pauls
Posts: 68 
Likes: 36
|
Post by pauls on Apr 6, 2017 8:47:11 GMT
The 6% ones are either (i) net return after a provision fund or (ii) a government-backed invoice. Interesting in that its the invoice discounting loans that are proving tricky. I invest in c10 p2p sites in the UK and Europe and this experience mirrors my own. Of the p2p sites I have one poor performing but just in profit, while the rest are as expected. However, it is the invoice discounter that I too am having trouble with. The default rate is hurting and I am having to decide if I will stick with it for a while longer (only been in for c6 months) or cut my own losses. stevefindlay, what is the recovery experience like?
|
|
|
|
Post by khampson on Apr 11, 2017 14:00:37 GMT
Had my first default loan Invoice discounting ref: 90908 at a rate of 19.56%
Purchased Date: 05/Apr/17
Its only £10 but how can the loan default in less than a week?
Very frustrating!
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Apr 12, 2017 7:56:17 GMT
I see there is a new tab on the "My Investments" page entitled "Watchlist". I guess this is for loans that have not yet defaulted but are a cause for concern?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,396
Likes: 2,790
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 14, 2017 7:53:24 GMT
I assume so, and I now have two of them, so that's five in trouble (no crystallised losses yet but it seems inevitable). Please can we have at least a 0.5% diversification? This number of problem loans is a killer at 1% and 2%.
|
|
hantsowl
Member of DD Central
Posts: 672
Likes: 546
|
Post by hantsowl on Apr 14, 2017 9:06:21 GMT
I am also in the <£5000 group with a decision to make. With one crystallised loss (invoice purchased at 2% despite my 1% setting), a default on a bridging loan AND 2 bridging loans on the watchlist, I will be lucky to escape with any kind of positive return (more likely an overall loss....and will STILL be paying BM fees for the privilege!?). I cannot liquidate quick enough before even more go t**s up. This is rivalling my experience with FS where I also see a high percentage of defaults. Think I will concentrate funds more on LfSS, Cl and MT where I at least get to avoid anything which I feel looks suspect. I am just thankful that this came to light whilst testing the waters with a few thousand and did not commit any significant funds.
|
|
TheDriver
Member of DD Central
Slightly bonkers
Posts: 493
Likes: 190
|
Post by TheDriver on Apr 16, 2017 2:32:58 GMT
\snip\ To be honest, in a portfolio of say 100 receivables, I would expect to have a few defaults based on my past experience (on other platforms), but of those I would expect only 1 to become a loss in the end. At this point I've decided to just leave everything as it is for one year from the date of deposit, then evaluate the returns and make a decision then. In light of recent news, are you still this sanguine? (Unless the year is up very soon!)
|
|
|
|
Post by henders on Apr 16, 2017 9:52:28 GMT
I currently have £680 either as watchlist, defaults or crystallized. This is on an initial investment of £9K.
Think I might bale; you win some and you lose some. Might turn out OK but this level of loss leads me to question BM's ability to choose partners who can invest(?) wisely enough.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Apr 16, 2017 10:52:46 GMT
I currently have £680 either as watchlist, defaults or crystallized. This is on an initial investment of £9K. Think I might bale; you win some and you lose some. Might turn out OK but this level of loss leads me to question BM's ability to choose partners who can invest(?) wisely enough. My default list has suddenly risen from £160 (mentioned in another thread) to £400, and "watchlist" another £130. Investment of £10,400, starting August 2016. Return to date £346, fees to date £47. And there's something else of concern to look at which I have resurrected on another thread*. Increase in fees? Mmmm!  * oops - it was in this thread - see below.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Apr 16, 2017 11:13:43 GMT
I tend to agree with Dave here. However, I quote myself from another thread: My current calculations on the last seven months show an expected return around 6.5% and currently less than 6.6% with no leeway for defaults. I think 7% over the full year to August 2017 is going to be dreamland. Then the defaults .... (loans 1596/1597). Not crystallised losses yet, but if they do, that will be £160 out of net interest earned so far of £279 including accrued. That would bring achieved interest after fees and losses of about 2.8%, so I (and many others who have given BM a chance) will be watching VERY carefully.
My settings are at 1%.
BondMason elected to allocate two loans 1596 and 1597 to me both on the same day six months ago for the same amount and both have defaulted (my only defaults since last August).
Now, I ask myself, are both those loans to the same borrower? If so, it's pretty silly (and annoying) to tell me I will get allocated 1% of my cash to a loan and then give another 1% to the same borrower which makes 2% which I did not request.
When you've got a mo stevefindlay could you tell us whether those two loans are to the same (corporate) defaulter, and what the position is for recovery? I don't want to lose a double dose. 
Stephen Findlay's reply on 31 March was as follows: Sorry for not replying earlier to this post.
We ARE aware of a very limited number of instances where loans weren't linked correctly as connected loans. This IS the case with 1596 and 1597.
Although they are technically slightly different - it is Invoice Discount finance with the same borrower but different underlying customers (hence why the concatenation of the borrower name and customer name were different and the importer didn't spot this) - in our opinion the flavour of the risk is that these are indeed related.
We will stand behind any client that has duplicated risk here: we have £1,100 in total in 1596 and £890 in total 1597. If these defaults turn into Crystallised losses, then no client will suffer more than their concentration setting at the time of the original loan allocation.
