Unilend is he serious or is it a scam?

Following the netbusinessrating on unilend status, I am forced to deepen.

Legal? Yes

 

The site Unilend is published by Unilend, SAS with a capital of 515 350 euros.
Address of head office: 6 street of General Clergerie – 75116 Paris – France
Phone: 01 82 28 51 20
E-mail: contact@unilend.fr
790 766 034 RCS Paris
Siret: 790 766 034 00025
VAT number: FR57790766034
APE code: 6201Z

The publication Director is Mr François Prioux, in his capacity as president of Unilend.

Information about the service

Unilend is intermediate in crowdfunding (IFP) enrolled in the ORIAS (www.orias.fr) under the number 15006955.

Payment service Unilend is distributed Unilend SAS, agent provider of payment services mandated by the SFPMEI and registered with the authority of prudential and resolution (PTA) under the number 790766034. Registration information is available on the website of the register of financial officers by clicking here.

Unilend payment service is provided by the financial of the interbank electronic purse (SFPMEI) company, joint-stock company simplified with a capital of 3 732 089 euros, of which the headquarters is located 29 street Louvre – 75002 Paris, registered at the register of commerce and corporations of Paris under the number 422 721 274. The SFPMEI is a property of electronic currency (code establishment 14378) approved by the authority of prudential and resolution (PTAS).

The site Unilend is hosted by Claranet, SASU to the capital of 1 400 000 euros whose headquarters is located 18 rue Faubourg du Temple, 75011 Paris.

But still? Serious, finally Yes

We start with article, which dates from 2014, so netbusinessrating is not really up-to-date. However we're talking about comments, let's go. Hoping not to find great advice style "sucks too, there is a project of crap, the site sucks".

So let's get started, we're talking comments, I fly.

comments found on your money.

Analyze comments

 

Then two comments are relevant,

Strong strong compensation risk. This is the basic rule of any investment. The corollary is the diversification of investments.

it of 21 liquid loans or a minimum assessed (see their statistics page). More than one loan on 10 has problems of refund now… so before you invest, consider.

So according to his comments, so I'll go see the stats of unilend page simply and see if the person tells cracks or bad interpreter, you never know.

 

Statistical bias

Note for the rest I'll voluntarily take recovery = 0% which is not true, in general you cover some of your money in 2 years.

Little important information, to look at the definition of default, especially the when because it changes everything in the suite of calculations:

• When the company is liquidated (in which case the default rate is widely under-estimated)?
• or if there is a delay of more than 30 days?

In addition it is possible that a company is counted twice, which would make these completely false statistics.

 

Anyway back to the calculation

 

• 12 refunded in their entirety
• 232 without refund to date incident
• 10 in receivership (8 companies)
• 2 in receivership
• 2 in the backup procedure
• 11 in recovery (2 consecutive terms unpaid) (8 companies)
• 2 late (less than 30 days)

then (10 in liquidation + 2redressement + 2en backup + 11recouvrement + 2retard) /(12+232+10+2+2+11+2) = 9, 96% of delays + flaws, that's high, really high

NB we do not know how there are percentage of recovery in the money…

Unilend takes as default 5,86% rate: sum of capital in arrears and the capital remaining due from companies in liquidation / sum of capital remaining due of all the loans on Unilend what is wrong or right, the stats we can do what we want.

With the calculation of unilend, it should be necessary to invest more in the big projets(vue que l'on parle en pourcentage sur deles de sommes et non sur le nombre de projets) to have this portfolio here… What is not advised by unilend. https://www.unilend.fr/comment-repartir-SES-Prets cf

It is important to reduce your risk of:

• do not pay more money to big projects to small
• spread your loans on a large number of companies

 

 

However: The calculation of unilend is neither right nor wrong, it's just different. Suddenly the two calculations, mine and unilend produce different results because they show different things.

 Editor's note I got responses from unilend and I think I did too much statistical bias by taking that delay = no final repayment, which made a loss of almost 1 out of 10 companies (not completely because it is rarely no refund to the first deadline), certainly 1entreprise on 10 to a problem (not outrageous either), but this does not mean that you will be a loser.

The calculation of 1/10 gives the number of companies experiencing a problem any 5,86% shows the sums lost or assessed on the totalities of ready money.

Does it make dressing windows (dress the bride), IE present accounts in a better light? No.

Personally

Personally I'm still at zero but good in "Number of companies to which you have loaned" I 25. This result thanks to my strategy.

