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

agent69

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

Aceace

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

You have chosen to pick on one of only 2 loans (out of the 338 loans that they have written) that are currently in default to besmirch them. That's hardly a balanced view. I can't comment on that loan in particular as I'm not personally in it, so don't have access to the actual details, and wouldn't be able to comment publicly anyway while they are in the process of recovering the loan. I have been in 3 of the other 6 loans that have defaulted. All capital and interest was recovered in all cases. 

P2P is not without risk. That's why lenders receive a return that is commensurate with that risk.  With the best will in the world, some loans will default. A professional company like crowdproperty will minimise the number of loans that default through their due diligence and maximise the recovery from those that do. CrowdProperty's website openly declares that they anticipate losses of 1% of capital, but that this is more than compensated for by the 7% to 8% pre-loss returns. So far, over 7 years of operation, and having completed roughly half those 338 loans,  they haven't lost a single penny in capital or interest in any of them. 

Comparing CrowdProperty to the likes of Lendy, Funding Secure, Collateral etc is completely misleading IMO.

bostonerimus

Aceace said:

CrowdProperty's website openly declares that they anticipate losses of 1% of capital, but that this is more than compensated for by the 7% to 8% pre-loss returns.

There you go, a prediction of 7% to 8% returns... I'm happy that no one is enthusiastic for this idea of using P2P as a "sizeable (sic) part of your retirement planning". 

Malthusian

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.

If the platforms don't have the ability to sell your loans directly to third parties then your returns depend even more on the platform having sufficient cash on hand to allow you to cash out at par values (or whatever value it is putting on the underlying loans).

Or is there no prospect of liquidity at all until the loans are due for repayment? That would be perfectly legitimate but renders the scheme unsuitable for the vast majority of retail investors, including people saving in pension funds (as they are going to want their money to live on at some point).

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.

Why are we supposed to be reassured that CrowdProperty is incompetent at pricing its loans properly?

Why are the borrowers willing to pay significantly higher interest rates than the demand for the loans indicates they should be? If the loans are 50x oversubscribed then the interest rate on offer should have been much much lower as the borrower would still have got all the money they needed.

Some might say "who cares if the borrower is being screwed, this is an opportunity to make market-beating returns and you should grab it". The reality is that if you don't know who the sucker is it's probably you. This goes triple if words like "crowdfunding" "P2P" "altfi" or "crypto" are involved. Opportunities to make money by taking advantage of mispricing are not advertised to the general public.

Aceace said:

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

Further info is also freely available on Companies House, which, despite concealing the profit and loss account (a red flag as companies soliciting investment from the public have no legitimate reason to conceal basic financial information) shows a loss of £200k for the year ending March 2020.

Anything on the likes of Crowdcrap or Seediers is rubbish until proven otherwise by professional due diligence paid for by the investor, especially when the company is unwilling to put it on public view.

If the company has done its accounts for March 2021 there is nothing stopping them uploading them to Companies House.

A 7-8%pa return is not remotely commensurate with a supposed 1% loss potential. In the world of mainstream fully-regulated investment that would correspond to money market funds or maybe short term gilts at a stretch, potential return virtually zero. If it looks too good to be true it probably is.

bostonerimus said:

You are describing a Ponzi Scheme. 

Not at all. All Ponzi schemes use new money to pay off existing ones but not all investments which use new money to pay off existing ones are Ponzi schemes. Say an angel investor invests £10,000 in a new speculative (but genuine) technology, and after initial prototyping a VC buys their shares and the angel cashes out, and then in the B funding round a VC buys the first VC's shares at a higher price, and then it IPOs and the VCs cash out, and then the technology is superseded and the business collapses with total losses to shareholders. An investment scheme has been carried out in which nobody made any money except old investors who were paid off by new ones. But it wasn't a Ponzi scheme; the technology was genuine and everyone went in with their eyes open.

A scheme in which new investors pay old ones is only a Ponzi scheme if the owners are too blatant about it.

