ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 4,845
|
Post by ozboy on Feb 10, 2019 21:26:25 GMT
As everyone can see from the loan updates there is a significant disparity between the amount achieved at auction from the loan TV and the oh so many further advances made based on a development that was demonstrably not taking place despite FS's accepted the assurances of the developer.
What I do want to know is how FS can be held to account for lending OUR money to what seems to be a totally dishonest person when there was nothing to justify the further loans. Why FS accepted what the borrower asserted without any proof whatsoever. Why FS state that the total borrowed will never exceed 70% of the LTV when it so very obviously did and that sort of thing.
Frankly I do wonder if FS are even vaguely competent.
I suggest that anyone who is totally dishonest copies the actions of the Whitehaven borrower if they just want to scam money as it so obviously works and FS are so obviously incompetent they will accept anything.
Please note that I am more than happy to contribute £1K (10 - 20% of my losses) towards any action that will hold FS to account. I No, they are not. And not even "vaguely". Fundamental Point here - It's not their money. And with their scruples they proceeded as such. And if you still want to invest your hard earned with them, then go right ahead.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Feb 11, 2019 9:19:28 GMT
As everyone can see from the loan updates there is a significant disparity between the amount achieved at auction from the loan TV and the oh so many further advances made based on a development that was demonstrably not taking place despite FS's accepted the assurances of the developer.
What I do want to know is how FS can be held to account for lending OUR money to what seems to be a totally dishonest person when there was nothing to justify the further loans. Why FS accepted what the borrower asserted without any proof whatsoever. Why FS state that the total borrowed will never exceed 70% of the LTV when it so very obviously did and that sort of thing.
Frankly I do wonder if FS are even vaguely competent.
I suggest that anyone who is totally dishonest copies the actions of the Whitehaven borrower if they just want to scam money as it so obviously works and FS are so obviously incompetent they will accept anything.
Please note that I am more than happy to contribute £1K (10 - 20% of my losses) towards any action that will hold FS to account. I No, they are not. And not even "vaguely". Fundamental Point here - It's not their money. And with their scruples they proceeded as such. And if you still want to invest your hard earned with them, then go right ahead. They might be tools, but it is very much their money- they only get their fees after we get our money back. It's often stated that FS act as they do because its not their money and that is simply wrong. Their ongoing business viability depends on successful completion of loans. Again, they may be idiots, but it has nothing to do with it being our money rather than their own.
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Feb 11, 2019 9:51:41 GMT
They might be tools, but it is very much their money- they only get their fees after we get our money back. It's often stated that FS act as they do because its not their money and that is simply wrong. Their ongoing business viability depends on successful completion of loans. I think it depends simply on PRETENDING about their success. Look at how investments are not defaulted when they should be (Art loans??? Powerboats??). Also look at how incredibly reluctant they are to sell the relevant assets when they do default, especially when it would probably bring a big crystalised loss. Both of these things make their figures look way better than they should be, imo that is how they are keeping ongoing viability going. If they were forced to be honest about defaults and losses you would have a point. Yeah right cmon pull the other one. Do you really think they would have sent half a million pounds of their OWN money to the whitehaven borrower? Without even bothering to check what he said first?
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Feb 11, 2019 10:01:02 GMT
They might be tools, but it is very much their money- they only get their fees after we get our money back. It's often stated that FS act as they do because its not their money and that is simply wrong. Their ongoing business viability depends on successful completion of loans. I think it depends simply on PRETENDING about their success. Look at how investments are not defaulted when they should be (Art loans??? Powerboats??). Also look at how incredibly reluctant they are to sell the relevant assets when they do default, especially when it would probably bring a big crystalised loss. Both of these things make their figures look way better than they should be, imo that is how they are keeping ongoing viability going. If they were forced to be honest about defaults and losses you would have a point. Yeah right cmon pull the other one. Do you really think they would have sent half a million pounds of their OWN money to the whitehaven borrower? Without even bothering to check what he said first? Your argument has nothing to do with what was originally being discussed. Whether they delay defaults to make their advertised figures looks better has nothing to do with whether FS ultimately get the fees and commission they hope to get and on which the business requires for both cash flow and profit. I agree with you that FS seem to unreasonably delay defaults, but that is a different discussion. FS require loans to complete successfully for their very survival (from both a PR and a cash flow perspective). That means they have an intrinsic need to ensure as much of our money as possible is returned to us. Do you disagree? Again, I'm not saying they're good at doing this, rather that it is what they need to do to continue operating.
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Feb 11, 2019 10:12:50 GMT
It has a lot to do with keeping their business ongoing.
They manipulate the PR about loans as it is (as already discussed). I agree FS would be happiest with a platform that has huge loan flow and everything repaid on time without issues. However FS's interests are not aligned with lenders. FS want to spend as little as possible and do no work on due dilligence - Lenders expect thorough due dilligence (FS advertise that on their webpage). AT A MINIMUM at least truthful and accurate loan descriptions and updates. We have not even been getting that. Lenders expect reasonable valuations - FS want as much money lent out as possible. The real problems start when they know our money isn't going to be returned to us, their interests are not the same as ours there either, especially when they have been negligent on the loans (grossly in some cases).
