nairda
Member of DD Central
Posts: 112 
Likes: 43
|
Post by nairda on Nov 21, 2016 20:00:37 GMT
nothing for me either 16th was my last loan 17th for me 
|
|
|
|
Post by khampson on Nov 22, 2016 10:45:45 GMT
I average about 1 a day and well over 50% invested in about 3 weeks, I was over 95% in October but needed the money, I am happy with bondmason, I always get a reply to emails the same day, I know it's a little slow at the minute but it's speeding up slowly, I have more money to deposit when loans catch up, at the minute I think it's hard to keep everyone happy as it's a growing platform but I like they are using a tight criteria and sensible lending as quality is far better than quantity.
|
|
nairda
Member of DD Central
Posts: 112
Likes: 43
|
Post by nairda on Nov 22, 2016 11:07:54 GMT
I'm down to just 80% invested this morning. BondMason isn't looking very good at the moment |
|
|
|
Post by khampson on Nov 22, 2016 12:47:20 GMT
stevefindlay Steve, can you please give us an update as to targets to be fully invested, also in the future what are the plans to account for growth in BM, with new lenders joining all the time the loan book will need to grow too putting more pressure on BM to find new loans to invest in, so how will BM combat this supply and demand? also when you hit 90% allocation will you run the accelerated loan allocation algorithm? What is the planned growth for BM and can you maybe start a thread on the forum to keep us up to date with what is happening, future plans and news at BM towers every couple of days just so we can come here to see where we all are instead of just voicing what we do and don't have, this will also let me plan my saving plan to make sure I am receiving the maximum return available, or at least a regular lender email detailing this information please. thansk Keith
|
|
mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 187
Likes: 121
|
Post by mike on Nov 22, 2016 14:02:07 GMT
Growth is the biggest question I have regarding BM. Not being able to generate enough loan volume is a platform risk all P2P sites face. I raised this before on the forum and got no response. Having a "fund and forget" model should not mean a lack of transparency.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Nov 22, 2016 16:10:51 GMT
Growth is the biggest question I have regarding BM. Not being able to generate enough loan volume is a platform risk all P2P sites face. I raised this before on the forum and got no response. Having a "fund and forget" model should not mean a lack of transparency. I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one post (likely somewhere in this thread) saying they are continuously assessing new lending platforms with the aim to increase loan volume meaning more deployed capital for those of us who have invested in BM. I'm not sure what else they can do without lowering their lending criteria? I certainly don't want that; it's what I'm paying their fee for. I think some patience is called for. When I dumped a similar amount of money into MT, SS and FS for the first time as I did BM, it took similar time if not longer for me to get the initial money invested and diversified to a similar level that BM aims for than it did for it to happen automatically with BM. And I had to do that myself manually which took a lot of my time. You can achieve a better potential return on the other sites I have mentioned and move money around to minimise your own cash drag but you have to do the work. I think you have to ask yourself how much value you attribute to time saved from not having to do your own DD on every loan, having to FFF at a given time of day or trawling the SMs after midnight. For me it's worth a bit of cash drag (though I will admit I have more money combined in the other mentioned platforms). If it's not worth it for you then please pull your funds so my cash drag is reduced 
|
|
mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 187
Likes: 121
|
Post by mike on Nov 22, 2016 16:33:13 GMT
Growth is the biggest question I have regarding BM. Not being able to generate enough loan volume is a platform risk all P2P sites face. I raised this before on the forum and got no response. Having a "fund and forget" model should not mean a lack of transparency. I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one post (likely somewhere in this thread) saying they are continuously assessing new lending platforms with the aim to increase loan volume meaning more deployed capital for those of us who have invested in BM. I'm not sure what else they can do without lowering their lending criteria? I certainly don't want that; it's what I'm paying their fee for. I think some patience is called for. When I dumped a similar amount of money into MT, SS and FS for the first time as I did BM, it took similar time if not longer for me to get the initial money invested and diversified to a similar level that BM aims for than it did for it to happen automatically with BM. And I had to do that myself manually which took a lot of my time. You can achieve a better potential return on the other sites I have mentioned and move money around to minimise your own cash drag but you have to do the work. I