Aceace

bostonerimus said:

Aceace said:

CrowdProperty's website openly declares that they anticipate losses of 1% of capital, but that this is more than compensated for by the 7% to 8% pre-loss returns.

There you go, a prediction of 7% to 8% returns... I'm happy that no one is enthusiastic for this idea of using P2P as a "sizeable (sic) part of your retirement planning". 

I really have no idea what the point of your comment is here. Perhaps you would like to clarify.

In case it helps, yes that return range is both a statement of actual returns for the past 7 years and a prediction of future returns. In fact the actual average return on cash employed is actually 8.4%, but in reality you need to reduce that a bit due to cash drag. 

Aceace

Malthusian said:

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.

If the platforms don't have the ability to sell your loans directly to third parties then your returns depend even more on the platform having sufficient cash on hand to allow you to cash out at par values (or whatever value it is putting on the underlying loans).

Or is there no prospect of liquidity at all until the loans are due for repayment? That would be perfectly legitimate but renders the scheme unsuitable for the vast majority of retail investors, including people saving in pension funds (as they are going to want their money to live on at some point).

This particular platform (CP) does not currently have a secondary market. You are almost correct that therefore there is no prospect of liquidity until a loan repays. I say almost because some of the loans on this platform pay interest monthly, so there is some regular income. I don't agree that that makes them unsuitable for pensions. Other than one very small pension in payment, I am living entirely on P2P income to fund the gap between early retirement and my main pensions kicking in. I have 7 years to go. I found that it has provided a very steady and stable income for the past 3.5 years. Yes I do have other emergency funds to call on if things went wrong. 

I have a large number of P2P platforms for this purpose, but even if I were to rely on CP alone I would have sufficient liquidity. I currently have 80+loans on the platform. They have an average length of 13 months. Some will inevitably run late, but I still get roughly 5% of my capital returned plus interest each month. So, in this way I have liquidity through diversification on this platform. In reality I have much more liquidity than that due to diversification across many platforms, some of which do have secondary markets. So, I am a living example of someone living almost entirely off of P2P income in retirement. I choose to do this as I feel its a better option than having to draw down from my equity investments when stock markets drop. I realise other options are available, but this one works very well for me. 

I'm not suggesting for 1 minute that someone should put all of their investable funds in P2P, only 50% of my own are there. I simply agree with 4thWay that P2P can form a valuable and useful part of one's retirement planning. 

Malthusian said:

Why are we supposed to be reassured that CrowdProperty is incompetent at pricing its loans properly?

Why are the borrowers willing to pay significantly higher interest rates than the demand for the loans indicates they should be? If the loans are 50x oversubscribed then the interest rate on offer should have been much much lower as the borrower would still have got all the money they needed.

Some might say "who cares if the borrower is being screwed, this is an opportunity to make market-beating returns and you should grab it". The reality is that if you don't know who the sucker is it's probably you. This goes triple if words like "crowdfunding" "P2P" "altfi" or "crypto" are involved. Opportunities to make money by taking advantage of mispricing are not advertised to the general public.

Comment from Aceace (sorry I've messed up the formatting):

I imagine CP take a different view to you. They are trying to build a long term profitable and stable business. Screwing either lenders or borrowers when you have the opportunity would probably be counterproductive. 

Aceace said:

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

Further info is also freely available on Companies House, which, despite concealing the profit and loss account (a red flag as companies soliciting investment from the public have no legitimate reason to conceal basic financial information) shows a loss of £200k for the year ending March 2020.

Anything on the likes of Crowdcrap or Seediers is rubbish until proven otherwise by professional due diligence paid for by the investor, especially when the company is unwilling to put it on public view.

If the company has done its accounts for March 2021 there is nothing stopping them uploading them to Companies House.

A 7-8%pa return is not remotely commensurate with a supposed 1% loss potential. In the world of mainstream fully-regulated investment that would correspond to money market funds or maybe short term gilts at a stretch, potential return virtually zero. If it looks too good to be true it probably is.

I don't feel qualified to comment on why a company does or does not choose to publish its P&L, suffice to say its very common in startups. I agree it's a red flag. 

