|
Post by jackpease on Feb 1, 2017 11:19:33 GMT
Jack, I wish you all the luck. But when you suggest something to other people, you should also give the rational behind it. Luck is an interesting word as i think there's a lot of luck rather than good judgment in p2p! Having been invested in FC since 2012, Assets 2013 and SS 2014 I do have some experience and empathy with the OP's 'one year dip'. At first with FC you may use autobid - hopefully quickly abandoned although for some it works. Then you may think you can pick the winners/bad uns - that's when it went wrong for me. Now i know that FC and other platforms are frequently hoodwinked or just get it wrong and getting caught by those, as it sounds you have, I reckon is bad luck rather than bad judgment. My many years of investing here I think that I am entitled to give advice to the OP that the OP *could* stay with FC as I have done and made it work for non-property diversification. Moving to another platform could just restart the process of getting caught out. I am a great fan of SS and have much invested in it but a newbie trying to get invested at the moment on SS will be faced by a wall of loans that I (and clearly others) do not want because they believe they are risky. Or any other oversubscribed platform with loans sitting there. Why are they sitting there when there is so much p2p lender cash slopping around? Jack P
|
|
sl125
Member of DD Central
Posts: 85
Likes: 64
|
Post by sl125 on Feb 1, 2017 21:59:43 GMT
Blimey, where to begin, hor?
your figures and your claims do not add up.
1. Firstly, to claim you are achieving 12% and higher returns with lower risk is completely baloney, as it would suggest you have found the investment equivalent of the holy grail or perpetual motion machine. I assume you are familiar with basic concepts such as risk/return trade off? To suggest you can achieve orders of magnitude returns higher than risk free rates and somehow reduce your risk is simply delusional.
2. You claim your fc net returns are 9.3% aer, yet just over a week ago you said "...total default which is 31.45% of my total earnings. " ... Hmmm.... that would imply a return before bad debt of either 12.5% (if you're expressing your defaults as a percentage of your net earnings) or 14% if expressed as a percentage of gross. Which further implies you were simply concentrating on D and E loans (since until recently only D and E loans would achieve such returns)
3. But even then, that suggests your bad debt rate is about 3-4% of capital invested... so despite your "careful" due diligence you achieved the same level of bad debts as just randomly diversifying across FC's portfolio... why did you bother with all that effort?
4. But despite all that, you claim to be highly disappointed with a net return of 9.3% ..... even though FC clearly state that average net returns will be around 7%. And even where FC clearly show the spread of returns between their 5th percentile and 95th percentile ((about 6% and 8% respectively). Did you not understand the returns on offer at fc when you started?
in short, you appear to be making up these claims
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 2, 2017 7:21:44 GMT
Hmmm.... that would imply a return before bad debt of either 12.5% (if you're expressing your defaults as a percentage of your net earnings) or 14% if expressed as a percentage of gross. Which further implies you were simply concentrating on D and E loans ( since until recently only D and E loans would achieve such returns) I used to hold a good number of A+/A/B loans that yielded 12%+, bought in the heady pre-Sept 2015 days of variable rate auctions and early closers!
|
|
sl125
Member of DD Central
Posts: 85
Likes: 64
|
Post by sl125 on Feb 2, 2017 7:58:25 GMT
True, Mr T, but those could only really be taken if you were lucky enough to grab them early enough and the borrower closed the auction early. When I look back at those times, there was no real opportunity to do ones own due diligence ... I simply blatted a spread of bids at 15,14,13 and 12%, and "some" would strike lucky. I could then sell on as necessary... To achieve an overall rate that exceeded the average so comfortably would have involved a degree of flipping, which I personally have no problem with, but I could swear Mr Hor was somewhat against (like so many other things)
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 2, 2017 7:58:35 GMT
And when a+ actually meant something !!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 2, 2017 9:51:43 GMT
The old times! I remember when FC would launch a tasty A+ loan for £250k, the biggest the system could swallow, perhaps for 14 days of bidding. Immediately Autobid would be in for it's suckers clients at 4% and upwards, and the big flippers would start at 15% in £20 bites, hoping the borrower would take the loan as soon as it was filled. Then, when it was filled and not taken - fairly soon - the big flippers would start slowly circling one another gradually reducing the top rate in 0.1% steps as it crept down very slowly at first. While the smaller fish placed opportunistic bids, maybe daily, at 1 or 2% less than the top rate and came back a day later to see if they had been knocked out. As the top rate came down after a week or so to 12-14%, if not taken by the borrower at the average rate improved by Autobid mugs customers, then flippers would reduce in number and size. There would be an sort of calm before that last day, when the smaller fish would put in their last bids, guessing the final rate, and go off to work. In the last hours the pace would increase as the serious players, and those retired, would take their places for the final frenzy. The last 15 mins or so would be ferocious with vast sums moving the rate down in 0.1% steps until, first, the beta trial of auto update would fail as the number of bids in processing could not be handled and communicated. Resulting in guessing the final rate and bidding blind. Then, a few minutes from the end, the system became incapable of handling new bids. Nothing could be done until the end came and the system took a few minutes to process the accepted pile of bids and calculate the final rates and allocations. Then you could see in my bids how much you had received at what rate, and then back to the auction page to see how that related to the top rate and the generality of bids. Top rate was euphoria, 0.1% down was happy, 0,2% down was unhappy, and anything lower was a complaint to FC about their useless system. Maybe you had your A+ at 10-12% compared with an average rate of 8-9%. Those were the days, when you fought in the FC bidding wars. Life so boring afterwards.
