|
|
Post by longjohn on Sept 9, 2014 13:53:52 GMT
Interesting error on loan 7644. With 90 minutes to go I noticed that the minimum rate is just 6% which is ok for an A+ loan. This, however, is a C rated loan that ought to have a minimum of 10.2%
There are a lot of auto bids at the lower rates so I'm guessing that FC will have to pull this one and reissue it.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by thehappy1nvestor on Sept 9, 2014 14:06:39 GMT
Just been on the phone to FC - seems to have slipped under the radar! Was told it's a "technical error" in the underwriting dept and will be pulled, and relisted as you say.
|
|
|
|
Post by longjohn on Sept 9, 2014 14:13:44 GMT
Well done for phoning. I sent FC an email when I discovered it.
John
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548 
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Sept 9, 2014 14:51:42 GMT
Just been on the phone to FC - seems to have slipped under the radar! Was told it's a "technical error" in the underwriting dept and will be pulled, and relisted as you say. One wonders what, in FC-speak, is the difference between a "technical error" and an "egregious cock-up" - presumably the latter involves inconvenience or actual loss to FC themselves, the former when it merely affects their customers.
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 499
Likes: 187
|
Post by baz657 on Sept 9, 2014 15:41:29 GMT
It got pulled with about a half hour to run. I wonder what would have happened if it went on to complete. The question was asked at 9.03 this morning in the Q & A's
it then took over six hours to pull it!
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Sept 9, 2014 17:31:05 GMT
Again, this is in the category of "How is the system able to let that happen?" If the risk band is set to "C", then the default rate (3.3%) and the minimum bid rates (10.2%) should be locked to that as a unit. There shouldn't be a facility for that accident to happen. Another one (7740) fell off due to "Error in listing" ... also to be relisted shortly and inflate the weekly turnover figures  |
|
|
|
Post by thehappy1nvestor on Sept 9, 2014 17:54:04 GMT
Without wanting to blow my own trumpet too loudly, it got pulled 30min after I called them and got someone to check. Seems FC's reading of the Q&As is not exactly up-to-date!
I think for "technical error", read "no cross-checking of data input".
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 9, 2014 18:43:57 GMT
7588, a wholesaler who wanted some racking and a fork-lift, went right through the auction last week as property investment secured on property. I noticed it a bit before the close, and it had not been pulled despite a question asking on what property it was secured - they had none and v little fixed assets. The mistake must have been found after the close, because it is not in the loan book. Now re-listed correctly as 7710, after wasting a week. Must stress there is nothing wrong with the loan request by this company, who must have been unhappy with this quality failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 9, 2014 19:31:50 GMT
Yep, you could call FC 'slow learners' but that would incorrectly imply SOME learning, which doesn't appear to be the case. The same types of problems come round every week or so. Even at 10 or 20 loans a day, you'd expect some level of QC. Of course what we see may be the tip of a very grizzly iceberg, maybe someone is actually catching 90% of the errors. 8<.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Sept 10, 2014 10:55:34 GMT
Re-posted as a A+ loan, with a Zero Credit Rating. I was dubious about bidding on it as a C but tempted by the likely 14% rate. As an A+ I think I'll pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by longjohn on Sept 10, 2014 11:38:30 GMT
I'll also skip this one as an A+. I was expecting it to be reissued as a C again in light of the current zero credit rating.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 10, 2014 15:49:51 GMT
But the company claim the zero is an error ... how can you doubt their word?!?!?! Oh wait, you loaned money to a certain Welsh scrap dealer .. hmm .. OK. 8>.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Sept 10, 2014 17:41:55 GMT
7588, a wholesaler who wanted some racking and a fork-lift, went right through the auction last week as property investment secured on property. I noticed it a bit before the close, and it had not been pulled despite a question asking on what property it was secured - they had none and v little fixed assets. The mistake must have been found after the close, because it is not in the loan book. Now re-listed correctly as 7710, after wasting a week. Must stress there is nothing wrong with the loan request by this company, who must have been unhappy with this quality failure. Yes it was rejected after close. "Please note: This loan is being relisted as the security is being re-clarified. Thanks, FC. " Re clarified? From what you are saying, it sounds more like "We are trying to work out what made us hallucinate property security" 
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Sept 10, 2014 17:44:29 GMT
But the company claim the zero is an error ... how can you doubt their word?!?!?! They also say that FC are aware of this error and "find it frustrating". Wouldn't it be good if FC acknowledged this statement, on their behalf, as being true! If it is a display error, again, it's pretty damning for companies trying to borrow. "Hey, don't lend to them, FC's independent credit check shows their status as junk"
|
|
|
|
Post by longjohn on Sept 17, 2014 8:58:36 GMT
With an hour to go the replacement loan 7762 is undergoing a bidding frenzy. Some people are blinded by the 12.1% available and can't (or won't) see the 0 credit rating.
John
|
|
