|
|
Post by peer2fear on Oct 18, 2019 13:54:46 GMT
Aside from the farcical way FS are treating their property lenders, I wondered how well my pawn/bling loans which had defaulted had actually performed as I believed this was FS's bread and butter. So, I had a look through my historic pawn loans (of which a surprising number have been defaulted) and I found the following results:
Unredeemed Bling/Pawn Loans:
Investment No. Capital Return Interest Return (annualised)
1779485583 100.0% 12.0%
7663442012 17.7% 0.0%
2945746623 65.2% 0.0%
1969663897 100.0% 10.0%
6203446320 51.4% 0.0%
3777611199 100.0% 10.0%
AVG. 72.4% 5.3%
Based on the above, my unredeemed loans have on average returned me a whopping [100-(72.4+5.3)]=-22.3% (actually it's worse that that because I've assumed the interest runs for the entire year where it has been received so it's probably around -24%/-25%). Consider for a moment just how many successful 180 day loans paying the full ~12% it takes to just break even and this does not seem like a profitable investment. Is this typical for pawn/bling loans or have I just been unlucky? Frankly, IMO it seems terrible - I thought the idea was that these loans were 'secured' with a max. 70% LTV... ?
On the topic of bling loans I have a decent three figure sum in loan 1078158094. I emailed FS about this loan (since I naively believed that an update promising a further update at the end of June meant just that) as it was 7 months late as of September. I was fobbed off by customer services saying they'd speak to the loan manager. 10 days later I sent another email asking for an update - no response. Another 10 days later I sent a further email asking for an update - no response.
I want to be mature and calm about this but if you can't even default and sell your bling loans after 8 months then there is quite literally no hope for this disgraceful platform.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336 
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Oct 18, 2019 14:13:30 GMT
There's really nothing to talk about. You'd have be crackers to invest here, period. Where does that leave the business? Bingo.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 18, 2019 14:29:28 GMT
And the art loans:
£2.3m of debt secured against Artwork the borrower was allowed to keep in his possession. No surprises he subsequently sold them!
|
|
song
Member of DD Central
Posts: 83
Likes: 115
|
Post by song on Oct 18, 2019 14:58:21 GMT
Aside from the farcical way FS are treating their property lenders, I wondered how well my pawn/bling loans which had defaulted had actually performed as I believed this was FS's bread and butter. So, I had a look through my historic pawn loans (of which a surprising number have been defaulted) and I found the following results: Unredeemed Bling/Pawn Loans:
Investment No. Capital Return Interest Return (annualised)
1779485583 100.0% 12.0% 7663442012 17.7% 0.0% 2945746623 65.2% 0.0% 1969663897 100.0% 10.0% 6203446320 51.4% 0.0% 3777611199 100.0% 10.0% AVG. 72.4% 5.3%Based on the above, my unredeemed loans have on average returned me a whopping [100-(72.4+5.3)]=-22.3% (actually it's worse that that because I've assumed the interest runs for the entire year where it has been received so it's probably around -24%/-25%). Consider for a moment just how many successful 180 day loans paying the full ~12% it takes to just break even and this does not seem like a profitable investment. Is this typical for pawn/bling loans or have I just been unlucky? Frankly, IMO it seems terrible - I thought the idea was that these loans were 'secured' with a max. 70% LTV... ? On the topic of bling loans I have a decent three figure sum in loan 1078158094. I emailed FS about this loan (since I naively believed that an update promising a further update at the end of June meant just that) as it was 7 months late as of September. I was fobbed off by customer services saying they'd speak to the loan manager. 10 days later I sent another email asking for an update - no response. Another 10 days later I sent a further email asking for an update - no response. I want to be mature and calm about this but if you can't even default and sell your bling loans after 8 months then there is quite literally no hope for this disgraceful platform.
|
|
song
Member of DD Central
Posts: 83
Likes: 115
|
Post by song on Oct 18, 2019 15:05:11 GMT
Aside from the farcical way FS are treating their property lenders, I wondered how well my pawn/bling loans which had defaulted had actually performed as I believed this was FS's bread and butter. So, I had a look through my historic pawn loans (of which a surprising number have been defaulted) and I found the following results: Unredeemed Bling/Pawn Loans:
Investment No. Capital Return Interest Return (annualised)
1779485583 100.0% 12.0% 7663442012 17.7% 0.0% 2945746623 65.2% 0.0% 1969663897 100.0% 10.0% 6203446320 51.4% 0.0% 3777611199 100.0% 10.0% AVG. 72.4% 5.3%On the topic of bling loans I have a decent three figure sum in loan 1078158094. I emailed FS about this loan (since I naively believed that an update promising a further update at the end of June meant just that) as it was 7 months late as of September. I was fobbed off by customer services saying they'd speak to the loan manager. 10 days later I sent another email asking for an update - no response. Another 10 days later I sent a further email asking for an update - no respon
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 9, 2019 15:43:23 GMT
Just spotted something of a shocker ... there are a couple of pawn loans that are around 6 month overdue, and yet there has been not a single update ( 5627977034 & 3583242178) and two more with no updates since June ( 1078158094 & 3100205031).
