ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161 
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 6, 2017 22:18:51 GMT
Valuation
We use a number of highly rated independent firms to value security properties. Each firm will be a specialist in the region where the property is located. The firm will use a RICS registered valuer who is able to carry out a full red book valuation. They will also have significant PI cover.
For development loans we appoint an Independent Monitoring Surveyor (IMS), who will certify build costs and satisfactory progress of the development, then monitors progress of a development finance project. Drawdowns from the loan will be made based on the IMS interim reports.
No problems there then with Late or Defaulted Loans, the Valuations and LTVs from such professional handling should be spot on, so you'll all lose nought. 
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Dec 6, 2017 22:22:48 GMT
Valuation
We use a number of highly rated independent firms to value security properties. Each firm will be a specialist in the region where the property is located. The firm will use a RICS registered valuer who is able to carry out a full red book valuation. They will also have significant PI cover.
For development loans we appoint an Independent Monitoring Surveyor (IMS), who will certify build costs and satisfactory progress of the development, then monitors progress of a development finance project. Drawdowns from the loan will be made based on the IMS interim reports.
No problems there then with Late or Defaulted Loans, the Valuations and LTVs from such professional handling should be spot on, so you'll all lose nought. No investor has lost a penny yet 
|
|
keith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 118
Likes: 72
|
Post by keith on Dec 7, 2017 7:45:56 GMT
What could possibly go wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Dec 7, 2017 9:08:31 GMT
Nothing so far, of course all valuations have proved accurate and Liz says not a penny lost  |
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 7, 2017 9:23:23 GMT
Nothing so far, of course all valuations have proved accurate and Liz says not a penny lost ⛄️ also says it's snowing 
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 332
|
Post by zlb on Dec 7, 2017 15:07:41 GMT
Doesn't bode well - wonder whether L can make a statement about it....
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Dec 7, 2017 15:12:36 GMT
Nothing so far, of course all valuations have proved accurate and Liz says not a penny lost ⛄️ also says it's snowing It's always snowing somewhere in the world It will be interesting to watch how Lendy deals with the inevitable loss of capital and how much will be lost. Also, how will borrowers react to the loss of capital. Will they still lend on the platform? Then again Lendy tells us the PF is "healthy" and we may all end up with egg on our faces!
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Dec 7, 2017 19:20:10 GMT
It will be interesting to watch how Lendy deals with the inevitable loss of capital and how much will be lost. Also, how will borrowers react to the loss of capital. Will they still lend on the platform? Then again Lendy tells us the PF is "healthy" and we may all end up with egg on our faces!I fear not  The PF wasn't so bursting with health that Lendy felt comfortable dipping in to it to top up the capital shortfall after the sale of PBL056, let alone the missing interest (whether vanilla accrued or 'Brucie-Bonus') a couple of weeks back. Will be interesting to see what the update for PBL056 is tomorrow - assuming there is one (I presuming there should be as it is still a 'live', if defaulted, loan). Lenders in loans that been shuffled out of the way into the 'Repaid' section but still outstanding interest don't appear to get any updates. I would sincerely hope that the PF is not usually used to pay out accrued interest of any variety, on any loan. I appreciate it's use so far is unclear, and although it doesn't explicitly state such, I would hope it would only be used for capital payments. If they are still pursuing other recovery avenues with this or any loan then it won't have got to the point of having to decide about or make a PF payout anyway.
|
|
blueninja
Member of DD Central
Posts: 79 
Likes: 48
|
Post by blueninja on Dec 7, 2017 21:03:36 GMT
I fear not The PF wasn't so bursting with health that Lendy felt comfortable dipping in to it to top up the capital shortfall after the sale of PBL056, let alone the missing interest (whether vanilla accrued or 'Brucie-Bonus') a couple of weeks back. Will be interesting to see what the update for PBL056 is tomorrow - assuming there is one (I presuming there should be as it is still a 'live', if defaulted, loan). Lenders in loans that been shuffled out of the way into the 'Repaid' section but still outstanding interest don't appear to get any updates. I would sincerely hope that the PF is not usually used to pay out accrued interest of any variety, on any loan. I appreciate it's use so far is unclear, and although it doesn't explicitly state such, I would hope it would only be used for capital payments. If they are still pursuing other recovery avenues with this or any loan then it won't have got to the point of having to decide about or make a PF payout anyway. Didn't the Garden Centre payout fully including interest? I think from memory it was the first loan where the sale of the asset was less that the capital loaned.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Dec 7, 2017 22:30:48 GMT
I would sincerely hope that the PF is not usually used to pay out accrued interest of any variety, on any loan. I appreciate it's use so far is unclear, and although it doesn't explicitly state such, I would hope it would only be used for capital payments. If they are still pursuing other recovery avenues with this or any loan then it won't have got to the point of having to decide about or make a PF payout anyway. Didn't the Garden Centre payout fully including interest? I think from memory it was the first loan where the sale of the asset was less that the capital loaned. Yes, I had that in mind when I posted, hence my (emphasised above) words. I wasn't in it and it was sometime ago, but iirc whilst investors capital and interest was returned in full, it was never totally clear about the amounts or sources of funds used to achieve that, although I might have that wrong. Also I think that's when they stopped publishing figures for the amount in the PF on their website.
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 8, 2017 3:46:12 GMT
Valuation
We use a number of highly rated independent firms to value security properties. Each firm will be a specialist in the region where the property is located. The firm will use a RICS registered valuer who is able to carry out a full red book valuation. They will also have significant PI cover.
For development loans we appoint an Independent Monitoring Surveyor (IMS), who will certify build costs and satisfactory progress of the development, then monitors progress of a development finance project. Drawdowns from the loan will be made based on the IMS interim reports.