think you have to ask yourself how much value you attribute to time saved from not having to do your own DD on every loan, having to FFF at a given time of day or trawling the SMs after midnight. For me it's worth a bit of cash drag (though I will admit I have more money combined in the other mentioned platforms). If it's not worth it for you then please pull your funds so my cash drag is reduced I'm 95% funded at the moment on a pretty modest investment for me so it's not really a current issue. As I said the ability to grow to critical mass is a question for me. Of all the P2P sites I lend on this is the least transparent. As an example BM does not appear on the monthly lending volumes published elsewhere on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by khampson on Nov 22, 2016 17:43:32 GMT
Well there's 18 team members. Let's assume they earn average £50k each so wage bill is £900k. Let's round it up to £1m to include hosting, advertising, office costs. They get 1% of invested funds so ultimately they need there to be £100m on the platform. They've said here that they have enough of their own cash to pay all the bills for two years plus I get the impression that some BM staff have deep pockets plus they probably have angel investors with even deeper pockets and besides, FC has operated at a loss forever so perhaps it doesn't even matter for survival of the platform - P2P platforms are often valued at some multiple of funds invested anyway. It would be good to know what their volumes are. They've been asked about their "Assets Under Management" and I don't recall an answer. You could make a wild assumption that people who lend on platforms that require a £1k minimum are similar - if so, then looking at recent stats from TC www.thincats.com/lending/statistics/ show about £33m being deposited on the platform each year. If that's so then BM should have no problem reaching critical mass in three years. Forgive the (personal) ramble. I like your railing here, in BM defence they only take 1% of invested funds so it's in their best interests to have all money loaned out, it is also comforting to know they are not rushing money out and investing in higher risk loans, I must admit I would like to know how much BM have out on loan but not particularly where as if they gave out that information it would take away what they do, I am prepared to wait as I think it's worth it, all the other platforms need time and that's something I just don't have
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Nov 22, 2016 18:17:16 GMT
A little bit disappointed at 91% and 84% on mine and Mrs. Guff's account. No investments this week, so they're both down to ~85%. I would like to invest more, but I cannot see me doing so until BM can keep my accounts above 95% - I understand their reasons for limiting the investment concentration to 2%, but at present only 2% if my P2P investments are with BM which means that individual investment limits on our two accounts are 0.032% and 0.009%.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Nov 23, 2016 9:51:07 GMT
Please excuse slow response over last two days - we've been out meeting with a number of lenders and are making some really good progress. More to follow in due course.
At a high level we are at 82% invested, with a further 6% committed, coming through in the next few days. Hopefully over 90% across the board, and able to run the faster allocation algorithm next week...
[I'll aim to respond to the individual points set out above over the course of today; as ever, if you have concerns with your specific account, please contact us: invest@bondmason.com]
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Nov 23, 2016 10:09:32 GMT
I'm down to just 80% invested this morning. BondMason isn't looking very good at the moment - if you your allocation percentage has dropped, then this will be because of loan repayments (which is generally a good thing). Allocations across the platform are all increasing, so you should see this come through in the next few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Nov 23, 2016 13:33:45 GMT
stevefindlay Steve, can you please give us an update as to targets to be fully invested, also in the future what are the plans to account for growth in BM, with new lenders joining all the time the loan book will need to grow too putting more pressure on BM to find new loans to invest in, so how will BM combat this supply and demand? also when you hit 90% allocation will you run the accelerated loan allocation algorithm? What is the planned growth for BM and can you maybe start a thread on the forum to keep us up to date with what is happening, future plans and news at BM towers every couple of days just so we can come here to see where we all are instead of just voicing what we do and don't have, this will also let me plan my saving plan to make sure I am receiving the maximum return available, or at least a regular lender email detailing this information please. thansk Keith "targets to be fully invested" - from today, and for amounts less than £25,000, c21 days "what are the plans to account for growth in BM" - we are always iterating our plans based on projected vs actual growth. We've grown at 30-50% each month this year, and as the overall book gets bigger it's easier to manage these projections. "how will BM combat this supply" - we are adding new lending companies all the time (private banks and specialist lenders). Many of these are exclusive relationships for us. "when you hit 90% allocation will you run the accelerated loan allocation algorithm" - yes, we are aiming to do this next week-ish. "What is the planned growth for BM" - aim to grow 10x over the year. We grew a lot more than this in 2016. " regular lender email" - we do have a monthly newsletter email - have you subscribed to this?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Nov 23, 2016 13:38:45 GMT
