bernard
Member of DD Central
Posts: 66 
Likes: 24
|
Post by bernard on Mar 18, 2016 9:41:17 GMT
Questions for all p2p folk and fundingsecure : Can I just check my understanding of the charging structure/priority on the Norfolk loans (in relation to the all-monies clause cross-guarantee): 4045698166 has first charge on the 6 bed house, 1659874045 has second charge on the farm. So my reading of this is that 1659874045 has a second charge on 6 bed house (ie gets paid only after 4045698166 is fully recovered in the event of any shortfall), and 4045698166 has a third charge on the farm. Or does the all monies clause mean that both loans are equally charged on both of the two charge properties? Ie what would the waterfall/priority be on default? Secondly is the 6 bed house the main residence of the borrower, and if so would there be any problems in relation to realising this security? Regards |
|
|
|
Post by fundingsecure on Mar 18, 2016 10:24:10 GMT
I will try to clarify.
Simplest way to think about them is to first off consider them as two separate loans - both of which standup in their own right. I won't go through all the figures, but one is secured against a first legal charge and one against a second legal charge.
The fact that all of our charges are "all monies" means:
If both loans were to default and the properties sold - if there was a shortage on one and a surplus on the other, then the surplus could be used to repay the shortage.
In the (unlikely) event of only one of the loans defaulting and the property sold - if there was a shortage it would still be covered by the charge on the other property.
Hope this clarifies the position.
And the property is not the main residence - hence the loan is not regulated. In the event of a default, we would have vacant possession
FundingSecure
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 18, 2016 15:16:56 GMT
And the property is not the main residence - hence the loan is not regulated. In the event of a default, we would have vacant possession Can you outline the legal steps you have taken to ensure that the 'not regulated' would stand up, if it were ever contested?
|
|
bernard
Member of DD Central
Posts: 66
Likes: 24
|
Post by bernard on Mar 18, 2016 16:06:32 GMT
Good point, solicitorious. Given the horrendous mess over this issue on another platform it would be good to know what steps fundingsecure have taken to make sure this is the case with this property. |
|
|
|
Post by fundingsecure on Mar 18, 2016 17:26:14 GMT
Perhaps I should have explained a little more - the reason that the property is not the main residence is that it has a non-connected tenant secured by an AST, verified through our lawyers.
We are therefore confident that, in the event of a default, we would be able to take vacant possession.
Hope this helps to clarify the position.
FundingSecure
|
|
bernard
Member of DD Central
Posts: 66
Likes: 24
|
Post by bernard on Mar 18, 2016 23:15:30 GMT
Yes it does, thankyou for the thorough reply.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Jan 23, 2018 12:55:03 GMT
Q. Given that you were in discussion with receivers in March 2017, please can you explain why you have not yet taken control of the security for this loan and the circumstances under which you will do so?
A. Each loan is treated individually and therefore there is no set time period to default a loan and use the asset to gain funds back. At this moment in time we feel that it in the best interest of both the investors and the borrower to work with the refinancing option. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 689
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Jan 23, 2018 20:16:58 GMT
Gulp; the loan updates on 4045698166 (which is I assume the loan in question - am not in this one) makes for sorry reading. But sadly all too familiar.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 23, 2018 21:01:02 GMT
what on earth does the above actually mean - is this a pipe dream or an actual concrete and notorised series of pre-agreed transactions. Given this loan was due to be repaid in sept 2016 I suspect the former!
|
|
hector
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 152
|
Post by hector on Jan 24, 2018 10:38:48 GMT
what on earth does the above actually mean - is this a pipe dream or an actual concrete and notorised series of pre-agreed transactions. Given this loan was due to be repaid in sept 2016 I suspect the former! Sadly I think a summary of the chances of any repayment on this one can be read in the loan title ...Norfolk in chance
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Jan 24, 2018 10:43:12 GMT
|
|
acky
Posts: 481
Likes: 262
|
Post by acky on Jun 15, 2018 16:46:24 GMT
Another chance to invest at 79.3% LTV on a loan related to one that's now 637 days overdue. I don't think so!
