sg
Posts: 68 
Likes: 69
|
Post by sg on Mar 6, 2017 18:02:25 GMT
stevefindlay - nice charts, but they do show that it takes at least a year to overcome the initial cash drag. For me this isn't a big problem but I know there's a lot of discussion about it, I think it's mostly a problem of clients expectations rather than anything fundamentally wrong. However, If you were to do another chart where the deposits were drip fed just ahead of deployment I think you see the two blue lines a lot closer together a lot sooner. You base your loan distributions on the amount of money that people have in their accounts but on the initial investment most people will not want to put that much in in one go for several reasons,. For me it would be because the money is only available over an extended period, others might want to see how it goes, others again might be avoiding this cash drag (or trying too). In many of these cases the lenders will have an idea how much they want to invest ultimately and that money will be coming from other places that pay interest of some sort. What I would advocate is decoupling the individual loan amounts from the allocation, which would allow people to drip feed the money across causing much less drag and improving the XIRR. I see two ways of doing this but I'm sure there are more. Firstly there is the discussed elsewhere method of setting cash investment amounts rather than (or optionally) instead of percentage levels. Secondly a settable deployment target could be entered by the user and the percentage could be calculated from that, I think that would be easier to fit with your current method. As I have said I'm happy enough if it works out over longer periods but I do think something along these lines would improve the platform, albeit at the cost of some work to yourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Mar 7, 2017 0:27:24 GMT
Quick question:
Can BM be used as an alternative to the RS rolling market? I'm never in a rush to get 'immediate' access so I'm not after 'instant' withdrawals. Am I correct in thinking BM is liquid and you can liquidate your holdings pretty quickly? Thanks.
edit: Liquidate in days rather than weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by khampson on Mar 7, 2017 6:44:50 GMT
Quick question: Can BM be used as an alternative to the RS rolling market? I'm never in a rush to get 'immediate' access so I'm not after 'instant' withdrawals. Am I correct in thinking BM is liquid and you can liquidate your holdings pretty quickly? Thanks. edit: Liquidate in days rather than weeks. I have liquidated my account on 2 occasions, both were around 3k,once to try it out and once I needed access to my money, it states that BM will liquidate your account and funds can take up to 28 days, on both occasions it took only a matter of minutes and last couple of days to have funds back in my account. Lets not forget that there is plenty of floating cash around but if it goes the other way then the time will more than likely increase. Due to the time it takes for funds to be deployed at the moment I can't see it as an alternative to RS. I am sure Steve would give his take on it.
|
|
brad
Posts: 16
Likes: 7
|
Post by brad on Mar 7, 2017 9:00:17 GMT
Quick question: Can BM be used as an alternative to the RS rolling market? I'm never in a rush to get 'immediate' access so I'm not after 'instant' withdrawals. Am I correct in thinking BM is liquid and you can liquidate your holdings pretty quickly? Thanks. edit: Liquidate in days rather than weeks. Well that is exactly what i am doing. RS new T/C's started my gradual withdrawal. BM looked an obvious choice, even with the cash drag, which RS has as well - if you want a half decent rate. RS 5 year rate - LoL, rolling - can i really be bothered - No. When rates return to normal i may return some funds but then rates will be higher everywhere else as well, as will the defaults though.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Mar 8, 2017 9:06:01 GMT
In many of these cases the lenders will have an idea how much they want to invest ultimately and that money will be coming from other places that pay interest of some sort. What I would advocate is decoupling the individual loan amounts from the allocation, which would allow people to drip feed the money across causing much less drag and improving the XIRR. 's suggestion elsewhere to provide a "95% invested" email notification might help this, and give people a day or two to free money from elsewhere, if they're looking to increase their investment with BM.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Mar 8, 2017 9:15:56 GMT
In many of these cases the lenders will have an idea how much they want to invest ultimately and that money will be coming from other places that pay interest of some sort. What I would advocate is decoupling the individual loan amounts from the allocation, which would allow people to drip feed the money across causing much less drag and improving the XIRR. 's suggestion elsewhere to provide a "95% invested" email notification might help this, and give people a day or two to free money from elsewhere, if they're looking to increase their investment with BM. Really like this - we will look at 50% & 95% emails (in addition to 100%). Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Mar 8, 2017 9:18:27 GMT
Quick question: Can BM be used as an alternative to the RS rolling market? I'm never in a rush to get 'immediate' access so I'm not after 'instant' withdrawals. Am I correct in thinking BM is liquid and you can liquidate your holdings pretty quickly? Thanks. edit: Liquidate in days rather than weeks. I have liquidated my account on 2 occasions, both were around 3k,once to try it out and once I needed access to my money, it states that BM will liquidate your account and funds can take up to 28 days, on both occasions it took only a matter of minutes and last couple of days to have funds back in my account. Lets not forget that there is plenty of floating cash around but if it goes the other way then the time will more than likely increase. Due to the time it takes for funds to be deployed at the moment I can't see it as an alternative to RS. I am sure Steve would give his take on it. All I'd add here is that whilst we continue to work very hard on deployment - as per the charts - to get the best returns out of BondMason it is best considered as a 6-12+ months investment, as opposed to a quick in-and-out. Although we do aim to provide liquidity as quickly as possible.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Mar 8, 2017 10:47:12 GMT
shimself 's suggestion elsewhere to provide a "95% invested" email notification might help this, and give people a day or two to free money from elsewhere, if they're looking to increase their investment with BM. Really like this - we will look at 50% & 95% emails (in addition to 100%). Thanks This sounds good - 50% and 95% are calls to action, whereas 100% is more of a pat-on-the-back for BondMason moment 
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 18:45:01 GMT
Sorry if I've missed this but can someone clarify?
