sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Apr 15, 2015 14:06:56 GMT
What happens if the borrower actually owns 51% of the loan as a lender and votes for the 16p settlement. That is a licence to print money. In this case £140,000 x 49% x 0.84p = £57,624 This is now my new investment strategy You might like to refine the strategy. You could hold 25% of your own loan. When the 16p offer gets rejected, up your offer until 34% of the other lenders are fed up and accept, a 40p settlement would net more. In this case £140,000 x 75% x 0.6p = £63,000 Let me know when you get to Monte Carlo.
|
|
|
Post by gaspilot on Apr 15, 2015 14:07:44 GMT
Thanks grumps. I see it's just completely disappeared from the FK site, that's a bit naughty. W****** P**** Ltd It's still there if you invested. It's in the section - My Loans - Debt Recovery. Interestingly there's an article in PrintWeek (searchable online). If you put the director's surname, or indeed the business name in the search field it comes up with an article. Here's a quote from it: [MODERATED: BB : Deleted quote as it enables direct identification of the borrower]. A wonder where he stands in the queue.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Apr 15, 2015 15:49:52 GMT
Thanks grumps. I see it's just completely disappeared from the FK site, that's a bit naughty. W****** P**** Ltd I see it still, but then I do have a (thankfully) small sum invested
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 15, 2015 20:25:44 GMT
gaspilot: I have deleted the quote from the article as a search on the quote immediately leads you to the article and identifies the borrower. Which I would expect you understood. Given the nature of some of the comments on this thread, this is a good example of why direct or indirect id of borrowers is against the forum rules.
|
|
|
Post by gaspilot on Apr 16, 2015 8:20:41 GMT
gaspilot: I have deleted the quote from the article as a search on the quote immediately leads you to the article and identifies the borrower. Which I would expect you understood. Given the nature of some of the comments on this thread, this is a good example of why direct or indirect id of borrowers is against the forum rules. Sorry. I thought it was circuitous enough to be okay. I assumed that you'd need to know the name of the business and/or director before you could get to that information.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 16, 2015 9:54:25 GMT
This is not directed against FK in particular as I'm not a lender on the platform. But I'm left wondering whether standards are being allowed to slip with more than the odd P2P platform in their 'desperation' to move into the big league rather than just float along the bottom of the barrel which seems to be the case with more than a couple of platforms.
I know there's always been the recommendation to do your own DD on any offering but it follows you can only go so far with this. Personally having been burnt more than once on floundering circus with those infamous PG's it seems that when an asset is available to act as firm security the thing is not being legally tied into the loan itself. Why not? - is the platform concerned the borrower may walk away? So I'm left with the impression that many a borrower is simply using the loan to exit a business leaving willing lenders hung out to dry.
As has been mentioned more than once on the P2P indie forum, unless a platform can achieve lift off then the associated costs, especially those surrounding FCA compliance simply do not make the business profitable.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Apr 16, 2015 12:21:29 GMT
judging by comments under the Print Week article I think FK probably walked into a carefully laid labyrinthe that would probably trip up any p2p platform Jack P
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 16, 2015 12:42:50 GMT
judging by comments under the Print Week article I think FK probably walked into a carefully laid labyrinthe that would probably trip up any p2p platform Jack P Possibly you are correct as I am not aware of the full facts surrounding this one. Nonetheless there must exist a certain level in the confidence of the platform 'promoting' the proposition so the lender has a right to assume that the platform itself has carried out the necessary checks, etc before any further prudent DD from the prospective lender takes place. Also it is to be hoped that the platform is experienced enough to ascertain when 2 and 2 is not making 4. As I mentioned earlier, this post is not directed at FK but some platforms in general that apply the 'urgency to list' tag above the need to apply a certain degree of protection towards lenders/investors. To quote FK although they are not alone in this or similar types or disclaimers - 'This information has been provided to FundingKnight by the Borrower in connection with its application for a loan. Potential Lenders must form their own view of the potential risk of lending to the Borrower. FundingKnight accepts no responsibility for the information provided or for any loss which any Lender may incur as a result of making this loan to the Borrower.'