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Jun 17, 2018 13:34:06 GMT
Another chance to invest at 79.3% LTV on a loan related to one that's now 637 days overdue. I don't think so! Not sure which is the ‘new’ loan, but how would a newbie know that one loan (borrower?) is ‘related’ to another. Not just for this but any current/SM offerings. i can only guess that 2 Park Homes is ‘related’ to 5 Park Homes. But as they are updated similarly they obviously are, that is an obvious probable connection of course from the names. A long story. When I was young and immature just a few years ago (now I’m old and immature), I was tempted by the CFD ‘scam’, I lost money as apparently 85% of pundits do. 6 years after first joining I was telecalled by the No Win No Fee lot. We’ll get your money back if you weren’t warned of ALL the risks. When was it? “Oh dear, just out of time” i really do think ‘some platforms’ are likely to be jumped on by the FCA for not disclosing the true KNOWN risks of investing. Where an investor has money in one Tranche (it is sensibly flagged up, and the value), but not if it’s a different Tranche. Or more likely and far worse, loans to the same borrower under totally different site names. Surely FS (and others) could / should state where they are aware the same borrower has other loans on their platform? Or has been more than 30 days late in refinancing a loan!
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Jun 17, 2018 21:20:11 GMT
Another chance to invest at 79.3% LTV on a loan related to one that's now 637 days overdue. I don't think so! Not sure which is the ‘new’ loan, but how would a newbie know that one loan (borrower?) is ‘related’ to another. Not just for this but any current/SM offerings. i can only guess that 2 Park Homes is ‘related’ to 5 Park Homes. But as they are updated similarly they obviously are, that is an obvious probable connection of course from the names. A long story. When I was young and immature just a few years ago (now I’m old and immature), I was tempted by the CFD ‘scam’, I lost money as apparently 85% of pundits do. 6 years after first joining I was telecalled by the No Win No Fee lot. We’ll get your money back if you weren’t warned of ALL the risks. When was it? “Oh dear, just out of time” i really do think ‘some platforms’ are likely to be jumped on by the FCA for not disclosing the true KNOWN risks of investing. Where an investor has money in one Tranche (it is sensibly flagged up, and the value), but not if it’s a different Tranche. Or more likely and far worse, loans to the same borrower under totally different site names. Surely FS (and others) could / should state where they are aware the same borrower has other loans on their platform? Or has been more than 30 days late in refinancing a loan! I agree and indeed have stated exactly the same elsewhere recently. Where this is already known by FS, non-disclosure of multiple loans to the same borrower/s could be construed as being 'economical with the full facts' [ I've not used the words id really like to ]. But to give the classic example one only has to look at the appalling lack of clarity on the Art for Art's sake thread, where it appears that 4 of these loans are to the same borrower and despite repeated requests from me (and others) wasn't disclosed. For the front office to parry aside requests for information by saying they weren't aware or that that information was confidential is frankly a disgrace. Nothing less than a full capital and interest owed return will be acceptable. Period !
|
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jun 18, 2018 9:17:50 GMT
I was also 'tricked' on several loans. When I first discovered FS I was happy to allocate some money into each loan as and when it became available, I think there was the auto-invest option or maybe I did it manually just assuming the platform had integrity. I wanted to diversify and I was nowhere near as careful as I should have been - the money I will lose is costly but it has taught me a lot.
I look at my outstanding loans and I have several all with the exact same updates but when listed I assumed were different on face value, (different pictures used and not featuring on the main page of course) things like:
1 - Strand Road, Londonderry
2 - Ground Floor Retail, Londonderry
3 - Branch Road, Londonderry
4 - Waterloo Road, Refinancing
Now Londonderry is not one street and I think it was reasonable for me to assume they were all different borrowers, I had not even considered they could be connected. Yes I was foolish and it is mainly my own fault for not reading more than the LTV and title of the loan - but I was investing low amounts into each loan they listed as I trusted the platform and didn't think for one second they would just rename loans, or break them down in order to 'trick' people like me into thinking they were diversifying risk, when the exact opposite is the case. As such I now realise I have far more than I am comfortable with in one loan. Happened to me with much larger amounts on other loans as well by the way - fortunately I spotted my error and stopped investing.
Obviously I am assuming this was deliberate trickery as I was clearly tricked, I wanted diversification not extra risk.
|
|
