ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 24, 2019 9:19:26 GMT
That's what FC themselves say too. If you complain about returns they say you've been particularly unlucky. Since it's a passive platform we have no choice in the loans we invest in, and returns are dependent only on luck. In other words it's gambling not investing. It would be interesting to see the Gambling Commission's view on whether this model constitutes gambling or investing. The GC have said: A betting intermediary facilitates betting between two or more parties. They do not have liability for the bets but often take a commission fee from the winner. Betting intermediaries can be remote or non-remote. Meanwhile the FCA have said: Where a Discretionary P2P platform advertises a target rate that it is trying to achieve within certain risk parameters, the P2P platform needs to understand not just individual loans, but also how the portfolio of loans that is allocated to an individual investor behaves as whole. Otherwise, it has no assurance that the advertised target rate of returns and risk parameters can be reasonably achieved for that investor. Investors will suffer harm if platforms cannot, within a reasonable degree of confidence, deliver in practice the returns advertised to investors when they made their initial decision to invest. So FC don't meet the FCA definition of passive investing. Passive platforms like AC Access Accounts, RS and LW simply pay the advertised rates under normal conditions. The returns at FC appear to be luck based, as the platform does not seem to have the functionality to allocate loans in such a way to bring each individual investor closer to the average. They are just taking an average of all loans and quoting that as the expected return. In my opinion it's been caused by switching from a fully manual platform to a fully passive platform without actually rewriting anything to meet the FCA's requirements.
This is an exceptionally good point.
After the PPI claims deadline passes, those firms chasing PPI payments for people will need to find alternatives, and I imagine P2P is a prime target.
I have already heard radio adverts from them saying if you were sold any investment by banks and it went down in value (even if you were warned, as they have been very careful to do for many years), you could claim compensation. It seems highly dubious, and I sincerely hope the banks won't roll over and cough up like they did with PPI, but I do believe the case against some P2P platforms is considerably stronger. I, for example, was told 7.5% by FC for the black-box hands-off approach and shown graphs of how almost everyone is within a couple of percent of that, and yet I have achieved 0.4%. I need hardly say that is not reasonable. And, yes, precisely, their explanation of why this has happened to me equates very closely to "it was a gamble over whose outcome you had no control".
Stonk, was that return over the 18 months since 2017? Or did you withdraw/sell out early. I ask because although I have not achieved 7% I am currently on 6% annualised interest and 8% loans unsellable. That will still, probably, result in a much higher ( tho lower than estimated) return over the five year cycle. So far I have not sold or withdrawn and simply re-invested. I just cannot see how returns are so variable. On the other hand I have seen no evidence of re running the stress test under the new return assumptions. Are low returns a function of selling out, or withdrawing early, therefore leaving the holder with a substandard & deteriorating loan portfolio?
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 23, 2019 8:18:28 GMT
Not surprised it takes so long if the punters read this thread!
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 22, 2019 14:39:29 GMT
There is over $10 trillion of government debt worldwide on negative interest rates. Yes, lending to the German government over the next ten years will earn you less than putting it under the mattress. Yep, not less than inflation, but absolutely less. -0.084% pa to be precise.
These are torrid times....
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 21, 2019 15:56:31 GMT
FC may or may not be deteriorating but it is a 5 year investment. I joined nearly 2 years ago so will give it another 3 years. I do not expect to lose money - neither do I expect the 7% estimated when I joined.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 21, 2019 6:29:15 GMT
I hope they spike next week (being 3rd week] as the rolling rates have been pathetic of late and I've just had a substantial sum repaid early...can't understand who would invest at 2.6% and 2.7% with the associated risk of P2P It’s the “dumb money” from the ISA silly season. The poor devils will be burned come the next recession, but luckily their short term impact on lower rates should ease in a month or two.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 17, 2019 11:08:57 GMT
I think it's already worse than that. Three 46-day sell cycles to get back almost certainly less than you put in. The current sale time is 48 days, so yours should get sold by the end of Monday. I suppose if you look at this logically, sellers are selling their loans because they don’t think they will perform. So why on earth would rational buyers be queuing up to buy the very loans they expect to underperform. i don’t want your loans. I want shiny fresh loans which may have been subject of better DD. Now were I to be offered your blighted portfolio at a decent discount then........
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 15, 2019 10:36:45 GMT
2019 Q1 lending volume is over £419 Mil, beating Z 294.5m and RS 196.0m. At this rate, no wonder it takes such a long time to sell loans on FC. Sorry, but with such a high lending volume it should be quick to sell loans. The only reason it isn’t is that FC must be giving priority to institutional lenders. Or am I misreading the tea leaves today
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 14, 2019 17:29:24 GMT
No, no and thrice no. That applies if you are a bank, lending your own money. In p2p the platform makes a decent wedge even if the borrower defaults.
It's only us lenders who suffer in the event of a default. .
AIUI as soon as i lend £100 on FC, FC get their £1. FC should be called "Roll up Roll up" for borrowers.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 9, 2019 14:21:06 GMT
Could be a long, cold, low interest rate summer. As I write £9.5M available under 6%.
No shortage of lenders unlike FC, where sellers are now waiting 45 days to sell their loans. But then they’ve just had their IT trash them.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 6, 2019 10:07:17 GMT
For me I am now consistently getting defaults above interest payments. To me this is totally unsustainable and I am pulling out of Zopa as fast as I can. That may be but you are either unlucky or there are many ZOPA fools out there. ZOPA lent 10% more in april than in april 2018, lending over £100M that month. I too am withdrawing but i just cant reconcile these figures - some people must be making some money in ZOPA!
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 6, 2019 9:00:23 GMT
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on May 2, 2019 19:19:11 GMT
18/19 tax statement shows a return of c.5%. Only started with FCwhen the black box came in. I keep reinvesting and will assess matters in a year or so...
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on Apr 30, 2019 15:04:12 GMT
The dumb money will be flooding in for another two months yet. I’m withdrawing any cash and going to LW.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on Apr 29, 2019 11:35:18 GMT
corto; Basically as the loss's were in the original IFISA account they will show there, instead of the account the surplus was transferred too. Not sure now if it is anything to get exited about, as anything recovered in the new account, would be just that; & as the original loss was not set against gains, there is no tax advantage. So one keeps the IFISA (with the defaulted loans) and gets a new standard account? Do you know if the "late" and "risk-band-removed loans" go into the new account? Or any "live" loans still unsold? Not my understanding. When your ifisa gets transferred the non sellable “problem” loans go into a standard account. So if you had a £20,000 isa with £2,000 problem loans £18,000, once sold, would go to your new provider and you would be left with a non performing standard account with £2,000 of loans.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,812
Likes: 1,088
|
Post by ashtondav on Apr 29, 2019 11:29:52 GMT
If you have all these problems dont bother investing it is a risky thing to get into get over it or dont invest. The value of your comments and advice in this thread cannot be underestimated. True, though
|
|