|
|
Post by optymystic on Jan 17, 2020 19:45:49 GMT
Zopa tells me I have a net annualised return of 3% per annum. It looks to me as over the period of the last annum I have lost money because the losses have exceeded my returns.  |
|
|
|
Post by erniec on Jan 17, 2020 20:23:40 GMT
Yes, you have lost slightly in the last year but you have still over all time made an annualised 3%.
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,500 
Likes: 924
|
Post by aju on Jan 18, 2020 0:02:58 GMT
Yes, you have lost slightly in the last year but you have still over all time made an annualised 3%. I agree with that one despite having some 3500 loans in zopa, after a large sale of my loans mid last year I only just seem to be managing to get through each month without a loss - thankfully the early adopter helps too. Zopa seems to suggest it will improve but for me they have until end of tax year to show some improvement in ISA before I start bailing slowly in the ISA sides. Our invest sides are a little more promising in that I managed to again sell everything that was in non safe guard - there is a couple that could still default but mostly its SG covered loans left so I am just winding that side down for both of us. Like some others on this forum I am fortunate to be an early adopter so have clearly been in Zopa for a lot of years and so have built up quite a head of profits to be undermined. (I just wish I was more savvy back then and signed up Mrs Aju at the same time but sadly I didn't. Probably to happy taking out current multiple current accounts and burying funds in the to ge good rates at the time - as an example 6 accounts with Halifax - 3 each - were very lucrative alone. Happier times seem like a distant memory!)
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Jan 18, 2020 9:52:22 GMT
Early adopter here with a 1% bonus. Without that I would be out, with it I have reduced dramatically but keep a small wedge for diversification reasons only.
net of bonus I am earning 3.8% in core and 4% in plus. Either the loanbook is mismanaged or the distinction is meaningless. On her 2k in plus my wife is getting 2.63%. Staggeringly poor.
Compare and contrast with the predictable (so far!) returns from AC, RS and LW. I think Zopa, after 15 years, should be making money. It isn’t, and I firmly believe it will ditch p2p and become a bank now it has a licence. It simply doesn’t have a profitable business model.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,608
Likes: 1,738
|
Post by benaj on Jan 18, 2020 12:39:26 GMT
Zopa tells me I have a net annualised return of 3% per annum. It looks to me as over the period of the last annum I have lost money because the losses have exceeded my returns. TBH, although your Core performance is lower than the advertised rate (3.9%?) 3% before fee is still very positive return. That's a chance it may go back to 3.4% after recovery. My 8 months adventurous Plus investment so far returned 0.87% profit (after fees, recovery and debt sales), advertised rate for the plus was 6.5%.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Jan 18, 2020 12:47:57 GMT
Early adopter here with a 1% bonus. Without that I would be out, with it I have reduced dramatically but keep a small wedge for diversification reasons only. net of bonus I am earning 3.8% in core and 4% in plus. Either the loanbook is mismanaged or the distinction is meaningless. On her 2k in plus my wife is getting 2.63%. Staggeringly poor. Compare and contrast with the predictable (so far!) returns from AC, RS and LW. I think Zopa, after 15 years, should be making money. It isn’t, and I firmly believe it will ditch p2p and become a bank now it has a licence. It simply doesn’t have a profitable business model. So those you mention have a pf of some kind - Z says they don't need one. As open question really rather than targeted directly at you, are Z borrowers worse than those at other platforms which do have a pf, or is it a debate that the use of the pf on the other platforms is masking a similar tumble as Z? (I know that this is believed to be the case with LW, who despite moving to a variable rate of interest in order to maintain stability over all, are currently offering the same interest rates as before they moved to the variable offer). I thought that the intent was that Z bank model (which the fscs are prepared to protect) would be based on the same Z borrower-base as P2P. Unless their having the word 'bank' in their name and that they can offer a credit card rather than something called a 'loan' would attract a different range of borrowers (or Z credit card users). If they stop the P2P side which offers such low returns, and the 'sort of p2p' 'bank' works then I think that's a good thing. But if Z p2p fails, then why won't RS and LW at least?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 11:11:09 GMT
Yes, you have lost slightly in the last year but you have still over all time made an annualised 3%. With respect, there can be no point staying with a platform because of diminishing 'all time returns'...when you lose money, and in real terms lose money over a year, it is time to go. FC pull the same 'all time' trick and it is a joke.
|
|
