mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 29, 2016 20:00:31 GMT
I don't think anything has changed concerning SS taking interest upfront from the borrower. However since that post, the SS website has been updated, but they have not indicated the above fact in their "how it works" part of the site. I'm sure it's nothing to worry about; I just think that sunspot likes to have a little groan about something  .... I presume cooling_dude doesn't think anything has changed simply because SS hasn't told us anything has changed. If that's the case, I would suggest that past performance indicates that's not the best reason to draw a conclusion. Most importantly, the OP said... Indeed, when I took another look at this explanation (in order to quote it here) I noticed that it's been rewritten, and no longer states that interest is deducted up front. [The bold is mine.] If that's correct, then cooling_dude's suggestion that the info now being missing is nothing to worry about seems misplaced. If the statement used to be there and now has been removed, that strikes me as something to be concerned about because it suggests savingstream have changed their policy but haven't told us about it. ISTM that it would be best if SS were to clarify the situation here -- soon!
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 29, 2016 20:07:53 GMT
I don't think anything has changed concerning SS taking interest upfront from the borrower. However since that post, the SS website has been updated, but they have not indicated the above fact in their "how it works" part of the site. I'm sure it's nothing to worry about; I just think that sunspot likes to have a little groan about something .... I presume cooling_dude doesn't think anything has changed simply because SS hasn't told us anything has changed. If that's the case, I would suggest that past performance indicates that's not the best reason to draw a conclusion. Most importantly, the OP said... Indeed, when I took another look at this explanation (in order to quote it here) I noticed that it's been rewritten, and no longer states that interest is deducted up front. [The bold is mine.] If that's correct, then cooling_dude 's suggestion that the info now being missing is nothing to worry about seems misplaced. If the statement used to be there and now has been removed, that strikes me as something to be concerned about because it suggests savingstream have changed their policy but haven't told us about it. ISTM that it would be best if SS were to clarify the situation here -- soon! You keeping an eye on me again mikes1531  I'm just suggesting that between the change of the new website and the old one, SS have yet to (or simply forgot to) move some details from one to the other, so I believe that there is little to worry about. I mean, the only indication that the concern from sunspot is correct is that the details were on the previous website, but not on the current site; so surely your not suggesting that between the change of the websites (i.e. one day) SS changed their interest-holding policy? Furthermore, the SS test website is still live; and you will see that the "how it works" page is much the same as it is now; so unless at one time they had 2 sets of policies to follow, it does seem to confirm that it is an oversight by SS not to include some text explaining that "interest is held up front". Therefore... nothing to worry about 
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 11,101
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 29, 2016 20:08:09 GMT
So PBLs 65, 66 & 67 (amongst others) could theoretically go into default at any time, even though they are only three months old? Call me picky, but I don't consider anything so young to be a "relic". Its the wording thats a relic. On the old site all the loans had a particular form of wording in the particulars tab, eaxctly what appears on loans up to PBL67 (which I suspect had their original documentation prepared on the old site/template even if they were launched on the new site. Thereafter a new template was adopted eliminating the old legacy wording. After PBL72 loan page changed again with the addition of the particulars tab not present on earlier loans. As has been highlighted elsewhere there is a clear issue with SS cutting & pasting inappropriately (12m terms for 31, 42, 46) and I suspect this is another example. Something they need to look at as Im not sure FCA would be happy if lenders are investing based on inaccurate info. There is also the question that new investors are not getting the full picture on some loans where pertinent info has been provided in a weekly update but does not feature on the site eg extra security on PBL42. I dont think your point is accurate but it is a valid question That's a fair comment, and it was a coin toss decision. In the end, I chose to post here because it's an important point of interest to all, and we have had a number of contributions to threads from Saving Stream recently. Also, I'm not entirely comfortable posting emails. If you tag savingstream by sticking the @ symbol in front of their user name they are more likely to pick up on your post rather than being dependent on them happening to notice it
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 29, 2016 20:36:56 GMT
