|
|
Post by chris on Jan 22, 2016 18:26:41 GMT
No I'm really not. Because if you look into the detail of SS it's not at all straight forward or easy, there are complex games to be played to get the investments you want. Nor is SS remaining dedicated to staying easy - every time they reach a problem that others have planned for they end up having to add complexity. How long do you think they will offer only one rate? Is being the fastest to solve a puzzle the easiest way to buy on the aftermarket? How easy was it during the bot wars? What will happen when the bots come back as they appear to be starting to do? How do you invest the exact amount you want in a really big loan when you have to guess at the multiple you need to set your target to in order to get the right amount? How is their distribution algorithm in smaller loans simpler than ours when it's a near direct copy? How do you ensure your money is safe in their client money account with their invest now pay later mechanism, do you know the detail? In the QAA, GBBA or GEIA all you do is invest your money. One transfer and you're done. If you want the complexity of the MLIA then even there we give you hands off tools so you can compete equally with the other "institutionalised" bots so you can invest without being glued to your computer screen trying to solve captcha puzzles. If you want to understand every nook and cranny of the offering then there is complexity in all the platforms. At least you have more chance of getting your money back with SS, which is pretty dam important!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AC's projected losses thus far are at or below 1% on returns over 11%. We have a few loans where they are locked to protect new investors but we prefer that to allowing lenders to unknowingly invest into distressed loans. SS's loan book hasn't been tested over a full cycle yet and they have their own problems with rolled over loans. When their loan book is a couple of years old it will be fairer to compare. If you take a similar timescale then only one loan in 2015 has thus far had difficulties and even there the borrower has proposed a solution that will repay the loan.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,054 
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 22, 2016 18:40:52 GMT
If anyone's interested ( ilmoro ?) the allocation size was £910.12 for #224 £910 allocation on a £70k loan. Serious lack of interest from the educated masses.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Jan 22, 2016 18:41:25 GMT
At least you have more chance of getting your money back with SS, which is pretty dam important!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AC's projected losses thus far are at or below 1% on returns over 11%. We have a few loans where they are locked to protect new investors but we prefer that to allowing lenders to unknowingly invest into distressed loans. SS's loan book hasn't been tested over a full cycle yet and they have their own problems with rolled over loans. When their loan book is a couple of years old it will be fairer to compare. If you take a similar timescale then only one loan in 2015 has thus far had difficulties and even there the borrower has proposed a solution that will repay the loan. Are you looking at loans originated in 2015? - Off the top of my head on 1/1/15 the plumber was hunky dorey, same for Leeds and the welsh hotel. Sorry to pull you up on detail, I much prefer the approach of warts'n'all levels of info compared to the 'yep the whole loan book is fine, no questions needed, or indeed answered' from SS.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jan 22, 2016 19:03:35 GMT
I’m not impressed by the email announcing “The Enahnced (sic) Upcoming Loans Page”
Any firm that issues announcements or paperwork with proof reading errors does not look very professional in my book.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 22, 2016 19:34:36 GMT
On the loan mentioned, this is a low LTV loan, small in terms of debt size and there are mitigants as to the start up nature. LTV is just outside of bounds for the rate with the current criteria. Those criteria are being reviewed so it may qualify in future. Would you believe these two chaps are talking about the same loan? How can andrewholgate refer to this loan as "low LTV" when it has an LTV of 73.6% -- of which 58.5% is from the first charge -- and its LTV is so high that it can't be included in the GBBA.? I also can't quite work out why chris says the "LTV is just outside of bounds" for the GBBA when the website description says "The maximum loan-to-value ratio for individual loans included in the GBBA is three-quarters (75%) of each property's value." I suspect that the key is in Chris's words "for the rate", which suggests to me that for low-rate loans the LTV has to be below 75% in order to be eligible for the GBBA. And I suppose that makes sense since low-rate loans will contribute less to the PF so they need to be lower risk. But in the interest of transparency I think this should be made clear in the description of the GBBA.
|
|
bob76
Posts: 103
Likes: 22
|
Post by bob76 on Jan 22, 2016 19:44:59 GMT
AC's projected losses thus far are at or below 1% on returns over 11%. I am assuming that's the overall loss against the overall amount lent by the platform. Unless an individual investor was able to properly diversify his/her investment across all loans on the platform, which is technically impossible on AC, as many loans never have anything going on the second market, this figure of 1% loss stated is going to meaningless to people, and does not represent actual risk on the platform. I have been on AC for some time, and given the static aftermarket (due to not being able to sell at a premium), it's impossible to achieve true diversification. That's one of the major drawbacks of AC compared to other platforms, like FC (where I have invested in over 250 loans).
|
|
bob76
Posts: 103
Likes: 22
|
Post by bob76 on Jan 22, 2016 19:47:04 GMT
I’m not impressed by the email announcing “The Enahnced (sic) Upcoming Loans Page” Any firm that issues announcements or paperwork with proof reading errors does not look very professional in my book. Strange, as it's all going through the complyance team first (which the reason for not being able to post frequent updates/news on the website itself).
