|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 5, 2016 19:50:55 GMT
beechside As far as i know that's all i have ever had from SS , not seen any pretending. Yes, but SS is only young For example; only 15% of all the loans (drawndown, repaid & defaulted) on SS have repaid since they started offering PBLs... Or, the same statistic put a different way; of the £109,997,67 lent, only £16,368,500 has been returned to us investors... We have got to wait a long time before we can confirm what returns we are actually getting (and after a couple of years, my guess is that it will be closer to 10%, maybe even lower...) In 3 months time, we are *3 years in, 12% consistently and no losses, i agree that we may well have to wait a long time to ascertain the full details, but are you or anyone else willing to predict where we will be in ..say.. 5 years time?. To date its been consistently 12% and no losses, i haven't seen anything yet to change my risk attitude to SS and 12% ... so far , has not been a pretence. edit.. i wont change it.. but actually its..  4 years. *
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 5, 2016 19:57:41 GMT
Dear dual investor,
Thank you for your loan part funding of £0.01. [in PBL20]
You are now earning 12% per annum on the above funds.
You will be notified via email when the loan part you have funded is repaid. At this point your initial investment amount and outstanding interest earned will be paid into your account for withdrawal or further project funding.
Am I indeed?
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 5, 2016 20:00:11 GMT
Dear dual investor, Thank you for your loan part funding of £0.01. [in PBL20] You are now earning 12% per annum on the above funds.You will be notified via email when the loan part you have funded is repaid. At this point your initial investment amount and outstanding interest earned will be paid into your account for withdrawal or further project funding. Am I indeed? Very crafty... well done.. 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 5, 2016 20:02:57 GMT
Yes, but SS is only young For example; only 15% of all the loans (drawndown, repaid & defaulted) on SS have repaid since they started offering PBLs... Or, the same statistic put a different way; of the £109,997,67 lent, only £16,368,500 has been returned to us investors... We have got to wait a long time before we can confirm what returns we are actually getting (and after a couple of years, my guess is that it will be closer to 10%, maybe even lower...) In 3 months time, we are 3 years in, 12% consistently and no losses, i agree that we may well have to wait a long time to ascertain the full details, but are you or anyone else willing to predict where we will be in ..say.. 5 years time?. To date its been consistently 12% and no losses, i haven't seen anything yet to change my risk attitude to SS and 12% ... so far , has not been a pretence. My stats are only in regards to PBLs & DFLs which SS started offering from March 2014 onwards (i.e. 2 years) I don't know where I'll be in 5 years time (brandy will probably be involved, though  ), and neither do you  . All I'm saying is the platform needs to turn around its loan book for at least another 2 years before we can say for certain what the average returns are across the platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 5, 2016 20:06:39 GMT
In 3 months time, we are 3 years in, 12% consistently and no losses, i agree that we may well have to wait a long time to ascertain the full details, but are you or anyone else willing to predict where we will be in ..say.. 5 years time?. To date its been consistently 12% and no losses, i haven't seen anything yet to change my risk attitude to SS and 12% ... so far , has not been a pretence I don't know where I'll be in 5 years time (brandy will probably be involved, though ), and neither do you . Oh yes i do. it wont involve brandy... but it might involve a nice Single Malt... or maybe a tin o dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 5, 2016 20:09:13 GMT
31 December 2013 Less than £1million outstanding
31 December 2014 £6.5 million outstanding
5 June 2016 £106 million outstanding
Based on that growth it is impossible to know what the performance will be in the future, it would be extremely dangerous to simply extrapolate past performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 5, 2016 20:18:51 GMT
31 December 2013 Less than £1million outstanding 31 December 2014 £6.5 million outstanding 5 June 2016 £106 million outstanding Based on that growth it is impossible to know what the performance will be in the future, it would be extremely dangerous to simply extrapolate past performance. I agree.. but where do we pull our statistics/confidence from ... if not from extrapolation, what other statistics are available? (where P2P is concerned)
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 5, 2016 20:28:52 GMT
31 December 2013 Less than £1million outstanding 31 December 2014 £6.5 million outstanding 5 June 2016 £106 million outstanding Based on that growth it is impossible to know what the performance will be in the future, it would be extremely dangerous to simply extrapolate past performance. I agree.. but where do we pull our statistics/confidence from ... if not from extrapolation, what other statistics are available? (where P2P is concerned) My point is that there is no reliable source to predict the number of failures, if any. However when conventional finance sources are offerring rates around half of what P2P borrowers seem prepared to pay it would seem that many of these loans do not fall into conventional risk models. There is, if you are prepared to dig very deeply (which I am not) available bad debt data from banks and finance houses where there is a much more statistically significant sample than the historical performance of SS (or AC, FS etc). It would stand to reason given that SS borrowers failure to get funding from those sources that the future bad debt performance of any P2P platform is likely to be higher than the banks/finance houses. It may well be that a figure of 2% for the SS PF comes from that or a similar source but it does seem suspiciously round.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 5, 2016 20:32:02 GMT
31 December 2013 Less than £1million outstanding 31 December 2014 £6.5 million outstanding 5 June 2016 £106 million outstanding Based on that growth it is impossible to know what the performance will be in the future, it would be extremely dangerous to simply extrapolate past performance. I agree.. but where do we pull our statistics/confidence from ... if not from extrapolation, what other statistics are available? (where P2P is concerned) There isn't statistics and not likely to be for a while. Even one economic cycle is only 1 unique cycle and won't be repeated. The banks had hundreds of years of data available about them, but nobody saw the statistic that they would fail. Will SS be around in 15 years? Well I'm not even sure BP or Tesco or RBS will be around then. We could have a pandemic flu outbreak and swing demand for property into a surplus and crash prices, ok I've gone too far!
