mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 18, 2016 20:06:49 GMT
As for the strategic, from a lenders perspective, planning I would be more likely to buy a loan on sm that has 3 or 6 months to go than one that is rolling indefinitely. What are investors thoughts on this? I take a similar position. As long as a loan has a remaining term, I have a bit of confidence in it. That goes away when the remaining term goes negative. We have been told that loans with negative terms either have borrowers who are making monthly interest payments or SS is quite confident that the loan will be repaid eventually. (Or something like that. I can't remember SS's exact words.) But we've seen from PBL020 what happens when SS becomes less confident, and the result is uncertainty whether investors will receive any further interest on that loan or even receive all of their capital back. At which point the loan becomes difficult, or impossible, to sell on the SM. So why take the risk of being stuck in a loan under those circumstances? As long as the SM is liquid, ISTM that exiting from a loan before its remaining term goes negative is a sensible approach to take. That plan wouldn't work, of course, if everyone were to try to adopt it, so you can't use it as your only investing strategy.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 18, 2016 20:14:55 GMT
The point is that it isn't in SS's interest to write dubious loans. Platform reputation loss and financial loss. Other platforms where the platform has no 'no , might have more of an incentive to 'promote' dubious/dross/filth loans. I believe that all platforms are in the same position. Even if they have no direct 'skin in the game' they still are subject to the risk of platform reputation loss, which could cause the failure of the platform and the evaporation of the platform's dreams to have an IPO and make a fortune for themselves. So ISTM that no platform really has an incentive to 'promote' dubious/dross/filth loans. Unless, I suppose, they're running a Ponzi scheme and hope to get out with their 'winnings' and move to where they can't be extradited before everything collapses.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730 
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Oct 18, 2016 20:30:15 GMT
Well, for larger amounts currencyfair could be cheaper as it charges a fix amount. Larger amounts; at what amount (roughly) would Currencyfair be cheaper than Transferwise? Based on my regular transfers to Spain over last year… never. Transferwise exchange rates + fees have always been better than CF.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Oct 18, 2016 21:04:15 GMT
The point is that it isn't in SS's interest to write dubious loans. Platform reputation loss and financial loss. Other platforms where the platform has no 'no , might have more of an incentive to 'promote' dubious/dross/filth loans. I believe that all platforms are in the same position. Even if they have no direct 'skin in the game' they still are subject to the risk of platform reputation loss, which could cause the failure of the platform and the evaporation of the platform's dreams to have an IPO and make a fortune for themselves. So ISTM that no platform really has an incentive to 'promote' dubious/dross/filth loans. Unless, I suppose, they're running a Ponzi scheme and hope to get out with their 'winnings' and move to where they can't be extradited before everything collapses. I would say the prospect of having to top the PF back up with maybe £1m+ for certain loans, focuses the mind when writing a loan and also focuses it when the security needs protecting. To many P2P firms fart about with borrowers believing their never sending promises and when security is called in, it's too late to recover much or anything for lenders.
|
|
