am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 2, 2015 11:38:19 GMT
Plus the new rates are even below the current market average. Except for D loanes. I could not equate this with the statement that 71% will be better off... Lots of people with small investments autobidding close to MBR.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 2, 2015 11:41:37 GMT
Yep all the autobidders would have been better off (well, most of them). However 71% of heads/bodies/members probably doesn't map to 71% of the invested funds .. looks like the BBB and the WL folks (who currently operate at average rates, with rather large chunks of dosh) are going to take a hit, since average rates are going to be lower.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 2, 2015 11:46:19 GMT
I simply deducted FC's 1% fee and projected bad debts by risk band That's a bit too crude since we know defaults are somewhat correlated with time into the loan (hence the sell at 6 month strategy, although that was really developed for 3/5 year loans). However, even with assumed no defaults, A+ does look pretty cr&ppy .. how they are going to sell those, vs (somewhat) secured property loans (10%, 1% CB, ~6 month term, for instance) boggles the mind.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 2, 2015 11:54:27 GMT
Yep all the autobidders would have been better off (well, most of them). However 71% of heads/bodies/members probably doesn't map to 71% of the invested funds .. looks like the BBB and the WL folks (who currently operate at average rates, with rather large chunks of dosh) are going to take a hit, since average rates are going to be lower. It may well be the case that going forwards it will be the institutions that will drive the rates; FC will have to set rates low enough to attract borrowers and high enough to attract institutional money.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Sept 2, 2015 12:08:55 GMT
What I find interesting is how low they have set the interest rate for each Band, either they have mis-calculated or they expect passive autobidders to deploy a lot more funds or rapidly attract new investors. With the exception of D band, the fixed rates will be lower than current average rates. This will mean some (or a lot) of active investors (flippers included) will reduce or stop making investment at lower rates than they previously enjoyed. However, I would have thought demand from less active investors or auto-bidders is less elastic as an investor who previously set autobidder at a lower than average rate will not necessarily increase their investments now loans are at higher fixed rates. I had therefore expected the fixed rates to be set higher to guarantee a successful start rather than risk a shaky start. I assume the lack of new loans in the primary market in the past week is to build up demand prior to launch of fixed rates.
The fixed rates will also make it more difficult for larger loans to successfully fill. It will be interesting whether they have to introduce cashback to help get some loans over the line due to liquidity conditions in the primary market. I do believe they may have underestimated the amount of liquidity flippers provide. In the absence of being able to flip to enhance returns, this money will go elsewhere making liquidity in the primary market more difficult to manage. They will be left with tweaking rates and adding cash back to manage the demand side.
It will be interesting to see how things develop. However, I will most likely withdrawing most of my funds for deployment elsewhere, but keep some short term cash on the platform assuming liquidity is maintained in the SM.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Sept 2, 2015 12:27:25 GMT
I simply deducted FC's 1% fee and projected bad debts by risk band That's a bit too crude since we know defaults are somewhat correlated with time into the loan (hence the sell at 6 month strategy, although that was really developed for 3/5 year loans). However, even with assumed no defaults, A+ does look pretty cr&ppy .. how they are going to sell those, vs (somewhat) secured property loans (10%, 1% CB, ~6 month term, for instance) boggles the mind. Indeed, but I don't think they've ever published expected default rates split by loan term so it's all we can go on for now. It will be interesting to see if their future "Estimated return based on this bid: (after fees and bad debts)" figures match these or if they start projecting lower expected defaults for the shorter term loans.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Sept 2, 2015 12:33:26 GMT
I could not equate this with the statement that 71% will be better off... Just to be clear, FC didn't say 71% will be better off. It said 71% would be better off. "If fixed interest rates had been introduced in January 2014, 71% of investors would have a higher expected return."
That statement implicitly makes so many assumptions that it seems valueless to me. They don't specify, for example, exactly what fixed rates would have been in place since Jan 2014 under their simulations. They're also assuming that the money from the other 29% would still have been lent on the platform, rather than taken somewhere else leaving the loans since January 2014 underfunded.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 12:41:49 GMT
Good point, so if the 29% had not been there the auctions would have finished higher up and the average rates they have used to calculate the rates going forwards should have been higher. Well made.
