|
|
Post by stevefindlay on May 8, 2017 16:11:39 GMT
In every case that we are aware of, a loan on our Watchlist isn't transferable on the underlying third party platform. Which is a key reason for it not to be transferable on our platform. But we can't call it "Default" if the underlying platform hasn't called it a "default" (some may recognise that P2P platforms try to resist setting the status of loans as "default" to assist with their reported statistics).
This was one of the drivers for introducing a Watchlist - being able to publicly tag a non-transferable loan position without calling it a "Default". It (in our opinion) improves transparency over performance.
The related amendments to T&Cs are there for explanatory purposes only - there is no degradation in terms for clients. If underlying loans weren't transferable before, they still aren't now - we've not created a new set of non-transferable positions.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on Jul 1, 2017 12:54:47 GMT
.
|
|
|
|
Post by keelan on Jul 6, 2017 9:44:46 GMT
I opened my account at the end of December 2016. I have now suffered my first crystalised loss having opened my account at the end of December 2016 and this has made a big dent in my interest. I also have another in the watch list and if in time this becomes a crystalised loss that will more or less take care of any profit earned to date. My investment setting is at 1% but I for one would like an option of .5% if I am to consider staying the distance with Bondmason. With the increase in fees the risk from my point of view is unacceptable. It is all on the individual investor.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jul 7, 2017 14:55:11 GMT
Update - defaulted loans: duplicate of two underlying borrowers.In earlier posts on this forum, and other client communications, it was identified that two series of Receivables have the same two underlying borrowers. We stated previously that we would ensure that no client allocated more than their concentration setting as at the time of the initial allocation (i.e. 1% or 2%, in Nov/Dec 2016), but that we wanted for the recovery processes to complete first. Given that these processes are taking longer than envisaged, we intend to do the following now to improve the clients situations who are impacted by this: - for any clients with more than 1 Receivable in each of the two series listed below, we will arrange a repurchase of their largest outstanding Receivable(s) in each series - leaving impacted clients with only the smallest exposure remaining (this may be equal to, or less than their concentration setting)
- if the positions are the same size, we will arrange repurchase of the newest position(s)
- we will continue to work with the underlying platforms to seek recovery on the outstanding positions
We will complete this next week, and clients will be notified in each case and/or a note will be placed on the clients dashboards. This impacts c.2% of clients, and 0.04% of total investment. The two series are (the numbers quoted are the underlying loan reference, not each receivable reference):- Series A: 1904, 1905, 1909, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1968, 1969, 1977, 2084, 2085. (NB 1488, 1588, 1635 all relate to the same underlying borrower, but these were fully repaid)
- Series B: 1596, 1597, 1628, 1842, 1844, 1845 (NB: 1277, 1381 and 1595 also relate to the same borrower, but these were all fully repaid)
EDIT: I should also point out that there are two positions already in a state of Crystallised Losses: 900 and 1048. And the same approach applies - any client with a duplicate holding will be reimbursed the larger / newer position.
Why did this happen:
The situation arose as these are all invoice finance positions where the underlying borrower was discounting a number of separate invoices. Normally these are "linked" so that no single client has more than their concentration setting (1% or 2%) exposure to a single underlying borrower.
In these two cases the "linking" wasn't recorded correctly in the BondMason system. This arose due to a change in the information was provided to us by the underlying platform and the way these loans were recorded at the end of 2016 (an API failure). This then meant that in these two cases a client was able to purchase more than 1% or 2% against a single underlying borrower.
We are sorry that this has occurred.
These are the only two instances of this happening across 4,000+ underlying loans and 150,000+ receivables agreements transacted to date. The processes have been updated since December 2016 to ensure that it shouldn't happen again.
Please ask if you have any questions or concerns: invest@bondmason.com
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on Jul 7, 2017 17:50:05 GMT
.
|
|
dermot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 863 
Likes: 517
|
Post by dermot on Jul 8, 2017 16:53:43 GMT
Hmm, just looked at my watchlist again, I have:
7 loan parts from refinancing loan reference 1515 (5 of which have been sold) - total £240 'at risk'
5 loan parts from refinancing loan reference 3439 (3 of which have been sold)
- total £240 'at risk'
2 loan parts from bridging loan reference 1464 (none of which have been sold)
- total £140 'at risk'
Given my 1% setting, I'm surprised at the number of multiple segments I have of 'at risk' loans, I thought diversification would do a bit better job.
