benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,853
Likes: 1,591
|
Post by benaj on Dec 31, 2019 9:29:45 GMT
As there is not yet any actual evidence of any malfeasance on anybody’s part talk about action is very very premature. ...... I only have 3 successful recoveries in the loan book. 2223857946, actual return: 6.8% pa (240 days) 2762592648, actual return: 10% pa (301 days) 6773087634, actual return: 5.4% pa (472 days) Since there are no more "updates", it is unlikely the unredeemed (> 472 days ) will return > 13% pa. I can only pray for the best results.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Dec 31, 2019 10:35:46 GMT
Actual losses to date 0.8%. NOT even 1%
So returns overall are 11% gain not huge losses as pushed here as being expected.
So let administrators do their job to discuss possible returns with endless fantasy outcomes only upsets those for whom investment in FS is their life savings and not just a part of bigger savings so minimal effect overall.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 31, 2019 10:46:15 GMT
I import various things from China and sell by mail order - I do not touch Wish with a barge pole since my DD indicated a huge number of dissatisfied clients complaining the items are knock offs. Their business model seems to describe items as genuine and sell rubbish - not totally dissimilar to FS's business model in my book. Could I sell such items - yes- will I - would I hell as I respect my clients - hello FS! Not sure how this is relevant but FS failed to manage our money in a professional manner and IMO could have been more forthcoming on several occasions e.g. NI wind turbine where the current state of the damn thing seems to have not been entirely accurate. As for the Park Homes there is nothing to say! Considering many of us said these valuations were a joke BEFORE they were realised then that indicates to me something was not quite right at FS. As to whether crimes were committed I leave to our legal "friends" but this is a tricky area of law - what it not so tricky is that FS were ,at best, spectacularly incompetent, greedy and stupid e.g not securing proper security on several assets e.g. the Barnoldswick cottage, racing cars etc which are looking like a 100% loss to me. Also I am extremely concerned that there seem to be link between some of the directors and some of these investments - there is also the business with the related P2P company and the legal status of the loan on the Stockport property. I guess the next stage will be for the administrators to engage a forensic accountant to work out just what the hell has been going on here - wonder how much that will cost - given the fact there seems to be no contiguous database for all transfers and transactions I can't see that being a 5 minute job... also I hate to think what that will uncover although I am sure a lot of us can guess! I just can't see how anybody with any loans left with the administrators is going to get 100% of their capital plus loan interest back - the only exception would be people who were extremely lucky and had one or more few loans that recently came (or will come) good but even that is before the administration fees. Of course some people will have done OK by getting out when the going was good - like a lot of us I tried - believe me I really tried! As I said I think the recent poll which showed our expected losses says it all viz total Horlicks all round - not sure what the weighted result is but I guess 60-70% loss - whatever it ain't going to be pretty and I am sure glad I don't have £100K+ as no matter what trading strategy I used I just can't see how anything but a small loss (at best) can be avoided and that is not including the cost of our money earning 0% interest whilst frozen. Sadly I just think some big hitters are going to take a mega loss - I really hope I am wrong but just can't see it. p2pindependentforum.com/thread/15867/fs-investors-recover-outstanding-loans
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 31, 2019 12:59:09 GMT
Interesting statistic - sounds low to me so can we have the figures to prove me wrong - thanks
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Dec 31, 2019 13:11:45 GMT
I did the following exercise in April this year, when 0.62% defaults were listed by FS; makes you wonder why I invested, but luckily a small amount.
Managed to interpret FS's statistics page.
March 2019 Loans to date £283,940,212 of which £235,290,742 completed.
The remaining £48,649,470 is overdue, £39,237,300 of which there is an agreed extension, pending refinance / sale
Not sure how to interpret the £9,412,170 between the two figures above. 'Overdue but without any agreement'
Now, of the £235,290,742 completed, £20,649,257 has defaulted.
Of the £20,649,257 defaulted £4,158,758 has been recovered, £15,155,759 is funds pending & £1,334,741 is lost.
The £1,334,741 is the 0.62% said to be lost due to defaults.
The big figure of £15,155,759 said to be 'f'unds pending' is where the remaining possible defaults could be hiding & equates to 6.7%.
FS really need to make this very much clearer.
