chrisf
Member of DD Central
Posts: 224
Likes: 67
|
Post by chrisf on Nov 26, 2014 8:23:27 GMT
My annualised return (after fees and bad debts) figure had been plodding along in the low to middle 13's for a while, and then 2 days ago it jumped to 14.1%. I assumed this was a temporary glitch, but then yesterday it jumped again, to 15.0%. Clearly something has gone wrong with the calculation, has anyone else noticed something similar going on? I am inclined to think that it is connected in some way with the recent cashback promotion? so the algorithm spots the splashback I made this month and incorrectly assumes I'll be getting the same every month? A bit like when you get screwed by the taxman.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Nov 26, 2014 8:38:07 GMT
Yes mine jumped, soared (to a highly unlikely 14.5) and returned to previous jump. I assume cashback is involved somewhere. I remain completely mystified by the FC calculation.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 26, 2014 9:26:21 GMT
Problem is FC only calculate it infrequently, hence the big lurches. Yes, cash back gets included, if we are talking about the actual net return figure (middle row), and yes it is compounded, and also it only considers what funds you had actually invested, not money unbid at the time. Matching the FC number using IRR function in excel is impossible, but I can get close (within 0.1%).
Actual return (on gross cash) is much lower for most of us.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 26, 2014 9:45:21 GMT
Matching the FC number using IRR function in excel is impossible, but I can get close (within 0.1%). I'd hazard a guess it would be possible if you could somehow regenerate the amounts and dates that FC's function used (some of which may well differ to what you get by using amounts and dates from the FC-supplied statement. In particular, even before we consider errors that get magically corrected with no trace on the statement, FC's function presumably knows the difference between "bid-but-not-confirmed" and "confirmed bid moved to date of drawdown", both of which look identical on the statement.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 26, 2014 10:28:57 GMT
My annualised return (after fees and bad debts) figure had been plodding along in the low to middle 13's for a while, and then 2 days ago it jumped to 14.1%. I assumed this was a temporary glitch, but then yesterday it jumped again, to 15.0%. Clearly something has gone wrong with the calculation, has anyone else noticed something similar going on? I am inclined to think that it is connected in some way with the recent cashback promotion? so the algorithm spots the splashback I made this month and incorrectly assumes I'll be getting the same every month? A bit like when you get screwed by the taxman. Hi Chrisf. I do not think that the annualised return says anything about the future, because as I understand it, the formula takes account only of what has happened to date since the start of the account and then expresses that as an annualised figure. It annualises past performance. If you could withdraw all your cash tomorrow (sold at a 0.025% overall premium to balance the fees) then your annualised return would remain the same and fixed. However, the annualised return calculation does not include available funds, nor money in bids, but it does, I believe, include accrued gross interest to date - so the figure is a bit massaged IMO, so as not to frighten new Autobidders. Yes the cash back can have a great effect, especially if the total amount of cash back during the period of the account is a significant part of the net earnings to date, over the lifetime of the account. But cash back is like a drug - if you do not keep taking it then your annualised return will gradually droop towards a rate determined by buyer rates, losses and fees. I have not noticed any large unexpected changes in annualised return, but it is a fairly large and ancient account and therefore more stable. If you have a new or recently-grown account which has been built on recent cash back purchases, then the annualisation could give some high figures. Don't plan to spend it yet!
|
|
markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on Nov 26, 2014 11:20:19 GMT
I referred my partner to FC (that's a test of any relationship) and when her £50 bonus was paid, her annualised return jumped to 43%.
|
|
fasty
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 388
|
Post by fasty on Nov 26, 2014 19:30:13 GMT
You guys must be special. I'm feeling rate envy now. My annualised return has lurked around 10.5% for months, despite modest dabbling with splashback. A couple of days ago it lurched up to the dizzy heights of 10.6% and I was nearly moist with excitement. The distinction in my case is that it does seem to be a fairly realistic estimate of what's adding to my FC Total each day, Maybe that's more luck than judgement?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 26, 2014 19:48:08 GMT
I was very pleased to go into the 10% bracket in the last few months. It takes a few hundred pounds of cash back to shift it up 0.1%. And then there was a loss on 5702. If fasty has a mature account and not predominantly flipping then 10.5% is worth getting a little bit emotional about.
|
|
markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on Nov 26, 2014 22:51:26 GMT
10.5% is pretty good. On my mature well diversified account my annualised return is now 9.3% although it has dropped rapidly from 10% or so since my strategy moved to focus on property loans.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 27, 2014 7:29:38 GMT
'Mature' has a detrimental effect, given the way recent rates have risen, although they are falling back a bit now. Recent high rates, cash back, etc should make it not too hard to get over 10%, even without flipping. As someone has been complaining about, in t'other place, that does make it hard to shift last year's parts without a big discount though, and it gets harder whenever FC jack up the MBRs.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Nov 27, 2014 9:31:43 GMT
10.5% is pretty good. On my mature well diversified account my annualised return is now 9.3% although it has dropped rapidly from 10% or so since my strategy moved to focus on property loans. What makes FC property loans a good deal? I know there is 2% cashback but rates are generally 7.5% to 8% before a 1% fee. The newcomers SS and FC are offering 12% fee free, though with a fairly amateurish approach to valuations. Currently SS have a loan 30 days late, with refinancing 'imminent'. Assetz have had problems, well discussed on their thread. So if a loan works well, and repays on time, you can get 6 to 7% after fees, but the likelihood is that some of these loans will not repay on time, they rely on timely completion and sales or refinancing, so while there will eventually be repayment this could be delayed substantially. I am happier earning 5 to 6% at zopa/RS with some confidence in the reliability of the income stream.