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 5, 2016 20:40:52 GMT
I agree.. but where do we pull our statistics/confidence from ... if not from extrapolation, what other statistics are available? (where P2P is concerned) My point is that there is no reliable source to predict the number of failures, if any. However when conventional finance sources are offerring rates around half of what P2P borrowers seem prepared to pay it would seem that many of these loans do not fall into conventional risk models. There is, if you are prepared to dig very deeply (which I am not) available bad debt data from banks and finance houses where there is a much more statistically significant sample than the historical performance of SS (or AC, FS etc). It would stand to reason given that SS borrowers failure to get funding from those sources that the future bad debt performance of any P2P platform is likely to be higher than the banks/finance houses. It may well be that a figure of 2% for the SS PF comes from that or a similar source but it does seem suspiciously round. Good points.. but are we where we are because of the banks reluctance to invest in infrastructure, property etc since 2008. i am of the leaning that maybe P2P is now moving into this area of investment to such an extent that the banks, by the time they sit up and take notice are going to find it a little difficult to get it back, and they are going to have a battle on their hands. P2P may well be more expensive.. but its easily attainable..unlike thro the banks where you have loads of hoops to jump thro. I look back now ... and if P2P had been available in my day it would have made life so much easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 5, 2016 20:57:21 GMT
I look back now ... and if P2P had been available in my day it would have made life so much easier. I like your faith in the model and would like to agree with you, but IMO this is little more than pawnbroking. With hindsight it is possible to look back at the Bridging Loan particulars (of the loan where I am the proud participant to the extent of one penny ) and find at least two material mis-statements "5.5 acres of land with full planning permission for extensive redevelopment and increase of the garden center" Apparently not And "but are not considering this in our credit underwriting. There is however, over £185k of stock, goodwill etc." If that £185k had not been included the LTV would have been 75.7% Now strictly speaking credit underwriting and security evaluation are two separate things but most people would consider a pledge to not lend at more than 70% LTV as part of the basis for considering a loan.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jun 5, 2016 21:46:52 GMT
We could have a pandemic flu outbreak and swing demand for property into a surplus and crash prices, ok I've gone too far! : I hope you've gone too far, but who knows? Meanwhile, keep your eye on the Zika map!
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 5, 2016 21:51:53 GMT
We could have a pandemic flu outbreak and swing demand for property into a surplus and crash prices, ok I've gone too far! : I hope you've gone too far, but who knows? Meanwhile, keep your eye on the Zika map! Oh! I forgot Zika  The Olympics is really going to spread this virus, although it's nasty, it's not much of a killer. If you look historically at the world population, there are periods where the populAtion does drastically fall. And this is a long time before we had globalisation , and millions of people daily crossing borders.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Jun 6, 2016 3:16:11 GMT
Liz : I hope you've gone too far, but who knows? Meanwhile, keep your eye on the Zika map! Oh! I forgot Zika The Olympics is really going to spread this virus, although it's nasty, it's not much of a killer. If you look historically at the world population, there are periods where the populAtion does drastically fall. And this is a long time before we had globalisation , and millions of people daily crossing borders. Zika just another scare tactic , every year we have one . It will be something different in 2017. We cant predict tomorrow and will just have to wait and see what happens.
|
|
gnasher
Member of DD Central
Posts: 207
Likes: 146
|
Post by gnasher on Jun 6, 2016 4:04:41 GMT
You can compare RS to Z, and SS to MT, but IMO it makes no sense to compare SS to RS. I can compare RS to SS because the symbols "£" and "%" have a universal meaning, We all know what "£" means, but I do not think that everyone understands what "%" means. In this context "%" means risk. So SS at 12% is a riskier place than RS at 6%. My point was that you are likely to get your 6% at RS, you are not likely to get your 12% at SS (in the long term). If not 12% then what, well as I and others have said before perhaps 7% to 9%. Could be better, could be worse, no one knows, but expecting 12% is a fools hope. Edit: Just to add in the context of this PF thread, I think it impossible that SS will be able to operate a PF that will cover 100% of all capital losses, never mind interest. What is important is that the company remains financially viable, that means lenders taking the capital loss when loans go pop. No other model is sustainable IMHO.
|
|
4 years. *
), and neither do you 
.
The Olympics is really going to spread this virus, although it's nasty, it's not much of a killer. 
