fasty
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,038 
Likes: 388
|
Post by fasty on May 27, 2014 18:52:57 GMT
While not exactly exciting, rates do seem to have perked up a bit today (Tuesday). I wonder why that is ?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 27, 2014 22:29:00 GMT
Yes, some good opportunities as long as they are accepted. It may be because it is a holiday week, but there seems to be a shortage of lender funds. The larger loans are looking tempting. The whole loan department seems to have slowed, with still 20 loans drawn down in the loan book, and only three on offer.
Next week should provide a more reliable indicator of how things are.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 28, 2014 7:51:13 GMT
The huge pile of par/discount parts in the secondary market seems to have gone away too, apart from the cashback ones which farmers are trying to shift. Guess the pendulum has swung back a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on May 28, 2014 8:43:01 GMT
Wait a little longer and you should see some announcements which demonstrate that there is the appetite for institutional investment in P2P generally even with the absence of any secondary market mechanism. I believe that we’ve being seeing something close to that on an informal basis for some while on one leading P2P site. 
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 28, 2014 12:28:49 GMT
I wonder what 'institutional investment in P2P' actually means. It seems to contain a contradiction. Perhaps taking deposits at fixed interest and then temporarily wearing the depositors' hats when lending to whoever they choose for whatever they feel like and at whatever rate, terms and conditions they choose? Or just using a P2P platform for non-P2P lending? When is a peer not a peer? It cannot be defined simply by the use of an online platform, it is a relationship between lender and borrower. Or is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 28, 2014 13:30:13 GMT
I would have said it was when there was a clear and apparent link between a source of funds (lender) and a borrower, even if like the ratesetter and most recent zopa models, the lender has no control over who the borrower is. Even on zopa you can see who you loaned the money to .. A name, or contract number, if not a street address.
With a conventional banking model, everything goes into the blender.
However, like everything else in life, it is a continuous spectrum, from the extreme original zopa model (and the current FC manual bidder one) to the 'Santander lite' model zopa now operates, where all control has gravitated back to the operator... You could (last I looked) just about SEE who you had lent to, but that's all.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 28, 2014 14:01:56 GMT
I would have said it was when there was a clear and apparent link between a source of funds (lender) and a borrower, ... There must be more, in that the lender and borrowers must be peers in the hierachy as well as having a direct lender-borrower relationship. Banks are peers with other banks but not with individuals or incorporated companies who apply to FC. I am on the same peer level as the companies I lend to. These institutional lenders (unidentified) are presumably not on the peer level of normal FC lenders and borrowers and it is not made P2P just by the intervention of FC (which is just a service provider). There will be a temptation for banks and 'institutional investors' to get in on the act and call it 'peer to peer' however tenuous the connection. Purist? Moi?
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 28, 2014 14:14:58 GMT
So how come you reckon you are a peer with ABC Co Ltd when you lend to them, but if ABC Co Ltd is a lender and not a borrower they are suddenly in a different league?
As a purist, you'll have to do better.
It really ISN'T P2P when people lend to companies, that is the problem (which is why I did my best to ignore the 'peer' word, which is just fraught with political / financial baggage). Companies lending huge slugs directly to other companies is much more P2P than FC is!!).
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 28, 2014 15:38:34 GMT
So how come you reckon you are a peer with ABC Co Ltd when you lend to them, but if ABC Co Ltd is a lender and not a borrower they are suddenly in a different league? As a purist, you'll have to do better. It really ISN'T P2P when people lend to companies, that is the problem (which is why I did my best to ignore the 'peer' word, which is just fraught with political / financial baggage). Companies lending huge slugs directly to other companies is much more P2P than FC is!!). It does not matter whether the parties are people or businesses, what matters is their level in the lending hierachy. If ABC Co. is a scrap metal dealer he or she (legal person) is my peer. If ABC Co. is in the business of taking money from from individuals or businesses to lend at interest or to invest then that company is not on my peer level. Size is not important, nor is whether the legal person is a company or a human. You are saying that FC is not a peer to peer platform because the borrowers are companies? They may disagree. Or do you mean not person to person? This argument is not very fruitful, and I do not pretend to be an expert, just would like some definitions which prevent wolves wearing sheep's clothing. To change the subject a bit, the whole loans seem to have slowed. And when I look at those 21 drawn down there are no A+ or C- loans, the others evenly distributed. Since the selection is random it seems that the trial institutional lender (or lenders?) are perhaps rejecting the A+ and C- at the fixed rates, probably for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 28, 2014 17:38:23 GMT
We could argue what p2p means until the sun goes out. I wonder if FCA has an actual definition? By your definition (and mine) if I buy tesco x% bonds, I am p2p lending.
On whole loans, it was Supposed to be a random sample - bit too small to do checking on, probably. I didn't see any come onto the main market with a note saying 'rejected whole loan' .. Did anyone?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 28, 2014 18:06:11 GMT
I agree about Tesco.
FC did not commit to tell us if any loans on the general market had failed to find funding as whole loans. I believe there will be some, but only when the loans are all up for us to see as loan requests will we be able to track the unfunded.
|
|
