beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Dec 21, 2020 11:48:49 GMT
I have to say, I was over-bearish with how well RS have done in returning investors money. They've done really well. I still don't even quite understand how to be honest, as their PF was losing money hand over fist even before COVID. I can only assume their property management has been excellent and their unsecured loans have held up by virtue of being supported by Government schemes and by not being as subprime as Lending Works' portfolio. Anyway, well done them, to return as much as they have done to investors is amazing. agree completely. i was shot down a few times for being upbeat and well it shows they are a professional outfit (they need to improve comms badly) but are producing results. it would seem the provision fund is still standing and the queue is dropping hugely. nearly 200 million back and no losses is unreal
|
|
puddleduck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 537
Likes: 489
|
Post by puddleduck on Dec 21, 2020 14:54:05 GMT
That is only around 25% of the loan book returned, though. I am certain that folks who are perhaps unaware of the situation, and are continuing to re-invest payments will experience losses when the provision fund runs out - I think it's inevitable that as the loan book shrinks, the proportion of bad debt will increase. It's far too early to say 'no losses' at this point, and is fairly meaningless given the size of the remaining loan book.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 972
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Dec 21, 2020 15:16:56 GMT
That is only around 25% of the loan book returned, though. I am certain that folks who are perhaps unaware of the situation, and are continuing to re-invest payments will experience losses when the provision fund runs out - I think it's inevitable that as the loan book shrinks, the proportion of bad debt will increase. It's far too early to say 'no losses' at this point, and is fairly meaningless given the size of the remaining loan book. While agreeing with the previous proposition that RS have done well in the circumstances, I think this is also true. The wave of repayments we are experiencing at the moment can't all be directly from Shawbrook's purchase of the property loans - I guess that a lot of the RYIs going on are second hand from those who are, as puddleduck says, unaware of the situation. They're the ones who will be left standing when the music stops. That's not to say that I am very pessimistic about the end game, but there has to be a significant chance that some people will take a hair cut. Maybe not those of us who frequent this forum: but how do we feel about that? While glad I'm all right, certainly in the RS context, I'm not entirely comfortable about the possible consequences for others who are less attentive.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,033
Likes: 1,857
|
Post by littleoldlady on Dec 21, 2020 15:48:47 GMT
I have to say, I was over-bearish with how well RS have done in returning investors money. They've done really well. I still don't even quite understand how to be honest, as their PF was losing money hand over fist even before COVID. I can only assume their property management has been excellent and their unsecured loans have held up by virtue of being supported by Government schemes and by not being as subprime as Lending Works' portfolio. Anyway, well done them, to return as much as they have done to investors is amazing. I can't agree that RS has done well - at least not for everyone. Yes, some figured out early that they have to set their required rate to the max to avoid borrowers repayments of loans they hold being used to buy loans from those at the front of the RYIQ. They have done well, but others who paid insufficient attention have not. The most unfair situation is those who made a RYI request without realising that it was also necessary to set their required rate high. It beggars belief that RS would think that someone who has requested their investment repaid would want their returns re-invested. IMO a RYI request should have automatically stopped further investment. I also think that return of capital for all should take priority over interest for the quick. So all interest, rather than just half, should have been diverted to the PF and any surplus PF paid out as deferred interest. Before anyone accuses me of bias let me say that I have no funds in RS myself.
|
|
coogaruk
Hello everyone! Anyone remember me?
Posts: 705
Likes: 464
|
Post by coogaruk on Dec 21, 2020 15:53:45 GMT
It's far too early to say 'no losses' at this point, and is fairly meaningless given the size of the remaining loan book. Very close to reporting no losses (of capital) here...
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Dec 21, 2020 16:19:44 GMT
I have to say, I was over-bearish with how well RS have done in returning investors money. They've done really well. I still don't even quite understand how to be honest, as their PF was losing money hand over fist even before COVID. I can only assume their property management has been excellent and their unsecured loans have held up by virtue of being supported by Government schemes and by not being as subprime as Lending Works' portfolio. Anyway, well done them, to return as much as they have done to investors is amazing. I can't agree that RS has done well - at least not for everyone. Yes, some figured out early that they have to set their required rate to the max to avoid borrowers repayments of loans they hold being used to buy loans from those at the front of the RYIQ. They have done well, but others who paid insufficient attention have not. The most unfair situation is those who made a RYI request without realising that it was also necessary to set their required rate high. It beggars belief that RS would think that someone who has requested their investment repaid would want their returns re-invested. IMO a RYI request should have automatically stopped further investment. I also think that return of capital for all should take priority over interest for the quick. So all interest, rather than just half, should have been diverted to the PF and any surplus PF paid out as deferred interest. Before anyone accuses me of bias let me say that I have no funds in RS myself. There would have been a fair amount paid into the PF when then 1 year was closed, there would have been a good amount of interest rolled up on those loans. Given the removal of some default risk at the same time, the figures may look a lot better now than they did. There is a strong possibility that 'other' might get sold as well, being unloved now so the prospects are probably as good as at any time since March. I can be accused of being biased as I still have funds on the platform, but arguably an escape route when I feel the need (currently anyway). More a case of fortunate sequence of events than any great concern for investors by RS though I suspect. My own feeling is that everybody will leave with what they came with and in some cases a bit more. Thumbs down for RS themselves in my book.