In the event of recovery:

If ever the company had to be liquidated, assets will be used to pay creditors. But beware, the employees, the Public Treasury and Urssaf are priority…

What rate do you need to compensate for

• The assumption that all Dan delay is a no refund (my first with default rate = 9.96.

For such a default rate 10% according to my table (in the guide of crowdfunding or 3-choses-qui-font-diminuer-le-rendement-en-crowdfunding) then at least a return on other investments of more than 12% to 0 if there is no tax. Shit unilend offers maximum of 10.

Then there's rotten projects? According to my calculation, Yes, but actually after the answer of unilend this calculation is so simplified that it is actually wrong.

In the end my calculation shows only 1 out of 10 projects to meet a delay or defect.

• Second hypothesis, the calculation of unilend

However with the rate of unilend, lending the capital averaged a little more that the default rate is enough to earn money (tax Watch).

 

 

I have asked for explanations directly to Unilend

Note that I don't have links partners, sponsorship offer, or whatever it is with unilend. So, I have no special interest.

 

Hello
following the passage of your site in doubtful on the famous netbusinessrating I wanted to do one article but according to your statistics 12 refunded in their entirety
232 without refund to date incident
10 in receivership (8 companies)
2 in receivership
2 in the backup procedure
11 in recovery (2 consecutive terms unpaid) (8 companies)
2 late (less than 30 days)

then (10 in liquidation + 2redressement + 2en backup + 11recouvrement + 2retard) / 232 = 12, 5% delay + defects, it is high, really high.

To compensate for other investments should give more than 14% to the ladle and your site offers only 10% maximum.

What is your point of view? Your solutions? Did you change method? You can now invest in projects?

 

 

Editor's Note: yes I am wrong in the percentage, I haven't used 271, Yes, perhaps that my statistics are false

 

 

Response of unilend from 09/02/2016

You take assumption that the defects entail a systematic loss of 100% of the capital ready, including already refunded.

Editor's note actually and I specified and unilend to perfectly right, it is a statistical bias, what I concede.

However none of our projects has been in default before the regulation of his first term and the capital as well as interest, reimbursed to the lenders they are definitively acquired. Also, depending on the type of problem encountered, the impact on payments is different.

Late payment is considered to be a problem, while it is mainly incidents regularized by borrowers who then resume the normal course of their refunds.

Ed Yes indeed in those circumstances the default rate down compared to my calculation, and probably significantly

As you indicate in your article, a recovery project is also part of remaining principal due and, as previously mentioned, the collection does not imply a loss of existing capital.

Editor's note actually, at bondora 20% of the capital is recovered on average. At unilend no idea more bondora made the loan individual and company unilend, carrots and potatoes, incomparable.

To complete the Exchange, the details of the calculation of the internal rate of return (IRR) of the portfolio of lenders is to this page of our site internet https://www.unilend.fr/la-performance-de-vos-prets. In fact, we encourage lenders to allocate their loans on a large number of companies in order to reduce the risk.

Editor's Note: except my mistake you then still pay more to the big project for the specified performance.

As regular readers of your site, we find a pity that your last very catchy title, leaving a doubt on the honesty of Unilend isn't at the level of the quality of the rest of your items.

Good note I can't blame unilend, I must say that I have a little early.

 

Second point to inform, update rates

Until now, you could set rates of interest between 4 and 10%, regardless of the score and the repayment period of the projects to which you pay. This range is now refined according to the length of the loan and the confidence score Unilend.

Bad because:

well for the minimum rate, the maximum rate declined further, off unilend even with 10% is not profitable except excellent selection. The range would have the ride and not only decrease for the maximum rate. CF see answer unilend

But

Well anyway the 10% are never achieved (except at the beginning of the platform) which does not change much.

After investors put too low auction without taking account of risk + time which is also bad and unilend to enhance this.

Conclusion:

diversify without knowing what you are doing is a mistake, that's why I have 0 default. I put my money in good projects + I stop if the risk /rendement is bad.

 

So the more you diversify more you reach the average portfolio that almost 10% of default and is systematically losers. Conversely if you don't diversify you can win big or lose everything.

Good on the default rate, I'm not surprised that it is far superior to what is advertised.

 

Following the response to unilend, it must be concluded that my analysis was too bias and that it is wrong. The only thing that we would of conclude it is that a company of 10 approximately to a problem (nothing wrong).

Unilend rest of the blow.