|
Post by eascogo on Jun 1, 2016 0:51:45 GMT
For those tired of juggling multiple P2P platforms, of selecting and nurturing each investment individually BondMason may provide a sensible solution. Some background info is shown here: www.orcamoney.com/blog/Bond-Mason-Review-2016beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09616491/filing-historyA few extracts from BondMason's website: Fees: 1.0% p.a. Does BondMason have a sinking or protection fund? No, but see website for more details. We charge a flat fee of 1.0% p.a. In most cases investors won't feel the impact of this fee, as BondMason is often able to access the same loans at higher interest rates than standard investors. And loans which are not available to most retail investors. BondMason has delivered 8.6% p.a. [presumably 7.6% after 1% fee] since April 2015; perhaps illustrating our cautious investment selection and the absence of any realised losses to date Diversification: all investors through BondMason are able to get a minimum of 50+ loan investments in just a few clicks. So should any loan go bad; then the impact on the overall portfolio will be negligible. What does it cost to liquidate investments and withdraw funds? Normally nothing, but see website for more details. We set ourselves targets in terms of achieving quick liquidity for our client: Up to £5k invested: same day liquidity Up to £10k invested: liquidity in 2-3 days Up to £25k invested: liquidity in 3-7 days Up to £50k invested: liquidity in 7-14 days £50k-100k: liquidity in c.10-21 days Over £100k: please contact us. We are looking to be one of the first to offer IF ISA's in the market. See website for more info: www.bondmason.com/best-p2p-investment-savings-isa-rates/how-it-works
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jun 1, 2016 8:07:05 GMT
For those tired of juggling multiple P2P platforms, of selecting and nurturing each investment individually BondMason may provide a sensible solution. Some background info is shown here: www.orcamoney.com/blog/Bond-Mason-Review-2016beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09616491/filing-historyA few extracts from BondMason's website: Fees: 1.0% p.a. Does BondMason have a sinking or protection fund? No, but see website for more details. We charge a flat fee of 1.0% p.a. In most cases investors won't feel the impact of this fee, as BondMason is often able to access the same loans at higher interest rates than standard investors. And loans which are not available to most retail investors. BondMason has delivered 8.6% p.a. [presumably 7.6% after 1% fee] since April 2015; perhaps illustrating our cautious investment selection and the absence of any realised losses to date Diversification: all investors through BondMason are able to get a minimum of 50+ loan investments in just a few clicks. So should any loan go bad; then the impact on the overall portfolio will be negligible. What does it cost to liquidate investments and withdraw funds? Normally nothing, but see website for more details. We set ourselves targets in terms of achieving quick liquidity for our client: Up to £5k invested: same day liquidity Up to £10k invested: liquidity in 2-3 days Up to £25k invested: liquidity in 3-7 days Up to £50k invested: liquidity in 7-14 days £50k-100k: liquidity in c.10-21 days Over £100k: please contact us. We are looking to be one of the first to offer IF ISA's in the market. See website for more info: www.bondmason.com/best-p2p-investment-savings-isa-rates/how-it-works eascogo - thank you very much for taking the time to read our website in detail and writing this post. The team and I are very happy to have a call or email if you have any specific questions: invest@bondmason.com / 020 3126 6705 A few quick points in relation to the above: - "8.6% pa return": this already includes the 1% fee. The gross return has been 9.6% pa to date. - Liquidity - sadly this is not a guarantee, but we do our best in every case. To date, no-one has had to wait more than 7 days. - IF ISA - this may take a little longer for us right now; as we are trying to provide an ISA in a way that doesn't require (i) Clients signing up to each underlying platform and (ii) maximise the available investment opportunities. Watch this space...and please ask in the interim for updates! Many thanks, Steve
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,184
Likes: 5,991
|
Post by registerme on Jun 1, 2016 10:01:39 GMT
I dug this out of the Ts&Cs - "The operation of the Platform and the sale of Receivables are not regulated activities, are not covered by any Financial Services Compensation Scheme and there is no right of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service".
Do I understand that correctly to mean that BondMason isn't regulated?