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,496
Likes: 923
|
Post by aju on Dec 21, 2020 16:31:20 GMT
I have to say, I was over-bearish with how well RS have done in returning investors money. They've done really well. I still don't even quite understand how to be honest, as their PF was losing money hand over fist even before COVID. I can only assume their property management has been excellent and their unsecured loans have held up by virtue of being supported by Government schemes and by not being as subprime as Lending Works' portfolio. Anyway, well done them, to return as much as they have done to investors is amazing. I can't agree that RS has done well - at least not for everyone. Yes, some figured out early that they have to set their required rate to the max to avoid borrowers repayments of loans they hold being used to buy loans from those at the front of the RYIQ. They have done well, but others who paid insufficient attention have not. The most unfair situation is those who made a RYI request without realising that it was also necessary to set their required rate high. It beggars belief that RS would think that someone who has requested their investment repaid would want their returns re-invested. IMO a RYI request should have automatically stopped further investment. I also think that return of capital for all should take priority over interest for the quick. So all interest, rather than just half, should have been diverted to the PF and any surplus PF paid out as deferred interest. Before anyone accuses me of bias let me say that I have no funds in RS myself. I'm not sure that selling with an RYI request actually goes straight back to investments, certainly not my experience with RYI's i've got returned. I'm happy to be corrected on that but that was not my experience with the 5Y or the 1Y sales before one was allowed to set return to holding as an option. I would also have expected that RS would get quite a bit of flack from the regs if that were the case though.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,033
Likes: 1,857
|
Post by littleoldlady on Dec 21, 2020 19:03:00 GMT
I can't agree that RS has done well - at least not for everyone. Yes, some figured out early that they have to set their required rate to the max to avoid borrowers repayments of loans they hold being used to buy loans from those at the front of the RYIQ. They have done well, but others who paid insufficient attention have not. The most unfair situation is those who made a RYI request without realising that it was also necessary to set their required rate high. It beggars belief that RS would think that someone who has requested their investment repaid would want their returns re-invested. IMO a RYI request should have automatically stopped further investment. I also think that return of capital for all should take priority over interest for the quick. So all interest, rather than just half, should have been diverted to the PF and any surplus PF paid out as deferred interest. Before anyone accuses me of bias let me say that I have no funds in RS myself. I'm not sure that selling with an RYI request actually goes straight back to investments, certainly not my experience with RYI's i've got returned. I'm happy to be corrected on that but that was not my experience with the 5Y or the 1Y sales before one was allowed to set return to holding as an option. I would also have expected that RS would get quite a bit of flack from the regs if that were the case though. No, what I am saying is that when a borrower repays a loan the proceeds go straight back on the market with no way for the lender to stop it. (S)he can theoretically then cancel it if (s)he's quick enough but that is practically impossible if her required rate is left at default as her funds will be immediately matched. This will happen even if the lender is in the RYIQ herself. In the first several months of the RYIQ this was probably the only source of funds to refund those at the front of the Q. This only applied to the APM markets. I also would have expected (or at least hoped) for some flack from the FCA but this just shows how useless they are.
|
|
|
Post by RateSetter on Dec 22, 2020 9:51:16 GMT
Good morning. Yesterday we delivered £3.5m and the full update is below:
|
|
|
Post by chillwinston on Dec 22, 2020 10:51:00 GMT
Hello all
Long time lurker, first time poster here. Just wanted to finally register to say thanks to everyone for the advice and discussions in this thread. It's kept things interesting over the last 9 months and stopped me from fretting.
I received the majority of my RYI over the weekend despite being ~10k in the queue at the beginning of things. I believe this was because my two loans were part of the property portfolio sold off? First I've heard about this was on this board obviously but putting two and two together it looks like that's what's happened.
I was never totally worried but it's a good feeling getting it back!
Still got about 1k left in access so I'm still in the game and will keep checking back for the conversation.
