|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 8, 2019 15:26:51 GMT
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.
As I see it, the main risk with FS isn't being forced into administration as per Lendy & Collateral because the new owner has deep pockets. However, I do forsee a time when the new owner may decide to call it a day and either attempt to sell the business, or elements of, or put it into voluntary liquidation to wind it up in an orderly fashion. Arguably neither outcome is desirable from a lender perspective. I've no reason to believe FS are anywhere near to these but external factors such as the wider economy (without mentioning the elephant in the room!) and/or further FCA intervention could act as a catalyst. It's ever present when I decide to invest or not these days.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011 
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Oct 8, 2019 15:33:31 GMT
Chucking funds from p2p into premium bonds from nsi. Have not won anything yet! I had £40000 then £50000 over ten years returned about 1.5-2.5%PA . Withdrew and got more in interest in just over a month.
Currently for the gamblers Sirus Minerals is fluctuating 3-4% a day if you buy a lot or have cheap dealing fees then depending on your risk avertion you could make a years P2P typical return in a week then go.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Oct 8, 2019 15:43:45 GMT
Chucking funds from p2p into premium bonds from nsi. Have not won anything yet! I had £40000 then £50000 over ten years returned about 1.5-2.5%PA . Withdrew and got more in interest in just over a month.
Currently for the gamblers Sirus Minerals is fluctuating 3-4% a day if you buy a lot or have cheap dealing fees then depending on your risk avertion you could make a years P2P typical return in a week then go.
I have been in p2p since 2015. Made sufficient interest. Just looking for security now. Will return to p2p in a year but something tells me p2p landscape will be majorly different in a years time.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Oct 8, 2019 15:45:44 GMT
This constant greed for interest is not healthy. And makes us walk a dangerous path.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Oct 8, 2019 15:48:24 GMT
I agree things will change hopfully for the better. I have made good returns overall in P2P (Lendy & Colleteral included) over last 4-5 years.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 8, 2019 16:15:10 GMT
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. Sorry for your failure. Maybe I am too much of a generalist. However, I can assure you, if you would really want to "actually meet" in person with the sharks, you would get out of the room naked. If at no cost you want to get exposed to charlatans, go to the banks.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 8, 2019 16:28:10 GMT
If at no cost you want to get exposed to charlatans, go to the banks. Can, meet opener. 
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 8, 2019 16:33:42 GMT
If at no cost you want to get exposed to charlatans, go to the banks. Can, meet opener. Thanks iRobot. That statement was a trap.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 8, 2019 17:11:39 GMT
I disagree with both of your points 1) if platforms lend, borrowers will see them as aligned with lenders, not as honest middlemen. Platforms might also be unwilling to terminate a failing loan and crystallise the loss even though lenders wish to. 2) SMs are necessary to allow lenders to exit loans early.
1) I don't understand this bit. What's the issue with borrowers identifying platforms as being aligned with lenders? (Except where Borrowers are hoping that platforms won't chase them quite as assiduously when said platform has no skin in the game and it is 'only' the lenders capital at risk. That's exactly the type of Borrower I'd like to see weeded out!*) 2) Sure, in that case allow an SM, just make it non-profiting for sellers - ie all interest earned over the course of them holding those loan parts is returned to the platform. Would that suit the desire for liquidity? *Edit: and the type of platform attitude, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Oct 8, 2019 17:38:20 GMT
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. Sorry for your failure. Maybe I am too much of a generalist. However, I can assure you, if you would really want to "actually meet" in person with the sharks, you would get out of the room naked. If at no cost you want to get exposed to charlatans, go to the banks. I didn't have a failure. In fact over the past 4 years made better returns from p2p than equities. However all good things must end at some point and economic signs are making me thing precautious. But again that is my personal opinion. We all interpret things in different ways.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 8, 2019 18:31:21 GMT
Sorry for your failure. Maybe I am too much of a generalist. However, I can assure you, if you would really want to "actually meet" in person with the sharks, you would get out of the room naked. If at no cost you want to get exposed to charlatans, go to the banks. I didn't have a failure. In fact over the past 4 years made better returns from p2p than equities. However all good things must end at some point and economic signs are making me thing precautious. But again that is my personal opinion. We all interpret things in different ways. It appears that quote went to the wrong person. My apologies. Good news: I don't think p2p ends soon. All the best C
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Oct 8, 2019 18:32:40 GMT
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. That was in Funding Circle 2016. Lenders could ask the borrower direct questions reguarding their application to lenders on the loan. It was quite effective, seeing 1 sentence replies on loans to renew loans worth 100's thousands of pounds 
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 8, 2019 18:49:27 GMT
capitalism has swallowed this up
as usual
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Oct 9, 2019 7:10:48 GMT
I disagree with both of your points 1) if platforms lend, borrowers will see them as aligned with lenders, not as honest middlemen. Platforms might also be unwilling to terminate a failing loan and crystallise the loss even though lenders wish to. 2) SMs are necessary to allow lenders to exit loans early.
