am
Posts: 1,495 
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 26, 2016 9:10:44 GMT
I can't see why it is called a monthly market if it is instant access. It's a monthly, but with zero penalty to cash-in the loan parts. They also appear to be renaming it the access product... It's not clear what the penalty is now on the monthly product. They removed the 1% sell out fee. That still leaves the matters of reclaimed interest and assignment fees. I took a quote, and I think that they offered me all the capital and accrued interest, but other people have been quoted less than their balance. Perhaps there's no reclaimed interest, but are assignment fees. I think a clarifying statement from RS would not be amiss.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,882
Likes: 6,974
|
Post by duck on Feb 26, 2016 17:22:06 GMT
I know the title of this thread is "Which platforms have you left and why?" but the pedant in me want's to rephrase it "Which platforms have left you"
zopa when then introduced safeguard, mucked about with algorithms and made it hard to re-invest.
FC when they appeared to stop doing any DD and doing it yourself for every loan proved too time consuming.
Bondora when they made it impossible to choose country to invest in.
Platforms change (which they might have a very good business need to do) and sometimes these changes don't fit my needs. If these platforms had stayed as they were there is a high chance I wouldn't be running them down/selling off, but since they moved away from me ......
|
|
|
|
Post by reeknralf on Feb 26, 2016 18:06:46 GMT
Should a pedant not end a question with a question mark?
|
|
|
|
Post by uncletone on Feb 27, 2016 11:24:57 GMT
One has to consider the risk of positioning the requisite punctuation the wrong side of the quotation mark.  |
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 27, 2016 22:37:59 GMT
OK but it was just the final straw. I was already running it down because the monthly rate was only about 3% and the AC QAA offers 3.75% with instant access. Hmm. I'd missed the existence of that completely. Interesting. Ah - just noticed the £50k cap. : The cap is actually £75k. In addition to the £50k you can invest in the QAA directly, you can invest £25k into AC's Manual Loan Investment Account, set the system to sweep uninvested money into the QAA, and not enter any buying instructions so that your money would remain uninvested. That's not how AC intended the sweep function to be used, or course, and they might ask you to withdraw your unswept funds. I'd also note that those two limits were set some time ago, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were increased before much longer, since the overall QAA limit -- currently £8.5M -- has been raised a number of times since the QAA was introduced.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 27, 2016 22:50:15 GMT
I think SS's model is particularly risky. By maintaining the average LTV below 60% I have full confidence in the SS model. : How did you work out SS's average LTV? Did you adjust for those loans where SS have a second charge but show the LTV as calculated without regard for the first charge? PBL072, for example, shows the LTV as 24%, when it ought to be shown as 60%. PBL051 shows the LTV as 11%, when it ought to be shown as 60%. PBL006 shows the LTV as 15%, when it ought to be shown as 59%. Etc.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Feb 27, 2016 23:02:37 GMT
I suspect sqh did it himeself, ie being selective over the loans they chose to invest in. It wasn't a case of it being a Saving Stream average LTV.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Feb 27, 2016 23:09:50 GMT
By maintaining the average LTV below 60% I have full confidence in the SS model. : How did you work out SS's average LTV? Did you adjust for those loans where SS have a second charge but show the LTV as calculated without regard for the first charge? PBL072, for example, shows the LTV as 24%, when it ought to be shown as 60%. PBL051 shows the LTV as 11%, when it ought to be shown as 60%. PBL006 shows the LTV as 15%, when it ought to be shown as 59%. Etc. It's displayed at the bottom of the "live loan" page, and the pipeline page. Did you adjust for those loans where SS have a second charge but show the LTV as calculated without regard for the first charge? Yes.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 28, 2016 0:17:27 GMT
By maintaining the average LTV below 60% I have full confidence in the SS model. : How did you work out SS's average LTV? Did you adjust for those loans where SS have a second charge but show the LTV as calculated without regard for the first charge? PBL072, for example, shows the LTV as 24%, when it ought to be shown as 60%. PBL051 shows the LTV as 11%, when it ought to be shown as 60%. PBL006 shows the LTV as 15%, when it ought to be shown as 59%. Etc. PBL72 shows both LTV of 24% (for the second charge part) and an LTV of 60% for both charges (See the title of the loan). PBL51, show the 60% LTV in the loan particulars document same applies to PBL6.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 28, 2016 4:42:12 GMT
sqh : How did you work out SS's average LTV? Did you adjust for those loans where SS have a second charge but show the LTV as calculated without regard for the first charge? PBL072, for example, shows the LTV as 24%, when it ought to be shown as 60%. PBL051 shows the LTV as 11%, when it ought to be shown as 60%. PBL006 shows the LTV as 15%, when it ought to be shown as 59%. Etc. It's displayed at the bottom of the "live loan" page, and the pipeline page. Did you adjust for those loans where SS have a second charge but show the LTV as calculated without regard for the first charge? Yes. The LTV number at the bottom of the Live Loans page is an unadjusted number, and is showing 50% at the moment. If sqh has adjusted that number and it's still below 60% after adjustment then that's good news.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Feb 28, 2016 22:30:03 GMT
I have not done the calculation but since no loans are higher than 70% and the unadjusted average is 50% and the number with a second charge is not large I guess the adjusted average is in the low to mid 50s.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebsrep on Mar 11, 2016 23:30:09 GMT
First to go was Rebs - Reverse auctions leading to too much money driving rates too low. The popular loans may get bid down by perhaps 3% from the starting rates so 20% down to 17% and the 17% starters down to 14% but you won't find many lower than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebsrep on Mar 11, 2016 23:33:21 GMT
I'm attempting to leave Rebs (not impressed with loan vetting + defaults), Lending Crowd (lack of new loans) We've just posted this on our own subforum on here which address's directly both your reasons for withdrawing from rebs. In light of the recent run of defaults, we have taken significant steps to make our process’s more robust in addition to the usual ongoing improvements. For example: • We are currently recruiting an in-house recoveries manager to reduce the overdue payments • We are trialling a new firm of solicitors that specialise in B2B SME Debt Recovery on 2 of our loans that are in recovery management. • We have added a Credit Risk Referrals Committee for any loans over a certain threshold and for any loans that any of the senior team believe should have a second opinion before listing. • We are seeking the input of at least 2 external banking risk experts that have their own risk model to trial with our data to see if it produces the same or different results. • We hold quarterly Credit Risk review Committees to review our credit model, procedures and lending criteria. • We already reject more loans than we accept Ultimately it is in our interests to minimise defaults, lenders will not lend if the default rate gets too high and without lenders we don’t have a platform. Many of our staff and directors have personal funds in each and every loan and hence it hits all our personal pockets too. Trust us we want to improve each and every day. We have to balance staying true to the ethos of rebuildingsociety by working with borrowers where the circumstances warrant it. e.g. Ad****k where the Director has worked openly with us on a repayment plan and “L* D****” with a husband and wife Director team and the wife has just been diagnosed with a Terminal illness and L** J*L*, where the director encountered difficulties with their distributor, who failed. These are the sort of situations where we can help as a community. However, in cases where the Directors of the SME are intentionally withholding your funds and misleading you and ourselves, we have no hesitation in hitting hard and hitting fast
|
|
