Where would you invest most P2P money in August 2015?

oldgrumpy There were reported OG sightings at this beach over the weekend 

Agreed. M&C invested heavily in a computer system that could handle literally millions of users but has less deal flow per month than a bad day at FC. The loans take ages to fill (if they even manage to) and draw down. They also spent heavily on marketing and have had an unjustifiably large amount of mentions in the daily mail (spits) as a result of NH.

As a result they have been haemorrhaging money since inception.

I ended up investing a small amount there after naively following a sponsored link from 4thway. Thankfully I sold it on the SM without difficulty.

Playing devil's advocate here, but couldn't the same thing also apply to MT?

Every loan on FS I liked the look of was fully taken up by the time I was able to get online to attempt to get involved with.

Not so much a non-story as risks that were already known and which it is quite sensible to be aware of and consider. It was useful for optionstrader to describe the things that are of concern to optionstrader, just as we all do for assorted platforms, I expect.
"...: 'You invested in my restaurant...now it's a bar'" told me as much as I need to know about investing in any P2P platforms involving this individual. Sought crowdfunding for one thing (restaurant, "upmarket brasserie in leafy Chiswick"), did something else with the money ("oyster bar in Clapham") instead of returning it and relisting for the new project of a different type . As the story notes "A number of investors ... backed the original plan because the brasserie was local – so they would be able to make use of the discount – and they liked the concept". Changing project and terms to the disadvantage of those already invested is not an inspiring act by the CEO of a P2P firm. Of course I'm also aware of her other preceding adventures. With that history I simply don't trust that she and any project she's involved with as CEO will act as originally described at the time of any investment I might make, because she's already demonstrated what to expect in her similar peer crowdfunding activities. Forget Marmite personality if that exists (and an admirable "Superwoman" personal life in so many ways), I just have to look at the recent business history of the individual concerned.

Similarly there's Bondora which has again announced that it is reducing the value of loans that have already been made over many years. Last time it was rerating the apparent risk grading of many existing loans from best on platform (Estonian A 1000 12% interest rate) to mostly not best and a high percentage the worst HR on the platform. So much for resale value of those, which changed from described as best to described as worst prospects. This time around it's changes to the debt collection to eliminate penalties for borrowers, reducing the value of loans in arrears or default, as well as existing loans with any significant default risk. Doing things that significantly change the value of already made loans negatively is not the sort of thing to inspire confidence in a platform. Then there was the matter of introducing lending to under 25s who were "young professionals" but in practice lending to mostly clerks, shop assistance fitters and similar, often with only basic education, not remotely close to being professionally educated even. Then there was the elderly person receiving benefits for a young child who had many loans at the start of the loan process but was described as having a verified income and expenses, who ended up in court with seven digits of unsecured borrowing. In this case the record is such that I do not trust the accuracy of claims made during underwriting, nor do I trust that the platform will not harm the value of existing investments, because I'm aware of at least two substantive cases where I think that the opposite has been done by the platform.

Then there's Zopa, which in a loan to me that I initiated partly for investor due diligence around the end of 2008 repeatedly breached the Consumer Credit Act, including overcharging me interest, never getting even one annual loan statement right first try and not even getting pre-loan disclosures right (missing mandatory text and early settlement at 3, 6 and 9 months instead of the legally required 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 way through the loan). Or them not responding for months to that report of the latter issue, continuing to lend, while I didn't consider that I was willing to sign a consumer credit license application when I knew that the lending would not be compliant with the Act at the time of my signing immediately below an affirmation that I would comply. I desire higher standards of proactive legal and regulatory compliance from a platform than I believe have been demonstrated.

By way of contrast, there's Mintos that has an established record of buying back loans, or their partners doing so, if even the loan term changes, let alone in the case of defaults, so that people don't end up with even a term they didn't expect at the outset.

Or there's Ablrate which while they have a stalled aircraft lending pipeline have continued to pay investors interest-replacement money from the time the currently stalled loan was filled even though it's for far longer than they could initially have anticipated. They have also offered anyone who wants out a way out of the loan. While at times they have been more positive about the loan pipeline in public than turned out to be wise, when it comes to money for existing investments they appear to be getting things right and they have clearly learned to be more cautious about possible future loans and adjusted how they act there.

Those two have demonstrated some of the contrasts that exist in the sector. While they might not ultimately last long term, at least investors can see that they are trying to act properly and respect the interests and needs of investors and be fairly optimistic that they would seek a good resolution if they didn't survive.

As samford71 wrote. Sometimes over time a platform will demonstrate positive traits. Sometimes negative. Investors opinions of platforms can be expected to naturally change over time as the company and individuals involved with it demonstrate how they carry out business. A new firm is a blank slate, ready for positive or negative future demonstrations.

Platforms can change substantially over time. Investors would do well to diversify and consider the availability of exit routes in case they desire to exit after changes that they consider to be undesirable.

Thank you james for sharing your experiences, especially of some platforms I've not yet tried.  Valuable anecdotes.