romy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 78 
Likes: 41
|
Post by romy on Feb 2, 2018 14:26:57 GMT
Of the 3 loans I had overdue mid-November 2 are now marked as defaulted and the third is late by over 30 days, with neither of the interim payments having been made.
so looking like a total loss ( oh well not quite I've got a fiver to withdraw sometime)
I still like the concept of the platform but hasn't worked out for me!
|
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Feb 5, 2018 17:08:34 GMT
Of the 3 loans I had overdue mid-November 2 are now marked as defaulted and the third is late by over 30 days, with neither of the interim payments having been made. so looking like a total loss ( oh well not quite I've got a fiver to withdraw sometime) I still like the concept of the platform but hasn't worked out for me! I'm really sorry to hear that, and without making excuses this is the downside of a pure P2P platform without a provision fund and without fractionalisation. Where some are unlucky such as yourself, we've had others with nothing but repaid loans and a fantastic return. Especially now that we've increased the liquidity of lending, and returns are not diminished by excessive non-lent time. The Money Platform is at least very open about the risk of capital loss, and do not compare ourselves to the larger safer, and averaged expected return platforms. You could argue, probably correctly, that it is a design flaw to have neither fractionalisation nor a provision fund. This is something that we've considered, but would require significant IT changes and regulatory changes. We had hoped to develop a "pool lending" product, but similarities to collective funds. These have to date stopped us making these changes, but I would hope to revisit these in the future. In the meantime, as always I would urge lenders to only lend a small percentage of invest-able funds. And probably a marginal percentage of their lending within the P2P class itself. Kevin.
|
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Feb 5, 2018 17:27:10 GMT
It's worth adding that since September 2017, we switched all longer term loans to amortising products with 2 or 3 monthly payments. This reduces the risk, at least from complete capital loss, as smaller payments are made. It's also more affordable to the customer and therefore reduces the product risk.
Kevin.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563 
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Feb 5, 2018 19:43:02 GMT
Of the 3 loans I had overdue mid-November 2 are now marked as defaulted and the third is late by over 30 days, with neither of the interim payments having been made. so looking like a total loss ( oh well not quite I've got a fiver to withdraw sometime) I still like the concept of the platform but hasn't worked out for me! I'm really sorry to hear that, and without making excuses this is the downside of a pure P2P platform without a provision fund and without fractionalisation. Where some are unlucky such as yourself, we've had others with nothing but repaid loans and a fantastic return. Especially now that we've increased the liquidity of lending, #437-440 The four I** Turbine loansand returns are not diminished by excessive non-lent time. The Money Platform is at least very open about the risk of capital loss, and do not compare ourselves to the larger safer, and averaged expected return platforms. You could argue, probably correctly, that it is a design flaw to have neither fractionalisation nor a provision fund. This is something that we've considered, but would require significant IT changes and regulatory changes. We had hoped to develop a "pool lending" product, but similarities to collective funds. These have to date stopped us making these changes, but I would hope to revisit these in the future. In the meantime, as always I would urge lenders to only lend a small percentage of invest-able funds. And probably a marginal percentage of their lending within the P2P class itself. Kevin. with p2p I would expect to have some knowledge of the borrower. this is p 2 someoneorother
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Feb 5, 2018 20:57:03 GMT
romy I'm really sorry to hear that, and without making excuses this is the downside of a pure P2P platform without a provision fund and without fractionalisation. Where some are unlucky such as yourself, we've had others with nothing but repaid loans and a fantastic return. Especially now that we've increased the liquidity of lending, #437-440 The four I** Turbine loansand returns are not diminished by excessive non-lent time. The Money Platform is at least very open about the risk of capital loss, and do not compare ourselves to the larger safer, and averaged expected return platforms. You could argue, probably correctly, that it is a design flaw to have neither fractionalisation nor a provision fund. This is something that we've considered, but would require significant IT changes and regulatory changes. We had hoped to develop a "pool lending" product, but similarities to collective funds. These have to date stopped us making these changes, but I would hope to revisit these in the future. In the meantime, as always I would urge lenders to only lend a small percentage of invest-able funds. And probably a marginal percentage of their lending within the P2P class itself. Kevin. with p2p I would expect to have some knowledge of the borrower. this is p 2 someoneorother With actual P2P not P2B I don't know any platforms where you know the identity of the borrower.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Feb 5, 2018 21:22:14 GMT
