carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 26, 2018 9:27:39 GMT
Obviously a shame that the sale won't cover the full capital amount, but it could be far worse and at the very least means that we have a resolution in a fairly short period of time. I believe the loan paid interest for ten months, which would be just enough to offset a 10% capital loss in the worst case if you were in the loan from the beginning.
I'd also point out that this was a loan paying 13% - I hope no-one was too surprised by the fact that there was a chance of losing capital on it. If it were really the case that 65% LTV would be enough to cover all capital all of the time then you would be getting a 13% return for effectively zero risk which isn't really plausible.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 14, 2018 21:45:45 GMT
Whilst default to interest might give pause for thought (or even a wake up call for some!) or warm n fuzzies it's pretty meaningless for comparisons either with other investors or across platforms, being far too dependent on how long you've been using a platform <snip> At first I thought what you was right - its certainly plausible. However, looking at the first issue I don't see what its dependent on time using a platform. Broadly the amount of interest you'd expect grows linearly with time and the amount you invest. On the other hand, the probability of default on any given day ought to be the same. Yes, plenty of folk will say its higher the loan continues but that's only true in a cumulative sense. i.e. the default on any given day of a loan is the same as any other day. So the longer you hold the loan the more chance of default (because you've gone through more days). Therefore, shouldn't that ratio be broadly constant for a given platform ? The expected value of the ratio might be the same, but if you've only been using the platform a short period of time then you're far more vulnerable to big fluctuations, and thus it's harder to draw meaningful conclusions than for someone who has invested for a long period of time. If the rate of defaults is pretty low, say a handful a year, then it's perfectly possible that someone might hit either extreme over a shortish period of time e.g. six months with zero defaults, or have defaults exceeding interest by orders of magnitude, if they hit a default very soon after investing. Once someone's been investing on a platform for several years, these variations are more likely to even out.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 13, 2018 13:58:10 GMT
New Campaign with Getbucks, offering 1/2/3/4% for loans of length 12-23/24-35/36-47/48+ months.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Property Moose
Error 523
Mar 8, 2018 19:26:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by carolus on Mar 8, 2018 19:26:52 GMT
Yes, I get the same error. Looks like the website is down at the moment.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 2, 2018 23:10:24 GMT
Yes, I view this as a substantial step that suggests they are actiing in good faith to try and improve the platform. I'm (cautiously) glad that I ended up buying back in before the SM closed.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 2, 2018 9:34:51 GMT
This is one of my favorite loans on the platform and has been for a while. I wish I had extra funds to invest further in this one. I agree, looks a decent enough loan. Unfortunately for our borrower here, there would appear to be a bit of a confidence crisis among lenders at the moment, and I'm not surprised. The platforms are the ones to blame for that crisis. Someone just took a 100k bite, so looks like it might well fill. Edit: crossed with the above!
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Feb 18, 2018 12:44:03 GMT
Even for this most intransigent of remoaners, closing the sm because of breksh*t is a risible excuse. The sm has to be closed imminently because of some as yet unspecified future event for which negotiations have not even begun? Seriously? I guess we can look-forward to endless annual reports trotting out the same excuse for each and every corporate failing. That's not the reason given, though. The reason given is regulatory compliance with MiFID2 and GDPR. It doesn't seem as if they're pinning anything on brexit beyond noting that it adds uncertainty as to whether there will be further regulatory issues.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Feb 16, 2018 23:59:24 GMT
I've had a quick read through, and this certainly looks like a comprehensive set of replies, so thank you for that. I'll have to have another read through in the morning, but I think the decision to engage thoroughly with the issues raised is a good one, and is certainly making me reconsider my previous decision to withdraw completely from the platform. It's also reassuring to hear that there are plans to improve the information and communications provided to investors - a step that I think should make things clearer for everyone involved.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Feb 15, 2018 17:52:45 GMT
Many thanks for getting back to me so promptly propertymoose, and additionally (which I should have said in my first post) for making the announcements within the timeframe you previously mentioned. MIFID II and GDPR are regulations that have been brought in/are coming in and which are to be implemented based on a firm's view on risks. If we get it wrong, the implications are catastrophic and it is simply not worth the risk until more clarity on the impact of the regulations can be sought. This takes time and money to work with the lawyers and barristers and so, for now, we are just not able to continue with having that risk. I do hope the secondary market will return but rather than create uncertainty for members (which has been flagged here as being a poor point of communication for us), we have to take it off and give people the chance to vote to start the exit process. It's certainly a disappointing feature to lose and perhaps a shame that the notice period for its removal is only two weeks, but I appreciate that you must comply with the new regualtiosn and that your take may be different from that of other companies. I'm very glad to hear this, and hopefully the communication issues can be identified and sorted out. It's very interesting to hear this - I'll keep an eye out for them. I think this combined with improvements (and consistency) regarding communication would go a long way to improving the Property Moose platform. As I think I've mentioned before on this forum, I like the idea of PM, and would like it to succeed, I just haven't been impressed with the current iteration. These updates don't resolve all my issues, but overall I'm feeling somewhat more optimistic about the platform's future, and if these two issues in particular can be addressed I might consider returning to the platform in future, even with the £100 limit in place. I have to say as well that the newfound enthusiasm from @jmn21 is encouraging!
