|
|
Post by nesako on Dec 23, 2018 13:30:55 GMT
Yes there provision fund looks almost non existant. And looks like 2019 will be full of market turmoil. Better to be safe than sorry Hmm, you seem to be all against GS and all for LW recently  I have money in both and both platforms have their pros and cons (LW PF/Shield coverage is not as clear as GS and defaults seem to be exceeding expectations, plus add new money cash drag and cost for early withdrawal and you can see that it is not a platform without flaws either). I believe diversifying between both still makes sense. Current GS PF coverage is now comparable with Ratesetter (if we take into account "Future Contributions" as RS do and compare against the expected future defaults), though RS is way more established and larger, making GS offering much riskier. Personally, I will not be removing existing funds just yet, but will now stop adding new funds and will be monitoring the PF coverage closely.
|
|
alibaba
Member of DD Central
Posts: 341 
Likes: 245
|
Post by alibaba on Dec 23, 2018 13:48:46 GMT
Many thanks for the posts, I have a substantial amount invested with GS, I have only just started reading the GS blog, I will also be monitoring the same on a monthly basis, I like the simplicity of the site and to date I have been impressed with GS but with some negative experiences with other p2p sites I am becoming more cautious by the day. I increasingly rely on this forum for insight and information on p2p sites.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Dec 23, 2018 14:32:39 GMT
Yes there provision fund looks almost non existant. And looks like 2019 will be full of market turmoil. Better to be safe than sorry Hmm, you seem to be all against GS and all for LW recently I have money in both and both platforms have their pros and cons (LW PF/Shield coverage is not as clear as GS and defaults seem to be exceeding expectations, plus add new money cash drag and cost for early withdrawal and you can see that it is not a platform without flaws either). I believe diversifying between both still makes sense. Current GS PF coverage is now comparable with Ratesetter (if we take into account "Future Contributions" as RS do and compare against the expected future defaults), though RS is way more established and larger, making GS offering much riskier. Personally, I will not be removing existing funds just yet, but will now stop adding new funds and will be monitoring the PF coverage closely. - thanks for maintaining the history of provision fund coverage. I always take note of your posts on here and wondered whether you'd be reducing your stake as the coverage ratio fell below 5%. I wasn't expecting it to fall to as low as 3.5% (or 2.8% of the total available facility) and as I'm not prepared to increase my stake for the extra 2% then the standard 5.3% is currently too low for the risk and I'm in draw down. I've yet to analyse the statistics/blog in detail but the beauty of GS is that if I decide to reinvest on the back of that then it's straightforward to reinvest.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Dec 23, 2018 14:37:01 GMT
Yes there provision fund looks almost non existant. And looks like 2019 will be full of market turmoil. Better to be safe than sorry Hmm, you seem to be all against GS and all for LW recently You can exclude me from the "all for LW" grouping there ... when I was evaluating platforms, before investing in GS, I looked at and eliminated LW as being (IMHO) clearly an inferior offering. That's not to say that a diversification plan might not include both, but if I were picking one it would definitely be GS. I especially like the ease and relative speed with which one can exit if the wind starts to blow in the wrong direction.
|
|
alibaba
Member of DD Central
Posts: 341
Likes: 245
|
Post by alibaba on Dec 23, 2018 15:11:28 GMT
Hmm, you seem to be all against GS and all for LW recently You can exclude me from the "all for LW" grouping there ... when I was evaluating platforms, before investing in GS, I looked at and eliminated LW as being (IMHO) clearly an inferior offering. That's not to say that a diversification plan might not include both, but if I were picking one it would definitely be GS. I especially like the ease and relative speed with which one can exit if the wind starts to blow in the wrong direction. You can also exclude me from "all for LW" grouping, much prefer GS.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Dec 24, 2018 0:55:31 GMT
Lol. I guess constant reading of this board and as everyone states lack of data being released on the gs provision fund does not give me enough faith to place my hard earned money. Also a no deal brexit and stock market turmoil does not help.
