|
|
Post by samford71 on Oct 8, 2019 7:06:17 GMT
There's a big article about P2P on pages 44 and 45. 'A further platform is teetering on the brink of insolvency' apparently. Any ideas which one? Given the lack of profitability of the majority of P2P platforms and their weak balances sheets, it would probably be quicker to compile the much shorter list of platforms that are not teetering on the brink of insolvency ...
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934 
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Oct 8, 2019 7:29:14 GMT
The main reason given in defence of SM's is the liquidity & the need at times to access funds - so how about running only with a choice of par or a discount? i have never bought a loan at a premium apart from a few when joining a couple of platforms a few years ago so that i could diversify.But would never do so now as its not like the loan becomes more desirable in say the way an investment trust might
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Oct 8, 2019 8:07:36 GMT
I have withdrawn from assetz yesterday. And loanpad a couple of weeks earlier. Planning to exit wisealpha in a week and kuflink in a week as well(bonus is due). Only platforms I cannot exit are lendinvest and crowdproperty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 8, 2019 8:09:40 GMT
The main reason given in defence of SM's is the liquidity & the need at times to access funds - so how about running only with a choice of par or a discount? i have never bought a loan at a premium apart from a few when joining a couple of platforms a few years ago so that i could diversify.But would never do so now as its not like the loan becomes more desirable in say the way an investment trust might Many loans become very much more desirable over time. To take two simple examples: 1) Amortizing loans against an appreciating, or slowly depreciating, asset. The LTV can rise considerably towards the end, and risk of other failures can reduce. 2) Development loans that progress to schedule can be immeasurably more desirable towards the end as the majority of the risks reduce and the value of the security rises massively. I'm more than happy to profit from these while allowing sellers to gain the liquidity they need. Surely a win/win situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Oct 8, 2019 8:09:50 GMT
Chucking funds from p2p into premium bonds from nsi. Have not won anything yet!
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Oct 8, 2019 8:18:23 GMT
I personally think with brexit and the new p2p rule changes it is better for the majority of my funds to be in a safe environment. I may return to p2p in a year when things will become more stable.
Thinking of selling equities as well but I am not sure as i will get less than i invested.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 8, 2019 8:24:19 GMT
Chucking funds from p2p into premium bonds from nsi. Have not won anything yet! Driving the devil out with Beelzebub? You sound a bit desperate. Not the best basis for financial decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Oct 8, 2019 9:24:18 GMT
Chucking funds from p2p into premium bonds from nsi. Have not won anything yet! Driving the devil out with Beelzebub? You sound a bit desperate. Not the best basis for financial decisions. Well if you call desperate taking steps to avoid losing large sums of money then I guess I am. But I guess it depends how much you have invested. I have around 40k. And it would really pee mee off if I lost even half of it.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 8, 2019 10:03:37 GMT
Driving the devil out with Beelzebub? You sound a bit desperate. Not the best basis for financial decisions. Well if you call desperate taking steps to avoid losing large sums of money then I guess I am. But I guess it depends how much you have invested. I have around 40k. And it would really pee mee off if I lost even half of it. Agreed, there are various bad signs around that ask for monitoring one's investments closely. However selling out of everything with a risk higher than fixed income assets does not seem the right choice. Especially not putting it (all?) into premium bonds. I've moved some funds from higher risk to lower risk assets, but still expect a potential major hit in the S&S segment. Lucky enough, I am in a situation where I can sit it out. It will bounce back and perhaps I'll even try to time the ride with smaller amounts. As for p2p, I'm not too negative about it's future either, but have reduced it's fraction of the portfolio closer to what the FCA suggests (and spread quite widely).
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Oct 8, 2019 10:05:38 GMT
Chucking funds from p2p into premium bonds from nsi. Have not won anything yet! Driving the devil out with Beelzebub? You sound a bit desperate. Not the best basis for financial decisions. Well maybe but at least gravitykillz is assured of getting their original investment back albeit it may have taken a 'small knock' when you factor in inflation.
My my, how things have changed. Looking back over the historics of forum posts, we've gone from a positive mental attitude towards platforms taking at face value their proposals to a negative one - will, or when will we, ever get repaid with many platforms perceived as being run by charlatans only in it for their own personal greed.
