wilhelm
New Member
Posts: 5
Likes: 8
|
Post by wilhelm on May 29, 2017 21:44:25 GMT
Someone just made reference to the "infamous London Loans" within the Q&A's of the only FC property loan currently on offer. Which incidentally, seems to have a very slow take-up rate!
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on May 30, 2017 6:49:22 GMT
With 411 days of utter failure / mismanagement by FC in their handling of the "secured" London hotel loans, it is perhaps not surprising that take up is slow but it will fill by Autobid so FC will not be at all concerned.
Most of the questions on the Q & A never get answers.
The Administrator still has until August to report their findings on the dubious actions of the highly skilled Borrower(s) and the incompetent way FC allowed them to run rings round the "highly experienced property team".
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 30, 2017 7:37:35 GMT
With 411 days of utter failure / mismanagement by FC in their handling of the "secured" London hotel loans, it is perhaps not surprising that take up is slow but it will fill by Autobid so FC will not be at all concerned.
Most of the questions on the Q & A ever get answers.
The Administrator still has until August to report their findings on the dubious actions of the highly skilled Borrower(s) and the incompetent way FC allowed them to run rings round the "highly experienced property team".
Autobid is really struggling to fill that despite only one new loan since Thursday. The SM still has 2000 parts at par. There is 54% of the loan left in 32 hours, and another large A has much further to go in percentage in 33 hours. We have not seen that for a while. Interesting to watch (with purse tightly zipped).
|
|
kt
Posts: 105
Likes: 39
|
Post by kt on May 30, 2017 10:30:46 GMT
Do we know the level of loans which are taken off the system before they fail to fill?
It seems that splitting the loan into two halves makes it no better a loan. Considering the current market, the lack of any knowledge on FC's part and their acceptance of what ever bs value they are given, I would not touch a property loan. Then again even FC seem to have realised this, all be it belatedly.
|
|
|
Post by longjohn on May 30, 2017 11:21:18 GMT
<snip> The SM still has 2000 parts at par. There is 54% of the loan left in 32 hours, and another large A has much further to go in percentage in 33 hours. We have not seen that for a while. Interesting to watch (with purse tightly zipped).
599 of those parts belong to one C loan and represents a third of the loan. First repayment due in three days. After looking at companies house my purse is tightly zipped too.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 30, 2017 14:20:34 GMT
I suppose this is the wrong thread, but following up the discussion. Take a look at 37522, which is a loan for 370k and has raised 49k with 26 hours to go. It is really a very, very, long time since an SME loan did not fill. We have a rare opportunity to see it happen here, and all who can should be watching late tomorrow afternoon to share this eclipse-like experience. I suppose it may be pulled first - but then what will they do with the pre-acceptance? Looking at the Q&A does not give confidence because they really do not know how this loan will help them expand. We do not have figures after March 2016, and curiously it seems neither do they. Changing accounting package, management accounts not available. Rarely do you see two answers moderated and the questions not. When they do have up to date management accounts, perhaps that will give them a better understanding of why they applied for the loan. ps With this and the pulled property loan I suppose they have the opportunity to re-launch them while the lever is pulled hard to the whole loan setting, as it still seems to be. Whole loan folk are welcome.