|
|
markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on Nov 27, 2014 10:57:23 GMT
What makes FC property loans a good deal? I know there is 2% cashback but rates are generally 7.5% to 8% before a 1% fee. The newcomers SS and FC are offering 12% fee free, though with a fairly amateurish approach to valuations. Well, mainly the cashback and the fact that they can be sold, albeit slowly, at par on the SM. Subject to available funds I buy into most of them up to an amount I would be prepared (although not particularly happy) to hold to term just in case the SM dries up entirely. I also think that when these loans start repaying significant amounts (which, barring too many hiccups will be in around 9 months) there will be a ready supply of funds ready to unbung the SM, and FC will probably end the cashback offer so the supply of heavily discounted parts will dry up. So I expect not to be holding too many of them at term, but I won't be overly worried if I am. Having said that, I would still be happy with them even without the cashback, although without the flipping opportunity I'd only be buying small amounts to hold. Unlike the 12% loans on SS and AC, these aren't bridging loans, they are generally development loans made to experienced developers who are using the funds for work on the property that the loan is secured on. The borrower will have a significant equity stake in the development and has an interest in selling or refinancing as quickly as possible to release profits and funds for the next project. From what I've seen, repayment of the BLs seems to depend on a lot of third parties honouring agreements, including parties who aren't unduly bothered about the rate of progress, or even have a motive to delay proceedings (I don't follow the BL threads closely since I'm not in many, but I think I'm right in one case a BL has turned out to be secured on a property that the borrower is living in - I can't see an amicable end to that one). As I see it, BLs are where borrowers go when things are already turning bad; I can't see anyone being willing to pay the eye watering interest unless there's a certain air of desperation, and of course the borrower doesn't want to pay high rates for long, so is likely to make optimistic estimates of timescales for selling, refinancing or whatever. So that's about it, in summary I think FC's loans and SS/AC BLs are very different products, and FC's fit my risk profile a bit better than the BLs.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Nov 27, 2014 13:02:20 GMT
What makes FC property loans a good deal? I know there is 2% cashback but rates are generally 7.5% to 8% before a 1% fee. The newcomers SS and FC are offering 12% fee free, though with a fairly amateurish approach to valuations. Well, mainly the cashback and the fact that they can be sold, albeit slowly, at par on the SM. Subject to available funds I buy into most of them up to an amount I would be prepared (although not particularly happy) to hold to term just in case the SM dries up entirely. I also think that when these loans start repaying significant amounts (which, barring too many hiccups will be in around 9 months) there will be a ready supply of funds ready to unbung the SM, and FC will probably end the cashback offer so the supply of heavily discounted parts will dry up. So I expect not to be holding too many of them at term, but I won't be overly worried if I am. Having said that, I would still be happy with them even without the cashback, although without the flipping opportunity I'd only be buying small amounts to hold. Unlike the 12% loans on SS and AC, these aren't bridging loans, they are generally development loans made to experienced developers who are using the funds for work on the property that the loan is secured on. The borrower will have a significant equity stake in the development and has an interest in selling or refinancing as quickly as possible to release profits and funds for the next project. From what I've seen, repayment of the BLs seems to depend on a lot of third parties honouring agreements, including parties who aren't unduly bothered about the rate of progress, or even have a motive to delay proceedings (I don't follow the BL threads closely since I'm not in many, but I think I'm right in one case a BL has turned out to be secured on a property that the borrower is living in - I can't see an amicable end to that one). As I see it, BLs are where borrowers go when things are already turning bad; I can't see anyone being willing to pay the eye watering interest unless there's a certain air of desperation, and of course the borrower doesn't want to pay high rates for long, so is likely to make optimistic estimates of timescales for selling, refinancing or whatever. So that's about it, in summary I think FC's loans and SS/AC BLs are very different products, and FC's fit my risk profile a bit better than the BLs. I appreciate your detailed reply. I had previously dabbled with property but sold out at modest discounts. I am also only exposed to 1 £100 part on SS (Cant sell having taken up front interest). I may risk a very modest FC exposure at some point.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 27, 2014 14:50:21 GMT
I'm with MarkR on this - the short term, 2% cashback, ones are OK if you don't get over exposed (bearing in mind some come in 2 or more tranches), and don't expect to liquidate any time soon (over the last 3 months the ones I have sold have taken > 2 months average, and there is another as many again, or more, which have yet to sell, so I guess the half-life is around the 3 month mark.) The 3-5 year ones at 7 or 7.5% are definitely not for me, whatever the cash back (OK .. maybe if it was >>3%!).
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 27, 2014 15:05:10 GMT
'Mature' has a detrimental effect, given the way recent rates have risen, although they are falling back a bit now. Recent high rates, cash back, etc should make it not too hard to get over 10%, even without flipping. As someone has been complaining about, in t'other place, that does make it hard to shift last year's parts without a big discount though, and it gets harder whenever FC jack up the MBRs. I was meaning that my account was mature - not my loans. An account which has some size and history is hard to move with cashback. For an experienced FC lender (such as our complaining fried in another place) to gripe that he cannot sell old loans on the SM just shows that he kept old low-rate loans too long. Autobidders might rightly complain at lack of promised liquidity.
|
|