sl125
Member of DD Central
Posts: 85 
Likes: 64
|
Post by sl125 on Jan 19, 2017 19:04:36 GMT
In answer to the original question: I am very happy.....
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 19, 2017 19:13:05 GMT
Hor, what about the recent total recovery, with scheduled interest, on 4907 - which you rightly criticised in the early days. One bright spot? Of course the loan should never have been made, but that is not the fault of collections and recoveries, who get the dirty end of the grubby stick of due diligence. I do think going forward that FC are going to have to be very tight on the budget for that department - and things may get worse. I see 4907 just a small drop in an ocean of uncontrolled defaults. In that case it looks to me that the guarantor finally repaid only because the sums had already been decreased with a number of repayments over a long time due to a decent legal 'fight'. The same fight is not happening in many many may more defaults I still have on my books. The overall recovery on FC is today for me: 22.78% (and this is even skewed up by a large repayment made by FC itself for a fraud case). And this on a total default which is 31.45% of my total earnings. This means 25% of my earnings went into default and was never recovered. [this is in addition to the 10%+ going in FC fees] And this all with careful hand-picking of loans one by one and never using autobid.... Also this shows clearly that many of the loans which 'looked decent' turned out disasters, due to early fraud or anyway hidden piloted defaults agendas by well-known groups of people (see laywers and avoid them like plaugue when lending). The default rate (far higher than expected) I have shows me the DD done by FC is pure rubbish and the numbers they show are most of the time inaccurate/old/not representing the real situation. The recovery rate (far lower than expected) I have shows me that the recovery team is not up to the task (for whatever reason, missing resources, lack of interest ec, but I see them not sufficiently interested in a large number of cases, I am continuosly nagging them on some, but things don't improve at all). My experience differs. My total defaults are under 5.5% of earnings and net defaults (after recoveries) under 4.5% of earnings. I tried autobid out twice - once to evaluate it as an alternative to active investing (I didn't like what it bought and sold most of it off), and once to fish for "early closers" at a high marginal rate. What is a reasonable default rate depends on what spectrum of loans are chosen. I selected loans for safety rather than rate, and I've beaten FC's predicted default rates by a factor of about 3. Two points favouring me are now having about half my portfolio in property loans, and having invested at the marginal rate under the old regime (which doesn't reduce my expected default rate, but does reduce it as a percentage of earnings).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 20, 2017 8:36:49 GMT
The overall recovery on FC is today for me: 22.78% (and this is even skewed up by a large repayment made by FC itself for a fraud case). And this on a total default which is 31.45% of my total earnings. My experience differs. My total defaults are under 5.5% of earnings and net defaults (after recoveries) under 4.5% of earnings. Using FC's own labels for the figures... 8.9% "bad debt" to "earnings" 7.5% "losses" to "earnings"
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 20, 2017 11:40:41 GMT
Hor, what about the recent total recovery, with scheduled interest, on 4907 - which you rightly criticised in the early days. One bright spot? Of course the loan should never have been made, but that is not the fault of collections and recoveries, who get the dirty end of the grubby stick of due diligence. I do think going forward that FC are going to have to be very tight on the budget for that department - and things may get worse. I see 4907 just a small drop in an ocean of uncontrolled defaults. In that case it looks to me that the guarantor finally repaid only because the sums had already been decreased with a number of repayments over a long time due to a decent legal 'fight'. The same fight is not happening in many many may more defaults I still have on my books. The overall recovery on FC is today for me: 22.78% (and this is even skewed up by a large repayment made by FC itself for a fraud case). And this on a total default which is 31.45% of my total earnings. This means 25% of my earnings went into default and was never recovered. [this is in addition to the 10%+ going in FC fees] And this all with careful hand-picking of loans one by one and never using autobid.... Also this shows clearly that many of the loans which 'looked decent' turned out disasters, due to early fraud or anyway hidden piloted defaults agendas by well-known groups of people (see laywers and avoid them like plaugue when lending). The default rate (far higher than expected) I have shows me the DD done by FC is pure rubbish and the numbers they show are most of the time inaccurate/old/not representing the real situation. The recovery rate (far lower than expected) I have shows me that the recovery team is not up to the task (for whatever reason, missing resources, lack of interest ec, but I see them not sufficiently interested in a large number of cases, I am continuosly nagging them on some, but things don't improve at all). Oh dear! Highly skilled lender losses against gross earnings, bad debt 31%, net losses 24%
Lucky b*st*rd losses against gross earnings, bad debt 4.6%, net losses 2% - over 4.5 years.
Of course it is net return that counts. But the point is that a lender cannot do effective due diligence on the FC pitch. The obvious  can be avoided, but the good ones cannot be selected. Limited and out of date figures combine with zero ongoing monitoring, other than the repayments.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 21, 2017 22:34:41 GMT
To buy, diversify and hold to term is what FC recommend, and if it does not work that is down to FC. 9.3% is respectable, but perhaps does not reward sufficiently the work done in assessment of loans. I do think with the SMEs luck is a bigger factor than skilled selection. Going forward, the joke A+ loans really do tell a tale - it's all about the statistics of the risk bands, and imo they just let in rubbish and gain business when they have slack in the band loss projection. The A+ SME's and the A+ secured property loans are two different populations bolted together. The fact that the secured loans get the higher interest rates really does point to a structural pathology. Are all A+ loans priced against risk on the same basis? Not a chance. Tactical strategies seem to work better than trying to pick quality borrowers - but that also takes time. FC is no longer for the real lenders.
|
|
Investboy
Member of DD Central
Trying to recover from P2P revolution
Posts: 564
Likes: 201
|
Post by Investboy on Jan 24, 2017 16:43:36 GMT
I'm reasonably happy. Having lost 10% of the interests to fees and further 6.5% to losses I'm not doing bad. According to Summary page 10.3% gross yield, 8.7% after fees and defaults. Definitely better than savings account and a bit better than 7% advertised.
