adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,899
Likes: 4,131
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 4, 2020 10:39:13 GMT
not convinced - heard a trader's forecast yesterday - of course only his opinion but he said now is only a time for those with very big pockets and know what they are doing. Why because if the US is hit very badly by Covid-19 it will take the global economy down. The next US non-farm payroll results are expected to be very bad and if worse than expected a mega crash is on the cards.
I am not a big player - I could be but I like to sleep at nights so I put my money into what were supposed to be asset backed securities- more like a Micky mouse con job if you ask me - I am really concerned about this 5% FS fee and where the money will end up.
This is a total shambles no matter how many of us try to pretend it isn't...
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Apr 4, 2020 15:18:54 GMT
i had 500 invested. took a screen copy back in nov19 and it showed I was also owed 107 in interest. Fast forward to today, it shows 172.96 returned with zero interest. Believe me when I say you are extremely lucky you only invested a monkey in it
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Nov 14, 2020 10:31:59 GMT
Crowd Property have an upcoming loan on 17th November for £970k in Abergele.
Not sure if it is the ex FS site, but the CP email flyer today mentions permission for 47 houses, which sounds familiar.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Nov 14, 2020 10:55:58 GMT
It is definitely the same property, now valued at 1.1M more than the administrators sold it for. Does anybody know who bought this property, CP details are not available yet? Is it the FS borrower or anybody related to him? I'm not investing in this with CP either way ! I'm trusting that CP know the full background to this fiasco and how FS lenders were taken to the cleaners, somebody let them know!
Edit: And well done to our administrators, fighting hard in our corner. Can you just clarify that we are your clients and not anyone else.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,908
Likes: 11,135
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 14, 2020 11:02:44 GMT
It is definitely the same property, ab*rgele, gainsb****** reference not surprisingly dropped, now valued at 900k more than the administrators sold it for. Does anybody know who bought this property, CP details are not available yet? Is it the FS borrower or anybody related to him? I'm not investing in this with CP either way ! I'm trusting that CP know the full background to this fiasco and how FS borrowers were taken to the cleaners, somebody let them know!
Details in DD Cent but yes bought by a company owned & controlled by the same bloke. Remember not the only FS loan he was involved in that went pear shaped.
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 14, 2020 11:13:04 GMT
I notice that some forum Users are giving the property name, town, and even nation. Please don't id assets.
I've redacted these now, just use Gainsb****** or similar.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Nov 14, 2020 18:08:57 GMT
Looking at the big picture for a moment, how was this borrower able to appoint his own preferred administrators and therefore their preferred receivers when FS had a first charge security on the loan property ? I don't understand it, was FS powerless or useless ? Legally what's to stop him doing exactly the same with Crowdproperty, I'm not being dramatic that's a serious question?
What about any loan out there ? Is it that easy ? Probably ? I've watched both seasons of Dirty Money so maybe I'm just sensitive.
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Nov 16, 2020 10:56:12 GMT
More details of the proposed CP loan are available on DD central.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,660
Likes: 2,454
|
Post by iRobot on Nov 16, 2020 13:03:13 GMT
From CP's blurb: Perhaps it should be noted that the entire agreed facility of £3.2m had been passed to the the Borrower by Nov 2018. That sum comprised of £1.3m to refinance away from an earlier lender, £1.4m dev costs and £0.5m in interest and fees *. This should have been sufficient - based on the costings provided by the borrower - to complete the development and even factored in 18mths interest and fees. ( * - question for Mucho P2P / FSAG / the CC to consider: did FS ever retain monies such as the £0.5m mentioned above? If they didn't and the £0.5m was passed on to the Borrower, then to me that just increases my doubt's as to the Borrower's abilities to land a project safely and to what they did with the funds provided.) Somehow though, the project still requires a further £600k to complete the development works. This suggest to me two things: 1) that the Borrower was somewhat errant in their ability to accurately forecast their development funding demands on this project by at least 40% - and possibly double that, if the £0.5m also went their way - which is no small margin of error 2) that the Borrower was - for whatever reason - utilising funds lent again this project elsewhere, resulting in a shortfall and the current situation. Also worth clarifying, in my opinion, that it was the Borrower himself who appointed administrators in April 2019 - some 6 months after the full amount of the agreed £3.2m finance funding had been made available to them. None of the above is meant to be a defence of FundingSecure. Indeed it hints of further evidence that suitable controls weren't in place on dev loans to ensure funds ended up being deployed against what they were lent for. What it is meant to be is a reflection that, as ever with P2P loan proposals, what is presented on the surface rarely reflects the full story.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Nov 16, 2020 13:20:51 GMT