It's the £9,412,170 'overdue' & the £15,155,759 'funds pending' that need explaining.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 31, 2019 13:15:51 GMT
As there is not yet any actual evidence of any malfeasance on anybody’s part talk about action is very very premature. When we have documented actual physical losses way out-with the large margins inherent to P2P then we can actually work on what recourse is open to us. ... Until the whole process is completed there is little chance of individual action being allowed or likely to succeed. Don't overlook the other 'feasances' ... Malfeasance is the wilful and intentional action that injures a party. Misfeasance is the wilful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice. Nonfeasance is the failure to act where action is required—wilfully or in neglect. May be difficult or nigh on impossible to prove the first two; the third less so given events around Whitehaven and the art loans. That said, in proving FS were negligent it's unlikely to generate any returns to lenders given the situation the company finds itself in and 'lifting the corporate veil' to expose individual's liability is a whole different ball game. Obviously this is not formal legal advice which of course should be sought - FSAG have already made inroads in this respect with crowd-funded legal engagement. In this matter though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the advice were 'don't bother - it's simply not worth it'.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 31, 2019 14:29:02 GMT
FS really need to make this very much clearer.
It's the £9,412,170 'overdue' & the £15,155,759 'funds pending' that need explaining. thanks for wading through this - I find the "£24m+ overdue and pending " somewhat curious and the term "smoke and mirrors comes to mind"...
Clearly what matters is not only what has been written off to date but the main concern is how much of the current loan book is going to be lost - I just hate to think! I was think statements that claim under 1% lost to date somewhat disingenuous and a bit puzzled as to why it was posited in the first place.
Late lunch over - back to work - won't be retiring on my FS earnings...
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 31, 2019 14:30:06 GMT
sadly I suspect this is correct...
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 31, 2019 14:56:11 GMT
Interesting statistic - sounds low to me so can we have the figures to prove me wrong - thanks It is low; it's 0.81% Those two little stars are quite important though: " ** Calculated based on completed loans and stated before tax." It means that loan's where assets had been disposed of but weren't marked as completed (typically pending further activity wrt PG's or Valuer liability) don't figure into the equation at all, and as criston points out above, that's not a small sum being in excess of £15m. So whilst 0.81% may be accurate given the parameters within which it is calculated, it in no way bears any resemblance to reality come the final reckoning. Mind you, credit where credit is due, FS got this bit absolutely spot-on: " Historic default rates and forecasts of interest returns are not an indicator of future performance" - yup, ain't no doubting that particular pearl of wisdom! ( Godanubis: note FS don't say 'may not be'; they clearly state 'are not'.)
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Dec 31, 2019 15:19:07 GMT
OK I substituted the latest figures.
These the latest August figures which state 0.81% defaults
August 2019 Loans to date £305161869 of which £251064441 completed.
The remaining £54,097,528 is overdue, £44,293,858 of which there is an agreed extension, pending refinance / sale
Not sure how to interpret the £9,803,670 between the two figures above. 'Overdue but without any agreement'
Now, of the £251064441 completed, £23,342,608 has defaulted.
Of the £23,342,608 defaulted £7,045,519 has been recovered, £14,385,539 is funds pending & £1,911,549 is lost.
The £1,911,549 is the 0.81% said to be lost due to defaults.
The big figure of £14385539 said to be 'f'unds pending' is where the remaining possible defaults could be hiding & equates to 6.1%.
FS really needed to make this very much clearer.
It's the £9803670 'overdue' & the £14385539 'funds pending' that need explaining.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Dec 31, 2019 15:49:37 GMT
My point is the actual losses are not the 50% predictions from taking the worst ever loans and extrapolating these to represent the whole.
Even with the poster child for failure “Whitehaven “ paid back some capital. No I repeat No first charge loans was a complete failure. All returned varying degrees of return from 10-99.9% .
Again these loans were less than a few % of total loan book.
Those commenting seem to think 50% of loans including defaults ( which doesn’t mean total loss) will be losses.
Let us indulge their fantasy and say all are 100% loss. 50% pay back with interest by which time they will be 2 years old at least with 25%+ in interest so you get back 75+ of money invested.
Not 10-25%
Just wait .. Shout at the wall if it makes you feel better without making up and manipulating figures to fill your self flagellating losses and posting here.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Dec 31, 2019 16:33:37 GMT
Under any other circumstances I should have been sitting pretty.
1.5% of my portfolio in FS.
20% of loans repaid during administration.
20% of my total investment in 1559779559 (cattle) with 9% LTV.
The remaining 60% in loans ranging from 33% to 60% LTV/GLTV & well researched before investing.
