|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 8, 2016 22:23:24 GMT
so i must be a 'duck billed platypus'..... is it a platypus?..... is that how you spell platypus?  |
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 8, 2016 22:25:10 GMT
so i must be a 'duck billed platypus'..... is it a platypus?..... is that how you spell platypus? Dude... You've got to watch Groundhog Day - It's a good movie... 
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 8, 2016 22:26:11 GMT
so i must be a 'duck billed platypus'..... is it a platypus?..... is that how you spell platypus? Dude... You've got to watch Groundhog Day - It's a good movie... seen it... have i just been promoted? edit.. no i haven't ,, i think im thinking of 'ghostbusters'  was he in it?.. i think my head is in the clouds again.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 8, 2016 22:28:38 GMT
Reading this forum everyday is like Groundhog Day!
Reading this forum everyday is like Groundhog Day!
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 8, 2016 22:31:51 GMT
Reading this forum everyday is like Groundhog Day! Reading this forum everyday is like Groundhog Day! Yes i think it does, i know we are going round in circles, but if one person reads these posts and then thinks... "Do you know... i don't think i will put my savings into this loan, even though it says my interest is accruing" Then i'll be happy. 
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 8, 2016 22:48:21 GMT
This is going to sound harsh, but it has to be said; anybody that remained invested in PBL20, up until the default, only have themselves to blame if they lose any capital. It's not like they didn't have the opportunity with the SM being so liquid. And this is even harsher.... what the hell are you people doing investing in PBL020 on the SM.  ? Does this point need to be made as infinitum?
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 8, 2016 22:51:06 GMT
And this is even harsher.... what the hell are you people doing investing in PBL020 on the SM. ? Does this point need to be made as infinitum? .. have i mentioned the SM?.....
|
|
freddy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 147
Likes: 145
|
Post by freddy on Jun 9, 2016 2:21:36 GMT
I've been investing on SS for around 9 months now. I've managed to achieve reasonable diversification with no single holding exceeding 50% of my yearly expected interest. I try to avoid holding any investment with anything less than 90 days to run by selling on the SM. I attempt DD however I'm no expert and I believe that I have benefited from the more experienced on this site. Applying the above measures I think that I mitigate against risk but fully accept that a significant risk remains.
I have no doubt that despite the above I will at some point be invested in a default loan.
I appreciate that those invested in 20 may have a differing view but from my perspective, if any of my investments default I would consider it a win to recover my capital ( regardless of how long I have to wait). IMHO, anyone expecting to recover interest on tied funds on top of that capital is being unreasonable. I wouldn't expect it and it worries me that some investors on the platform expect the PF ro cover interest as well as any capital shortfall. If capital is returned then it is a Win. The loss of the interest, even over a extended period, is a small price to pay following a loan default.
Again in just my opinion, but I think it is wong of SS to continue publishing the message that 20 will continue to accrue interest. Personally I will feel pretty aggrieved if I see additional chunks coming out of the PF to cover interest accrued after the default date.
|
|
|
|
Post by justdabbling on Jun 9, 2016 4:22:12 GMT
I tend to agree with you Freddy. Like you I am a new investor and I have been dabbling with SS for 3 months and I have diversified across over 30 loans helped by the way the new loans are shared. I am in a minority but I am not convinced about getting rid of all loans early, with 100 days to go on them, as if there was a general slump with a loss of the ability to sell on the SM, then holding loans with an earlier end date would be helpful in exiting. Selling early has certainly been the way to go in the past but I am tending to think of a range of exit dates as part of my diversification strategy. I do get rid of them though if they go over the end date and there is a lack of communication about what is going on.
Regarding the defaulted loan, years ago I invested in a boring old ISA with an Islandic bank that went bust, and, although eventually the UK government paid me back my capital there was no question about ever having even the interest already accrued at the time the bank went bust let alone the interest for the period while they sorted it out. Like most people on this forum I have been flabbergasted that loan parts for the defaulted loan have sold and I assume it must be beneficial for someone to have defaults with a possibility of future payback on their books for some reason ? Divorce settlement, corporation taxes, who knows?
All financial dealings are fraught with risk, and the great thing with SS is that you do not have to risk much cash to get a return, I have less than 5 % of my savings with SS but it brings in about 15% of my interest and there are frequent exit points and performance can be monitored, unlike those old endowment policies where everyone found out about 15 years later that they were pretty much a scam.