I'm just suggesting that between the change of the new website and the old one, SS have yet to (or simply forgot to) move some details from one to the other, so I believe that there is little to worry about. I mean, the only indication that the concern from sunspot is correct is that the details were on the previous website, but not on the current site; so surely your not suggesting that between the change of the websites (i.e. one day) SS changed their interest-holding policy? : Looking at the OP, sunspot didn't say the change he observed occurred when the website changed. He simply said the wording he didn't see now had been there "previously", without saying how long ago it was there. I've tried taking a bit of a look at archived copies of the SS website but I didn't find anything, possibly because I didn't know exactly where to look. Perhaps if sunspot could provide us with more support for his statement that the wording used to be there we could see for ourselves exactly what has changed.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 29, 2016 21:31:17 GMT
I'm just suggesting that between the change of the new website and the old one, SS have yet to (or simply forgot to) move some details from one to the other, so I believe that there is little to worry about. I mean, the only indication that the concern from sunspot is correct is that the details were on the previous website, but not on the current site; so surely your not suggesting that between the change of the websites (i.e. one day) SS changed their interest-holding policy? : Looking at the OP, sunspot didn't say the change he observed occurred when the website changed. He simply said the wording he didn't see now had been there "previously", without saying how long ago it was there. I've tried taking a bit of a look at archived copies of the SS website but I didn't find anything, possibly because I didn't know exactly where to look. Perhaps if sunspot could provide us with more support for his statement that the wording used to be there we could see for ourselves exactly what has changed. I'll be honest, I took the OP statement "as described previously in the HOW IT WORKS section", as meaning on the old website, as the "how it works" section on the current site is the same as in the test website. However a quick look at the archive, I too can't see no mention of interest being taken upfront in any version of the website. Did SS have further details behind the login screen (my memory is awful!)? I will drop SS an e-mail in the morning to seek reassurance that all loans have their interest held in advance. Or maybe savingstream can drop a post on this thread....
|
|
|
|
Post by sunspot on Feb 29, 2016 21:38:11 GMT
@mike1531 Your wish is my command - although it took a bit of finding... From the RISK ASSESSMENT page which now seems to be orphaned: savingstream.co.uk/riskFrom the HOW IT WORKS page / Where is the risk?Unless I'm missing something, the original risk assessment page is no longer linked, and in its place, we now have the paragraphs mentioned above. If this represents a change in policy, then I for one am extremely unhappy not to be told. If it's simply an oversight, then it needs to be corrected. |
|
Hairbear
He who dares..wins (most of the time)
Posts: 144
Likes: 39
|
Post by Hairbear on Feb 29, 2016 21:52:45 GMT
Although im not a newby to SS or FS (over 2 yrs investing on both) I will admit im a newby to the forum and its in depth views which I must admit are spot on.. its good to see investors holding the p2p eers to account. I must say sunspot has a valid point, if SS wants our money, then I think its only fair to say "under what conditions"
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 29, 2016 21:57:37 GMT
Unless I'm missing something, the original risk assessment page is no longer linked, and in its place, we now have the paragraphs mentioned above. If this represents a change in policy, then I for one am extremely unhappy not to be told. If it's simply an oversight, then it needs to be corrected. : Thanks for doing the digging. That page used to be linked from the What's the Risk FAQ, so hopefully all savingstream need to do is add the link back into the current version of that FAQ.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 29, 2016 22:02:39 GMT
@mike1531 Your wish is my command - although it took a bit of finding... From the RISK ASSESSMENT page which now seems to be orphaned: savingstream.co.uk/riskFrom the HOW IT WORKS page / Where is the risk?Unless I'm missing something, the original risk assessment page is no longer linked, and in its place, we now have the paragraphs mentioned above. If this represents a change in policy, then I for one am extremely unhappy not to be told. If it's simply an oversight, then it needs to be corrected. Many thanks for the link sunspot . So having a little dig on the old website, it seems that what you mention was under the FAQs part of the old website under " Where is the risk?". It seems that with the new website, SS have created a risks web page but have omitted to link it from the F&Qs page. Again I don't think this is a change of policy just a forgetful omission. Afterall that risk page is still available on the website, just not linked to. EDIT : Beaten to it by mikes1531
|
|
homes119
Member of DD Central
Posts: 93
Likes: 19
|
Post by homes119 on Feb 29, 2016 22:37:54 GMT
All loans have their interest paid upfront for the term of the loan. The term of the loan can sometimes be a tad hard to find in some overviews....