No problems there then with Late or Defaulted Loans, the Valuations and LTVs from such professional handling should be spot on, so you'll all lose nought. (my bold). If I may could I resurrect this link from a recent post and throw the following question(s) into the discussion?: 'Could this ruling impact on any p2p platforms (not just Lendy) ability to call upon the PI cover should any irregularities be suspected in a RICS valuation report, is the ruling relevant to us?' www.financialreporter.co.uk/legal/lenders-dealt-a-blow-as-supreme-court-overturns-negligent-valuations-decision.htmlFrom that article and the ruling it refers to, there is absolutely no decree (or simply ruling) which would suggest that the ability to call upon a PI cover by Lender(s) has been affected. In fact, that ruling in the article you point to has upholded just that. It has upholded the ability for the Lender to claim PI cover where it was duely applicable. To be clear, the appeal was against the fact that the original ruling affected both the original loan (first loan) AND the top up loan (second loan). While both loans' valuation were made by the same party and also underwritten by the same insurer, the original loan (first loan) was already redeemed by the Lender. This is why the ruling established that the insurer should only pay against the loss of the Top-up loan (second loan). Hope that makes it clearer, and lenders can go back to bed with ease ;-) (I won't as I have loans in both DFL001 and DFL002 .. I'm such a mug)
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Dec 8, 2017 9:35:07 GMT
I would sincerely hope that the PF is not usually used to pay out accrued interest of any variety, on any loan. I appreciate it's use so far is unclear, and although it doesn't explicitly state such, I would hope it would only be used for capital payments. If they are still pursuing other recovery avenues with this or any loan then it won't have got to the point of having to decide about or make a PF payout anyway. I agree with capital only, but it's the change in approach that's telling. Previously Lendy have paid out Capital and Accrued Interest whilst still pursuing options. You may recall a very brief period back in late ..............There were also some 'historic' figures as to how much had been paid out from the PF: 25/07/2017 PBL067 £220,000 25/07/2017 PBL066 £120,000 28/02/2017 PBL020 £600,000 The true deficit on PBL 020 was more like £1million and as the loan was under the old terms and conditions where Lendy was principal to both lender and borrower thay had no option but to pay accrued interest. The timing was more explicit insomuch as they had to do it when the security was realised. This brings to mind two questions, 1 Why the provision fund was used at all on PBL 020 as it was Lendy's own liability? 2 On PBL056 which is also under the same terms and conditions and the security has been realised why do the lenders have to wait for other avenues of recovery to be persued? The terms are explicit borrowers can now sue Lendy for the shortfall (I doubt anyone will because the figures are not large enough)
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 8, 2017 10:45:17 GMT
This brings to mind two questions, 1 Why the provision fund was used at all on PBL 020 as it was Lendy's own liability? 2 On PBL056 which is also under the same terms and conditions and the security has been realised why do the lenders have to wait for other avenues of recovery to be persued? The terms are explicit borrowers can now sue Lendy for the shortfall (I doubt anyone will because the figures are not large enough) The Provision Fund existed long before the decision to change the T&Cs to remove Lendy's role as "middle-man". IMO, it is fanciful to believe that Lendy are legally liable for all capital and interest under the "old T&Cs"; if that were so, why was the PF there at all? That said, I think it rather likely that Lendy, for commercial / reputational reasons, will ensure their lenders don't lose any capital on any "old T&Cs" loan. They may well decide eventually to cover shortfalls in accrued interest as well (when and if other avenues for recovery are exhausted) simply because the sums involved in those loans don't warrant the grief.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Dec 8, 2017 17:41:09 GMT
This brings to mind two questions, 1 Why the provision fund was used at all on PBL 020 as it was Lendy's own liability? 2 On PBL056 which is also under the same terms and conditions and the security has been realised why do the lenders have to wait for other avenues of recovery to be persued? The terms are explicit borrowers can now sue Lendy for the shortfall (I doubt anyone will because the figures are not large enough) The Provision Fund existed long before the decision to change the T&Cs to remove Lendy's role as "middle-man". IMO, it in fanciful to believe that Lendy are legally liable for all capital and interest under the "old T&Cs"; if that were so, why was the PF there at all? That said, I think it rather likely that Lendy, for commercial / reputational reasons, will ensure their lenders don't lose any capital on any "old T&Cs" loan. They may well decide eventually to cover shortfalls in accrued interest as well (when and if other avenues for recovery are exhausted) simply because the sums involved in those loans don't warrant the grief. On 'old terms' (non pure P2P loans), Lenders lent to LY and not the borrower. Therefore if LY are solvent ought it not to be the case that they are liable for paying lenders back in full and any losses are suffered by them and not the lenders? If you lend £ to someone (LY in this case) and they don't pay you back, you can usually take action against them to recover your monies - but you can't get blood out of a stone. I assume a 'legal beagle' forum member considered this point and LY have a get out clause and weren't liable to repay investors in full at the end of the contractual terms of all the old t&c loans. Is there a copy of the old terms and conditions on this forum?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 8, 2017 18:08:29 GMT
I assume a 'legal beagle' forum member considered this point and LY have a get out clause and weren't liable to repay investors in full at the end of the contractual terms of all the old t&c loans. Is there a copy of the old terms and conditions on this forum?Yup, there's a link on ilmoro 's invaluable reference thread to a copy of the old T&Cs here. Although they were clearly drafted with SavingStream's original pawn-style lending model in mind, clauses 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 make it clear that lenders are on the hook for any shortfall. (crossed with MONEY)
|
|