Whilst I am rambling I would just like to thank the contributors to this forum, as I have found it to be helpful, constructive and often amusing, so thanks to everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 9, 2016 5:53:17 GMT
For anyone buying PBL20 I have a few a Enron bonds I can let you have and I will, unlike the SS SM, let you have them below par value. If that's not to your taste how about a few Lehman Bros shares? |
|
|
|
Post by gaspilot on Jun 9, 2016 6:26:25 GMT
If you take a pessimistic view and assume there are 1 or 2 other quite substantial defaults within the next year before the garden centre asset has been sold then I think it would be reckless for the provision fund to pay out to the extent of preventing capital losses on the first loan. What you don't want is different investors in different loans all potentially suffering some sort of capital loss and one loan being treated more favourably than another in terms of the provision fund because it came first in the default timetable. If you milk it to bail out people in one loan to the extent that you can't help people in others so much then you might cause investors to riot. I think people have to lower their expectations about the impact and use of the provision fund and accept that by investing they are accepting a level of risk and they can't expect to be fully protected from that risk if something goes wrong. Whilst I agree with this sentiment in general, I do believe there is a difference between loans that were generated under the old T's & C's and the newer loans. I was of the understanding that one didn't need to diversify over a range of loans under the old terms as essentially the lender was lending to Lendy Ltd, and not directly to the borrower. So, in essence it shouldn't have mattered if you had leant smaller amounts to lots of separate borrowers or a lot to one borrower. This now seems to be incorrect, or perhaps the terms have changed after the horse has bolted - so to speak. Had I known that there was a need to diversify under the old terms then I would have done. I can't be the only person reading it that way. Obviously, under the new terms I would diversify a lot more. This is why I feel perhaps the loans under the old terms should be treated differently to the newer ones. I have no quibble with the older loans being moved to the newer structure as long as it is communicated and time was given to enable those with substantial amounts in a small group of loans to diversify first.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 9, 2016 6:59:23 GMT
I think it has to be considered too, that, while the PF could cover this default, SS if true to its own statement has then to refill it again to 2% of loan book. That too will have them consider how readily and how plentiful to use the funds in the PF to cover. However it is not even clear yet, that the security will not cover the outstanding loan amount. If no shortfall should occur this whole debate is pointless. The good news is that, being the most profitable P2P platform in the known universe, SS should have no trouble topping up the PF p2pindependentforum.com/post/66654
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 9, 2016 7:51:01 GMT
 And here's the proof. 
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 9, 2016 7:51:50 GMT
I think it has to be considered too, that, while the PF could cover this default, SS if true to its own statement has then to refill it again to 2% of loan book. That too will have them consider how readily and how plentiful to use the funds in the PF to cover. However it is not even clear yet, that the security will not cover the outstanding loan amount. If no shortfall should occur this whole debate is pointless. The good news is that, being the most profitable P2P platform in the known universe, SS should have no trouble topping up the PF p2pindependentforum.com/post/66654More and more like Enron surprised no-one has taken up my earlier offer
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Jun 9, 2016 7:56:38 GMT
Whilst I agree with this sentiment in general, I do believe there is a difference between loans that were generated under the old T's & C's and the newer loans. I was of the understanding that one didn't need to diversify over a range of loans under the old terms as essentially the lender was lending to Lendy Ltd, and not directly to the borrower. So, in essence it shouldn't have mattered if you had leant smaller amounts to lots of separate borrowers or a lot to one borrower. This now seems to be incorrect, or perhaps the terms have changed after the horse has bolted - so to speak. Had I known that there was a need to diversify under the old terms then I would have done. I can't be the only person reading it that way. Obviously, under the new terms I would diversify a lot more. This is why I feel perhaps the loans under the old terms should be treated differently to the newer ones. I have no quibble with the older loans being moved to the newer structure as long as it is communicated and time was given to enable those with substantial amounts in a small group of loans to diversify first. You seem to be suggesting that loans under the old terms have been changed. How then do you account for fact that the last PBL20 update only refers to the old terms?
"In the event that there is a shortfall then Lendy will pay you a proportion of the recovery proportionate to the amount invested by you in the loan (clause 5.3.1)."
Also the idea that one didn't need to diversify because one was lending to Lendy Ltd was regularly mentioned on this discussion board but such an opinion was not consistent with even a casual reading of the old T&Cs as the PBL20 update makes very clear.
|
|
was he in it?.. i think my head is in the clouds again. 
?
And here's the proof.