|
|
john12
New Member
Posts: 2
Likes: 1
|
Post by john12 on Jun 4, 2017 18:08:47 GMT
Maybe I am just a bit slow but I'm not clear on the following: how we have gone from a stage where the loan was secured to the position where the administrator is saying there will be insufficient funds realised to repay investors, either: i) the initial valuation was wrong ii) there has been a material change in the condition of the property or market conditions which means the valuation is no longer valid iii) somebody else has a claim to the property which was not revealed at the stage loan was issued If it it ii, fine that's the risk investors take when they make loans. But if it's i or iii then surely fc has marketed the investment incorrectly and we should be able to claim the investment was missold to the financial ombudsman. What are others thoughts ? I would have thought that if the initial valuation was wrong that the valuer and whoever appointed them would have to agree liability. i.e. was the instruction to value in some way misleading and/or erroneous or was the valuer properly instructed but in some way did not carry out the valuation correctly. The valuer would presumably carry some form of professional indemnity insurance against such an eventuality. This matter may yet end in court. I don't see how a historical valuation can no longer be valid as its existence is a material fact. I would accept that the current price of the security may be lower than the valuation placed on it previously. With Business Lending no responsible lender will lend 100% value of the property. Banks will sometimes go down to 50% for commercial premises. Retail property mortgages are generally around 80%. Commercial property mortgages will be between the two. So if the administrator states that there is insufficient to repay the security that FC hold then (a) FC should not release the security before the reason for the valuation difference is discovered and liability established (and funds received) and (b) the valuer and/or FC are liable to all investors on the loan for any difference due to the incorrect information provided to investors before they invested (regardless if whether investors actually looked at those details or not). As already said this is potentially a case of mis-selling by FC.
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Jun 5, 2017 7:02:50 GMT
Just to remind potential users of FC that it is now 416 days of negligence / incompetence by the [Edit:- now redundant] "highly experienced property team" over their placing and then failure to manage these London hotel equity release loans.
Turns out the "equity" did not really exist in full. Clear failure by FC to check facts or do proper DD.
Still no explanation as to why the "hotel units" are being offered on absurdly high rents on short term lets.
Various attempts now being made by FC to refinance existing loans now being placed on the loans page. These often have new names so it is not obvious they are actually re financing loans that have not been repaid in accordance with the exiting loan terms.
SXLR.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 5, 2017 8:31:41 GMT
Just to remind potential users of FC that it is now 416 days of negligence / incompetence by the "highly experienced property team" over their placing and then failure to manage these London hotel equity release loans.
Turns out the "equity" did not really exist in full. Clear failure by FC to check facts or do proper DD.
Still no explanation as to why the "hotel units" are being offered on absurdly high rents on short term lets.
Various attempts now being made by FC to refinance existing loans now being placed on the loans page. These often have new names so it is not obvious they are actually re financing loans that have not been repaid in accordance with the exiting loan terms.
SXLR. The "highly experienced property team" presumably is no more because the property lending is being wound down - they are not looking for new business. So it is now the legacy of their performance and portfolio which is subject to the 416 days, and FC generally the proper target. This does mean that FC are unlikely to wish to refinance any of the current projects, and that those which they do refinance are probably the ones which are not attractive to other lenders. Make what you will of that. Recently I have taken some at 11% and some A+ at 9%, which meets my 10% requirement before fees. I think they are safe enough for a few months at least.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jun 5, 2017 8:45:33 GMT
/mod hat off Personally I'm getting a bit bored hearing about this .. yes it is a shambles, but FC are unlikely to fix it any time soon (if ever) .. someone probably needs to go sue them for stupidity (I'm sure lots of lenders will be willing to testify). Adding a 'still not fixed' every week or so doesn't help a lot. blender .. you need to consider that 'for a few months at least' is reliant on FC not pulling the plug or throwing the switch on the autobid SM buying spree, (or if you are lucky, someone's buying bots doing the same thing). Buying anything on the assumption that you can sell it later is pretty risky (see L and MT for current examples .. although a fat discount on FC might get rubbish away, I guess). Would be real easy for FC to decide, since they are exiting property lending, that no grannies should have used property parts bought via autobodge when there are none on the PM. Unlikely, but hey, this is FC, and they are well known to pull levers (sometimes by accident).
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 5, 2017 9:16:47 GMT
GSV, your warning to others about following a strategy which relies on being able to sell is sensible. I was implying that it was not safe to hold until repayment, and agree that I should have said 'relatively safe' for the period in which FC pay back some of the principal we have lent, as interest. The risk profile of these loans is distinctive, but not safe - no loan is safe. I expect to sell at par, and have been able to do this without fail and quickly since the ipad frenzy cleared out the discounted cashback flipped property from the SM. FC has levers and can trip over them on the way home. I suspect they cannot ban Autobid from taking property, without development and its risks, and they will not wish to damage the liquidity of their innocent autobid users who hold property. Personally I am prepared to discount to get out of a property loan before the endgame, but as a diversity criminal I need to do that if necessary. I would not touch the SME loans, except with Autobid and low expectations.