|
|
voss
Member of DD Central
Posts: 153
Likes: 84
|
Post by voss on Feb 2, 2017 10:14:36 GMT
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 2, 2017 10:35:58 GMT
Yes, that was the last nail in the coffin. I am thinking about the time before the fist nail, before June 2013. Minimum bids were introduced without notice, previously 4% on A+,A,B,C. To 6, - 10.5%, rates which were above the going average rates at that time, due to oversupply of cash. For two weeks any new loan went in a flash (I plead guilty) and furious flippers were left with unsaleable stock. After a survey, FC reversed the changes and slowly increased the minimum bids. Real excitement we had in those days. see:
forum.fundingcircle.com/discussion/424/introducing-new-minimum-bid-rates-for-new-loans/p1
There is no independent FC forum for that time because in November 2013 FC purchased it and closed it down, under threat of legal action against the owner.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 2, 2017 12:07:42 GMT
Those were the days, when you fought in the FC bidding wars. Life so boring afterwards. Aaah, happy days!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 2, 2017 13:36:17 GMT
Quite right hor, there were always ways for the smart lender to make some extra return from FC as it grew, and so 12%+ net a couple of years ago is credible - I did the same and really hiked up the return through cash back on property. The basic rule was always to keep your net earnings above gross interest. FC has grown up now - a £1bn loan book and nearly £2bn lent - and they will be concentrating on their cost structure rather a new significant number. No scope for opportunists in future - the past is just that. Hor, when I see your posts end with an ellipsis I imagine you are interrupted by a call from Donald Trump's press secretary, increasing the pay for the job offer. I did try to lighten the thread, but not very successfully. The law of diminishing returns is setting in here.
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Feb 2, 2017 15:15:27 GMT
I ask you not to accuse or insult other people Ahem, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:45pm Hor1997 said: >>>I honestly think some of you have no idea of what you are talking about... I absolutely accept that you have had problems with FC I do believe it should also be accepted that in response to the OP's question, some of us believe FC remains worthwhile and the OP should not just go elsewhere and think all is fine and dandy. Jack P
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Feb 2, 2017 15:33:04 GMT
... Hor, when I see your posts end with an ellipsis I imagine you are interrupted by a call from Donald Trump's press secretary, increasing the pay for the job offer. I did try to lighten the thread, but not very successfully. The law of diminishing returns is setting in here. Am I the only one to notice that Mr Hor1997 is so careful to maintain good rates that even his ellipsis is at a 25% premium?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 2, 2017 15:35:14 GMT
... Hor, when I see your posts end with an ellipsis I imagine you are interrupted by a call from Donald Trump's press secretary, increasing the pay for the job offer. I did try to lighten the thread, but not very successfully. The law of diminishing returns is setting in here. Am I the only one to notice that Mr Hor1997 is so careful to maintain good rates that even his ellipsis is at a 25% premium? 33% premium, surely ??!
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Feb 2, 2017 15:38:24 GMT
Am I the only one to notice that Mr Hor1997 is so careful to maintain good rates that even his ellipsis is at a 25% premium? 33% premium, surely ??! Bugger! 33% it is! Serve me right for trying to be a instant smartarse!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 2, 2017 17:09:43 GMT
Ooooh! That must smart, dearest one.
|
|