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jun 1, 2016 15:57:40 GMT
I dug this out of the Ts&Cs - "The operation of the Platform and the sale of Receivables are not regulated activities, are not covered by any Financial Services Compensation Scheme and there is no right of complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service". Do I understand that correctly to mean that BondMason isn't regulated? registerme - There are two strands to this (please excuse the detail): 1. BondMason
Our current status, like many P2P Platforms, is that our full FCA application is under review by a FCA Case Officer. We are hopeful that our approval will be completed in the near future. And we can keep this forum updated with progress. 2. ReceivablesReceivables are not regulated, as they are a long-standing instrument with many use-cases. We are in discussions with the FCA as to whether Receivables issued by a 36(H) platform (electronic platform with respect to lending) can be opted-in to the regulations, by the platform operator. But this is on-going, and separate to our application noted above. This point also relates to the earlier discussion on the IF ISA. Further background on our FCA status:Our case is a little different to most P2P Platforms - our FCA application (submitted in 2015), is the culmination of an extensive process: we were accepted onto the FCA's Innovation Hub programme in April 2015; and our lawyer is a founder of Zopa with extensive P2P experience. We have worked with them to create the best approach for protecting P2P investors (lenders) - as we only deal with investors (lenders) not borrowers. At present most of the FCA's P2P Platform application relates to the Borrowers, not the Lenders. We hope this will balance out better over time. It may be worth noting that the Investment Team of BondMason have all been (or still are) FCA approved persons (with extensive epxerience of operating in the FCA's regulated environment): - Stephen Findlay since 2009 (SXF01433) - Robert Mason since 2001 (RSM01074) - James Wallis since 2011 (JBW01066) Please ask if you have any questions, or would like further detail.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,184
Likes: 5,991
|
Post by registerme on Jun 1, 2016 16:35:07 GMT
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Jun 1, 2016 20:27:12 GMT
This all seemed very good till I realised that I would be investing in something where the underlying investments would be completely hidden from me. That has, on occasion, in the recent past been proved to be a bad thing. Will the platform even be making quarterly reports listing the top ten investments like investment trusts and other collective investment schemes do? Otherwise proving full transparency may be an issue. The top point here is my biggest concern... A total black box could in theory be doing anything. I really like the idea of diversified and spread, asset backed investment, but the 'trust us blind' approach is probably a step too far.
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jun 1, 2016 20:37:13 GMT
This all seemed very good till I realised that I would be investing in something where the underlying investments would be completely hidden from me. That has, on occasion, in the recent past been proved to be a bad thing. Will the platform even be making quarterly reports listing the top ten investments like investment trusts and other collective investment schemes do? Otherwise proving full transparency may be an issue. Is this platform going to be able to prove and demonstate that it does not benefit from any kind of inducement or refund that some platforms may or may not offer ? Obviously it will be cheaper and easier for a P2P platform to service a single lender (Bond Mason) rather than several hundred individuals and this has been hinted at by the indication that BM are able to gain improved terms for some loans. I would want to be sure that this would not influence BM in any way to choose one platform over another beyond the better deal for BM's clients. Many Thanks. paul123 - thank you very much for your comments. To respond to a couple of points: "Visibility of underlying investments" - from your dashboard you can see a quick view of every single investment - i.e. term, pricing, borrower type etc. There is a unique reference against each one, and Clients are very welcome to contact us with any questions they may have (please see screenshot earlier in this thread). "Quarterly reports" - we are developing a monthly statistics page. This will be available publicly. Please note: your own dashboard is updated daily. "Inducement or refund" - correct. We do not ask for preferential terms, and we do not accept preferential terms, from underlying P2P Platforms. I'm pleased you've identified this. Every loan is selected on its merit. There are no special economic relationships or kickbacks from any of our P2P platforms. "Better terms" - our ability to get better terms / returns is driven by two main things (i) we can access loans that Clients can't access themselves (ii) we spend all our time reviewing loan opportunities, so are often able to out-bid many individual investors on the auction-run platforms; react faster to fixed-price platforms (first-come first-served); or have our orders placed ahead of other investors. In relation to these points, you may like to see our Code of Ethics on the About Us page (just under the photos)
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jun 1, 2016 20:49:22 GMT
This all seemed very good till I realised that I would be investing in something where the underlying investments would be completely hidden from me. That has, on occasion, in the recent past been proved to be a bad thing. Will the platform even be making quarterly reports listing the top ten investments like investment trusts and other collective investment schemes do? Otherwise proving full transparency may be an issue. The top point here is my biggest concern... A total black box could in theory be doing anything. I really like the idea of diversified and spread, asset backed investment, but the 'trust us blind' approach is probably a step too far. jonah - (also, please see my comments above). We're not asking anyone to trust us blindly. Transparency is important to us. Every Client can see basic information relating to every one of their investments from their Dashboard, and contact us with any questions they may have. The reality is that most of our clients simply don't want to spend hours each day reviewing the P2P portfolios. And that's how we've constructed the service. For those P2P investors that want to be very hands on in their portfolio construction and management, BondMason probably isn't for them. And we understand that many people do want to do this management and investing themselves. Which is absolutely fine. BondMason is tailored for those looking for a trusted partner on their side of their table, that can assist with much (most) of the hard work and make P2P Lending returns easily accessible; with the added benefit of knowing that the detail is always available if they want it. I hope this helps to explain our service a little better.