The fact that the loan has been listed on this particular platform I believe would be construed by the FCA as a recommendation to engage in lending. But I appreciate that's a grey area and as the FCA move slower than a snail it may take them some time to wake up. It's also of interest that FK themselves appear to have gone quiet on this although maybe they have mentioned something on their platform.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Apr 16, 2015 13:09:10 GMT
Forgetting this particular loan for the moment, in someways I find it surprising that across the unsecured p2p platforms there are relatively few cases where the lenders end up questioning the ethics of the borrower following a default. Attempted fraud is just one of the many risks of unsecured lending, and if someone deliberately sets out to deceive and constructs their own "story board" so they are consistent in their mis-information it is almost impossible to detect in advance. I was in some of the "So*** & Ch***" loans on the now defunct Yes Secure platform where the couple were alleged to have forged payslips, P60's, bank statements etc etc to convince the world they were tv production executives (or silmilar). Their loan applications were believable and written in the style a "young professional" would use, and were accompanied by credible budgets unlike so many application on that platform With most secured lending though, there is an extra level of legal due dillegence applied to the asset. That said, I'm not sure we ever got a convincing answer from FS as to what happends if a pledged asset (held by FS) is proven as stolen, or is proved as a fake during default disposal.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 16, 2015 13:32:05 GMT
Forgetting this particular loan for the moment, in someways I find it surprising that across the unsecured p2p platforms there are relatively few cases where the lenders end up questioning the ethics of the borrower following a default. Attempted fraud is just one of the many risks of unsecured lending, and if someone deliberately sets out to deceive and constructs their own "story board" so they are consistent in their mis-information it is almost impossible to detect in advance. I was in some of the "So*** & Ch***" loans on the now defunct Yes Secure platform where the couple were alleged to have forged payslips, P60's, bank statements etc etc to convince the world they were tv production executives (or silmilar). Their loan applications were believable and written in the style a "young professional" would use, and were accompanied by credible budgets unlike so many application on that platform With most secured lending though, there is an extra level of legal due dillegence applied to the asset. That said, I'm not sure we ever got a convincing answer from FS as to what happends if a pledged asset (held by FS) is proven as stolen, or is proved as a fake during default disposal. There will always exist IMO the odd 'professional' that engages in deception which is almost impossible to detect. However provided the platform can prove they have reasonable and adequate systems in place then they may be okay. Simply displaying a 'nothing to do with us guv' message on the website is not sufficient IMO. In the event that a lender feels the platform is derelict in its duty of care and decides to pursue a claim through their PI insurance then it is a requirement of the insurance, whether the claim is eventually successful or not, for the platform to inform their PI insurer immediately of the intention of a possible claimant. In such a scenario then the cost of future PI insurance for that particular platform would probably skyrocket and could potentially lead to their downfall. The cessation of any P2P platform is not in the interests of anyone although at least with the old Yes Secure platform it was done in an orderly manner.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Apr 16, 2015 14:50:52 GMT
The cessation of any P2P platform is not in the interests of anyone I have to disagree. There are some small platforms showing negligible growth and minimal loans. It is unlikely they will all survive and it might be better for P2P as a whole to have fewer stronger platforms capable of providing better competition. I am not referring to any platform currently actively engaged on this Forum, since new startups have to begin somewhere - but if they end up going nowhere...?
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Apr 18, 2015 11:15:57 GMT
just so i follow this thread (is there another way?) Yes - pull down the Actions menu, then "Bookmark". Depending how you've got your notification preferences set up the forum will alert you to new posts.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 23, 2015 11:36:46 GMT
Rejected by us, but everyone else decided to take the money & run so IVA accepted. Legal discussions.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Apr 23, 2015 12:18:57 GMT
I hope that FK pursues this
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 23, 2015 12:49:44 GMT
Rejected by us, but everyone else decided to take the money & run so IVA accepted. Legal discussions. Confused.com here - who was 'everyone else'?
|
|