For me the strategy is diversification and Fingers Crossed ;-)
I don't want to have everything in property loans. That is just bad, secured or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetreasurer on Jan 27, 2017 10:26:54 GMT
Yet another default, not selling my loans just yet I am just waiting for them to mature and not re-investing...
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 27, 2017 10:58:10 GMT
Yet another default, not selling my loans just yet I am just waiting for them to mature and not re-investing... Flying blind, some might say.
|
|
dan83
Posts: 243
Likes: 84
|
Post by dan83 on Jan 30, 2017 22:49:24 GMT
I started about a year ago with £1000.
Most of the loans I have been involved with have over run. My last loan has over run. Once it pays up, I'm cashing in and moving else where.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jan 31, 2017 9:36:41 GMT
Beware of a one year dip, disappointment and panic...
I have had those feelings for pretty well most platforms - what seems to happen is that for the first few months you buy anything just to get started and the interest rolls in nicely. But then after about six months the defaults start to roll in and you can end up in negative territory. At that point you can either exit - or you can try to figure out what is causing the loss and just avoid those going forward - this happened with me on FC but i now make a modest return and it ticks my 'non property' box.
Exiting can throw you into the hands of another platform where the whole process might start again - eg if you went to SS you'd likely end up with all the cr*p that nobody else wants just to get invested. And then that'd be at a higher risk of going bad. etc etc
Early days disappointment with Assetz and a 'diversification' urgency pushed me towards some platforms which are now basket cases and i've lost a lot albeit just about covered by high interest.
While FC is not popular, it is a mature platform where debt rates have reached an equilibrium - many 'current darling' platforms have not yet reached that point
Jack P
|
|
bramhall17
Member of DD Central
Posts: 88
Likes: 148
|
Post by bramhall17 on Jan 31, 2017 11:35:34 GMT
I'm broadly happy with my SME lending on FC.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jan 31, 2017 16:14:55 GMT
Exiting can throw you into the hands of another platform where the whole process might start again - eg if you went to SS you'd likely end up with all the cr*p that nobody else wants just to get invested. And then that'd be at a higher risk of going bad. etc etc Early days disappointment with Assetz and a 'diversification' urgency pushed me towards some platforms which are now basket cases and i've lost a lot albeit just about covered by high interest. While FC is not popular, it is a mature platform where debt rates have reached an equilibrium - many 'current darling' platforms have not yet reached that point I honestly think some of you have no idea of what you are talking about... In SS, as in most other platforms, investors have a choice and many many many loans to invest on. This morning SS had around 30 DIFFERENT loans on offer on the secondary market (and 3 new ones on the primary market). I bought many of excellent value............... If you have money definitely go on a secured loans lending platform, for example SS or MT and forget FC. I hope i have some idea what I am talking about given i have been in at the ground floor with most of these platforms and have significant sums in them and have been delighted and vexed by most of them. I think the SS forum has many that feel that many SS loans are not 'excellent value' especially the three that went today. So called 'security' on platforms like SS/MT may have loans secured on assets but the confidence that underpins the very liquid secondary market is not secure - that confidence can evaporate far faster than anyone on this forum can react as property valuations, especially commercial, are academic if the market collapses. I think the OP and newbie investors would be well advised to keep some of their portfolio in SME lending and FC may be out of fashion but it continues to do its job - for me - profitably. Jack P
|
|
dorset
Member of DD Central
Posts: 281
Likes: 187
|
Post by dorset on Jan 31, 2017 18:01:06 GMT
JackP - yes I broadly agree with you. Hor1997 - looking at your posts it appears that you have an ax to grind with FC. Investing in FC will never set the world on fire but will give you steady and predictable returns if you diversify properly. I have been in since almost the beginning with a peak invest of about £50k but now down to about £20k due to a lack of correctly priced loans. Over six years or so I have an average annual net return of about 8%. I have had lots of defaults (120 to date) but surprisingly my recovery rate on defaults is now up to 32% and may eventually achieve 50%.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 31, 2017 18:33:07 GMT
Yes, for the experienced lender wanting the best rates, the time to be lending on new loans with FC ended about a year ago. But for the investor, short on time and expertise, FC provides a good alternative to savings, with high platform security and good liquidity, imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by anubis on Jan 31, 2017 20:56:17 GMT
I have seen plenty of people unhappy about the set up of FC in recent months and that they do not like the new loan banding, so does anyone still like it around here? Seem to be a lot of people moving to other platforms but are you still happy here? Looking forw to people's opnions Keith Hi All Banks/Isa/ bonds 0.01% to 3% Max what more do we need to know  The are not " Loss" the are a reduction in return on portfolio (with Tax offset ) Currently £1500 "loss" and £3500 profit offset the *loss" and the £1000 new tax free allowance and returns are good. Norm.
|
|
can be avoided, but the good ones cannot be selected. Limited and out of date figures combine with zero ongoing monitoring, other than the repayments.
The are not " Loss" the are a reduction in return on portfolio (with Tax offset )