1) I don't understand this bit. What's the issue with borrowers identifying platforms as being aligned with lenders? (Except where Borrowers are hoping that platforms won't chase them quite as assiduously when said platform has no skin in the game and it is 'only' the lenders capital at risk. That's exactly the type of Borrower I'd like to see weeded out!*) 2) Sure, in that case allow an SM, just make it non-profiting for sellers - ie all interest earned over the course of them holding those loan parts is returned to the platform. Would that suit the desire for liquidity? 1) I can't say there's anything wrong in any absolute sense with platforms lending money, just a) imho I think a platform should just be a place where borrowers/lenders are matched, with the platform being 'neutral' b) I think it could lead to accusations of bias. Suppose a platform lends to borrower A but not to almost identical borrower B. Both loans get into trouble, but the platform (for whatever reason) decides to treat them differently. One of the borrowers and/or lenders might say to the platform "you've only taken/refused to take that action because you are/aren't involved in the loan".
2) I don't see what the objection is to loans being sold at a profit. It's a feature of all markets - shares, bonds, houses, etc. - that sellers expect a premium price for goods that are seen as good and expect to have to discount to see goods that are seen as a pile of poo. Buyers aren't forced to buy goods offered at a premium, they can make a judgement as to whether they're good value. It's irrelevant imo whether sellers make a profit.
Going back to your original post: "the FCA bans secondary markets, or makes it impossible for lenders selling on the SM to gain from that sale - ie no interest earned (instead interest goes back to the platform to fund 'skin in the game' or whatever). This would cause lenders to be a lot more circumspect on how much they invest in any one loan from the outset, which would make loans harder to fill and should encourage platform to originate better quality loans, present them in a more transparent way and manage them in a more proactive manner".
I'm not sure that's true -AC, FC (now), RS, Z don't allow loans to be sole at a premium -FC used to allow that but I don't see that AC, FC (now), RS and Z have "better quality loans, present them in a more transparent way and manage them in a more proactive manner"" than FC from years ago. I think loan quality etc. is unrelated to the ability to sell at a profit on the SM.
Similarly, I don't think "This would cause lenders to be a lot more circumspect on how much they invest in any one loan from the outset" is true. Lenders have clearly put a huge amount of money into loans in AC, FC (now), RS and Z - which don't allow selling at a profit on the SM.
Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by propman on Oct 16, 2019 11:22:33 GMT
The trouble with allowing selling at a premium is that this is at a cost for the buyer. Buyers have shown that they are not good at pricing, ignoring the potential for early repayments (that can lead to overall losses) and buying loans due to make first repayments without factoring in the increased default risk. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the FCA has shown that it sees itself as the champion of the poorly informed and so is unlikely to stand for this due to the potential outcry when those making bad purchases are picked up by the media. Also whenlosses rack up, you can guarantee that the featured portfolio would be of those making bad purchases as it would increase the losses and make for a "better" (ie more engaging) story!
|
|