The text you speak of is indicating that we do indeed get paid interest monthly. SS may indicate how much interest we have earned daily, but is only paid out monthly. Unfortunately the term of the loan stated on the platform can be different from the term for which interest has been paid. There are at least a couple of examples of this where the original loan term was stated as 12 months but then we found interest hadn't been paid for 12 months: PBL031 was a six month loan and then was renewed for a further 6 months after further interest was paid PBL046 was a six month loan and then was renewed for a further 3 months after further interest was paid I'm also very suspicious of PBL042 where we have recently been informed that interest has been paid until early April. This implies to me that there has been a further payment of interest to take us up to this time especially as the earlier update on 1 Feb said that the loan had been extended by 2 months. However the original loan term still shows 123 days remaining which would take us to early July. So my conclusion here is that this was also a six month loan up to early Feb with an extension of 2 months. ilmoro you may wish to cast your eye over this one as your update list seems to have added 2 months to the July end date to take expected repayment to 2/9/16. I suspect this isn't the case. In the past it looks like most of the loans had a default term of 12 months regardless of the term for which interest has actually been paid. I'm pleased to see that some of the newer loans have been presented with shorter terms so I'm hopeful that the stated term and the term for which interest has been paid will now coincide for any new loans. The one thing we're not seeing yet is the remaining term being extended when further interest is paid, hence the proliferation of negative terms even though the loans (as far as I'm aware) are not in default. I don't have enough at stake in SS to do perform complete due diligence and follow-up on every loan and SS don't make it too easy to track everything do they. Thanks Sam for the information as I was completely unaware. I was under the impression that every loan had upfront interest covered for the term of the loan. If this is not the case, I think lenders should be informed in the loan particulars! Ideally, SS should stick with covering the entire term as it makes it much easier for investors to monitor the loan and manage their risk. Why would SS tell us that a loan term is 12 months when it is in fact 6 months? Maybe it's me but doesn't anyone else think this is unacceptable? Regardless of the missing wording on the website or whatever, clearly there is an issue. Or the policy has been changed without informing the investor community or the policy is not being consistently applied (and not properly documented), right? Also, anyone else think that Loan updates should be attached to the relevant loan and not have all of them listed together the Updates tab?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 29, 2016 23:00:03 GMT
Why would SS tell us that a loan term is 12 months when it is in fact 6 months? Maybe it's me but doesn't anyone else think this is unacceptable? It depends on the agreement with the borrower. In some cases, the loan could be for a minimum of 6-months and a maximum of 12-months, and in that situation the borrower could well be reluctant to pay 12 months' worth of interest up front. So SS/Lendy might agree to take just the 6 months' worth of interest at the beginning, but it would depend on their assessment of whether the borrower would be able to find the necessary funds to pay the interest after the pre-paid interest is used up. It isn't just homes119, though. This is the sort of thing that SS ought to make clear at the time the loan is opened for investment, and if the pre-paid interest doesn't cover the full term of the loan the loan updates need to show the current position at all times. We should have to study the documents and make notes about this ourselves and then have to guess what happens later in the loan term. Unless, of course, SS are prepared to guarantee the payment of interest during the entire loan term whether or not it all has been paid in advance.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 11,101
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 29, 2016 23:01:32 GMT
Unfortunately the term of the loan stated on the platform can be different from the term for which interest has been paid. There are at least a couple of examples of this where the original loan term was stated as 12 months but then we found interest hadn't been paid for 12 months: PBL031 was a six month loan and then was renewed for a further 6 months after further interest was paid PBL046 was a six month loan and then was renewed for a further 3 months after further interest was paid I'm also very suspicious of PBL042 where we have recently been informed that interest has been paid until early April. This implies to me that there has been a further payment of interest to take us up to this time especially as the earlier update on 1 Feb said that the loan had been extended by 2 months. However the original loan term still shows 123 days remaining which would take us to early July. So my conclusion here is that this was also a six month loan up to early