Cheers
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,496
Likes: 923
|
Post by aju on Dec 22, 2020 11:37:25 GMT
I'm not sure that selling with an RYI request actually goes straight back to investments, certainly not my experience with RYI's i've got returned. I'm happy to be corrected on that but that was not my experience with the 5Y or the 1Y sales before one was allowed to set return to holding as an option. I would also have expected that RS would get quite a bit of flack from the regs if that were the case though. No, what I am saying is that when a borrower repays a loan the proceeds go straight back on the market with no way for the lender to stop it. (S)he can theoretically then cancel it if (s)he's quick enough but that is practically impossible if her required rate is left at default as her funds will be immediately matched. This will happen even if the lender is in the RYIQ herself. In the first several months of the RYIQ this was probably the only source of funds to refund those at the front of the Q. This only applied to the APM markets. I also would have expected (or at least hoped) for some flack from the FCA but this just shows how useless they are. I see where you are coming from and understand now - I have been a Ratesetter rather just a lender since back in the early days of Zopa before I came to RS and was getting way better rates than a simple lender then too before they removed that option. I did sit with RS for a few months and asked a lot on these forums to try and understand it (I'm a very cautious soul who only takes risks with small amounts until I understand these things as fully as one can without a manual) I did have to read a lot between the lines too and make quite a few of punts before I fully got the notion of setting my own rates on RS to prevent auto relend so I guess almost from day one for us I was quite prepared like a good little boy scout I was once. More recently it helped having our RYI requests that were clearly so far behind and not selling in a month of Sundays to understand how to control the beast to our advantage too in fact it was basic Ratesetting even then. I never understand how people put their hard earned money into things without a full understanding of ALL the risks that one can learn about before jumping in murky waters head first. I agree on your FCA comment - Mr Bailey just gets away with a simple apology now he's gone and all is well so I guess we should not rely on them at all. (I never did though if i'm really honest!
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Dec 22, 2020 18:00:02 GMT
That is only around 25% of the loan book returned, though. I am certain that folks who are perhaps unaware of the situation, and are continuing to re-invest payments will experience losses when the provision fund runs out - I think it's inevitable that as the loan book shrinks, the proportion of bad debt will increase. It's far too early to say 'no losses' at this point, and is fairly meaningless given the size of the remaining loan book. well no losses are no losses. I don't suggest forever but so far it is no losses. so it isnt really meaningless it just means so far no losses
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,033
Likes: 1,857
|
Post by littleoldlady on Dec 22, 2020 18:06:53 GMT
That is only around 25% of the loan book returned, though. I am certain that folks who are perhaps unaware of the situation, and are continuing to re-invest payments will experience losses when the provision fund runs out - I think it's inevitable that as the loan book shrinks, the proportion of bad debt will increase. It's far too early to say 'no losses' at this point, and is fairly meaningless given the size of the remaining loan book. well no losses are no losses. I don't suggest forever but so far it is no losses. so it isnt really meaningless it just means so far no losses What it means is no losses for those at the front of the queue. tis always thus in the rush to the exit but IMO it's not right that the lucky (sorry, quick) ones also get their interest if the unlucky (sorry, slow) ones lose capital. BTW I say this as a very quick one, having all my capital out even before the restrictions.
|
|
beagle
Investor in ratesetter, funding circle, lendy (lesson learnt) and AC
Posts: 670
Likes: 322
|
Post by beagle on Dec 22, 2020 18:26:00 GMT
well no losses are no losses. I don't suggest forever but so far it is no losses. so it isnt really meaningless it just means so far no losses What it means is no losses for those at the front of the queue. tis always thus in the rush to the exit but IMO it's not right that the lucky (sorry, quick) ones also get their interest if the unlucky (sorry, slow) ones lose capital. it might not be right but life isn't fair. the queue is moving faster and so far things look strong. Those investors who do not engage or react, respectfully after 9 months should check on their investments. If they were purely to slow to the scene but did engage - well that is dam* bad luck. Not everyone will win. but so far losses are 0 and the fund is intact. interesting times
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Dec 22, 2020 20:57:57 GMT
well no losses are no losses. I don't suggest forever but so far it is no losses. so it isnt really meaningless it just means so far no losses What it means is no losses for those at the front of the queue. tis always thus in the rush to the exit but IMO it's not right that the lucky (sorry, quick) ones also get their interest if the unlucky (sorry, slow) ones lose capital. BTW I say this as a very quick one, having all my capital out even before the restrictions. What it means is no losses for those at the front of the queue, and no *current* expectation of losses for those at the end of the queue either. If there were an expectation of losses for those at the end of the queue, they wouldn't be paying interest now.
|
|