with p2p I would expect to have some knowledge of the borrower. this is p 2 someoneorother With actual P2P not P2B I don't know any platforms where you know the identity of the borrower. With Zopa ages ago you did have some idea. Property well you know tons about ability to repay and often a certain amount about the borrower up to their name Nowadays with Zopa RS etc it's P 2 aTinyFractionOfLotsOfPeople. with TMC it's a fair lump (250 up) to one particular individual about whom you knwo that they have passed a credit scoring system about which you know not much
|
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Feb 6, 2018 12:18:51 GMT
With Zopa ages ago you did have some idea. Property well you know tons about ability to repay and often a certain amount about the borrower up to their name Nowadays with Zopa RS etc it's P 2 aTinyFractionOfLotsOfPeople. with TMC it's a fair lump (250 up) to one particular individual about whom you knwo that they have passed a credit scoring system about which you know not much Property and SME lending is less regulated, and information can be shared. Hence the insights you can see on sites such as Funding Circle. Consumer lending is highly regulated, not least in terms of the Consumer Credit Act but also around the sharing of private sensitive data. And this is getting worse/stronger with the introduction of GDPR (https://www.eugdpr.org/). Those days of Zopa individual listings are literally a decade old, and the likes of which will never return. We couldn't share details of borrowers if we wanted to (perhaps it's possible with a P2P environment, but very difficult and regulatory-wise very dangerous). I doubt there will ever again be a consumer lending platform that shares any level of individual borrower data with the lender. And platforms for obvious reasons will not share specific of credit policy and risk management processes. So it all comes down to the classic question of trust. You either trust a platform or you don't. I recall literally hundreds of posts on the RateSetter thread asking about the minutiae of platform operations. And eventually the default answer had to be trust, and not to evaluate the effectiveness of the platforms operations.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,677
Likes: 2,974
|
Post by michaelc on Feb 6, 2018 19:33:32 GMT
With Zopa ages ago you did have some idea. Property well you know tons about ability to repay and often a certain amount about the borrower up to their name Nowadays with Zopa RS etc it's P 2 aTinyFractionOfLotsOfPeople. with TMC it's a fair lump (250 up) to one particular individual about whom you knwo that they have passed a credit scoring system about which you know not much Property and SME lending is less regulated, and information can be shared. Hence the insights you can see on sites such as Funding Circle. Consumer lending is highly regulated, not least in terms of the Consumer Credit Act but also around the sharing of private sensitive data. And this is getting worse/stronger with the introduction of GDPR (https://www.eugdpr.org/). Those days of Zopa individual listings are literally a decade old, and the likes of which will never return. We couldn't share details of borrowers if we wanted to (perhaps it's possible with a P2P environment, but very difficult and regulatory-wise very dangerous). I doubt there will ever again be a consumer lending platform that shares any level of individual borrower data with the lender. And platforms for obvious reasons will not share specific of credit policy and risk management processes. So it all comes down to the classic question of trust. You either trust a platform or you don't. I recall literally hundreds of posts on the RateSetter thread asking about the minutiae of platform operations. And eventually the default answer had to be trust, and not to evaluate the effectiveness of the platforms operations. And this IMO goes to the hear of why it won't work. You're asking for a level of trust that goes well beyond the level required on other platforms. We trust all platforms that are FCA regulated to do the basics like keep client money separate etc. We don't trust any of them to preside over a wholly opaque process. It's a bit like you are drawing balls for the national lottery but nobody can see which balls are drawn or who wins - we go on what you tell us. The government doesn't expect folk to trust a bigger company like Camelot with additional tight regulation including independent monitors etc. No, they also add live TV cameras to persuade us that everything is above board. Why then should we trust a startup to run a process where everything is in the dark. Note that I've said before I am positive about this kind of p2p lending but IMO you must do much, much more to give lenders confidence that everything works as it should.
|
|
romy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 78
Likes: 41
|
Post by romy on Feb 7, 2018 17:07:05 GMT
It's worth adding that since September 2017, we switched all longer term loans to amortising products with 2 or 3 monthly payments. This reduces the risk, at least from complete capital loss, as smaller payments are made. It's also more affordable to the customer and therefore reduces the product risk. Kevin. I'll maybe watch the statistics and consider spending another half a percent of my P2P money in a few months time!