BM represents around 6% of my total P2P holdings - yet accounts for 100% of my total losses so far (OK, only £99 it must be said).
If the ones on the watchlist defaulted, my total BM losses would erase over 80% of my BM interest for the year - assuming no further defaults of course.
I pulled a few £K out of BM several months back as I needed to pay some bills - I think I'll be watching the watchlist closely before deciding if I will put any back; unfortunate, as I like the recently added auto interest repayment function for income supplementation. This is the only reason I've not liquidated my RS account as it is convenient to top up the coffers every week (well, for another 3 years or so, anyway).
At least none of them are invoice factoring ...
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,396
Likes: 2,790
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 9, 2017 6:37:41 GMT
Two losses now, fortunately not at the full 2% exposure, and I' m hoping one will be repaid by the amnesty above. As stated many times even 1% exposure gives too great a potential loss on an individual loan, is there an intention of a 0.5% exposure rate (or better yet a user defined rate or maximum exposure in £xx) in the pipeline?
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on Jul 15, 2017 9:40:18 GMT
.
|
|
|
|
Post by henders on Jul 15, 2017 12:17:08 GMT
Dont you find the most annoying thing about organisations is failure to deliver on a date commitment; and it happens more often than it doesn't.
When I saw the post giving the "this will be done next week" I said to my wife "well that will never happen" and of course it didn't.
It's not a major problem but it's blinking annoying and, I think, really puts the organisation in a bad light.
If BM had said this will be done in the next 4 weeks and they did it in 3 weeks and 6 days it would have been better.
Will they ever learn?
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Jul 15, 2017 13:14:40 GMT
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jul 15, 2017 16:00:27 GMT
Yes my two incidences which I flagged up months ago still need correcting as per Stephen's statement. Being as I still have two x £80 loan parts which should never have been allocated to me, I will be checking that full interest from the date of purchase to the date of removal from my current (defaulted) loan list is paid. BondMason could have avoided some of this interest by removing the offending allocations as soon as the discrepancy was reported to them, but they didn't, and still have not. Not impressed. I will list my BM experience figures for my July 2016 to May 2017 trial with BM when these adjustments are made. At the moment, if existing defaults don't crystallize, I shall have never achieved the net 7% BM target publicised before they increased my fees after eight months to prevent it happening; furthermore, overall I shall have actually lost money for the privilege of lending. So much for BM's performance 2016-2017.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Jul 15, 2017 16:23:23 GMT
Yes my two incidences which I flagged up months ago still need correcting as per Stephen's statement. Being as I still have two x £80 loan parts which should never have been allocated to me, I will be checking that full interest from the date of purchase to the date of removal from my current (defaulted) loan list is paid. BondMason could have avoided some of this interest by removing the offending allocations as soon as the discrepancy was reported to them, but they didn't, and still have not. Not impressed. I will list my BM experience figures for my July 2016 to May 2017 trial with BM when these adjustments are made. At the moment, if existing defaults don't crystallize, I shall have never achieved the net 7% BM target publicised before they increased my fees after eight months to prevent it happening; furthermore, overall I shall have actually lost money for the privilege of lending. So much for BM's performance 2016-2017. Why r u asking me oldgrumpy?🤔
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jul 15, 2017 16:27:22 GMT
Yes my two incidences which I flagged up months ago still need correcting as per Stephen's statement. Being as I still have two x £80 loan parts which should never have been allocated to me, I will be checking that full interest from the date of purchase to the date of removal from my current (defaulted) loan list is paid. BondMason could have avoided some of this interest by removing the offending allocations as soon as the discrepancy was reported to them, but they didn't, and still have not. Not impressed. I will list my BM experience figures for my July 2016 to May 2017 trial with BM when these adjustments are made. At the moment, if existing defaults don't crystallize, I shall have never achieved the net 7% BM target publicised before they increased my fees after eight months to prevent it happening; furthermore, overall I shall have actually lost money for the privilege of lending. So much for BM's performance 2016-2017. Why r u asking me oldgrumpy ?🤔 I haven't asked a question. Just want to make sure MrF sees that others besides you would like his further input. 
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on Jul 17, 2017 20:06:24 GMT
.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 593
|
Post by keystone on Jul 17, 2017 20:29:49 GMT
.
|
|