Should I be looking on the bright side? Not at the moment I thinks.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 31, 2019 17:07:14 GMT
My point is the actual losses are not the 50% predictions from taking the worst ever loans and extrapolating these to represent the whole. Then make that point and stop posting irrelevant (if accurate withing the very limited constraints applied to the calculation's parameters) figures of " NOT even 1%". Everyone - including yourself - realises that isn't a representative statement of the way things are in reality; not now and certainly not once the final outcome is presented factoring in various Receiver, Agent, Legal and Administrator fees. Whitehaven was first charge and returned £13,144 out of £530,000 lent. Maybe I should have asked Santa for a new calculator, but I make that 2.48%. Even holistically adding in the interest received from the three renewals only brings the total return to 5.25%. You may wish to reconsider your " All returned varying degrees of return from 10-99.9%" statement; it's just plain wrong. Agreed, a distinction needs to be made between the total historic loanbook and the current loanbook at the point of Administration. Those who have invested with FS over the longer timeframe may well see their final returns less affected by the 'rump' of dross currently proliferating the outstanding loanbook than those who have been with FS just a couple of years or less. As you've rightly stated previously, everybody will be different. It's what frustrates about adrian77 's 'mega list' - if you focus on only the worst you can paint the picture as black as you like. It doesn't reflect the average / typical return over time. (It doesn't even reflect adrian77 's returns ) But you seem to be taking the other extreme when stating " NOT even 1%", so it should come as no surprise that you're going to get called on it. If you think more than just a few of the loans that redeem all capital will also include 25%+ interest, then forget Santa bringing me a new calculator, just get him to drop off some of what you're smoking! BTW - is that ' 75+ of money invested' before or after all costs? Sorry to quash any fantasies you may have acting out in that dodgy doggy head of yours, but there's no " self flagellating" going on here. You may not appreciate posts discussing greater losses than you'd care to consider; but you're not helping matters with forecasting (more) positive outcomes which have near-zero chances of being realised. So rather than accusing those with that view point of " making up and manipulating figures" perhaps take a step back and consider whether that viewpoint is actually a healthy dose of realism. One things for sure, between pip's 100% loss, my 55% loss and your 75%-plus return, we've pretty much got everything covered!
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 31, 2019 17:13:36 GMT
Under any other circumstances I should have been sitting pretty. 1.5% of my portfolio in FS. 20% of loans repaid during administration. 20% of my total investment in 1559779559 (cattle) with 9% LTV. The remaining 60% in loans ranging from 33% to 60% LTV/GLTV & well researched before investing. Should I be looking on the bright side? Not at the moment I thinks. No dev loans? No second charge / junior ranking loans? Should be OK. Not sure about cattle, have a habit of wandering off or dying. Probably through old age by the time this is over. Still, might be a post-Administration BBQ out of it. (Open bar courtesy of the Administrators of course! Consider it putting the Liquid into Liquidation ...
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 31, 2019 17:18:17 GMT
not sure if anybody has computed it but the loan book with problematic loans seemed to me (and I may be wrong) seems skewed towards the larger loans which is not good news
The maths are very wrong here according to my sums
invest £1000 : £500 is written off and £500 pays 13% over 2 years give 500 x 126% after 2 years = £613 so that is a LOSS of £1000 - £613 = £387 loss (38.7%) and that is before fees. In fact this 38% loss strikes me as a perfectly reasonable projection before fees.
It is not fantasy to look at the history of this loan book, added with comments from many of us who know the property and other markets and in some cases the actual assets to see anything other than a complete overall disaster is on the cards. Also not only were a lot of these valuations based on fantastical projected values but a lot of these loans are property loans and believe me local developers will have these flagged as a lemon. We are already £15m adrift and that is before the book went into meltdown. Saw a property this afternoon - fantastic old building which was "valued" at £80K here in the frozen North - but there is a problem with subsidence and I know just how expensive such buildings are to restore so I told the agent I would think about it if the price came down to £20K and that is exactly the attitude most developers will take when they look at this loan book - but hey why worry e.g. Whitehaven did not lose 100% only 97.5%!
As I said before the FS business model was stuffed - expensive short-term loans on long-term property developments was insanity for a lot of projects not least New Brighton and Formby
I know it is slightly out of date but the last loan book had £79m defaulted and this includes some real biggies and interesting ones where it looks very much to me as if FS has been had - I agree my projection of a 50% loss may well be a fantasy as the true value may well be closer to 75% as others voted in the poll... I typed this at the same time as iRobot so apologise I am repeating a lot of what he is saying (wonder what that proves..)
|
|