Should I stay or should I go now? - Annualised return 2.2%

Response to Blender and Jimbo:
Interesting. I'm currently at about 312 loans which are not downgraded, 340 total excluding repaids. That is at the highest its ever been, and my total sum invested is not far of its peak, though back on the decline again. Current max exposure to one business ~ 3.2% though it has been @ 4.5% max.  Can't remember when I started, but its about 30 months ago. blender: I fit your bill of 'little time, and paying tax at stonking rate = is it worth it/can you make it pay".  My Gross/annualised/fully is 10.3%, 7.3%, 6.8%. The gap between the latter two has closed quite a bit recently (the annualised dropped).

Never worked out my actual XIRR etc. taking into account dead time. Have not been a***d, frankly: too much shifting money in and out. However since end of 2012, after a series of 'hits' I started process of trying to get a good estimate of returns taking the tax treatment into account. I'm more interested in current/future prediction than historic performance over total period. So a bit different to others: I use the current weighted rate of my loan book, assume that my ratio of losses to earnings to date is a reasonable predictor of future performance; and some conservative (I hope) assumptions on recoveries on my current bad loans (assessed on an individual basis). And I use a starting baseline of Dec 12 when I started to get serious about tracking REAL as opposed to mythical returns. On that basis, I reckon my current run rate is a return which would be equivalent to a touch over 6% pre-tax (i.e. as if I was being paid 6% which is then subject to tax). That's dropped a bit recently thanks to small bout of hits (primarily lates/downgrades with promises of guarantors continuing to pay but am assuming that won't last).

That is a dramatic improvement from where I was Dec 12, where i was in the sub-2% level (having taken tax treatment into account).

However, all in all: should have invested in some BTL rather than p2p............Less time consuming/higher returns.....plus capital growth..which is what I really should be looking for.

Thank you very much to all the above posters. Some interesting food for thought, clearly expressed. I'm glad I asked, (which is not always the case on forums!).

Davidg's 2.2% does seem particularly unfortunate, but he did say that he has no time to spend and uses Autobid. If someone such as 'is' works at it and gets, say, double the average AR on £30k+, then a few average size lenders would have to get zero return to balance it. If everyone worked hard at it and got double the current average AR then FC would have to provide as much cash as the Borrowers. Congratulations on 15.5%, but it is at the expense of the necessary autobidders.

Flipping the whole portfolio, I would think. And as Blender says, for everyone getting this kind of return there will be several lenders getting less. Why is why FC is no place for passive/autobid investors.

What enhances returns is the cyclical nature of FC supply/demand. Acting like market maker here (or as an underwriter on Assetz) smooths it out for passive participants, who pay a certain premium for the service. The market maker in turn pays in time spent on active management / dead periods when bids do not earn interest. The 0.25 selling fee means you lose just under a week and a half of carry for every sale (in terms of return on the liquid "cash parking" instruments, the C- par loan parts)