From CP's blurb: Perhaps it should be noted that the entire agreed facility of £3.2m had been passed to the the Borrower by Nov 2018. That sum comprised of £1.3m to refinance away from an earlier lender, £1.4m dev costs and £0.5m in interest and fees *. This should have been sufficient - based on the costings provided by the borrower - to complete the development and even factored in 18mths interest and fees. ( * - question for Mucho P2P / FSAG / the CC to consider: did FS ever retain monies such as the £0.5m mentioned above? If they didn't and the £0.5m was passed on to the Borrower, then to me that just increases my doubt's as to the Borrower's abilities to land a project safely and to what they did with the funds provided.) Somehow though, the project still requires a further £600k to complete the development works. This suggest to me two things: 1) that the Borrower was somewhat errant in their ability to accurately forecast their development funding demands on this project by at least 40% - and possibly double that, if the £0.5m also went their way - which is no small margin of error 2) that the Borrower was - for whatever reason - utilising funds lent again this project elsewhere, resulting in a shortfall and the current situation. Also worth clarifying, in my opinion, that it was the Borrower himself who appointed administrators in April 2019 - some 6 months after the full amount of the agreed £3.2m finance funding had been made available to them. None of the above is meant to be a defence of FundingSecure. Indeed it hints of further evidence that suitable controls weren't in place on dev loans to ensure funds ended up being deployed against what they were lent for. What it is meant to be is a reflection that, as ever with P2P loan proposals, what is presented on the surface rarely reflects the full story. Due to when the loan was made, I do not know if the 0.5m was retained or not. I am only aware of recent events, historic events take considerable poking about to discover what actually happened. This is however a loan that I shall be paying particular attention to at any future CC meetings.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,908
Likes: 11,135
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 16, 2020 13:42:01 GMT
iRobot the assumption of course is that FS had passed on the full loan to the borrower. The other points I note No reference to at least one of the failed FS projects it seems (ROS - 2 properties) perhaps as the director is lacking his middle name on the CH entry Were all funds on the other projects also fully advanced so the viability of those projects was also not undermined by FS? The borrower principal has also re-acquired the other Abergele property which doesnt appear to be referenced in the CP info The borrower principal appears to be involved in another care home project in Grantham with charges still extant (F***T**e) The borrower principal appears to have some associations with another serial P2P failure, notably as director of a borrower on AC Outstanding charges on another of his successful projects and no evidence of a successful exit - only 2 sales obvious from the 9 plots
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Nov 16, 2020 13:47:32 GMT
"This is however a loan that I shall be paying particular attention to at any future CC meetings." Glad to hear it..Ive no doubt I wasn't alone in getting mugged on this loan but I "lost" over £5K ..and what was the purported LTV ?
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 452
|
Post by aj on Nov 17, 2020 11:40:28 GMT
now valued at 1.1M more than the administrators sold it for.
This is the real problem with P2P lending. There is a real world value available for this site because it has just sold on the open market. How can a platform be allowed to get away with attaching a new fantasy value to it?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Nov 17, 2020 12:40:05 GMT
now valued at 1.1M more than the administrators sold it for.
This is the real problem with P2P lending. There is a real world value available for this site because it has just sold on the open market. How can a platform be allowed to get away with attaching a new fantasy value to it? Maybe because the original purchaser did not hand over any of the documents to the administrators when they had to force a sale, that would reduce its value somewhat. When the borrower subsequently repurchased it, he had all the documents and warranties, thereby instantly increasing its value? Who knows............More of a question, how was he able to repurchase the property, if the administrators have not managed to extract funds from him for the lenders shortfall? ?
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 452
|
Post by aj on Nov 17, 2020 13:56:51 GMT
This is the real problem with P2P lending. There is a real world value available for this site because it has just sold on the open market. How can a platform be allowed to get away with attaching a new fantasy value to it? Maybe because the original purchaser did not hand over any of the documents to the administrators when they had to force a sale, that would reduce its value somewhat. When the borrower subsequently repurchased it, he had all the documents and warranties, thereby instantly increasing its value? Who knows............More of a question, how was he able to repurchase the property, if the administrators have not managed to extract funds from him for the lenders shortfall? ? How he was able to repurchase is unfortunately a simple one. 1. A hypothetical borrower, 'Dodgy Dave' sets up two limited liability companies 'Dodgy Daves Builders' and 'Dodgy Daves Consulting'. 2. 'Dodgy Dave's builders' borrows £1M secured against an overvalued asset. 3. 'Dodgy Daves builders' pays 'Dodgy Daves consulting' £0.99M for 'services' and promptly files for insolvency as there is no cash left. 4. The overvalued asset is repossesed and put up for sale for a knock down price of £0.5M. 5. 'Dodgy daves consulting' is now free to re buy the site at a knock down price or just keep the cash. As the initial limited liability company is now insolvent, there is no further avenue for recovery. If the site was given an accurate valuation of £0.5M this whole con would fall apart.
|
|