So much for bling supposedly being quick and easy to liquidate.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Nov 9, 2019 16:09:57 GMT
Nothing in peer to peer shocks me any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Nov 9, 2019 17:02:14 GMT
Just spotted something of a shocker ... there are a couple of pawn loans that are around 6 month overdue, and yet there has been not a single update ( 5627977034 & 3583242178) and two more with no updates since June ( 1078158094 & 3100205031).
So much for bling supposedly being quick and easy to liquidate. It is comparatively easy to liquidate provided a) you have possession and b) the borrower doesn't begin legal proceedings. When a platform has lost the plot, as in the case of FS, all bets are off!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 9, 2019 17:06:17 GMT
me neither but there again we haven't had the final figure for the realised loan book yet...
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1,744
|
Post by benaj on Nov 9, 2019 17:13:58 GMT
FS used to have a good record of bling recoveries. Let's hope the rest of the bling loans will be recovered soon before shutting down the secured storage facility service agreement / cancelling the storage insurance.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Nov 9, 2019 22:04:33 GMT
me neither but there again we haven't had the final figure for the realised loan book yet... FS loan book is probably the most diverse in p2p industry. A lot of "interesting" work for administrators.... I do hope that most bling will recover (at least partially). I know my FS affair is going to end up is capital loss, but bling recoveries and possibly some hand outs from property loans might help to reduce it.
|
|
|
|
Post by defaultinator5000 on Nov 10, 2019 11:35:57 GMT
FS used to have a good record of bling recoveries. Wasn't there a loan secured against some kind of a precious stone that resulted in 90% capital loss? If that constitutes a good record, I dare not to imagine what a bad record looks like!
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Nov 10, 2019 14:30:09 GMT
FS used to have a good record of bling recoveries. Wasn't there a loan secured against some kind of a precious stone that resulted in 90% capital loss? If that constitutes a good record, I dare not to imagine what a bad record looks like! There was the Garnet that failed to return 82% of the loan value in the final reckoning. (Although it did repay 100% + interest at least five times via earlier renewals, so if you'd been 'lucky' enough to have been in all of them, I think you'd have come out very marginally ahead.) I think the 'used to have' was the key part of benaj 's post. Historically 'bling loan' returns were very good*: 2015: 12.4% (includes a couple of 2014 completions)
2016: 12.2%
2017: 12.0%
2018: 10.4% (adding the 82% loss into the mix takes the figure down to 9.5%)
2019: 7.3%The issue was, is (and always will be for 'retail' P2P platforms, imo) development loans. Sufficiently so that I now avoid any platform offering a mix that includes development loans as they are, again imo, a cancer that can bring down an otherwise acceptable loan book. *These are on my returns from a quick and dirty search of my loan book; ie: included everything with watch, rolex, hublot, etc, and necklace, jewel, ring (and then had to exclude accrington and warrington, etc  ) and few other more specific terms like garnet. I was in most loans from mid-2014 onward, but did start to decline multiple renewals in late 2017, which helped my 2018/9 figures a little but they're still probably quite indicative. Edit: obviously the 2019 figure is highly likely to reduce
|
|
song
Member of DD Central
Posts: 83
Likes: 115
|
Post by song on Nov 10, 2019 15:05:40 GMT
Just spotted something of a shocker ... there are a couple of pawn loans that are around 6 month overdue, and yet there has been not a single update ( 5627977034 & 3583242178) and two more with no updates since June ( 1078158094 & 3100205031).
So much for bling supposedly being quick and easy to liquidate.
It struck me that some of these long overdue pawn loans may well be for a friend of a friend, which the Landrover loan always appeared to me to have a similar feel.
|
|
|
|
Post by defaultinator5000 on Nov 11, 2019 13:43:49 GMT
There was the Garnet that failed to return 82% of the loan value in the final reckoning. (Although it did repay 100% + interest at least five times via earlier renewals, so if you'd been 'lucky' enough to have been in all of them, I think you'd have come out very marginally ahead.) I think the 'used to have' was the key part of benaj 's post. Historically 'bling loan' returns were very good*: 2015: 12.4% (includes a couple of 2014 completions)
2016: 12.2%
2017: 12.0%
2018: 10.4% (adding the 82% loss into the mix takes the figure down to 9.5%)
2019: 7.3%Those are pretty decent returns, albeit I imagine made on really small amounts (£25). Most of the bling loans I got on offered merely 9-10%.
82% loss on a precious stone is criminal imo. If you cannot get that valuation right, god help you with valuing vehicles, properties and property developments. Those who potentially broke even on that garnet through numerous renewals did it on pure unadalturated luck.
|
|
) and few other more specific terms like garnet. I was in most loans from mid-2014 onward, but did start to decline multiple renewals in late 2017, which helped my 2018/9 figures a little but they're still probably quite indicative. Edit: obviously the 2019 figure is highly likely to reduce