|
|
Post by transo on Jul 7, 2014 21:21:32 GMT
There haven't been many of these lately, but there's one up at the moment, 6791. The profile is vague on what "equipment" the loan is being used for, and there's no report on the financial details page, but the asset is listed as "Specific asset security - asset owned". Someone's just asked FC for the info. Anyone fancy speculating on whether the loan will actually just be pulled (and relisted in unsecured form) or whether the FC actually have useful information about the asset that they should be about to buy  ? |
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 8, 2014 6:29:21 GMT
Isn't that one of the ones offered as, but not wanted as, a 'whole loan'? (Judging by the out of sequence loan number). Given the dearth of loans, and the smallish size, it had no trouble getting funded anyway.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,053 
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Jul 8, 2014 17:44:28 GMT
There haven't been many of these lately... And of those there have been, I think two (6567, 6619), went up in smoke after sitting around in the deciding phase. Getting hard to acquire new "secured" ones when they're mostly not being offered/taken up.
|
|
|
|
Post by transo on Jul 9, 2014 12:46:45 GMT
FC have responded to the query I e-mailed them. Apparently it's the omnipresent "administrative error", and the loan will be de-listed and re-listed with the correct status (no asset security). FC really need to get better at this - not only does this annoy lenders but I can't imagine borrowers who've been sold an efficient ~7-day process will be too keen if it takes twice that long because it has to get re-listed to cope with an FC mistake.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Jul 9, 2014 17:44:44 GMT
FC have responded to the query I e-mailed them. Apparently it's the omnipresent "administrative error", and the loan will be de-listed and re-listed with the correct status (no asset security). FC really need to get better at this - not only does this annoy lenders but I can't imagine borrowers who've been sold an efficient ~7-day process will be too keen if it takes twice that long because it has to get re-listed to cope with an FC mistake. Ah, I see. So that's another "secured loan" that turns out to not be secured at all. Not the first time. Add that to various loans that have "Please Note: While this loan is listed as not secured, it is in fact secured due to ..." I wonder how many of these loans that are created (just to be removed and relisted) count toward the inflated "look how much activity we have going on" statistics used in the blog/update emails. One of the recent loans showed up with the "you are already lending to this business" icon. I normally wouldn't have bid. However, I checked -- the "existing FC loan" which I am "exposed to" ... not only had I sold all my loan parts in it, but the thing had been paid back in full in 2012. The whole system seems riddled with things like that, and it makes you wonder who is checking any of this. FC swear that every loan application is checked over by multiple people. I find it's pointless reporting it, all you get is placating noises, e.g. "It's a display issue" (in that we are displaying rubbish data to mislead you, nothing to worry about), and "We are working hard on other areas of the site to improve them". Not that there is any sign that any of that is happening. Latest trick: If you wish to complain about the support you (didn't) receive, tough, you can't, because we closed the ticket. Even though the problem is unresolved and unexplained. Thanks. FC.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 17, 2014 19:41:37 GMT
Today's c*ck-ups .. 6942 & 6964. I guess the quest is 'has FC forgotten how to do QC' .. or maybe they never knew?
On a more positive note, at least they caught them before the auction ended.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Jul 18, 2014 14:59:06 GMT
What was "c*ck" about them? I didn't look at them in detail yet, but they were on my radar (Unsecured and £100k or larger) to bid on "soon" ...
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 18, 2014 15:30:35 GMT
Listing errors .. One, iirc, wrongly listed as secured, the other error undefined. I see 7010 (?) just vanished too.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jul 22, 2014 22:49:06 GMT
They’ve definitely forgotten how to do secured loans, currently offering loan ID 7051 for £200k without any security.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Jul 23, 2014 17:26:46 GMT
They’ve definitely forgotten how to do secured loans, currently offering loan ID 7051 for £200k without any security. That's one to file under "Good News! We have given ourselves even more discretion when it comes to lending out your money!" -- it is no longer a requirement for security on £150k+ loans. It's no longer a requirement to even have a strong credit history, even though FC still claim that it is something every loan has.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jul 30, 2014 17:55:12 GMT
Another FC gem has appeared on the market this afternoon.
£200k loan request, C rated, Unsecured.
£698k drop in turnover and £2,454,000 drop in profit in last financial year, the latter being connected to £(1,687,289) operating costs in the previous financial year.
Methinks someone is extracting the urine.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jul 30, 2014 18:00:23 GMT
And 7166 for £160,000.
Take a look at one of the current FK offerings where another company was refused a large enough loan a month ago for the very reason that it would make their aggregate with FC >£150K, yet FC gave them permission to borrow another few thousand on FK! (Surely undermining the "security" of the personal guarantees on the two FC loans. There is a questioner on both platforms in Q & A
edit: rephrased. another replaced "the"
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 499
Likes: 187
|
Post by baz657 on Jul 30, 2014 18:46:30 GMT
Another FC gem has appeared on the market this afternoon.
£200k loan request, C rated, Unsecured.
£698k drop in turnover and £2,454,000 drop in profit in last financial year, the latter being connected to £(1,687,289) operating costs in the previous financial year.
Methinks someone is extracting the urine.
This is scary as I was looking at similar businesses that had failed in the past, and the most memorable one in the past 10 years (2007 it was) is now owned by this company. I was going to add a few links and add a few stars here and there but I don't want to have them that must be obeyed on my case. I'll pass on this one but I'll have to be quick, save my cash for another. 
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 604
Likes: 170
|
Post by min on Jul 30, 2014 19:20:00 GMT
Another FC gem has appeared on the market this afternoon.
£200k loan request, C rated, Unsecured.
£698k drop in turnover and £2,454,000 drop in profit in last financial year, the latter being connected to £(1,687,289) operating costs in the previous financial year.
Methinks someone is extracting the urine.
This is scary as I was looking at similar businesses that had failed in the past, and the most memorable one in the past 10 years (2007 it was) is now owned by this company. I was going to add a few links and add a few stars here and there but I don't want to have them that must be obeyed on my case. I'll pass on this one but I'll have to be quick, save my cash for another. 4311 is previous loan - been downgraded as new one supposed to pay off old.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jul 31, 2014 15:50:48 GMT
I see a question on the £150,000 limit for unsecured lending has been moderated out of the Q & A on a current listing. FC said contact us or "look at FAQ". I did look at FAQ. Nothing there whatsoever, despite a statement appearing on the June 2014 blog. www.fundingcircle.com/blog/2014/06/helping-businesses-access-finance/Why the hell are FC staff so bloody minded when questions are asked about this former £150K limited on secured? Instead of repeatedly avoiding and moderating posts, JUST BLOODY WELL SAY: "THE LIMIT HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED." and put it clearly on the platform website for investors to see.  THEN PEOPLE WILL STOP ASKING THE QUESTION. SIMPLES. |
|
?