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Feb 11, 2019 10:20:41 GMT
You are ignoring the only point I'm making: FS income depends entirely on successfully completing enough loans to cover all their expenses. PR spin can delay issues in a business, but it is only temporary. All businesses require cash flow and without loan completions they will be struggling. So they go into each loan with the desire and belief they will complete. The discussion I was replying to implied FS don't even care about what happens to investor money.
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Feb 11, 2019 10:25:30 GMT
You are ignoring the only point I'm making: FS income depends entirely on successfully completing enough loans to cover all their expenses. PR spin can delay issues in a business, but it is only temporary. All businesses require cash flow and without loan completions they will be struggling. So they go into each loan with the desire and belief they will complete. The discussion I was replying to implied FS don't even care about what happens to investor money. They certainly care a lot less than if it was there money. You ignored my question, Do you really think they would have sent half a million pounds of their own money to the Whitehaven borrower? Without even checking what they said and accepting the ridiculous valuation?
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Feb 11, 2019 10:31:12 GMT
You are ignoring the only point I'm making: FS income depends entirely on successfully completing enough loans to cover all their expenses. PR spin can delay issues in a business, but it is only temporary. All businesses require cash flow and without loan completions they will be struggling. So they go into each loan with the desire and belief they will complete. The discussion I was replying to implied FS don't even care about what happens to investor money. They certainly care a lot less than if it was there money. You ignored my question, Do you really think they would have sent half a million pounds of their own money to the Whitehaven borrower? Without even checking what they said and accepting the ridiculous valuation? It's impossible to know. I was focusing only on the principles of business. In the Whitehaven fiasco, the investors lost their capital from the last and seemingly avoidable tranche, while FS lost a smaller commission but also a lot of credibility. How does one value credibility? Are the millions and millions of new loan reductions as a result of this? Which side had the larger loss? Again, it's impossible to know, but stating as fact that FS would behave differently if it was their money is a common refrain which is sometimes correct, but often is just used when looking for someone to blame to make yourself feel better.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,899
Likes: 4,131
|
Post by adrian77 on Feb 11, 2019 10:45:30 GMT
totally agree - but I think the issue here is whether this is actually being delivered. True they may lose their fee for a default but there again if they gamble a few million of our money I really don't see why they should be that concerned as long as they remain in business.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 4,845
|
Post by ozboy on Feb 11, 2019 12:58:48 GMT
They certainly care a lot less than if it was there money. You ignored my question, Do you really think they would have sent half a million pounds of their own money to the Whitehaven borrower? Without even checking what they said and accepting the ridiculous valuation? It's impossible to know. I was focusing only on the principles of business. In the Whitehaven fiasco, the investors lost their capital from the last and seemingly avoidable tranche, while FS lost a smaller commission but also a lot of credibility. How does one value credibility? Are the millions and millions of new loan reductions as a result of this? Which side had the larger loss? Again, it's impossible to know, but stating as fact that FS would behave differently if it was their money is a common refrain which is sometimes correct, but often is just used when looking for someone to blame to make yourself feel better. Rubbish.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 6,588
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 11, 2019 18:48:38 GMT
No, they are not. And not even "vaguely". Fundamental Point here - It's not their money. And with their scruples they proceeded as such. And if you still want to invest your hard earned with them, then go right ahead. they only get their fees after we get our money back. Hmmm not completely true. All the art loans (yes those art loans) were subject to upfront arrangement fees along with an ongoing admin fee of 0.72% or 0.8% per month (and some subject to a further default fee of 0.5% per month).
For instance 3020915407 was a loan of £494,700 which include an upfront arrangement fee of £9,700. Not a huge chunk of change I know but paid for by lenders to FundingUnsecured!
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Feb 11, 2019 18:53:33 GMT
For instance 3020915407 was a loan of £494,700 which include an upfront arrangement fee of £9,700. Not a huge chunk of change I know but paid for by lenders to FundingUnsecured! Thank you, now we know the truth and not made up facts.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Feb 12, 2019 3:03:54 GMT
As the name implies upfront means before any investment. I presume the fees are used in preparing legals and arranging valuations etc. If the borrower doesn’t take up the loan it could be used to pay interest to lenders that invested before activation.
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Feb 12, 2019 4:07:16 GMT
As the name implies upfront means before any investment. I presume the fees are used in preparing legals and arranging valuations etc. If the borrower doesn’t take up the loan it could be used to pay interest to lenders that invested before activation. You must have somehow missed the part where the post said You have no idea what they spent the upfront fee on. It certainly appears like they checked nothing out legally. Other platforms did turn down loaning on these items so presumably they actually did carry out some checks FundingSecure never bothered with. The valuations on FS are regularly just plucked out of thin air. "Current value : £800,000" (Whitehaven)
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Feb 12, 2019 8:28:08 GMT
As the name implies upfront means before any investment. I presume the fees are used in preparing legals and arranging valuations etc. If the borrower doesn’t take up the loan it could be used to pay interest to lenders that invested before activation. The arrangement fee listed by Mousey is exactly 2% of the sum presumably released to the borrower: £9700 / (£494700 - £9700) i.e. it appears to be funded by lenders. The ongoing monthly fee (and default fee, if applicable) is presumably added to the interest due to lenders on redemption.
|
|