Growth is the biggest question I have regarding BM. Not being able to generate enough loan volume is a platform risk all P2P sites face. I raised this before on the forum and got no response. Having a "fund and forget" model should not mean a lack of transparency. - I must have missed your question before - it certainly isn't a question we would try to dodge. We have ~24 months on cash runway in the bank having completed a funding round with angel investors earlier this year. Our current budget is to get to break even in 2017. We are currently ahead of plan against this.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Nov 23, 2016 13:44:40 GMT
I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one post (likely somewhere in this thread) saying they are continuously assessing new lending platforms with the aim to increase loan volume meaning more deployed capital for those of us who have invested in BM. I'm not sure what else they can do without lowering their lending criteria? I certainly don't want that; it's what I'm paying their fee for. I think some patience is called for. When I dumped a similar amount of money into MT, SS and FS for the first time as I did BM, it took similar time if not longer for me to get the initial money invested and diversified to a similar level that BM aims for than it did for it to happen automatically with BM. And I had to do that myself manually which took a lot of my time. You can achieve a better potential return on the other sites I have mentioned and move money around to minimise your own cash drag but you have to do the work. I think you have to ask yourself how much value you attribute to time saved from not having to do your own DD on every loan, having to FFF at a given time of day or trawling the SMs after midnight. For me it's worth a bit of cash drag (though I will admit I have more money combined in the other mentioned platforms). If it's not worth it for you then please pull your funds so my cash drag is reduced I'm 95% funded at the moment on a pretty modest investment for me so it's not really a current issue. As I said the ability to grow to critical mass is a question for me. Of all the P2P sites I lend on this is the least transparent. As an example BM does not appear on the monthly lending volumes published elsewhere on this forum. "Of all the P2P sites I lend on this is the least transparent" - I'm very sorry you feel that way. Our aim is to be engaged and open with our clients. Please ask if you have any questions outstanding. "BM does not appear on the monthly lending volumes published elsewhere on this forum" - in addition to your own personal dashboard on our site, we have a statistics page which we update every 6 months. The next update is due in December. I'm not sure our "lending statistics" are meaningful in this context though, as we operate across the market and the Receivables across our platform are essentially a derivative offering (it would be double counting to add our volumes alongside other platforms)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Nov 23, 2016 13:49:21 GMT
Well there's 18 team members. Let's assume they earn average £50k each so wage bill is £900k. Let's round it up to £1m to include hosting, advertising, office costs. They get 1% of invested funds so ultimately they need there to be £100m on the platform. They've said here that they have enough of their own cash to pay all the bills for two years plus I get the impression that some BM staff have deep pockets plus they probably have angel investors with even deeper pockets and besides, FC has operated at a loss forever so perhaps it doesn't even matter for survival of the platform - P2P platforms are often valued at some multiple of funds invested anyway. It would be good to know what their volumes are. They've been asked about their "Assets Under Management" and I don't recall an answer. You could make a wild assumption that people who lend on platforms that require a £1k minimum are similar - if so, then looking at recent stats from TC www.thincats.com/lending/statistics/ show about £33m being deposited on the platform each year. If that's so then BM should have no problem reaching critical mass in three years. Forgive the (personal) ramble. - fair analysis. All I'd add is (1) our office is based in Harpenden (Herts) not Mayfair ;-) and (2) we don't pay ourselves near that amount - so the break even is quite a bit lower - but your analysis is a good Fermi Estimation nonetheless.
|
|