I don't really understand your point on rates. A 7-8% return for this type of proposition seems fair to me. I imagine that the anticipated 1% loss is driven by some requirement to state one and this being the lowest figure available (pure speculation). In reality is been exactly 0% since their inception 7 years ago. I don't understand why you say that gives a "potential return virtually zero".

Malthusian said:

bostonerimus said:

You are describing a Ponzi Scheme. 

Not at all. All Ponzi schemes use new money to pay off existing ones but not all investments which use new money to pay off existing ones are Ponzi schemes. Say an angel investor invests £10,000 in a new speculative (but genuine) technology, and after initial prototyping a VC buys their shares and the angel cashes out, and then in the B funding round a VC buys the first VC's shares at a higher price, and then it IPOs and the VCs cash out, and then the technology is superseded and the business collapses with total losses to shareholders. An investment scheme has been carried out in which nobody made any money except old investors who were paid off by new ones. But it wasn't a Ponzi scheme; the technology was genuine and everyone went in with their eyes open.

A scheme in which new investors pay old ones is only a Ponzi scheme if the owners are too blatant about it.

At last we agree. It's clearly not a Ponzi scheme 🙂

agent69

Aceace said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

You have chosen to pick on one of only 2 loans (out of the 338 loans that they have written) that are currently in default to besmirch them. That's hardly a balanced view. I can't comment on that loan in particular as I'm not personally in it, so don't have access to the actual details, and wouldn't be able to comment publicly anyway while they are in the process of recovering the loan. I have been in 3 of the other 6 loans that have defaulted. All capital and interest was recovered in all cases. 

P2P is not without risk. That's why lenders receive a return that is commensurate with that risk.  With the best will in the world, some loans will default. A professional company like crowdproperty will minimise the number of loans that default through their due diligence and maximise the recovery from those that do. CrowdProperty's website openly declares that they anticipate losses of 1% of capital, but that this is more than compensated for by the 7% to 8% pre-loss returns. So far, over 7 years of operation, and having completed roughly half those 338 loans,  they haven't lost a single penny in capital or interest in any of them. 

Comparing CrowdProperty to the likes of Lendy, Funding Secure, Collateral etc is completely misleading IMO.

Aceace said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

You have chosen to pick on one of only 2 loans (out of the 338 loans that they have written) that are currently in default to besmirch them. That's hardly a balanced view. I can't comment on that loan in particular as I'm not personally in it, so don't have access to the actual details, and wouldn't be able to comment publicly anyway while they are in the process of recovering the loan. I have been in 3 of the other 6 loans that have defaulted. All capital and interest was recovered in all cases. 

When it comes to profitability, I'll take a set of audited accounts over vague marketing waffle being used on Seedrs to raise money any time.

The point I have been trying to get across is that virtually all of your positive comments about todays P2P platforms could have been said in the past about now collapsed platforms. Default rates are a clasic example. Andrew Holgate at AC spent years telling investors that nobody had lost money, and Lendy were telling people nobody had lost money until virtually the day before they went pop. The reason thay can do this is that they are very reluctant to formally default loans, and if it's not defaulted then they can say you haven't lost any money yet. The number of loans formally defaulted on a platform is not a reflection of the health of its loan book.

If you want an independent view of P2P lending then look at a recent poll on the indy site. When asked if P2P in UK had a future only 10% gave it an unqualified thums up. Even in this thread you appear to be in a minority of one

Aceace

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

You have chosen to pick on one of only 2 loans (out of the 338 loans that they have written) that are currently in default to besmirch them. That's hardly a balanced view. I can't comment on that loan in particular as I'm not personally in it, so don't have access to the actual details, and wouldn't be able to comment publicly anyway while they are in the process of recovering the loan. I have been in 3 of the other 6 loans that have defaulted. All capital and interest was recovered in all cases. 

P2P is not without risk. That's why lenders receive a return that is commensurate with that risk.  With the best will in the world, some loans will default. A professional company like crowdproperty will minimise the number of loans that default through their due diligence and maximise the recovery from those that do. CrowdProperty's website openly declares that they anticipate losses of 1% of capital, but that this is more than compensated for by the 7% to 8% pre-loss returns. So far, over 7 years of operation, and having completed roughly half those 338 loans,  they haven't lost a single penny in capital or interest in any of them. 