It may be that these loans may yet have different outcomes, which is why we are in a holding pattern until these are resolved.
Further updates will follow in due course.
In the meantime, please ask if you would like further details on this, or if you have any concerns over any other loan references: invest@bondmason.com
Today I have found my defaults have rocketed from £160 to £400. This includes two loans which were made on 10 March which have already defaulted a month later. These loans are 1844 and 1845, exactly the same terms on the same day and both defaulted at the same time. On each loan BM allocated me 1% of my funds, so I want to know again, have I been allocated two 1% portions to the same borrower, thus doubling my loss potential by using 2% of my resources which I have not authorised? Is this the same borrower as 1596 and 1597? Simple confirmation that the pledge from BM quoted above will apply here will be sufficient.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on Apr 17, 2017 10:02:16 GMT
.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on May 3, 2017 11:30:45 GMT
.
|
|
fogey
Posts: 171
Likes: 104
|
Post by fogey on May 3, 2017 13:00:31 GMT
I also have a slowly improving situation on my watch list as there has now been a part repayment of capital on an ID loan. There has been no real explanation of how these watched loans are handled except that they are not available for resale in the event of liquidation.
It is not always clear why loans are added to this list or who makes this decision. There is a note regarding one of my loans that the borrower is continuing to pay interest and looking to extend the term but the extension was not approved. So I am assuming that this loan will eventually be settled and removed from this list.There is no explanation on the ID loan (which is now partly repaid) as to why it appeared on the list and what is now happening to it.
So it would be most useful to learn more about this and how improvements may lead to loans being removed from the list.
Also is this thread still being updated to give a regular overview on the default situation as was presented at the start ?
I think this area is probably the greatest concern at the moment as many people have seen loans added to their list over time and are wondering what is happening to them: How long it will take to either remove them ( in the case of the loans no longer being a problem ) or how long it will take before going into formal default.
Can this be clarified in any way ?
Edit: I have just seen a note implying that refinancing has been agreed on the loan requesting an extension, so this would imply that this loan will shortly be removed from my watchlist. Then there would only be the ID loan (which is now partly repaid) to account for. You can never assume that the watchlist is a default in waiting.
|
|
amphoria
Member of DD Central
Posts: 156
Likes: 124
|
Post by amphoria on May 3, 2017 17:43:44 GMT
There are notes on the site that imply that the defaults come through from the underlying platform over which Bondmason have no control, and the Watchlist is populated by Bondmason themselves. For the latter the note reads
Receivables on the watchlist relate to underlying loans where either a payment is expected but overdue, or the loan has been extended. These are not tagged as "default" by the third party lending platform. These are not transferable on the BondMason platform until the next full loan repayment has been received.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on May 5, 2017 14:11:00 GMT
Watch list loans
Please do not assume that all watch list loans go into default / crystallised losses:
- Bridge finance: to date, every loan that has gone onto our watch list has had full recovery (or is still in a process of recovery).
- Corporate loans: only 1 loan has had a crystallised loss.
- Invoice discount finance: about 50/50 chance that they will progress into default; and then 50/50 chance that there will be some form of loss (in part or in full).
|
|
fogey
Posts: 171
Likes: 104
|
Post by fogey on May 5, 2017 14:38:59 GMT
There are notes on the site that imply that the defaults come through from the underlying platform over which Bondmason have no control, and the Watchlist is populated by Bondmason themselves. For the latter the note reads Receivables on the watchlist relate to underlying loans where either a payment is expected but overdue, or the loan has been extended. These are not tagged as "default" by the third party lending platform. These are not transferable on the BondMason platform until the next full loan repayment has been received.
I have been searching for these notes, expecting to find them in the latest T&C but have instead found them buried in the small print at the base of the detailed loan pages.
The new T&C ( dated 12 April 2017) defines the new "Watchlist" ...
“Watchlist” shall mean where there is an exepctation that any Receivables due and payable under the loan corresponding to the Receivables Agreement may not be paid in full and on time into the BondMason Customer Funds Account for the benefit of the Seller.
and the conditions it imposes on clients ...
"the Receivables Agreement must not be in Default or on the Watchlist (as defined below) at the time it is offered for assignment and at the time when notice of the assignment is given to the Seller ..."
but it now seems clear to me that the Watchlist and associated conditions are an intrinsic part of the new T&C and therefore only applicable to clients who accept them. There is no obligation for existing clients to do this until it becomes accepted by default at the end of May.
There is a new paragraph with an "Accept" button at the top of the summary screen which makes reference the new minimum balance and the options available to clients who do not reach this amount. But exactly what they are accepting when they press the Accept button is not clear. If they press the button and this is deemed to mean that they accept the new T&C before the default date, then it may be construed to mean that they also accept the new conditions relating to the new Watchlist feature in advance of the default date.
There is also another issue here regarding clients who have recently liquidated their funds. If they have had loans on their Watchlist withheld from liquidation then that condition does not fall within the T&C they accepted upon opening their account prior to the latest T&C dated 12 April 2017.
It is not clear to me, based on my browsing of the recent posts whether this has happened. Does anyone have further information around this issue or indeed whether they consider my understanding of it to be correct ?
There are other issues too and I will raise them in a further Edit to this post, if they do not arise as a result of further discussion around this particular post.
|
|