- The "Your Current Return" percentage - is this after fees? Or before fees?
Secondly, and again I might be missing something obvious:
- The BM fees - these should be about 1/7 of the 'Gross Return', is that right?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Mar 17, 2017 20:33:01 GMT
Sorry if I've missed this but can someone clarify? - The "Your Current Return" percentage - is this after fees? Or before fees? Secondly, and again I might be missing something obvious: - The BM fees - these should be about 1/7 of the 'Gross Return', is that right? Thank you. Current return is before the 1% fee and an average across the rates of the positions you have. The ratio should tend toward 1/8 or 1:7 over time - I. E. 8% gross; 1% fee; 7% net.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Apr 9, 2017 7:06:41 GMT
Hi
i am on RS, Zopa+ and FS. On RS and Z, I am achieving anticipated returns. FS less due to defaults.
what is causing your very wide divergence from target? BM interests me but not at 4% to 5%. That implies very poor loan management or high defaults.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 9, 2017 8:47:44 GMT
I think a lot of it is that it can be slow to get fully invested and if you keep adding funds you are rarely fully invested. I get the feeling BM expected lenders to add a lump sum and just leave it there. A lot of short term loans doesn't help the fully invested bit either. But BM seem to be sourcing more loans recently and investing is getting faster (or mine seems to be).
I have two defaults (fortunately when my investment was small so 2% was not a great amount), but no crystallised losses so far. Only being able to diversify by 1%-2% means any crystallised losses could hit hard on the target rate.
My estimate of APR was 6.4% based on last month, so getting nearer. Overall still happy with BM.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Apr 9, 2017 10:14:01 GMT
Hi i am on RS, Zopa+ and FS. On RS and Z, I am achieving anticipated returns. FS less due to defaults. what is causing your very wide divergence from target? BM interests me but not at 4% to 5%. That implies very poor loan management or high defaults. Cash drag at the moment is the main issue, I am lucky and have had no defualts yet but I do expect them. My return on cash invested is currently about 7 so after fee will be about 6%. That includes the length of time to get initial funds lended and reinvest, only been signed up for about 6 months, if it stays at 6% return for me I will still be quite happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Apr 10, 2017 9:58:02 GMT
Hi i am on RS, Zopa+ and FS. On RS and Z, I am achieving anticipated returns. FS less due to defaults. what is causing your very wide divergence from target? BM interests me but not at 4% to 5%. That implies very poor loan management or high defaults. - the average performance is above expectation across the platform. However, as everyone has a distinct portfolio, some clients will be at the lower end of the spread of performance. There are broadly 3 reasons for this: (1) Time: clients who have been with us for 9-12+ months are typically at or above average performance. (2) Investment concentration: clients with a 1% setting are tending to do better than those with a 2% setting (despite the impact of the initial cash drag) (3) Size: larger clients tend to do better, as they typically end-up even more diversified across their portfolio than their 1% or 2% setting may suggest (see above)
|
|
|
|
Post by tybalt on Apr 10, 2017 10:07:09 GMT
" (3) Size: larger clients tend to do better, as they typically end-up even more diversified across their portfolio than their 1% or 2% setting may suggest (see above) "
I could understand larger clients having a more stable return but not a better return as less diversified will be more volatile but not necessarily worse.
|
|
