|
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 29, 2015 15:56:18 GMT
When I invested in the Range-Rover Vogue SE (2930007099), I put in more than I typically would because of the below wording in the description:
"The valuation has been carried out by an independent motor-trader. In the event of a loan default they have offered to purchase the vehicle, which would enable a rapid sale, sufficient to cover capital and interest."
Yet now the client is seeking an extension to pay back the funds (1 month), FS agree to it, with the following rationale:
"Borrower has confirmed they will receive funds in mid December to pay the loan back. As defaulting and selling the asset would take considerably more time we have agreed to an extension, with interest continuing to accrue."
I don't mind doing the sensible thing, it makes total sense to allow the owner a month to pay. However I am a bit annoyed with the major contradiction, I don't like being misled. I have invested more in another loan because of a similar assurance. Trust issues for me moving forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by fundingsecure on Nov 29, 2015 16:41:56 GMT
Apologies for my error - now corrected.
FundingSecure
|
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 29, 2015 17:50:15 GMT
Thank you FS.
|
|
madpierre
Member of DD Central
Posts: 303 
Likes: 374
|
Post by madpierre on Nov 29, 2015 18:51:37 GMT
Well spotted bluechip. I remember this assurance adding to my confidence in supporting this loan. The problem is I promptly forgot about it 
That's the great thing about this forum; generally there's someone around who's 'on the ball' 
|
|
|
|
Post by mitosan on Dec 3, 2015 20:26:45 GMT
A few loans recently have been granted extensions. While I don't object to any of them I can imagine that some lenders might, and maybe even one day there might be circumstances under which I would object. Is there any system that could be put in place to protect this? I know some platforms (I'm thinking of AC) take lender votes when agreeing to extensions or changed terms.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 3, 2015 20:38:55 GMT
A few loans recently have been granted extensions. While I don't object to any of them I can imagine that some lenders might, and maybe even one day there might be circumstances under which I would object. Is there any system that could be put in place to protect this? I know some platforms (I'm thinking of AC) take lender votes when agreeing to extensions or changed terms. This may not be as big an issue as it was before the SM was set up. As long as the extension is long enough that the remaining term increases to above the 30-day minimum for selling parts, any investor who wants to recover their investment at around the original maturity date could sell their part on the SM. Admittedly we don't have a lot of experience with short-dated parts being sold on the SM, but all the parts I've seen offered at par have disappeared very quickly.
|
|
