arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810 
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Oct 12, 2015 9:19:23 GMT
In case this is a useful resource for others, I noticed as part of a spontaneous loan book download that a new WL reject has been accepted since our discussion last week. Perhaps we could keep others appraised if we notice new ones showing up.
08/10/2015, Loan ID: 15989, Rating: A
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2015 18:27:16 GMT
If anyone has already created a list (extracting it from the general loans book) and put in excel, that would be useful
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Oct 12, 2015 21:09:04 GMT
Yes, but it isn't legal to post it here since the loanbook download is only available to logged in FC members.
If you can download the loanbook, doing the extraction is trivial (WL column has WL in, AND number of parts >1) .. if you can work extraction, just sort on those cut/paste the relevant part of the resulting worksheet.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Oct 13, 2015 5:19:39 GMT
As an FYI on this topic, I had a call back from FC yesterday to discuss the default rate of FC rejects. The main points were:
1. There haven't been enough defaults for it to be considered statistically significant. Therefore, it's not factored into the risk assessment before being "offered" to us.
2. Institutions come in all shapes and sizes, like punters. Some will do DD, others won't. Even those that don't will sometimes reject WLs on the basis of industry/region/etc. Therefore, the rejection of a WL doesn't necessarily mean the institution considered it to be risky, maybe just that it didn't fit with their portfolio. This is why they will not notify us at the point of investment that the loan was previously rejected. It may imply a greater level of risk which may not be appropriate.
3. "If a PL was rejected the institution also wouldn't be told it's a rejected PL." Hence, that's fair.
I suppose if they had conceded that WL rejection implied greater risk they would have also to have conceded that their risk assessment processes aren't as good as they should be, which would be catastrophic, given the current direction of travel. So, no surprises, but at least confirmation that a periodic loan book analysis will be required to identify the duds we've inadvertently picked up.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 13, 2015 6:05:06 GMT
The statistical significance comment is ludicrous. There have been many more rejected WLs than there have been 12 month A+ loans, yet Fraudulent Conclusions have deduced from the statistic that "no A+ 12 month loan has yet defaulted" that lenders should earn just 5% interest (after 1% fee) on these loans.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Oct 13, 2015 6:44:46 GMT
Yes, it was a disappointing conversation on many levels.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Oct 13, 2015 6:58:08 GMT
As an FYI on this topic, I had a call back from FC yesterday to discuss the default rate of FC rejects. The main points were: 1. There haven't been enough defaults for it to be considered statistically significant. Therefore, it's not factored into the risk assessment before being "offered" to us. 2. Institutions come in all shapes and sizes, like punters. Some will do DD, others won't. Even those that don't will sometimes reject WLs on the basis of industry/region/etc. Therefore, the rejection of a WL doesn't necessarily mean the institution considered it to be risky, maybe just that it didn't fit with their portfolio. This is why they will not notify us at the point of investment that the loan was previously rejected. It may imply a greater level of risk which may not be appropriate. 3. "If a PL was rejected the institution also wouldn't be told it's a rejected PL." Hence, that's fair. I suppose if they had conceded that WL rejection implied greater risk they would have also to have conceded that their risk assessment processes aren't as good as they should be, which would be catastrophic, given the current direction of travel. So, no surprises, but at least confirmation that a periodic loan book analysis will be required to identify the duds we've inadvertently picked up. Are whole loans only offered to a single institutional lender, or are they offered to more than one? I had previously assumed that latter.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Oct 13, 2015 7:14:49 GMT
Are whole loans only offered to a single institutional lender, or are they offered to more than one? I had previously assumed that latter. The conversation I had implied the former. If the latter, then it makes the "explanation" even more implausible.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Oct 13, 2015 7:17:09 GMT
3. "If a PL was rejected the institution also wouldn't be told it's a rejected PL." Hence, that's fair. A brave FC comment considering it's never happened and probably never will. Plus, an institution would just have to monitor the PL market or this board to know if (and probably why) a PL got rejected. Hence it's not fair. Brave? It felt a little bit random to me, and I wasn't sure the chap really believed it either.
|
|
|
|
Post by aloanatlast on Oct 13, 2015 10:47:29 GMT
16422. Apparently the number of "free-range" hens you can get in a shed. Are free-range eggs a con or what?
Deja vu. "Withdrawn owing to technical error". Now relisted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this number doesn't look like the original number, it looks like a Friday WL reject number. Was that the technical error?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 13, 2015 10:57:44 GMT
16422. Apparently the number of "free-range" hens you can get in a shed. Are free-range eggs a con or what?
Deja vu. "Withdrawn owing to technical error". Now relisted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this number doesn't look like the original number, it looks like a Friday WL reject number. Was that the technical error?
The poor dears do have to come in at night. Mustn't let them catch cold.  ...And they probably don't like getting their bums wet by laying in the rain.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Oct 13, 2015 14:48:33 GMT
Having noted that a number of loans have been "late" for a very long time, I wondered what happened if you added those into the default mix, and got the following: Defaults and lates originated
since whole loans started | PL | Rejected WL | WL | | A+ | 0.09% | 0.36% | 0.11% | | A | 0.62% | 0.27% | 0.24% | | B | 0.32% | 0.36% | 0.27% | | C | 0.41% | 0.81% | 0.32% | | D | 0.32% | 0.81% | 0.11% |
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Oct 13, 2015 15:09:19 GMT
arbster, do your A+ figures include property loans?
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Oct 13, 2015 15:31:58 GMT
arbster, do your A+ figures include property loans? They did, but I have now excluded them and excluded loans less than 6 months old, for interest: Defaults and lates originated
since whole loans started (less
than 6 months old, exc Prop.) | PL | Rejected WL | WL | | A+ | 0.13% | 0.46% | 0.22% | | A | 0.88% | 0.34% | 0.43% | | B | 0.49% | 0.46% | 0.54% | | C | 0.57% | 1.03% | 0.59% | | D | 0.40% | 0.91% | 0.22% |
Of course, excluding property loans causes all the percentages to rise, as there have been no property defaults yet. The figures above cover all SME loans (No asset security) since WLs were launched until 6 months ago. It'll be interesting to see how these numbers develop over the coming months.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Oct 13, 2015 15:34:31 GMT
That's pretty telling.
|
|