Comparing CrowdProperty to the likes of Lendy, Funding Secure, Collateral etc is completely misleading IMO.

Aceace said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

You have chosen to pick on one of only 2 loans (out of the 338 loans that they have written) that are currently in default to besmirch them. That's hardly a balanced view. I can't comment on that loan in particular as I'm not personally in it, so don't have access to the actual details, and wouldn't be able to comment publicly anyway while they are in the process of recovering the loan. I have been in 3 of the other 6 loans that have defaulted. All capital and interest was recovered in all cases. 

When it comes to profitability, I'll take a set of audited accounts over vague marketing waffle being used on Seedrs to raise money any time.

Agreed

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

You have chosen to pick on one of only 2 loans (out of the 338 loans that they have written) that are currently in default to besmirch them. That's hardly a balanced view. I can't comment on that loan in particular as I'm not personally in it, so don't have access to the actual details, and wouldn't be able to comment publicly anyway while they are in the process of recovering the loan. I have been in 3 of the other 6 loans that have defaulted. All capital and interest was recovered in all cases. 

P2P is not without risk. That's why lenders receive a return that is commensurate with that risk.  With the best will in the world, some loans will default. A professional company like crowdproperty will minimise the number of loans that default through their due diligence and maximise the recovery from those that do. CrowdProperty's website openly declares that they anticipate losses of 1% of capital, but that this is more than compensated for by the 7% to 8% pre-loss returns. So far, over 7 years of operation, and having completed roughly half those 338 loans,  they haven't lost a single penny in capital or interest in any of them. 

Comparing CrowdProperty to the likes of Lendy, Funding Secure, Collateral etc is completely misleading IMO.

Aceace said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

You have chosen to pick on one of only 2 loans (out of the 338 loans that they have written) that are currently in default to besmirch them. That's hardly a balanced view. I can't comment on that loan in particular as I'm not personally in it, so don't have access to the actual details, and wouldn't be able to comment publicly anyway while they are in the process of recovering the loan. I have been in 3 of the other 6 loans that have defaulted. All capital and interest was recovered in all cases. 

The point I have been trying to get across is that virtually all of your positive comments about todays P2P platforms could have been said in the past about now collapsed platforms. Default rates are a clasic example. Andrew Holgate at AC spent years telling investors that nobody had lost money, and Lendy were telling people nobody had lost money until virtually the day before they went pop. The reason thay can do this is that they are very reluctant to formally default loans, and if it's not defaulted then they can say you haven't lost any money yet. The number of loans formally defaulted on a platform is not a reflection of the health of its loan book.

Yes, I did understand your point that the scam platforms used to look good at first. I'm not sure any of them got to 7 years and still looked good though. I'm also aware that not defaulting bad loans was a tactic they used to hide problems and rack up lucrative fees for themselves (The FCA should have done sooo much better). 

Again taking CP as an example: they declare all loans that are more than 180 days late. So far that amounts to just 8 loans out of 339. They have had their loanbook verified by BRISMO (although that seems to have been some time ago) and have opened themselves up to scrutiny from 4thWay. If it was about to the way of Lendy I think the signs would be there by now. 

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

You have chosen to pick on one of only 2 loans (out of the 338 loans that they have written) that are currently in default to besmirch them. That's hardly a balanced view. I can't comment on that loan in particular as I'm not personally in it, so don't have access to the actual details, and wouldn't be able to comment publicly anyway while they are in the process of recovering the loan. I have been in 3 of the other 6 loans that have defaulted. All capital and interest was recovered in all cases. 

P2P is not without risk. That's why lenders receive a return that is commensurate with that risk.  With the best will in the world, some loans will default. A professional company like crowdproperty will minimise the number of loans that default through their due diligence and maximise the recovery from those that do. CrowdProperty's website openly declares that they anticipate losses of 1% of capital, but that this is more than compensated for by the 7% to 8% pre-loss returns. So far, over 7 years of operation, and having completed roughly half those 338 loans,  they haven't lost a single penny in capital or interest in any of them. 

