qwakuk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 259 
Likes: 96
|
Post by qwakuk on Oct 9, 2022 11:15:44 GMT
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 9, 2022 13:02:03 GMT
I would challenge the article's author to fully qualify the following statement (and would doubly challenge the wisdom of including such a statement in the 'What are the risks?' section):
The quoted sentence is immediately followed by some AC provided stats: "Assetz Capital said that since launching in 2013, it has issued loans worth about £1.5 billion and only £19.5 million has been written off as losses."
This may probably be accurate in a statistical sense, but it is specific to a single platform and doesn't reflect reality that individual investors are unlikely to have been in every loan that make up the full loan-book and/or unlikely to have been invested to an equal % across all loans.
Nor does such a sweeping statement make any reference to what is the biggest omission in the article - the risk of Platform failure.
Not a single mention of CollateralUK, Lendy or FundingSecure where losses to Lenders invested at the point where the platform ceased trading are likely to be in the region of 40-50% of their capital when taken as an investing cohort. Individual losses could well be higher if an investor was 'unlucky' enough to have only been invested in a narrow range of particularly 'problematic' loans.
IMO, it's a poor piece of journalism. Had the article's content been posted without reference, I would have presumed it to be an industry-sponsored puff-piece more typically found in a trade journal like Peer2Peer Finance News.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 9, 2022 13:33:12 GMT
I would challenge the article's author to fully qualify the following statement (and would doubly challenge the wisdom of including such a statement in the ' What are the risks?' section): The quoted sentence is immediately followed by some AC provided stats: " Assetz Capital said that since launching in 2013, it has issued loans worth about £1.5 billion and only £19.5 million has been written off as losses." This may probably be accurate in a statistical sense, but it is specific to a single platform and doesn't reflect reality that individual investors are unlikely to have been in every loan that make up the full loan-book and/or unlikely to have been invested to an equal % across all loans. Nor does such a sweeping statement make any reference to what is the biggest omission in the article - the risk of Platform failure. Not a single mention of CollateralUK, Lendy or FundingSecure where losses to Lenders invested at the point where the platform ceased trading are likely to be in the region of 40-50% of their capital when taken as an investing cohort. Individual losses could well be higher if an investor was 'unlucky' enough to have only been invested in a narrow range of particularly 'problematic' loans. IMO, it's a poor piece of journalism. Had the article's content been posted without reference, I would have presumed it to be an industry-sponsored puff-piece more typically found in a trade journal like Peer2Peer Finance News. using figures from AC is also surely entirely dubious given how they have a raft of zombie loans that have not actually been written off.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 6,764
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 9, 2022 14:54:19 GMT
My View:
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 775
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Oct 9, 2022 17:43:05 GMT
The only reason I invested in P2P was very low interest rates, QE meaning lower credit risk and the flood of new capital into P2P reducing platform failure risks. All of those reasons have not only gone they have inverted.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 9, 2022 20:58:56 GMT
I would challenge the article's author to fully qualify the following statement (and would doubly challenge the wisdom of including such a statement in the ' What are the risks?' section): The quoted sentence is immediately followed by some AC provided stats: " Assetz Capital said that since launching in 2013, it has issued loans worth about £1.5 billion and only £19.5 million has been written off as losses." This may probably be accurate in a statistical sense, but it is specific to a single platform and doesn't reflect reality that individual investors are unlikely to have been in every loan that make up the full loan-book and/or unlikely to have been invested to an equal % across all loans. Nor does such a sweeping statement make any reference to what is the biggest omission in the article - the risk of Platform failure. Not a single mention of CollateralUK, Lendy or FundingSecure where losses to Lenders invested at the point where the platform ceased trading are likely to be in the region of 40-50% of their capital when taken as an investing cohort. Individual losses could well be higher if an investor was 'unlucky' enough to have only been invested in a narrow range of particularly 'problematic' loans. IMO, it's a poor piece of journalism. Had the article's content been posted without reference, I would have presumed it to be an industry-sponsored puff-piece more typically found in a trade journal like Peer2Peer Finance News. using figures from AC is also surely entirely dubious given how they have a raft of zombie loans that have not actually been written off. Only technically, statistically the loans are treated as irrecoverable losses from the point they enter formal recovery ie they use the HMRC definition of claimable losses
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Oct 9, 2022 21:10:51 GMT
The BIG scandal in this whole lying and thieving travesty are the laughable "Professional Valuations".
Despite all that has happened if the "Professional Valuations" had been anywhere near reasonably "professional" we would all still have our shirts, with maybe only a pocket missing and maybe a cuff. I'm not talking about the Big Tower and Other Developments, their Valuations were always malleable. And boy, where they "mallied".