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Property Moose
Spv 83
Feb 15, 2018 17:14:45 GMT
Post by carolus on Feb 15, 2018 17:14:45 GMT
Yes - the meaning I took from the update and info about the HMOs etc is that properties that are currently not on the SM for whatever reason won't be going back on. At the risk of sounding flippant (with a stake that is significant to me invested, I am certainly not), I don't think that there was any such inference, however we can be fairly confident that PM do not do anything quickly (that is not in their interest), so the chances of them re-appearing can be assumed to be near nil; sad that yet again we are left to assume. Having reread the communications from PM it may not have been as clear as I thought. However, I've just been on livechat who have confirmed the HMOs won't be returning to the SM before it closes.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Property Moose
Spv 83
Feb 15, 2018 15:05:58 GMT
Post by carolus on Feb 15, 2018 15:05:58 GMT
This is part of the same complex as SPV81 which has just paid January's overdue dividend today. Still waiting for SPV83 to pay its first dividend and become trade-able on the SM. It probably won't - per the email today SM to close in under 2 weeks! ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png) Yes - the meaning I took from the update and info about the HMOs etc is that properties that are currently not on the SM for whatever reason won't be going back on.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Feb 15, 2018 12:43:44 GMT
Email received about upcoming changes. The key points: - Minimum investment increasing to £100
- Removal of Secondary Market
- Exit votes on all Buy to Let properties
- A survey to investigate how to improve communication
My thoughts on these: The increase in minimum investment is justified by the fact that 2/3 of the primary market investments are <£100 but that this raises only 4% of the total. So this seems pretty clearly designed to eliminate most of the customer base - less work for PM to handle, presumably. I can't imagine that most of those 2/3 would increase their minimum investments to £100 (I certainly wouldn't!). It's unclear to me how "by having a slightly larger minimum investment level, we will better be able to communicate with our customers." beyond the fact that there will be far fewer customers. Removal of the secondary market seems slightly unexpected. If it's really the case that MiFIDII and GDPR are going to cause such an impact on secondary markets then I'd expect we'll see them go on lots of other sites as well soon. It seems to me that this is a change that benefits PM (less work) rather than the customers. They mention that to keep it running would require increased fees for it, but I'm not clear why no SM is better than SM with higher (but clear) fees. It also strikes me that the removal of the SM means that PM no longer have to worry about periodic revaluations or, really, keeping investors updated about the property. Once you're locked in there would be no way out anyway. Exit votes are presumably to provide a one off way out for investors who can't exit on the SM before it is removed, but judging by past votes it doesn't seem likely to me that many will vote to sell. Survey to improve communication seems a little like a way to not have to worry baout how to improve communication themselves, and there seems to be a lot of self-justification about how they already provide plenty of information (I would disagree with them on this). HMOs, presumably now never coming back onto the SM so no way out of them unless they happen to sell on the exit vote. Very disappointing that we were told they would be coming back soon and that the claimed "revaluation" was obviously not the whole story (although that was perhaps clear to us all along). Disappointingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, no mention of improving process to try and eliminate errors in payments, deductions etc. Overall, these updates seem designed to decrease work for PM, not to improve customer experience. If I hadn't already exited everything (apart from two unsellable HMOs and a Buy to sell) then this would probably cause me to withdraw if I could. The £100 minimum alone would probably push me out, and removal of SM certainly would.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Feb 10, 2018 14:28:22 GMT
With so many to reply to, I thought they would have atleast responded to some halfway through the self imposed deadline I think if they said that they'd reply within two weeks then we should probably give them the full amount of time they asked for to repsond. However, if they can't meet their own proposal then they would be worthy of (still more) criticism. It is a bit disappointing that there wasn't at least an acknowledgement that they were now looking at the issues raised. keystone - it would be interesting to see how they rate themselves on each of those points!
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Feb 9, 2018 11:03:18 GMT
SPV 74 is one of the PE deals. It was originally listed in Jan 2017, with a six month term. It was then extended for an additional 12 months because they hadn't managed to sell it in that time. I'm not sure the fact that four months before the end of the extension it is now being marketed again suggests that it's "on track".
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jan 16, 2018 14:02:34 GMT
TBH , I have always been very sceptical of the obligatory 70% that is pushed for continually , rose tinted valuations and a fire sale do not mix , I think the P2P companies need to get real and LTVs need to start heading nearer the 50% mark. It seems to me that simply expecting LTVs to be at 50% doesn't help much. If the problem is that valuations are being gently (or not so gently?) massaged to meet the 70% LTV figure then surely, unless progress is made on getting better valuations, the problem is just being shifted as they will presumably then be massaged to meet the 50% figure.
|
|