|
|
Post by oldnick on Mar 31, 2015 5:11:41 GMT
You are able to edit by using the cog wheel button at the top right of your post.
In the Forum Feedback section there is the Test Area 'sand-pit' which is for anyone to use if they want to try out things in safety.
|
|
ianb
Posts: 161 
Likes: 54
|
Post by ianb on Mar 31, 2015 6:34:30 GMT
I completed my sell-out for Flatulent Camels back in January after 12 months due to low returns (due to defaults) and too much time required. I'm currently with - AC SS RS ReBS FS FK
(biggest investment first, though some of these like FS I'm building up while others are static). Good luck to anyone who sticks with AC, you have my respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Mar 31, 2015 8:33:45 GMT
I have found that where I have tried to use my 'skill' at due diligence and instinct I have been confounded. Two platforms that don't have large deal flow so require some 'skill' are AC and FK - and both are giving me trouble. FK I am pretty sure i will lose a reasonable amount, and half of my money in AC is now frozen. In contrast FC and the 'borings' quietly rack up the interest.
I reckon if there's another 'Northern Rock' type crunch then some platforms like SS, Rebs, FK etc will just freeze up and/or collapse even before members of this board can discuss it and sell up - that should be factored in when jumping ship
JP
|
|
|
|
Post by goldservice on Mar 31, 2015 9:17:27 GMT
I completed my sell-out for Flatulent Camels back in January after 12 months due to low returns (due to defaults) and too much time required. I'm currently with - AC SS RS ReBS FS FK
(biggest investment first, though some of these like FS I'm building up while others are static). Good luck to anyone who sticks with AC, you have my respect. Just wondered, was that final AC meant to be FC?
|
|
ton27
Member of DD Central
Posts: 431
Likes: 267
|
Post by ton27 on Mar 31, 2015 9:28:53 GMT
I am also in the process of winding down FC as with the reduced interest rates it requires too much effort for too little reward. It will take a long time to wind down as I have a significant 5 figure sum invested over the past year (at a rate before fees of 10.5%).
My efforts are now concentrated on AC, TC and RS although I would like another one or possibly two platforms.
|
|
ianb
Posts: 161
Likes: 54
|
Post by ianb on Mar 31, 2015 11:07:59 GMT
I completed my sell-out for Flatulent Camels back in January after 12 months due to low returns (due to defaults) and too much time required. I'm currently with - AC SS RS ReBS FS FK
(biggest investment first, though some of these like FS I'm building up while others are static). Good luck to anyone who sticks with AC, you have my respect. Just wondered, was that final AC meant to be FC? Yes, I must have disengaged brain. 
|
|
|
|
Post by goldservice on May 23, 2015 7:49:13 GMT
Stevet said (21 May 2015 in the thread Prop ‘em up?) ‘My initial thinking is that, unless it [13021] fills rather faster than I expect, I'll wait until the 2nd tranche appears and trumps it with some added CB. It's not unlike the sort of loans that Saving Stream regularly offer, but over there you get 12% without fees and the notional extra safety net of a modest provision fund. Also a highly liquid SM, whereas I think this one could prove decidedly hard to move on (without discounting) for quite some time.’
Could others make up to date comments on how they are finding the alternatives to Furiously Crunching?
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on May 23, 2015 8:53:27 GMT
Reversing my earlier comment I am now pulling out of AC. I invested across 44 loans, of these two are in trouble. Despite the Asset backing on the options loan there is a shortfall to be made up by the guarantor. In contrast only one of my 6 FC failures have been a total loss, the others are getting recoveries from the guarantor. I have decided to stay with FC and continue to diversify the risk. I also have a personal strategy designed to simplify my investments so I am also pulling out elsewhere to concentrate on RS and Zopa.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on May 23, 2015 20:04:17 GMT
I also dipped my toe with AC, but have now liquidated and moved my money elsewhere to earn a higher return. Several of my loans had issues, including a debtor that went into administration. However, I pretty much obtained full recovery and was very impressed in how quickly they acted to enforce asset charges and personal guarantees plus the communication to lenders - I was very pleasantly surprised and impressed. It is only because my risk/return appetite is higher than what they offer that I migrated funds away.
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on May 24, 2015 8:31:38 GMT
I have money with Z RS and FC. I became a bit fed up with FC a few years a go with the bad debts and ran down the holding. I started to look again at the p2p scene earlier this year. I concluded that FC was not so bad after all partly because they had started to rake in some recoveries to my bad debts. This takes ages to produce anything useful and is very important. Trying to weigh it all up I have increased my FC holdings and am interestingly surveying what the outcome of these property loans will be on balance. I am trying to target 50:50 property:industrial loans.
