bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Apr 15, 2017 10:43:05 GMT
How much do you think the more or less instant access(1-2 working days or better) spread of P2P products should be over FSCS or Gilts? It would be interesting to see any comments if full FSA permission makes a difference. I'm assuming secured lending, (or at least a very well provisioned protection fund).
For me the liquidity risk is about 1% (maybe more) and at least 3% (for high quality residential low LTV, much more for high LTV or commercial) for the credit risk. I selected 4-6%, so obviously I don't lend on any platform at that rate because it doesn't really exist. (I have occasionally allowed QAA on AC to hold money as it rolls into the next loan.)
Edit: My Terminology Edit: Liquidity risk is the risk that I won't get my money back in the short time I expected, because there are more people asking for their money back than available funds or new investors. Edit: Credit risk is the risk of default, including late payments because assets have to be realised.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 15, 2017 11:42:34 GMT
Instant access is normally subject to availability. Therefore, it is not a substitute for holding money you will need to access in the short term within FSCS protected deposit accounts.
Given the access is not guaranteed, I see no reason to accept a lower rate than can be obtained from platforms with a liquid secondary market, namely 10-12%. The latter are also more transparent as to the actual risk of the underlying loans. Since I can currently save 6 months living expenses at a rate of 5% risk free, I see little temptation in risking any of my short term cash in P2P investments.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Apr 15, 2017 18:52:29 GMT
Another significant risk which should be considered is platform risk (the risk that a platform for what ever reason leading to a loss). I view this risk second only to underlying borrower credit risk.
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 897
|
Post by JamesFrance on Apr 16, 2017 10:49:26 GMT
The reason that governments in the EU have to use taxpayers money to save insolvent banks is because of their FSCS guarantees costing even more. With P2P the risk of loss through fraud or incompetence falls to the individual investor, so a high interest rate is needed. I would not count on borrowers meeting their obligations after platform failure even though arrangements should have been made..
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Apr 16, 2017 18:05:26 GMT
Another significant risk which should be considered is platform risk (the risk that a platform for what ever reason leading to a loss). I view this risk second only to underlying borrower credit risk. How would one determine any potential risk arising from platform(s) and furthermore how could this affect your p2p destination(s) and investment choices? I try to mitigate the risk by diversifying across as many platforms as possible/practical. I also believe that longer established platforms that have a solid equity investor base will be more resilient to operational risks, although it is difficult to quantify this.
|
|