Why P2P Lending Should Be A Sizeable Part Of Your Retirement Planning

agent69

Albermarle said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

Daz2009 said:

I take it the OP wasn't invested in Moneything,Collateral,Lendy or Funding Secure to name but 4 who've lost me thousands of pounds.
Only Ratesetter and Zopa could be considered a success for me and even then the returns were under 5%.
I wouldn't touch P2P with a barge pole

I'm sorry for your losses. You seem to have been very unlucky in your choice of platforms. 

 

Not really, they were 4 of the most prominent platforms around. I would be suprised if anyone with significant exposure to p2p wouldn't have invested significant amounts.

When I first started with P2P , all the four platforms mentioned , were clearly at the riskier end of the spectrum . 12% + interest rates was an obvious red flag ,

When I started investing 12% was the going rate among most platforms (except for the likes of Zopa and RS).

15%+ was the red flag

Aceace

Malthusian said:

Albermarle said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

Daz2009 said:

I take it the OP wasn't invested in Moneything,Collateral,Lendy or Funding Secure to name but 4 who've lost me thousands of pounds.
Only Ratesetter and Zopa could be considered a success for me and even then the returns were under 5%.
I wouldn't touch P2P with a barge pole

I'm sorry for your losses. You seem to have been very unlucky in your choice of platforms. 

 

Not really, they were 4 of the most prominent platforms around. I would be suprised if anyone with significant exposure to p2p wouldn't have invested significant amounts.

When I first started with P2P , all the four platforms mentioned , were clearly at the riskier end of the spectrum . 12% + interest rates was an obvious red flag ,

bostonerimus said:

If you are happy with P2P then great. Obviously many people do not share your enthusiasm. So maybe just enjoy your investment, you don't have to be an evangelist about.

Unless your returns depend on new money entering the platform so existing investors can continue to cash out at par values. Then being an evangelist becomes highly advisable.

The platforms I mentioned either don't have secondary markets or don't allow them to be used for loans in distress. There would be nothing to be gained from "evangelising", quite the opposite. Getting ones funds deployed on the decent platforms has become rather difficult. Taking CrowdProperty as an example (it has no SM): the platform has become so well regarded that their loans are often as much as 50 times oversubscribed, leaving lenders with only 2% of the amount they wanted to lend. Extra lenders on there right now is the last thing I need! 

Actually, I'm a minor shareholder in CrowdProperty and several others, so I suppose it's possible that I could have had an ulterior motive. I don't, but that's impossible for me to prove. 

bostonerimus

Malthusian said:

bostonerimus said:

If you are happy with P2P then great. Obviously many people do not share your enthusiasm. So maybe just enjoy your investment, you don't have to be an evangelist about.

Unless your returns depend on new money entering the platform so existing investors can continue to cash out at par values. Then being an evangelist becomes highly advisable.

You are describing a Ponzi Scheme. 

bostonerimus

Aceace said:

Actually, I'm a minor shareholder in CrowdProperty and several others, so I suppose it's possible that I could have had an ulterior motive. I don't, but that's impossible for me to prove. 

I don't think you need to prove anything because nobody is that interested in your P2P proposition.

agent69

Aceace said:

Malthusian said:

Albermarle said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

Daz2009 said:

I take it the OP wasn't invested in Moneything,Collateral,Lendy or Funding Secure to name but 4 who've lost me thousands of pounds.
Only Ratesetter and Zopa could be considered a success for me and even then the returns were under 5%.
I wouldn't touch P2P with a barge pole

I'm sorry for your losses. You seem to have been very unlucky in your choice of platforms. 

 

Not really, they were 4 of the most prominent platforms around. I would be suprised if anyone with significant exposure to p2p wouldn't have invested significant amounts.

When I first started with P2P , all the four platforms mentioned , were clearly at the riskier end of the spectrum . 12% + interest rates was an obvious red flag ,

bostonerimus said:

If you are happy with P2P then great. Obviously many people do not share your enthusiasm. So maybe just enjoy your investment, you don't have to be an evangelist about.

Unless your returns depend on new money entering the platform so existing investors can continue to cash out at par values. Then being an evangelist becomes highly advisable.

The platforms I mentioned either don't have secondary markets or don't allow them to be used for loans in distress. There would be nothing to be gained from "evangelising", quite the opposite. Getting ones funds deployed on the decent platforms has become rather difficult. Taking CrowdProperty as an example (it has no SM): the platform has become so well regarded that their loans are often as much as 50 times oversubscribed, leaving lenders with only 2% of the amount they wanted to lend. Extra lenders on there right now is the last thing I need! 