|
|
|
|
Post by holmes on Feb 23, 2018 14:53:03 GMT
It's worth adding that since September 2017, we switched all longer term loans to amortising products with 2 or 3 monthly payments. This reduces the risk, at least from complete capital loss, as smaller payments are made. It's also more affordable to the customer and therefore reduces the product risk. Kevin. Based upon my experience, the installment / amortising model is no better. I have 5 loans where straight away the first installment was missed (and it appears all subsequent ones will also be missed). Just for context, I've had 11 installment loans repaid and 3 are in payment / too early to tell. Worrying, it appears loans of this type are not defaulted until 45 days after the final payment was due thus the lender has longer time to make their clean getaway
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Feb 27, 2018 17:52:13 GMT
Two thirds of my amortising loans (with first payments past due) have not paid their first payment.
|
|
|
|
Post by holmes on Mar 1, 2018 21:17:59 GMT
Based upon my experience, the installment / amortising model is no better. I have 5 loans where straight away the first installment was missed (and it appears all subsequent ones will also be missed). Just for context, I've had 11 installment loans repaid and 3 are in payment / too early to tell. Worrying, it appears loans of this type are not defaulted until 45 days after the final payment was due thus the lender has longer time to make their clean getaway Just to update, my 5 amortising loans which have late first (and some subsequent) payments has now increased to 11 so that's half are late (11 out of 22)
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 12, 2018 7:41:42 GMT
Getting to be more like giving money away rather than lending, more loans gone late and defaulted, my projected return is now -2%. Something major has to happen with recoveries/choice of borrowers to make this viable as a 'Lending' platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike1963 on Mar 12, 2018 10:04:16 GMT
Getting to be more like giving money away rather than lending, more loans gone late and defaulted, my projected return is now -2%. Something major has to happen with recoveries/choice of borrowers to make this viable as a 'Lending' platform. These are my results: 4 Loans..1 Repaid the same day (no interest paid)...1 Repaid at end of Term...2 Defaulted. So my experience is terrible. My XIRR is -67%. When WestonKevTMP says ... “In the meantime, as always I would urge lenders to only lend a small percentage of invest-able funds. And probably a marginal percentage of their lending within the P2P class itself.” I find it hard to reconcile with the comment I received from TMP... “looking at the lender’s for the loans issued today nearly all of them have invested £10,000+ and the majority have invested £25,000+. We have very few lenders investing in a small number of loans due to the inherent risks of investing in this way on our platform.”... I appreciate that ... “lender returns will vary dramatically, with some enjoying fantastic returns and others doing disappointingly badly (and those with bad experiences tend to be more vociferous). Everyone is somewhere different on that bell curve, and that's not ideal.” ...however what I didn’t fathom was that this bell curve is not normal and has extreme “fat tails”... I suspect if you stay long enough you would lose everything, its the investing equivalent of Russian roulette. That said, if the product could be tweaked to share the losses, like Growth Street, had very transparent statistical returns data, like F.C., refunded their fees and at least looked like it was chasing defaulters, like Unbolted, I would give the wheel another spin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proptechfish on Mar 12, 2018 16:44:05 GMT
Getting to be more like giving money away rather than lending, more loans gone late and defaulted, my projected return is now -2%. Something major has to happen with recoveries/choice of borrowers to make this viable as a 'Lending' platform. These are my results: 4 Loans..1 Repaid the same day (no interest paid)...1 Repaid at end of Term...2 Defaulted. So my experience is terrible. My XIRR is -67%. When WestonKevTMP says ... “In the meantime, as always I would urge lenders to only lend a small percentage of invest-able funds. And probably a marginal percentage of their lending within the P2P class itself.” I find it hard to reconcile with the comment I received from TMP... “looking at the lender’s for the loans issued today nearly all of them have invested £10,000+ and the majority have invested £25,000+. We have very few lenders investing in a small number of loans due to the inherent risks of investing in this way on our platform.”... I appreciate that ... “lender returns will vary dramatically, with some enjoying fantastic returns and others doing disappointingly badly (and those with bad experiences tend to be more vociferous). Everyone is somewhere different on that bell curve, and that's not ideal.” ...however what I didn’t fathom was that this bell curve is not normal and has extreme “fat tails”... I suspect if you stay long enough you would lose everything, its the investing equivalent of Russian roulette. That said, if the product could be tweaked to share the losses, like Growth Street, had very transparent statistical returns data, like F.C., refunded their fees and at least looked like it was chasing defaulters, like Unbolted, I would give the wheel another spin. Ouch!
|
|