Merry Xmas
|
|
|
|
Post by nesako on Dec 26, 2018 0:05:54 GMT
Hmm, you seem to be all against GS and all for LW recently I have money in both and both platforms have their pros and cons (LW PF/Shield coverage is not as clear as GS and defaults seem to be exceeding expectations, plus add new money cash drag and cost for early withdrawal and you can see that it is not a platform without flaws either). I believe diversifying between both still makes sense. Current GS PF coverage is now comparable with Ratesetter (if we take into account "Future Contributions" as RS do and compare against the expected future defaults), though RS is way more established and larger, making GS offering much riskier. Personally, I will not be removing existing funds just yet, but will now stop adding new funds and will be monitoring the PF coverage closely. - thanks for maintaining the history of provision fund coverage. I always take note of your posts on here and wondered whether you'd be reducing your stake as the coverage ratio fell below 5%. I wasn't expecting it to fall to as low as 3.5% (or 2.8% of the total available facility) and as I'm not prepared to increase my stake for the extra 2% then the standard 5.3% is currently too low for the risk and I'm in draw down. I've yet to analyse the statistics/blog in detail but the beauty of GS is that if I decide to reinvest on the back of that then it's straightforward to reinvest. Well, almost all of my current balance is earning 5.3% + 2% bonus, so for pretty much 7% I am OK to keep the balance here, but if I was not getting the bonus I would also be reducing, just as we did with the second account in my MRS name. There is hope for another founders contribution and since the coverage is now really low it is something they really should be considering. One more default without PF topup and I will be withdawing (really hoping it does not come to it as it would mean losing the bonus as well)
|
|
|
|
Post by mortgagez on Dec 26, 2018 16:09:23 GMT
Interesting that almost immediately after the end of the "Winter bonus" they have started a "New Years Bonus".
Appear to be pretty determined on raising funds, although there has been some (minimal) cash drag recently. Perhaps they are aware of people withdrawing due to low provision ratio?
I think they'd be much better off putting another few hundred K in the provision fund before launching a bonus - especially as the bonus will make the numbers appear worse (if they lend it all and don't topup the fund)!
I'm managing an account on behalf of my friend - we went for the last bonus but couldn't justify going for this one, another £2.5k and too much risk of it going wrong IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Dec 27, 2018 11:03:11 GMT
Yes i agree. Too many question marks around this p2p lender. And this constant handing out of bonuses cannot last forever. Its like they say if something looks to good to be true.......
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Dec 27, 2018 11:07:22 GMT
Another thing that bugs me apart from the lack of pf data is who are these mysterious founders who the platform relies so heavily upon ? And are they lending gs money or investing in gs ? Are they millionaires or billionaires ? And how far are they willing to go to protect this p2p lender ?
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Feb 12, 2019 9:06:46 GMT
Wow the gs provision fund is 800k. Against loans of £80 million. That is really bad!
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Feb 12, 2019 9:16:44 GMT
Wow the gs provision fund is 800k. Against loans of £80 million. That is really bad! Loans outstanding £23m, total available facility £27.6m. The provision fund isn't as well funded as it used to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Feb 13, 2019 3:27:40 GMT
Quite simple, they have to follow the RS business model and prop up the pf, otherwise they don't have a business.
I like the platform and concept of GS but the returns are far too low given the pf.
I presume the aim for these platforms is to IPO like FC. So not as though founders will not be ultimately (and handsomely) rewarded.
At 5.3% though nearer to 5.1%, there are far safer options in ftse 100 stocks imo.
|
|
jsmill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 114
|
Post by jsmill on Feb 13, 2019 9:00:48 GMT
As a broader point the monthly update has not arrived on time again despite concrete promises that this would be done going forward. I have also noticed that my accrued but unpaid interest has spiked in the last two weeks. Not sure if others are seeing the same? Not a good sign and I fear there may have been further bad debts. If so I suspect my reduced platform holding will become an exited one. Shame as there are things about GS that I like but for approx 5.1% return as others have said current risk/return is off for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Feb 13, 2019 9:33:45 GMT
I see a return to RS for my holding likewise.
|
|
I have money in both and both platforms have their pros and cons (LW PF/Shield coverage is not as clear as GS and defaults seem to be exceeding expectations, plus add new money cash drag and cost for early withdrawal and you can see that it is not a platform without flaws either). I believe diversifying between both still makes sense.