The fingers are firmly pointed at the platforms in my view. I know there are a few posters that blame lenders/investors for getting involved in the first place but in reality, when you see the FCA authorised bit then in fairness you could be forgiven that you're on fairly solid ground. It's of absolutely no use whatsoever that platforms simply ignore their own time frame as to when an update will be forthcoming, deleting valid Q&A's, not defaulting loans in a timely manner, failure to crystallise when there is zero chance of further recovery simply to massage their own default stats. The list is endless.
Why do we need DDC when in reality the information provided on that sector of the forum, well it should in my view have been presented by the platform within the original proposal. And please, none of this client confidentiality rubbish. At the time of the proposal they are not yet platform borrowers - it is only a proposal. The fact is platforms are actively 'hiding' material facts from prospective lenders and for all I know, this is the umpteenth platform that the borrower has approached.
I welcome the long overdue FCA stricter rules although no doubt there will be more than one charlatan run platform that will try and bypass them. I just wish the media driven FCA had adopted a more robust stance when they first got involved.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 8, 2019 10:35:53 GMT
Driving the devil out with Beelzebub? You sound a bit desperate. Not the best basis for financial decisions. Well maybe but at least gravitykillz is assured of getting their original investment back albeit it may have taken a 'small knock' when you factor in inflation.
My my, how things have changed. Looking back over the historics of forum posts, we've gone from a positive mental attitude towards platforms taking at face value their proposals to a negative one - will, or when will we, ever get repaid with many platforms perceived as being run by charlatans only in it for their own personal greed.
The fingers are firmly pointed at the platforms in my view. I know there are a few posters that blame lenders/investors for getting involved in the first place but in reality, when you see the FCA authorised bit then in fairness you could be forgiven that you're on fairly solid ground. It's of absolutely no use whatsoever that platforms simply ignore their own time frame as to when an update will be forthcoming, deleting valid Q&A's, not defaulting loans in a timely manner, failure to crystallise when there is zero chance of further recovery simply to massage their own default stats. The list is endless.
Why do we need DDC when in reality the information provided on that sector of the forum, well it should in my view have been presented by the platform within the original proposal. And please, none of this client confidentiality rubbish. At the time of the proposal they are not yet platform borrowers - it is only a proposal. The fact is platforms are actively 'hiding' material facts from prospective lenders and for all I know, this is the umpteenth platform that the borrower has approached.
I welcome the long overdue FCA stricter rules although no doubt there will be more than one charlatan run platform that will try and bypass them. I just wish the media driven FCA had adopted a more robust stance when they first got involved.
If you go for a job interview they haven't hired you yet; still you expect them to keep your documents confidential. They interview you, because, first, you may be cheating a bit, but second, there may totally valid aspects on either side of the table that haven't gone into the application. Current saving rates are 1.5%; dealing with charlatans is part of the price to pay for more. Expect losses. (I don't know though if gravitykillz had any; capital losses I mean, not a reduction in profit.)
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Oct 8, 2019 11:42:44 GMT
The main reason given in defence of SM's is the liquidity & the need at times to access funds - so how about running only with a choice of par or a discount? i have never bought a loan at a premium apart from a few when joining a couple of platforms a few years ago so that i could diversify.But would never do so now as its not like the loan becomes more desirable in say the way an investment trust might Many loans become very much more desirable over time. To take two simple examples: 1) Amortizing loans against an appreciating, or slowly depreciating, asset. The LTV can rise considerably towards the end, and risk of other failures can reduce. 2) Development loans that progress to schedule can be immeasurably more desirable towards the end as the majority of the risks reduce and the value of the security rises massively. I'm more than happy to profit from these while allowing sellers to gain the liquidity they need. Surely a win/win situation. i guess you would be more happy having bought at par or discount  i can see your points and have seen others make them before and understand where your coming from but for me on a personal level a loan is only desirable or not when launched and if not i will let it go and don't look again.And to be fair both your points could probably applied to loans on l***y (and others) and have gone the opposite way but then it would not matter what you paid i guess
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Oct 8, 2019 12:23:26 GMT
I would imagine Funding Secure must be top of the list. They have “6 month loans” which have not redeemed after 1 year and they are still not classed as defaults. Assetz have ‘fessed up to a turbine blunder. FS has 30 or 40 loans in my account alone which have gone t1ts up due to no DD, no security held, borrower fraud and cr@p valuations. , Unfounded speculation could get you into very serious trouble. Although FS has many problem loans it is not insolvent, and the new directors have deep pockets. Moreover the latest loans on the platform are performing well. The new directors are working hard to recover the problem loans and we should see significant recoveries in the next few months, as a result of their actions against some dodgy borrowers and valuers. Nonsense. There is a deafening silence on many of the problem loans. And as for not “defaulting” loans that are 3 years overdue...