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jun 1, 2016 21:14:45 GMT
Thanks for all that. But it still sounds like, perhaps for competitive reasons, you're never going to reveal the individual borrower name or the P2P platform you've gone via except perhaps unofficially on the phone? paul123 - My pleasure. I wouldn't say we are "never going to reveal" this - but we do have sensitivities to disclosing this (aside from the data protection concerns with respect to the individual borrower). For example, if we show a particular split of investments across P2P platforms, we wouldn't want to give the impression that that is the "correct" split, or the only thing we are looking at - as the loans aren't homogeneous across a single platform, and there are many factors we review before deciding to invest in a single loan. That being said, we understand why it is important, and we will always listen to our Clients, and prospective Clients, to see if we can improve the service for them.
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jun 2, 2016 7:26:06 GMT
Few more please stevefindlay , The website says BM invests in all loans... My pleasure! I've responded next to each question, and shortened your quoted text to make the thread easier to read (I hope that's ok): "The website says BM invests in all loans before offering them to lenders. Is that another way of saying that BM lends it's own money to borrowers via P2P platforms then re-packages the rights (Capital & Interest) for those loans into units called "receivables" and sells them to BM's clients?"Correct. Procedurally that is how it works. But practically, we are only invest in a loan is we are prepared to hold it for its duration. "With good P2P platforms, there is often a company standing in the wings ready to leap in and run down the loans if the main company fails. Is there anything similar for BM?"Yes. This is called a "living will". We have to have one as part of our FCA application; and should have one for good practice. We have an arrangement with a 3rd party whereby all Client positions will be administered in the event of BondMason failure etc. "Alternatively, do holders of the receivables have any rights in law to the monies due to BM should BM fail?"Yes. The counter-party of the Receivable is a different legal entity (BCL), outside the BondMason Group, precisely for this reason. This is called being "bankruptcy remote". "i.e. would ZOPA's borrower (for example) then owe some of BM's clients should BM fail?"Zopa's borrower would continue to owe BCL. And BCL would continue to have a Receivable relationship with BM's clients. "When a loan defaults, will clients be obliged to hold the associated receivables for as long as the P2P platform takes to recover the loan (One example on TC is due to pay a pittance from a remaining PG provider over the next ten years) or will there be some kind of discount/premium internal market inside BM to allow clients to exit (at cost) regardless?"We will operate a secondary market in these circumstances (as we will for clients looking to liquidate their positions with us). But clearly, we cannot guarantee that you'll be able to sell a Receivable at cost if the underlying loan is in default. In practice, if you continue to be a client of BM you won't really have to worry about the hassle of these situations, as it's one of the things we stay on top of. I hope the additional information is helpful.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 3, 2016 11:55:06 GMT
This all seemed very good till I realised that I would be investing in something where the underlying investments would be completely hidden from me. That has, on occasion, in the recent past been proved to be a bad thing. Will the platform even be making quarterly reports listing the top ten investments like investment trusts and other collective investment schemes do? Otherwise proving full transparency may be an issue. The top point here is my biggest concern... A total black box could in theory be doing anything. I really like the idea of diversified and spread, asset backed investment, but the 'trust us blind' approach is probably a step too far. Big players like Zopa and Ratesetters don't give any information about borrowers. But I agree, when lenders are used to being able to drill down into business loans themselves, it will take a while for a new platform like this to gain trust. They do seem very willing to engage with potential investors which is a good step in the right direction. It would speed up the process if they could give some information about which platform and which borrower is involved in each loan, in strict confidence, to investors in that loan on the platform. It wouldn't need to be prominently displayed, just available to the more hands on investors. It does seem an interesting model. I might dip a toe.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Jun 3, 2016 18:58:38 GMT
The top point here is my biggest concern... A total black box could in theory be doing anything. I really like the idea of diversified and spread, asset backed investment, but the 'trust us blind' approach is probably a step too far. Big players like Zopa and Ratesetters don't give any information about borrowers. But I agree, when lenders are used to being able to drill down into business loans themselves, it will take a while for a new platform like this to gain trust. They do seem very willing to engage with potential investors which is a good step in the right direction. It would speed up the process if they could give some information about which platform and which borrower is involved in each loan, in strict confidence, to investors in that loan on the platform. It wouldn't need to be prominently displayed, just available to the more hands on investors. It does seem an interesting model. I might dip a toe. I get that verity if the spice of life and I like the idea of innovation and new concepts. I'm not saying I'm great at adopt ting them, but it's always good to rethink things. Platforms such as RS generally have some form of protection fund* so I'm ok with the abstraction due to this cover. Going in blind with no cover reminds me of auto bid on FC. An upside for your proposal is the fact that these are asset backed loans, but a downside is that it's impossible to sell out of a loan 'just in time'... One potentially more practical consideration, if the case of a loan having issues, how does the declaration of a loan being in default work? The timing of this matters from a tax perspective, but also is there clarity on who declares this, you or the underlying platforms?
