|
Post by easteregg on Oct 16, 2015 11:35:16 GMT
Okay there are now over 40 active peer-to-peer companies in the UK, so I thought it would be interesting to see what "active lenders" would choose as their favourite peer-to-peer company in 2015. I've attempted to include all peer-to-peer companies operating in the UK that launched before 2015, but if I have omitted any company then please feel free to select "other". Everyone can have up to three votes.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Oct 16, 2015 14:47:58 GMT
not even heard of most of them
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Oct 16, 2015 14:58:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Oct 16, 2015 14:59:27 GMT
not even heard of most of them Yes there are quite a few operating in the UK, and I omitted a few that were regional or had only just launched.
|
|
|
Post by ravado on Oct 16, 2015 18:40:56 GMT
Really surprised that Funding Secure isn't more popular and that Money Thing gets more votes. I put Funding Secure in my top 3. Also interesting to see Funding Circle no longer popular on this forum!
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Oct 16, 2015 18:47:00 GMT
Can't see lendingbandwagon on the list.
|
|
|
Post by drstarter33 on Oct 16, 2015 18:48:00 GMT
Really surprised that Funding Secure isn't more popular and that Money Thing gets more votes. I put Funding Secure in my top 3. Also interesting to see Funding Circle no longer popular on this forum! agreed 1. SS 2. Fundingsecure 3. LendInvest for me!
|
|
paulgul
Member of DD Central
Posts: 401
Likes: 92
|
Post by paulgul on Oct 16, 2015 18:52:30 GMT
Really surprised that Funding Secure isn't more popular and that Money Thing gets more votes. I put Funding Secure in my top 3. Also interesting to see Funding Circle no longer popular on this forum! For me it was a difficult decision between SS and MT, in the end SS got my vote because of the secondary market which helps with diversification and the fact that a lot of MT loans are through one company - which makes me slightly nervous. I think FS would be in 3rd position for me.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Oct 16, 2015 20:29:15 GMT
Really surprised that Funding Secure isn't more popular and that Money Thing gets more votes. I put Funding Secure in my top 3. Also interesting to see Funding Circle no longer popular on this forum! I find that you have to be very selective on FS. Property backed loans are on a par with SS but I would not touch a lot of their loans on art etc. SS, MT and FS all pay around 12% but may be a little risky. Should be OK provided you are well diversified. Wellesley and Archover only pay half as much but look safer. Zopa and RS pay even less but may be even safer. It all depends on your risk/return appetite.
|
|
|
Post by wiseclerk on Oct 17, 2015 10:24:19 GMT
Astonishing. Saving Stream managed to get a vote by more than half of all voters. Talk about satisfied customers.
P.S.: I gave them one of my three votes, too.
|
|
paulgul
Member of DD Central
Posts: 401
Likes: 92
|
Post by paulgul on Oct 17, 2015 10:35:50 GMT
P.S.: I gave them one of my three votes, too. Whoops, I didn't realise we had 3 votes - I'll put that right now
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Oct 17, 2015 10:43:28 GMT
Very interesting that the current leader (SS) isn't even a P2P company. In the expectation that it will be I have joined so I hope that everyone (especially me) is as happy in 2016 with them!
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Oct 17, 2015 11:21:36 GMT
Also interesting to see Funding Circle no longer popular on this forum! FC is the new Zopa? FC still has an advantage is that it's well financed and with a good deal flow, so it is (in my humble opinion) one of the companies with a lower platform risk. But they've managed to strangle the effective deal flow for retail customers in addition to all the other ways they've irritated the active retail P2P lending community. They've also managed to hit the sour spot of opaque loans, lowish rates, and no protection fund. [In contrast, for example, AC's MLIA (in my humble opinion) is good (but not yet perfect) on loan transparency, but has no protection fund; RS has opaque loans and a provision fund.] There might still be happy passive lenders at FC, but they wouldn't vote here. With respect to SS, I wouldn't say that it's my preferred P2P platform (I want to take more time to form an opinion on its risk profile), but I would say that it is the platform of the year - they've built a business which is approaching critical mass, with a high headline rate of return, and positive engagement with lenders. It's RS and SS that are likely to get more of my money in the next few months - AC might get some if they had a better deal flow.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Oct 17, 2015 13:45:39 GMT
They've also managed to hit the sour spot of opaque loans, lowish rates, and no protection fund. You've put that really well, in my opinion. I was trying to work what it was that made RateSetter more attractive to people, and obviously SS and MT, and it's just that. RS is opaque and rates are relatively low, but it's low effort and has the protection fund, plus the perception that active investors can gain an advantage by chasing better rates. SS has the attraction of higher rates, and a really clear proposition - we understand what we're investing in, and while their communication leaves something to be desired you can't fault their deal flow, generally. FC are somewhere between - a lot of effort to manage actively and not enough information provided consistently or reliably enough, and a poorly implemented automated investment system which means you can't be sure of achieving their average default rate if you use it, and thus get completely unpredictable returns. And even if you do achieve their target average return it's only marginally better than RS's normal 5-year rate. So, why would you? FC's saving grace had been the lender/borrower engagement through Q&As, which they've basically killed, and borrowers don't even bother to fill out the Business Profile or Loan Purpose any more, which goes to show how much they care about the people whose money they're borrowing. The Investment Trust might be the only attractive way of investing via FC in future, but that seems to me to further erode their USP. Personally, I'm most disappointed in the contrast between words and deeds on FC's part. If they want active investors, they should stop making it harder to actively invest, or even work out how they could make it easier!
|
|
|
Post by gmaxkenny on Oct 17, 2015 14:53:48 GMT
I would love to know who the single vote for Bondora is.
|
|