Actually, I'm a minor shareholder in CrowdProperty and several others, so I suppose it's possible that I could have had an ulterior motive. I don't, but that's impossible for me to prove. 

But the same was true a few years ago for platforms that have subsequently gone bust. I can remember when Lendy had INPL and loans were dissapearing off the shelf as quickly as they were offered.

You know what they say: past performance should not be used as a guide to future returns.

Rollinghome

P2P sounded like an interesting proposition; by going peer to peer, without a middleman, there would be cheaper loans for borrowers, better returns for savers  and greater efficiency.

But it was never explained where the efficiencies would come from when there was already a myriad of lenders from big banks through to small loan companies and pawn-brokers.  Nor did it get rid of the middleman.

Instead, we got an additional layer of ‘platforms’ who in some cases offered loans through yet another layer of ‘introducers’.  The way most platforms gathered funds was anything but efficient  and, in reality, higher rates for lenders came only from greater risk, not greater efficiency, with no direct link between borrower and lender.

Many of the loans offered by the riskier platforms had very little chance of ever being repaid and they would have been reckless or incompetent if they hadn’t known.  Some allowed lenders little or no information about borrowers, not even their company name, so that it was impossible for those risking their savings to make an informed decision.

There were clear conflicts of interest when platforms took their fees from borrowers while giving the appearance of acting as agents for the lenders. Allowing platforms to offer Innovative Finance ISAs gave an air of respectability that wasn’t always deserved.

Reading the comments in this thread shows the reputational damaged caused all round. Hope it goes well for the OP but I'll be watching from the sidelines.

Aceace

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

Malthusian said:

Albermarle said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

Daz2009 said:

I take it the OP wasn't invested in Moneything,Collateral,Lendy or Funding Secure to name but 4 who've lost me thousands of pounds.
Only Ratesetter and Zopa could be considered a success for me and even then the returns were under 5%.
I wouldn't touch P2P with a barge pole

I'm sorry for your losses. You seem to have been very unlucky in your choice of platforms. 

 

Not really, they were 4 of the most prominent platforms around. I would be suprised if anyone with significant exposure to p2p wouldn't have invested significant amounts.

When I first started with P2P , all the four platforms mentioned , were clearly at the riskier end of the spectrum . 12% + interest rates was an obvious red flag ,

bostonerimus said:

If you are happy with P2P then great. Obviously many people do not share your enthusiasm. So maybe just enjoy your investment, you don't have to be an evangelist about.

Unless your returns depend on new money entering the platform so existing investors can continue to cash out at par values. Then being an evangelist becomes highly advisable.

The platforms I mentioned either don't have secondary markets or don't allow them to be used for loans in distress. There would be nothing to be gained from "evangelising", quite the opposite. Getting ones funds deployed on the decent platforms has become rather difficult. Taking CrowdProperty as an example (it has no SM): the platform has become so well regarded that their loans are often as much as 50 times oversubscribed, leaving lenders with only 2% of the amount they wanted to lend. Extra lenders on there right now is the last thing I need! 

Actually, I'm a minor shareholder in CrowdProperty and several others, so I suppose it's possible that I could have had an ulterior motive. I don't, but that's impossible for me to prove. 

But the same was true a few years ago for platforms that have subsequently gone bust. I can remember when Lendy had INPL and loans were dissapearing off the shelf as quickly as they were offered.

You know what they say: past performance should not be used as a guide to future returns.

😄 I'm in total agreement with that statement. But you've used the past performance of a now extinct scam platform as a reason to disregard a current professional, competent, respected and profitable platform that has an unblemished record over the past 7 years. 

Aceace

Rollinghome said:

P2P sounded like an interesting proposition; by going peer to peer, without a middleman, there would be cheaper loans for borrowers, better returns for savers  and greater efficiency.

But it was never explained where the efficiencies would come from when there was already a myriad of lenders from big banks through to small loan companies and pawn-brokers.  Nor did it get rid of the middleman.

Instead, we got an additional layer of ‘platforms’ who in some cases offered loans through yet another layer of ‘introducers’.  The way most platforms gathered funds was anything but efficient  and, in reality, higher rates for lenders came only from greater risk, not greater efficiency, with no direct link between borrower and lender.