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jun 3, 2016 19:52:05 GMT
Big players like Zopa and Ratesetters don't give any information about borrowers. But I agree, when lenders are used to being able to drill down into business loans themselves, it will take a while for a new platform like this to gain trust. They do seem very willing to engage with potential investors which is a good step in the right direction. It would speed up the process if they could give some information about which platform and which borrower is involved in each loan, in strict confidence, to investors in that loan on the platform. It wouldn't need to be prominently displayed, just available to the more hands on investors. It does seem an interesting model. I might dip a toe. I get that verity if the spice of life and I like the idea of innovation and new concepts. I'm not saying I'm great at adopt ting them, but it's always good to rethink things. Platforms such as RS generally have some form of protection fund* so I'm ok with the abstraction due to this cover. Going in blind with no cover reminds me of auto bid on FC. An upside for your proposal is the fact that these are asset backed loans, but a downside is that it's impossible to sell out of a loan 'just in time'... One potentially more practical consideration, if the case of a loan having issues, how does the declaration of a loan being in default work? The timing of this matters from a tax perspective, but also is there clarity on who declares this, you or the underlying platforms? jonah - Picking up on a few things (hopefully helpful): (1) * Potentially controversial statement warning* "Protection funds" - we don't value protection or provision funds. At all. We discussed this at length on a panel at the AltFi forum. We understand that they may be important marketing tools, but the underlying economics simply aren't attractive in our opinion (to a well diversified investor): - Best case: the Protection fund is set at exactly the right level, at which point it effectively crystallises the loss ratio up-front, hurting IRR. - Worst case #1: the Protection fund is too big, in which case the loss ratio is over-accounted for, dampening returns - Worst case #2: the Protection fund is too small, in which case the investor is exposed to losses anyway, and the IRR has been reduced Put simply, you may not lose a penny of capital because of a provision fund (to be determined) but you are guaranteed to lose pennies of return (i.e. lower interest rates). I understand why platforms promote them, and I understand why they may useful to a casual investor. But on a well diversified portfolio, as long as you recognise you are likely to incur some losses against the attractive interest rates received, then you shouldn't want, or need, a protection fund. * End of potentially controversial statement*: perhaps this is to be continued in a different forum thread: "the Pros and Cons of Protection Funds..." Also, to be clear we like the RS team, and have nothing against them (or anyone else offering a provision fund). (2) "Sell just in time" - practically speaking it is very difficult to do this for any investor. We believe the correct approach to credit investing is understanding how to get your money out (your exit route) before you make the investment. Hence our preference for asset-backed, secured and/or amortising loans. (3) "Default" - we (at the very least) follow the definition of the underlying platform. If the definition is a little soft, then we will put the loan on "hold" pending default. But, importantly, we seek to act quickly and promptly in these circumstances. I hope this helps; and I hope I've not upset the apple cart too much with our somewhat contrarian view of Protection Funds! Thanks, Steve
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jun 3, 2016 19:58:47 GMT
The top point here is my biggest concern... A total black box could in theory be doing anything. I really like the idea of diversified and spread, asset backed investment, but the 'trust us blind' approach is probably a step too far. Big players like Zopa and Ratesetters don't give any information about borrowers. But I agree, when lenders are used to being able to drill down into business loans themselves, it will take a while for a new platform like this to gain trust. They do seem very willing to engage with potential investors which is a good step in the right direction. It would speed up the process if they could give some information about which platform and which borrower is involved in each loan, in strict confidence, to investors in that loan on the platform. It wouldn't need to be prominently displayed, just available to the more hands on investors. It does seem an interesting model. I might dip a toe. Greenwood2 "It would speed up the process if they could give some information about which platform and which borrower is involved in each loan, in strict confidence, to investors in that loan on the platform." - point taken. Leave with us, and we'll have a think about what's possible for us to disclose / potentially useful for the investor. "...just available to the more hands on investors." - I'm not sure our service is best suited to the most hands-on investors. They will probably want a lot more information than we could ever provide (easily), and a much more active buy/sell market for them to (day) trade in. Again, this active approach is absolutely fine, and we understand why people want to do it, it's just that it is not our service.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,241
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 5, 2016 12:45:45 GMT
Could your 'Admin fee' be re-structured to be taken before payment of interest, the way Zopa have done, so that investors do not have to pay tax on it?
|
|