time consuming always making sure I was there at the end of the auctions. Cant complain about shares either I have got out at the top twice by using the P U L method which guarantees you get out at the top. As I understand it the lower the interest rate the lower the risk, the higher the interest the higher the risk? If you had money in lendy or collateral you have only yourself to blame. Kufflink, assertz capital and growth street all businesses type loans, the greatest risk in a recession. I am now out of growth street total return 9.3% Including bonus. Kufflink about £1,000 left in never had a lot in to begin with. Got 35% on my original £500 investment. £100 for using a refer a friend link and £75 from the refer. Assertz capital £9,000 will remove most after the 6th. Leaving £2,000 in for the £100 bonus. A bit late joining assertz. I will stay with ratesetter I will expect some reduction in returns in a recession but not losses. Note I was there for the mad rooling market interest rates!! Lending works £2,000 £50 bonus and 6.5 %....forget about it let it roll. Unbolted at the moment running it down. A bit uncertain about the court case. Never got above £2,500 still putting some money into the big loans. What's not to like about ltv of 8% on forum auctions loans. Also may go back for the gold loans. Gold prices in a recession....up up and away plus supposed insurance I hope they have sufficient put options on the derivatives market? Property partner €3,000. Well I won't vote to sell property at a loss. What happens to rental property in a recession?? Nothing more for property partner. I do have an advantage over most of you on this site. I am poor relatively. I can take full advantage of the bonuses. They mean more to me than most people on this site! why are "business-type loans" the greatest risk in a a recession? Two of those you mentioned are primarily property loans. I thought GS was invoice discounting. What about consumer debt? Are you implying that it's easier to chase a defaulted domestic borrower for a domestic-sized £amount than a business for a larger amount? No I am not implying that, I am telling you that in a recession (up to now) banks have made profits on consumer loans, while making losses on business loans. That is why the interest on consumer loans are far far lower than business loans. Try getting a £10,000 business loan at 2.8%. They don't chase defaulted consumer defaults they sell them to debt collection agencies (not sure if that's what they're called). Personal unsecured loans are not unsecured as the debt collection agency can come to your house and take your telly and your car etc. A lot of people suddenly find the money when that happens!! Bussiness that default often have nothing worth having. The property is rented the machinery is leased. They can't take their homes unless they have been offered as collateral. If they go round to their house and have the telly and car away it often won't come close to covering the debt.
|
|
Bad debt reached an alarming point about two years ago, and yet many people are still actively investing on FC. Similarly, there were clear signs at Q2 2017 of SS/Lendy business is going wrong, yet investments kept going. 