Pagefield & Lytham .. Unable to sell or renew and no update

I disagree, it is a trivial calculation. It's just your marginal tax rate times the accrued interest (which FS display).  That is the tax due on purchase if you are buying outside an ISA.  That doesn't require a high level of technical knowledge or programming skills.  Analysing the full SM regularly has nothing to do with working out the AER's.

I actually don't work out the AER for anything, I think it's misleading of FS to display such things, ie an AER of 21% when buying at a discount with 30 days left when minimum of 50% of loans run over term.  That is what is misleading.  

 Turning back to the issue in point, the key things for me are:-

1.  A borrower asking for a redemption statement does not mean they are about to repay and they are not obliged to.  Many borrowers regularly ask for redemption amounts just to check where they are.  Countless loans have been suspended by FS because of this and redemption does not happen. 

2.  If I want to sell a loan at a discount and someone wants to buy it in their ISA (and I believe the majority of SM purchases are done by ISA accounts) with full knowledge that a redemption statement has been requested, then we should be allowed to trade.   

Twins @ it Again 
Welendus arguably one of the most promising P2P platforms has an expected default rate of 10% and nobody thinks this is unreasonable. FS currently 7.6% is below this. FC had loans with expected 18% default rate. 

So perhaps you should change your thinking to more accurately reflect the actual default rates now we have several years of data over numerous platforms. Perhaps a median default found rate over the sector would clarify the situation and allow for realistic expectations.

I agree recoveries should be speedy and efficient.

So you keep saying but many lenders have more to invest than their ISA limits allow. Some people on here will put £20k into a single loan and will rely on selling before term to evade avoid tax, which therefore is an issue to those who can't or don't want to sell early. It's also an issue for those who are already subscribing to an IFISA elsewhere this year (mine is with AC) and are not legally eligible to have one here.

Transferring old ISAs around is a pain in the bum - especially with IFs since you have to cash out before you can transfer - and most providers will expect to be your current year provider when you open the account. In practical terms I don't think you could have established IFISAs across more than three platforms so far, even if you have six figures available in old ISAs

probably a tad higher - in fact I hate to think ..there are over £3m in loans that were activated in 2016 and not one defaulted. if we take the art loans alone that is another £2+ million which should be defaulted so that is £5m and there are many many others which are seriously late and not looking good e.g. land in Lytham St Annes  so there is another quick £2.85m...so there is £8m without even looking! 

To me a defaulted loan is one which is 1 month and and not 1 week off 3 years late as in Rishton!

Don't be concerned -  there is nothing to worry about here - just diversify and flip on the SM and relax as 20%+ income comes flooding in...

to return to the thread subject

Are these 2 loans related - I think so but got so confused trying to do my own DD.
When I am confused I am worried and believe me I am very confused.

well that is not how I would put it- more like ,as likely as Nigel Farage voting to remain in the EU!

I think the first repayment due was £400K (Lytham) which is now 9 months late and £2.85m is due within 6 weeks viz 28/03/2019

ditto Pagefield first repayment of  £171K is over 4 months late  and £1.5m due by 07.05.19

If these 2 are linked that that is £1.5M + £2.85m = £4.35m on 2 highly speculative if not problematic loans - please tell me I am wrong!

will ask FS when I get a few more details - may get an answer - you never know!

I note that Pagefield is showing at CH as having 3 charges

Feb 18 - charge with FS
Nov 18 - 2 charges with G* funding

So what's going on here ?

I think either CH is out of date or the borrower has taken a second charge on the mill
- but hang on, if FS have the first charge they would have had to agree to this?

OK it does not affect their priority on the charge but it means the second charge holders can potentially call in the loan. Also there is the tincy-wincy question of how the borrower is going to fund both the FS and G* charges.


G* is a small credit house and yet to produce its first year profit and has charges against it
- mainly in 2017 and 2018 so I wonder what sort of interest they are charging!

Well looks like Pagefield and Lytham are another interesting 2 loans here!