With many of the companies offering great rates they are very small and whereas FC yields less I just wonder whether their offering is realistic as its 10 times a bigger operation and so has a lot more track record. A yield of 12% implies the borrower is paying even more and so must be more risky or why would he not go elsewhere. It may be that these more specialist smaller firms can manage the default situation more efficiently but I do wonder whether they have not had enough time to hit enough failures. The truth may well be somewhere between the two.
Some of these smaller firm contenders I am not sure whether one is lending to a borrower or the firm itself. When something goes wrong and there is a problem with a platform can I get my money back. The recent mini bond default was an example.
FC has a pretty useful dealflow and I get the impression that the smaller ones often dont with some deals selling out quickly so there is the spectre of having unlent money like the earlier days of Zopa. That great yield is reduced somewhat. Costs of staff as well as there must be a cost of playing below which they cannot go below , especially if their trading volume rises. They would find it harder to provide the service.
On size terms Lendinvest looks good to me but I can do as well with FC. It may be a useful platform diversification in future. Ditto Welesley , I doubt that they offer much extra that what I have now.
Market invoice I thought was expensive to get into.
AC will probably be my next investigation as they promised invoice factoring which is another diverse asset class that I would like a bit of. I would like to feel that the offering was liquid , well used growing etc.
I think that this sort of debate is very important. Please dont think that I am pro FC but I think that this scene is like the wild west at present with the rules being bashed out amongst the players.
This is what I think to date , very happy to learn more about it.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on May 24, 2015 11:13:06 GMT
Faintly Contentious still has a role in my portfolio but I definitely regard it as "active management" rather than "buy and hold". It's a fractionally more rewarding (and sometimes less frustrating) use of my time than playing Candy Crush, but roughly as time-consuming. My current thoughts on my other platforms:
SS: Good rate (12% gross), instant investment, decent asset backing for most loans, hyper-liquid SM and a modest provision fund. Takes no managing at all (other than responding quickly when a new loan goes live). SS have now openly said they're sorting out the trustee ownership issue which, once implemented, will see me double or triple my current investment.
AC: Very simple to (slowly) build a diversified asset-backed portfolio at a decent gross rate (11%-ish). Too early for me to tell what my ultimate net return will be though, and there are plenty of distressed loans on their books. More or less instant SM on most loans.
ReBS: A bit like FC but all C and C- loans (in FC terms) at rates up to 19% / 20%. My strategy here to date has been to buy a very small amount of all new auctions and watch how things play out. There is an SM but it's not slick and not very liquid.
AR: Looking forward to the new website going live and to the promised new deal flow. Hopefully will then operate much like SS but with planes, not buildings
FS: Bizarre range of asset-backed loans, so I'm rather selective what I buy into. Gross rates in the range 10% - 13%. A few recent distressed loans and write-offs according to existing lenders but I've not had one as yet.
MT: Quite like FS but smaller, newer and offering a standard 12%. Time will tell if it lives up to its early promise.
FK: Still finding my way around this one, more in the FC / ReBS direction. Interesting platform functionality but rates don't exactly sparkle versus others.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadoh on May 24, 2015 18:07:27 GMT
I've found ReBs have a lot of business loans, mostly long term. no fees to investor other than secondary market. Im 30% with them
Funking Criminals - 40% with - but they do annoy me that they charge the investor a 1% fee, but that cost goes as a saving to the borrower, therefore, they get a higher loan flow .
AC - noo seen anything of interest until recently.
Crowd property - about 10% - needs more exposure to the market
Proplend - 10% - logical safe property lending, different to the rest of market
Funding secure - 10%
dipped a toe in fruitful just while im scouting the market.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on May 24, 2015 20:35:50 GMT
... they charge the investor a 1% fee, but that cost goes as a saving to the borrower... No, because the contract rates would be expected to be 1% higher than if the 1% fee were charged to the borrower (and not included in the contract rate). This exact same scenario has already played out at RateSetter, who switched from charging their fee to lenders to charging it to borrowers - it made no overall difference apart from the way the contract was drafted and the number of entries on statements. Whilst it's possible that a proportion of lenders may have failed to take the fee into account when determining what rate to bid, the ones with large amounts of money (and who collectively have more influence over the market rates) would be expected to have done their sums.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldservice on Sept 2, 2015 11:06:38 GMT
Time to resurrect this thread? For the first time since I started with Funds Crumbling two years ago, I have withdrawn money instead of putting more in.
What other platforms are others heading to?
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Sept 2, 2015 11:21:54 GMT
I have been withdrawing for over a year; I joined hoping to use the API. I won't withdraw any cash for the next few weeks and once the dust settles I will consider my position, maybe I will give them another go. I don't know what the rates will look like but risk reward vs effort might just have swung in the right direction.
|
|