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 22, 2016 19:49:12 GMT
On the loan mentioned, this is a low LTV loan, small in terms of debt size and there are mitigants as to the start up nature. LTV is just outside of bounds for the rate with the current criteria. Those criteria are being reviewed so it may qualify in future. Would you believe these two chaps are talking about the same loan? How can andrewholgate refer to this loan as "low LTV" when it has an LTV of 73.6% -- of which 58.5% is from the first charge -- and its LTV is so high that it can't be included in the GBBA.? I also can't quite work out why chris says the "LTV is just outside of bounds" for the GBBA when the website description says "The maximum loan-to-value ratio for individual loans included in the GBBA is three-quarters (75%) of each property's value." I suspect that the key is in Chris's words "for the rate", which suggests to me that for low-rate loans the LTV has to be below 75% in order to be eligible for the GBBA. And I suppose that makes sense since low-rate loans will contribute less to the PF so they need to be lower risk. But in the interest of transparency I think this should be made clear in the description of the GBBA. That we're using stricter rules than those published shouldn't be cause for lender concern should it? The key words were "for the rate" which pushed it just outside the bounds for the account. We could remove that sliding scale and still be within the published criteria and then the loan would have qualified. It's not just about managing to cover the provision fund, don't forget we also need to cover the growth of the provision fund within a certain amount of time lest it shrink too much as the amount deposited increases. It's only loans in the 7 - 9% range that face that additional sliding scale, which is also subject to change as the account matures.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 22, 2016 19:51:18 GMT
AC's projected losses thus far are at or below 1% on returns over 11%. I am assuming that's the overall loss against the overall amount lent by the platform. Unless an individual investor was able to properly diversify his/her investment across all loans on the platform, which is technically impossible on AC, as many loans never have anything going on the second market, this figure of 1% loss stated is going to meaningless to people, and does not represent actual risk on the platform. I have been on AC for some time, and given the static aftermarket (due to not being able to sell at a premium), it's impossible to achieve true diversification. That's one of the major drawbacks of AC compared to other platforms, like FC (where I have invested in over 250 loans). Selling at a premium is already coded and trivial to turn on but thus far our polling of lenders has suggested it's not a wanted feature and we still have some concerns about protecting new lenders. It's not popular on this forum either.
|
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Jan 22, 2016 19:54:35 GMT
At least you have more chance of getting your money back with SS, which is pretty dam important!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, that is a claim and a half! Just your "damned" opinion, of course, and without anything to substantiate it. Certainly SS is simple enough and so is the lottery. SS give hardly any information about how the income to repay the loan is to be generated, and hardly ever answer any questions (& certainly don't allow the occasional piece of information they give out via Q&A to be shared with other investors). Very simple indeed. And their secondary market is non-existent for anybody with ordinary broadband (less than 4mbps). I do get the impression that there are a lot P2P investors out there who only look at the LTV, assume the valuer can foresee the future accurately, and think their capital will always be safe. I think SS encourage this view. AC give out far more information so that a more balanced view of the loan can be taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Jan 22, 2016 20:03:57 GMT
If anyone's interested ( ilmoro ?) the allocation size was £910.12 for #224 Well, I'm interested as I wasn't in that loan. And not alone (sic) in that apparently. Only 80-120 investors compared to the 1000 I thought might be involved. Not the first time I have overestimated the demand for a loan!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 22, 2016 20:05:13 GMT
If anyone's interested ( ilmoro ?) the allocation size was £910.12 for #224 £910 allocation on a £70k loan. Serious lack of interest from the educated masses. I see that 35% of this loan was allocated to MLIAs. That's about £25k, so nearly 4% of the allocation went to each of the MLIAs that asked for at least £910 of this loan. (IIRC, the last loan had a maximum allocation of about 0.5% of the amount of the loan allocated to MLIAs.) I can't help but wonder about the reasons for this... - Did lots of investors enter only small buying orders, or have only small amounts of cash available in their MLIAs, because past experience suggested that such a small loan wouldn't produce a very big allocation? (A few pages earlier in this thread, chielamangus speculated that the maximum allocation might not even reach three figures.)
- Did only a few investors place buying orders because they didn't like the loan?
- Did only a few investors place buying orders because there was so little notice of the new loan? (It was less than 24 hours between the time I received the email announcing the new loan and the time the allocations were made.)
|
|
bob76
Posts: 103
Likes: 22
|
Post by bob76 on Jan 22, 2016 20:05:19 GMT
Selling at a premium is already coded and trivial to turn on but thus far our polling of lenders has suggested it's not a wanted feature and we still have some concerns about protecting new lenders. It's not popular on this forum either. I am not sure how the aftermarket is ever going to be fluid, if people can't sell at a premium. As long as the revised expected rate of return is displayed very clearly to the buyer at the time of purchase (with the understanding that a loss could be made if the loan is terminated sooner than expected), then I can't really see the issue. Seems to be working well on other platforms, like FC or FS, where people can actually buy some loan parts on the second market, and therefore achieve some good diversification. Apart from that, you would need a steady stream of big loans, triggering people to sell parts of their previous loans, to achieve diversification. That's not going to happen, given the pipeline and the imbalance of demand vs. supply on new loans. Apart from not being able to achieve diversification (and therefore having a risk much higher than the overall losses advertised by AC), this also means new lenders coming to the platform now won't find it attractive at all (since nothing to buy). Surely, AC is having an issue if its user base is not growing.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 22, 2016 20:13:08 GMT
AC's projected losses thus far are at or below 1% on returns over 11%. I am assuming that's the overall loss against the overall amount lent by the platform. Unless an individual investor was able to properly diversify his/her investment across all loans on the platform, which is technically impossible on AC, as many loans never have anything going on the second market, this figure of 1% loss stated is going to meaningless to people, and does not represent actual risk on the platform. I have been on AC for some time, and given the static aftermarket (due to not being able to sell at a premium), it's impossible to achieve true diversification. That's one of the major drawbacks of AC compared to other platforms, like FC (where I have invested in over 250 loans). Rather have problems trying to invest in loans that have had next to no defaults (SS) than problems getting my money out of so many loans that are "suspended"
|
|
bob76
Posts: 103
Likes: 22
|
Post by bob76 on Jan 22, 2016 20:16:55 GMT
Rather have problems trying to invest in loans that have had next to no defaults (SS) than problems getting my money out of so many loans that are "suspended" Have problem investing in loans = poor diversification Surely, you can see the potential risk of having your money not spread on many loans?
|
|