Comparing CrowdProperty to the likes of Lendy, Funding Secure, Collateral etc is completely misleading IMO.

Aceace said:

agent69 said:

Aceace said:

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. 

I would be interested to know how you have ascertained this.

A recent article in 4thway stated - Up to March 2019, the date of CrowdProperty‘s last filed accounts, it appears to be making six-figure annual losses, but there's some guesswork here, because the accounts are unaudited and contain little information.

Aslo, having had a quick look at the independent forum, I wonder if the handling of the loan to redevelop the former Lloyds Bank site at T**bridge has been handled in a competent fashion. It appears that 3 years after money was lent, no work has been undertaken and the borrower has used the cash for other projects.

CrowdProperty have stated in the publicly accessible section of their current Seedrs round that they are now profitable. Further info is only available when logged in and cleared to access the pitch deck, so I can't repeat it on this public platform. 

You have chosen to pick on one of only 2 loans (out of the 338 loans that they have written) that are currently in default to besmirch them. That's hardly a balanced view. I can't comment on that loan in particular as I'm not personally in it, so don't have access to the actual details, and wouldn't be able to comment publicly anyway while they are in the process of recovering the loan. I have been in 3 of the other 6 loans that have defaulted. All capital and interest was recovered in all cases. 

If you want an independent view of P2P lending then look at a recent poll on the indy site. When asked if P2P in UK had a future only 10% gave it an unqualified thums up. Even in this thread you appear to be in a minority of one

Wasn't it you who argued that the top 3 results of Indy polls should be disregarded because they're always wrong 😄

Your right, this furrow is a lonely place ☹

Malthusian

I'm not suggesting for 1 minute that someone should put all of their investable funds in P2P, only 50% of my own are there.

The vast majority of investors cannot afford the potential for total and permanent loss of 50% of their retirement fund. Most can't afford 5%.

I imagine CP take a different view to you. They are trying to build a long term profitable and stable business. Screwing either lenders or borrowers when you have the opportunity would probably be counterproductive.

Yet that is exactly what they are doing by setting the interest rate many times higher than it needs to be for the borrower to get 100% of funds required.

Either the borrowers are mugs for accepting loans at a much higher interest rate than they need to pay. Or the lenders are mugs, and 98% of them are piling into the loans because "it's more than my bank account pays".

Artificial scarcity is a good thing in some industries. (E.g. concert tickets or new smartphones; queues round the block create the impression of a highly desirable product.) Commercial lending is not one of them. If a loan is oversubscribed by 50x then somebody is getting screwed. If you don't know who the sucker is it's probably you.

I don't feel qualified to comment on why a company does or does not choose to publish its P&L, suffice to say its very common in startups. I agree it's a red flag. 

Most small startups do not solicit investment from the general public.

There is no legitimate reason for a company which does to withhold basic financial information from potential investors.

I don't really understand your point on rates. A 7-8% return for this type of proposition seems fair to me. I imagine that the anticipated 1% loss is driven by some requirement to state one and this being the lowest figure available (pure speculation). In reality is been exactly 0% since their inception 7 years ago.

All pseudo-regulated loans have an inherent possibility of 100% loss (as Lendy et al demonstrate). If an investment is promising returns of 7-8%pa while claiming loss potential is 1% it is a scam.

How long the P2P platform has been going tells you absolutely nothing. An investment which paid 8%pa and made no profit whatsoever would take ten years to collapse, assuming it took in new money at a constant rate. Buy2letcars ran for 8 years.

Thrugelmir

Aceace said:

Your right, this furrow is a lonely place ☹

3 and half years isn't long enough to ascertain the results of your ploughing. When you've experienced a full economic cycle or a severe downturn. Then you'll have a better idea as to whether what you've sowed will reap a substantial return.  The fog of the global pandemic has yet to lift. The greatest challenge that investors have faced in a very long time.