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Sept 2, 2015 12:46:20 GMT
Over the years that FC have been running they have been very successful with balancing supply and demand. Some of this may be due to the auction model. Lenders initially bid high, and the loans fill up, then the higher rates get knocked off. If there is no incentive to bid, loans may not get filled.
When YES-secure introduced their rate cap it virtually killed off a significant portion of lending overnight, and the majority of loans went unfunded. Other lenders who only bid when the loan was near 90% full didn't lend as the loan didn't get that far! I'm not saying that would happen for FC, as they have been infinitely better at attracting lenders.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 2, 2015 12:58:55 GMT
That statement implicitly makes so many assumptions that it seems valueless to me. See? You have got the hang of FC's marketing guff.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Sept 2, 2015 13:05:33 GMT
Over the years that FC have been running they have been very successful with balancing supply and demand. Some of this may be due to the auction model. Lenders initially bid high, and the loans fill up, then the higher rates get knocked off. If there is no incentive to bid, loans may not get filled.
When YES-secure introduced their rate cap it virtually killed off a significant portion of lending overnight, and the majority of loans went unfunded. Other lenders who only bid when the loan was near 90% full didn't lend as the loan didn't get that far! I'm not saying that would happen for FC, as they have been infinitely better at attracting lenders. Flippers have also provided a lot of liquidity by buying in the PM and flipping in the SM effectively helping to smooth short term supply & demand imbalances. No there is little/no money to be made flipping, that money will go elsewhere. Demand will have to be managed via moving rates and cash back and the supply-side more carefully managed. The changes being made are similar to those made by Zopa and they have managed to get it to work.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Sept 2, 2015 13:12:55 GMT
Over the years that FC have been running they have been very successful with balancing supply and demand. Some of this may be due to the auction model. Lenders initially bid high, and the loans fill up, then the higher rates get knocked off. If there is no incentive to bid, loans may not get filled.
When YES-secure introduced their rate cap it virtually killed off a significant portion of lending overnight, and the majority of loans went unfunded. Other lenders who only bid when the loan was near 90% full didn't lend as the loan didn't get that far! I'm not saying that would happen for FC, as they have been infinitely better at attracting lenders. Flippers have also provided a lot of liquidity by buying in the PM and flipping in the SM effectively helping to smooth short term supply & demand imbalances. No there is little/no money to be made flipping, that money will go elsewhere. Demand will have to be managed via moving rates and cash back and the supply-side more carefully managed. The changes being made are similar to those made by Zopa and they have managed to get it to work. Cashback is a cost to FC, and therefore I expect they'll revise the fixed rates upward in the short term, drifting them back down as April 2016 approaches.
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Sept 2, 2015 13:17:40 GMT
I think we are hearing an awful lot from the advanced users of FC who have most to lose but I am not sure where they can switch their funds to - the relative size of FC against other platforms that retain proper bidding means that a mass switch would depress their rates too. My success with FC has been sufficiently poor (no i didn't use autobid) that I can't see how i can lose out so I'm at this point i say 'bring it on' Jack P
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 14:07:53 GMT
ISA owners are generally a tacky lot and most will stick with their 1.5% interest rate, what will drive money here is a major stock market drop so that those invested in the market will move. The critical issue will be institutions trying to force their way back between the individuals and their traditional investments via P2P portals, since all they want is a fixed income to be able to offer their clients (after licking off the cream "but it's only 1%") it is they who want nice fixed rates. FC sells out I fear.
Interesting to see who falls into this trap next.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 2, 2015 15:09:34 GMT
ISA owners are generally a tacky lot and most will stick with their 1.5% interest rate, what will drive money here is a major stock market drop so that those invested in the market will move. The critical issue will be institutions trying to force their way back between the individuals and their traditional investments via P2P portals, since all they want is a fixed income to be able to offer their clients (after licking off the cream "but it's only 1%") it is they who want nice fixed rates. FC sells out I fear. Interesting to see who falls into this trap next. What would encourage me into an Innovative Finance ISA would be a stock market rise (to 7,500), especially if HL made switching easy.
|
|