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 8, 2019 12:48:31 GMT
ashtondav , Unfounded speculation could get you into very serious trouble. Although FS has many problem loans it is not insolvent, and the new directors have deep pockets. Moreover the latest loans on the platform are performing well. The new directors are working hard to recover the problem loans and we should see significant recoveries in the next few months, as a result of their actions against some dodgy borrowers and valuers. Nonsense. There is a deafening silence on many of the problem loans. And as for not “defaulting” loans that are 3 years overdue... But that doesn't in itself tell us anything about the actual probability of FS failing in the near term, it is merely an accurate description of the state of the platform.
A lot will have to change for FS to survive as a brand long term, but I would be very surprised indeed if they failed in the next few months. It would simply defy logic given the support provided by the new directors this year. As I cautioned yesterday, be wary of journalists who will not have the insight to form an accurate view of the probability of any given platform failing.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Oct 8, 2019 15:06:35 GMT
Well maybe but at least gravitykillz is assured of getting their original investment back albeit it may have taken a 'small knock' when you factor in inflation.
My my, how things have changed. Looking back over the historics of forum posts, we've gone from a positive mental attitude towards platforms taking at face value their proposals to a negative one - will, or when will we, ever get repaid with many platforms perceived as being run by charlatans only in it for their own personal greed.
The fingers are firmly pointed at the platforms in my view. I know there are a few posters that blame lenders/investors for getting involved in the first place but in reality, when you see the FCA authorised bit then in fairness you could be forgiven that you're on fairly solid ground. It's of absolutely no use whatsoever that platforms simply ignore their own time frame as to when an update will be forthcoming, deleting valid Q&A's, not defaulting loans in a timely manner, failure to crystallise when there is zero chance of further recovery simply to massage their own default stats. The list is endless.
Why do we need DDC when in reality the information provided on that sector of the forum, well it should in my view have been presented by the platform within the original proposal. And please, none of this client confidentiality rubbish. At the time of the proposal they are not yet platform borrowers - it is only a proposal. The fact is platforms are actively 'hiding' material facts from prospective lenders and for all I know, this is the umpteenth platform that the borrower has approached.
I welcome the long overdue FCA stricter rules although no doubt there will be more than one charlatan run platform that will try and bypass them. I just wish the media driven FCA had adopted a more robust stance when they first got involved.
If you go for a job interview they haven't hired you yet; still you expect them to keep your documents confidential. They interview you, because, first, you may be cheating a bit, but second, there may totally valid aspects on either side of the table that haven't gone into the application. Current saving rates are 1.5%; dealing with charlatans is part of the price to pay for more. Expect losses. (I don't know though if gravitykillz had any; capital losses I mean, not a reduction in profit.) I fail to see the parallel between a job interview where the prospective employer actually meets the prospective employee and both are at liberty to raise questions requiring answers on a face to face basis.
That scenario doesn't happen in the P2P world so it follows lenders are at a potentially automatic disadvantage relying purely upon platform disclosure. It's been a long time since potential lenders were able to ask prospective borrowers any direct questions and I forget which P2P platform that was. Probably now demised.
And no - I have no wish to entrust my hard earned cash with charlatans but each to their own in 2019.
|
|
i can see your points and have seen others make them before and understand where your coming from but for me on a personal level a loan is only desirable or not when launched and if not i will let it go and don't look again.And to be fair both your points could probably applied to loans on l***y (and others) and have gone the opposite way but then it would not matter what you paid i guess