Many of the loans offered by the riskier platforms had very little chance of ever being repaid and they would have been reckless or incompetent if they hadn’t known.  Some allowed lenders little or no information about borrowers, not even their company name, so that it was impossible for those risking their savings to make an informed decision.

There were clear conflicts of interest when platforms took their fees from borrowers while giving the appearance of acting as agents for the lenders. Allowing platforms to offer Innovative Finance ISAs gave an air of respectability that wasn’t always deserved.

Reading the comments in this thread shows the reputational damaged caused all round. Hope it goes well for the OP but I'll be watching from the sidelines.

I agree with most of the above, but only in so far as it applies to a past group of scam/chancer platforms (and perhaps a few that are yet to be found out). How the FCA allowed such behaviour is beyond my understanding.

However, there are a current crop of professional platforms that simply don't deserve to be tarred with that brush. I accept that identifying the decent platforms can be rather difficult. It's more important to spend the majority of one's DD on the platform IMO. I had hoped that 4thWay's incites would become the gold standard, but it seems they are disregarded by this forum because they receive referral bonuses from some platforms, which I fully understand is a potential conflict of interest. I still think they are a very good starting point. I suppose one could ignore platforms that pay them for referrals.

mikb

Aceace said:

Rollinghome said:

P2P sounded like an interesting proposition; by going peer to peer, without a middleman, there would be cheaper loans for borrowers, better returns for savers  and greater efficiency.

But it was never explained where the efficiencies would come from when there was already a myriad of lenders from big banks through to small loan companies and pawn-brokers.  Nor did it get rid of the middleman.

Instead, we got an additional layer of ‘platforms’ who in some cases offered loans through yet another layer of ‘introducers’.  The way most platforms gathered funds was anything but efficient  and, in reality, higher rates for lenders came only from greater risk, not greater efficiency, with no direct link between borrower and lender.

Many of the loans offered by the riskier platforms had very little chance of ever being repaid and they would have been reckless or incompetent if they hadn’t known.  Some allowed lenders little or no information about borrowers, not even their company name, so that it was impossible for those risking their savings to make an informed decision.

There were clear conflicts of interest when platforms took their fees from borrowers while giving the appearance of acting as agents for the lenders. Allowing platforms to offer Innovative Finance ISAs gave an air of respectability that wasn’t always deserved.

Reading the comments in this thread shows the reputational damaged caused all round. Hope it goes well for the OP but I'll be watching from the sidelines.

How the FCA allowed such behaviour is beyond my understanding.

The FCA's new logo is "a chocolate teapot, asleep at the wheel ...."


The FCA authorised various platforms where alarm bells were ringing before, during and after the FCA process -- it doesn't seem to take much to appease the FCA. It seems like a rubber-stamping exercise, with three choruses of "Oh well, lessons will be learned" if something goes wrong.


One FCA authorised platform, now in administration, has been labelled by administrators as having such poor record keeping, that they don't actually know which lenders' money is tied up in which assets to attempt to return investors money.

Thrugelmir

Aceace said:

Rollinghome said:

P2P sounded like an interesting proposition; by going peer to peer, without a middleman, there would be cheaper loans for borrowers, better returns for savers  and greater efficiency.

But it was never explained where the efficiencies would come from when there was already a myriad of lenders from big banks through to small loan companies and pawn-brokers.  Nor did it get rid of the middleman.

Instead, we got an additional layer of ‘platforms’ who in some cases offered loans through yet another layer of ‘introducers’.  The way most platforms gathered funds was anything but efficient  and, in reality, higher rates for lenders came only from greater risk, not greater efficiency, with no direct link between borrower and lender.

Many of the loans offered by the riskier platforms had very little chance of ever being repaid and they would have been reckless or incompetent if they hadn’t known.  Some allowed lenders little or no information about borrowers, not even their company name, so that it was impossible for those risking their savings to make an informed decision.

There were clear conflicts of interest when platforms took their fees from borrowers while giving the appearance of acting as agents for the lenders. Allowing platforms to offer Innovative Finance ISAs gave an air of respectability that wasn’t always deserved.

Reading the comments in this thread shows the reputational damaged caused all round. Hope it goes well for the OP but I'll be watching from the sidelines.

How the FCA allowed such behaviour is beyond my understanding.

That's the world of business for you. Not everybody is what they seem. However much due diligence is undertaken.