Feb with an extension of 2 months. ilmoro you may wish to cast your eye over this one as your update list seems to have added 2 months to the July end date to take expected repayment to 2/9/16. I suspect this isn't the case. In the past it looks like most of the loans had a default term of 12 months regardless of the term for which interest has actually been paid. I'm pleased to see that some of the newer loans have been presented with shorter terms so I'm hopeful that the stated term and the term for which interest has been paid will now coincide for any new loans. The one thing we're not seeing yet is the remaining term being extended when further interest is paid, hence the proliferation of negative terms even though the loans (as far as I'm aware) are not in default. I don't have enough at stake in SS to do perform complete due diligence and follow-up on every loan and SS don't make it too easy to track everything do they. Thanks Sam for the information as I was completely unaware. I was under the impression that every loan had upfront interest covered for the term of the loan. If this is not the case, I think lenders should be informed in the loan particulars! Ideally, SS should stick with covering the entire term as it makes it much easier for investors to monitor the loan and manage their risk. Why would SS tell us that a loan term is 12 months when it is in fact 6 months? Maybe it's me but doesn't anyone else think this is unacceptable? Regardless of the missing wording on the website or whatever, clearly there is an issue. Or the policy has been changed without informing the investor community or the policy is not being consistently applied (and not properly documented), right? Also, anyone else think that Loan updates should be attached to the relevant loan and not have all of them listed together the Updates tab? They are. Loans have their own recent updates tab on the loan page but its only there if they have had an update. So see SY or 22 for example. Looks like Ill be out of a job in time 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 29, 2016 23:06:11 GMT
They are. Loans have their own recent updates tab on the loan page but its only there if they have had an update. So see SY or 22 for example. Looks like Ill be out of a job in time ; Maybe we can reserve you a place in PBL82 when it is finished.......
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Feb 29, 2016 23:10:59 GMT
I don't have enough at stake in SS to do perform complete due diligence and follow-up on every loan and SS don't make it too easy to track everything do they. Thanks Sam for the information as I was completely unaware. I was under the impression that every loan had upfront interest covered for the term of the loan. If this is not the case, I think lenders should be informed in the loan particulars! Ideally, SS should stick with covering the entire term as it makes it much easier for investors to monitor the loan and manage their risk. Why would SS tell us that a loan term is 12 months when it is in fact 6 months? Maybe it's me but doesn't anyone else think this is unacceptable? Regardless of the missing wording on the website or whatever, clearly there is an issue. Or the policy has been changed without informing the investor community or the policy is not being consistently applied (and not properly documented), right? Also, anyone else think that Loan updates should be attached to the relevant loan and not have all of them listed together the Updates tab? I think SS might argue that the term of a loan (as in how long the loan is in force) is a flexible thing. Loans can and sometimes do repay early (e.g. the borrower has been able to arrange cheaper long term financing to repay the bridging loan) and loans often get extended (e.g. more time needed to get planning permission, finish a development or complete a sale). We understand this - it's very much part of the bridging loan market. But does this mean that it is appropriate to give all loans a notional 12 month term? If you hunt back through some of my previous posts you will see that I have made the point on numerous occasions that we cannot know in advance what the actual term would be. But the one thing we do know (or rather SS knows) for certain is the amount of interest that has been paid. Therefore I have argued the point that this is what should define the term. Since SS is now showing new loans with a variety of terms, I would like to think they have taken this on board. Let's hope they also take on board the point about extending the term when a further interest payment is made rather than show loans with a negative remaining term. And on your other point - the loan updates have been added to the loans page. There is a tab on the lower section of the page to the right of Overview and Particulars.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 11,101
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 29, 2016 23:18:37 GMT
They are. Loans have their own recent updates tab on the loan page but its only there if they have had an update. So see SY or 22 for example. Looks like Ill be out of a job in time ; Maybe we can reserve you a place in PBL82 when it is finished....... The Fletcher Memorial Home for retired listers & P2Pers Bloody cheek. Im younger than that cigar youre chewing
|
|
....