While sharing the view on boredom with this loan, I understand the wish of Sussexlender and others to hold FC's feet to the fire in public for as long as it takes. FC closed its forum to stop that: so it must be effective. I don't hold the loan, obviously, but those who do are welcome to bang on.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Jun 5, 2017 9:49:53 GMT
GSV, your warning to others about following a strategy which relies on being able to sell is sensible. I was implying that it was not safe to hold until repayment, and agree that I should have said 'relatively safe' for the period in which FC pay back some of the principal we have lent, as interest. The risk profile of these loans is distinctive, but not safe - no loan is safe. I expect to sell at par, and have been able to do this without fail and quickly since the ipad frenzy cleared out the discounted cashback flipped property from the SM. FC has levers and can trip over them on the way home. I suspect they cannot ban Autobid from taking property, without development and its risks, and they will not wish to damage the liquidity of their innocent autobid users who hold property. Personally I am prepared to discount to get out of a property loan before the endgame, but as a diversity criminal I need to do that if necessary. I would not touch the SME loans, except with Autobid and low expectations.
While sharing the view on boredom with this loan, I understand the wish of Sussexlender and others to hold FC's feet to the fire in public for as long as it takes. FC closed its forum to stop that: so it must be effective. I don't hold the loan, obviously, but those who do are welcome to bang on. I hold nothing in FC, however I like to follow what's happening with the various P2Ps to stay informed. IMHO you all MUST, it is ESSENTIAL, that you create fuss & trouble as, when, and if a P2P is "out of order". Particularly regarding lying Dodgy "Valuation Reports" and essential information deliberately "inadvertently" being omitted from Loan Particulars. So many of these P2Ps are VERY cavalier with OUR money and they are getting increasingly out of control, again IMHO. You can't rely on the FCA, they'll do Football Association about anything, you all need to rise up and complain and create a massive stink to change things for the better and bring about a "cleaner" P2P industry.
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Jun 6, 2017 10:56:01 GMT
It is now 417 days of negligence by FC. This is not the only mess permitted to develop by FC - See also the Borehamwood "short term" loan fiasco featured on this Forum.
They need reminding every now and then that they owe investors a duty of care and have failed to protect investors on an allegedly "secure" property loan.
New investors need to be made aware / informed of this mismanagement before risking their funds in any of the numerous late running property loans currently being re financed.
I make no comment on the SME market having ceased to invest in them some time ago.
If the reminder of FC's obvious incompetence and inability to control a very skilful Borrower is boring, there is no need to continue to read this thread. There are plenty of other threads.
I suspect most current investors in these hotel loans would like to have the luxury of just being bored by this thread but regret that I have capital / interest outstanding so my desire to use my funds and to move on and wave good bye to FC cannot be fulfilled.
Best wishes SXLR
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jun 6, 2017 11:06:10 GMT
Samir and his lesser cronies were very boastful about Foolish Cacklet's "highly experienced property team" when they joined the bandwagon of platforms dealing with this type of loan; not so clever now they have been exposed to the public as incompetent and powerless when confronted with a deceitful and uncooperative borrower who has chosen not to pay back his loan.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jun 6, 2017 11:31:41 GMT
sussexlender I absolutely appreciate your concern, and agree that to some extent a degree of 'banging the drum' does need to be done to keep platforms accountable and other investors aware even if it gets repetitive - i do the same myself on some loans over on FS. but...and you knew there was a but I do think a daily reminder is a bit over the top. I would like to read this thread and keep up to date with how FC are handling this, but don't necessarily fancy reading "X+1 days of negligence.." every day, and the danger is that other investors may miss significant information whilst trying to read through the thread.
|
|