RICS and it's oh so "Professional" Members have a LOT to answer for and if they smugly think they are home and dry they better think again, they haven't been forgotten.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 10, 2022 6:45:31 GMT
using figures from AC is also surely entirely dubious given how they have a raft of zombie loans that have not actually been written off. Only technically, statistically the loans are treated as irrecoverable losses from the point they enter formal recovery ie they use the HMRC definition of claimable losses but from the poor punter's point of view, they don't treat them as irrecoverable from point of view of personal interest/tax statements do they ? I'm sure I have a stack of zombie loans which have never as yet appeared as written off / irrecoverable on my statements. Up to a point I have kind of lost interest (well and capital....tee hee) as I have very little left in p2p which is earning and have sufficient loss carry forward to offset any recoveries against. But I'm sure the above is correct.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 10, 2022 9:39:21 GMT
Only technically, statistically the loans are treated as irrecoverable losses from the point they enter formal recovery ie they use the HMRC definition of claimable losses but from the poor punter's point of view, they don't treat them as irrecoverable from point of view of personal interest/tax statements do they ? I'm sure I have a stack of zombie loans which have never as yet appeared as written off / irrecoverable on my statements. Up to a point I have kind of lost interest (well and capital....tee hee) as I have very little left in p2p which is earning and have sufficient loss carry forward to offset any recoveries against. But I'm sure the above is correct. Yes they do. All my loans classified as defaults under risk category have appeared as deductible losses in my tax statement at some point during my time investing with AC, with the exception of two strange anomalies Ippy & Anglesey (Eppy is there) Remember holdings in the AA are not eligible because the way the account operates means they are not losses unless the PF isnt able to cover them and the AA holdings in such loans become illiquid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 10, 2022 10:06:35 GMT
ilmoro but from the poor punter's point of view, they don't treat them as irrecoverable from point of view of personal interest/tax statements do they ? I'm sure I have a stack of zombie loans which have never as yet appeared as written off / irrecoverable on my statements. Up to a point I have kind of lost interest (well and capital....tee hee) as I have very little left in p2p which is earning and have sufficient loss carry forward to offset any recoveries against. But I'm sure the above is correct. Yes they do. All my loans classified as defaults under risk category have appeared as deductible losses in my tax statement at some point during my time investing with AC, with the exception of two strange anomalies Ippy & Anglesey (Eppy is there) Remember holdings in the AA are not eligible because the way the account operates means they are not losses unless the PF isnt able to cover them and the AA holdings in such loans become illiquid. The confusion is entirely of AC's making. Written off on the tax statement but not on the dashboard. It really is about time that AC grasped the nettle and fixed the dashboard.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 10, 2022 10:40:18 GMT
Yes they do. All my loans classified as defaults under risk category have appeared as deductible losses in my tax statement at some point during my time investing with AC, with the exception of two strange anomalies Ippy & Anglesey (Eppy is there) Remember holdings in the AA are not eligible because the way the account operates means they are not losses unless the PF isnt able to cover them and the AA holdings in such loans become illiquid. The confusion is entirely of AC's making. Written off on the tax statement but not on the dashboard. It really is about time that AC grasped the nettle and fixed the dashboard. There is a difference though ... a loan declared on the tax statement is not a crystallised loss it merely meets the criteria to be treated as irrecoverable for tax purposes. There is a considerable time period between the entry on the tax statement and the loan ultimately being formally written off (assuming not recovered in full). There will always be a discrepancy due to the lengthy recovery process If there is confusion then it is because AC, and most other platforms, classify loans as losses at the earliest possible qualifying point under HMRC rules rather than wait for the loss to crystallise. I would suggest that this is largely to lenders benefit and lenders of course retain discretion on the claiming of losses. But yes, it is time AC actually resolved their inability to remove crystallised losses from lender accounts. Even Lendy managed to actually crystallise some losses before they imploded.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on Oct 10, 2022 10:58:07 GMT
There is a difference though ... a loan declared on the tax statement is not a crystallised loss it merely meets the criteria to be treated as irrecoverable for tax purposes. There is a considerable time period between the entry on the tax statement and the loan ultimately being formally written off (assuming not recovered in full). There will always be a discrepancy due to the lengthy recovery process If there is confusion then it is because AC, and most other platforms, classify loans as losses at the earliest possible qualifying point under HMRC rules rather than wait for the loss to crystallise. I would suggest that this is largely to lenders benefit and lenders of course retain discretion on the claiming of losses. But yes, it is time AC actually resolved their inability to remove crystallised losses from lender accounts. Even Lendy managed to actually crystallise some losses before they imploded.Indeed, the longer this goes on the bigger the possible shock to people when their true account balance is finally displayed (the cynic in me wonders if this is the reason for the delay).
|
|
