chrisf
Member of DD Central
Posts: 224 
Likes: 67
|
Post by chrisf on Jul 18, 2014 17:21:51 GMT
This is a bit of a strange one, 6896 closed at the end of its natural life yesterday early evening at average 10.3, top 11.7 (B rated), it hasn't turned down or taken up the money yet, so still appears in My Bids. However, now it has reappeared as 7022, asking for slightly more money (5.5% more) but is otherwise identical. If this means they aren't taking up the first auction offer, then surely my money shouldn't still be tied up there? Or do they want the money from both auctions? If they do, it answers another question I have been wondering about: Can a company who want 150K ask for 75K one week and then another 75K the next week? They'd get a significantly lower rate if they did that, which is why I thought it must not be allowed.
|
|
chrisf
Member of DD Central
Posts: 224
Likes: 67
|
Post by chrisf on Jul 18, 2014 17:41:01 GMT
As a spot of answering-my-own-question, I have just seen this in the 7022 Q+A:
Q. 18 Jul 2014 17:34 - FC Comment: A loan request for this company was previously listed on the Funding Circle platform. This auction was cancelled due to the fact that the loan was listed with the incorrect amount. Thanks FC
But actually 6896 doesn't seem to have been cancelled yet. Anyway, if you try to borrow some money on FC and don't like the rate you get, don't worry, simply re-list the next week but add a fiver to the amount.
|
|
ton27
Member of DD Central
Posts: 431
Likes: 267
|
Post by ton27 on Jul 18, 2014 21:36:44 GMT
When you see and are involved (by bidding) in situations like this it becomes quite difficult to have confidence in anything that FC do.
If they say the bid is cancelled then cancel it and return our money - and explain to us how such a thing can happen!
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 499
Likes: 187
|
Post by baz657 on Jul 19, 2014 1:05:32 GMT
... or maybe they forgot the FC fees (and any other expenses) and have now added them to the finance package.
... or they rushed into the loan application and realised they needed a bit more.
Either of which would start my internal warning bells ringing.
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Jul 19, 2014 8:38:11 GMT
I remember 6896, because the Borrower was (and is) Anonymous : so at the outset of the auction I asked (perfectly politely) why the borrower felt the need to remain anonymous, and (since they were/are effectively seeking the loan for growth - or to 'take the company to the next level', wherever that is ) what numbers they were predicting for the next FY. Not a peep out of them by the end of the auction, so they didn't get my money.
I accept that some borrowers (very few) have a genuine need to remain anonymous, but this didn't feel like one - and since they couldn't be a***ed to reply, I lost interest.
I sincerely hope the rate is worse this time!
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 19, 2014 12:35:11 GMT
There is actually a comment on 6896 saying it will be re-listed imminently with a higher amount. They obviously just failed to cancel the original auction and return the tied-up funds.... SNAFU!
Luckily I'd fallen out of 6896 just before it got put into the current state ('ended' I guess, since there is no option of bidding, but not yet completely wiped).
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Jul 25, 2014 16:41:41 GMT
The rerun (7022) has just ended. Not surprisingly, the borrower's rate is worse than last time : average 10.7%, max 11.9%. How to run an auction - NOT!
I wonder if the borrower will accept?
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Aug 1, 2014 19:24:41 GMT
Surprise, surprise! 7022 has been rejected (after keeping bidders waiting the full 7 days after auction close). Strangely, shortly before the deadline, FC amended the status on the Repayments tab to show "pre-agreement" (still showing), a condition which I previously took to mean that the borrower has agreed to accept in principal and that only the completion of paperwork remains. Apparently I was mistaken - or is this just another FC cock-up?
|
|
