mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 20, 2018 0:42:37 GMT
it is due for renewal but I suspect the value of site increases soon due to favourable planning applications. This will enable the interest to be rolled up (ie borrower doesn't pay the interest) during renewal. I also expect that the value of the site would increase if PP is given. However, the update from earlier this month suggested that if the meeting on Wednesday goes positively the plans would be resubmitted. That's all well and good, but how long might it then take to get from there to actually having approval?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 19, 2018 23:30:32 GMT
FS have clearly stated that the ex-wife charge was behind ours, and this was stated in the information related to the loan. In case this is not true, I fell lenders will have a strong legal case against FS, as it used deceptive methods (false statements) to convince people investing in. I believe this is not convenient for them, so they will have to battle (if necessary) to defend their position in the charges queue. I expect that what FS said was true. But a 'legal opinion' is only an opinion. The wife probably has a legal opinion that says the opposite. The only way to resolve this is likely to be a very expensive court case. The winners won't be the FS investors or the wife -- they'll be the lawyers!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 19, 2018 23:09:44 GMT
Am I missing something? Zoopla estimate is about £230k, others the same on the same street are selling for in excess of £200k so there'd have to be major issues to not recover the £138k. Arguably you would need to sell in the region of £155,000 to cover capital, interest and associated fees. If our property fetched anything close to offers over £160k, we'd still recover 100%. Badly Drawn Stickman and Jeepers : It looks to me as if you are presuming the property would be sold after six months, i.e. as soon as the borrower doesn't repay the loan at the end of the term. IMHO, that's incredibly overoptimistic. Based on what I've seen happen on other loans -- at FS and on other platforms -- the reality is likely to look more like... - Firstly, there will be a delay while the borrower claims they'll pay the interest and renew the loan, or that they're working on a refinance.
- It would be a few months, at best, before FS would be convinced that the borrower is making so little progress that they need to appoint receivers.
- once appointed, the receivers will take a couple of months to put together their proposed plan of action.
- The property would go on the market and stay there for a minimum of 2-3 months.
- Potential buyers will know that it's receivers selling the property, so any offers received will be at quite a discount from the actual 'market value'.
- If no acceptable offers are received, a decision will be taken to put the property up for auction.
- There will be a month or two delay waiting for an appropriate auction.
- With a bit of luck, the bidding will reach the reserve price, and the buyer will then have a month to complete the sale.
- (If the reserve isn't reached, go back a couple steps and wait for another auction...
I'd guess the whole process would take about a year after the loan matures, so instead of needing a sale at £155-160k for a full recovery of the £138k loan, it would require a sale for more like £200k, especially as there will have extra costs mounting up during the process.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting this is a bad loan. I've put some money into it myself. But I feel that if the borrower doesn't repay it will be a struggle to make a full recovery. I'm hoping that recovery of all capital would be possible.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 19, 2018 22:06:35 GMT
Question asked regarding whether the 3flats (2 loans) were for the same borrower rejected. Further question regarding the length of lease/s remaining also rejected but assurance given that due diligence has been done fundingsecure are now refusing to answer questions relevant to the decision whether or not to invest? Even those that don't mean identifying the borrower? How is that going to give investors the confidence to commit money towards an FS loan? No wonder there are ten FS loans still looking for funding at the moment!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 16, 2018 3:54:28 GMT
I do think we are either going to see 14% as the new norm or cashback 💷💷💷💷💷💷💷💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💵💵💵💵💵💵💴💴💴💴💴💸💸💸💸💸💸 I thought so too. Then this week's loans arrived -- mostly at 12% (bling even lower), and no bonuses to attract BHs. And then -- surprise, surprise -- the PM has six loans available, still needing over £1M of funding. In a few hours, a seventh loan will join the list and I expect the amount of funding required will rise to about £1.3M. I really do hope fundingsecure recognise that they are contributing to the lack of investor enthusiasm, that they no longer can count on the quick funding of anything they put on the platform, that they need to take action to address these issues -- and that they actually do something!.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 15, 2018 23:40:52 GMT
Does anyone know why there are so many -1% discounted loans on the SM? -flight out of high risk loans after Collateral -general concerns about P2P at the moment, especially valuations and development loans -FS default rate -FS governance of loans -tax advantages of selling early vs holding to term outweigh even a 1% discount And very few buyers -- because of the first four points noted above.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 15, 2018 11:48:45 GMT
I don't think the new sponsor's boat can be either of the 2 boats that are in storage. Check out social media and it would appear that it is our boat R**** (A-7) which is now resplendent in the new sponsor's livery - they're allowed to take them out of storage for publicity purposes. Didn't FS tell us -- probably somewhere in the previous 40+ pages of this thread -- that the picture of this boat in its new livery was produced by CGI? (I.e. it was 'Photoshopped'.)
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 15, 2018 11:44:25 GMT
Are FS seriously planning to renew this loan - should be interesting... If FS were to manage to obtain enough funds to renew this loan, that would be a major achievement. At the moment, AFAIK this loan is showing accrued interest that's 25+% of the face value -- and that might be more of a 'recovery' than some people here are expecting we'd get if we repossessed the boat and sold it. I have difficulty working out, however, how they could manage to find enough investors willing to put money towards the renewal loans to actually achieve the renewal. The 'ordinary' loans released this morning don't seem to have received an enthusiastic reception, and that illustrates the current state of support FS have from investors.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 15, 2018 10:53:54 GMT
I wish the developer well but its looks very high risk so hit me with the Smutty Stick baby! You obviously aren't the only one with doubts. Nearly an hour after this loan was released, it's only 25% funded. And it's not as if it's a huge loan.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 13, 2018 4:09:39 GMT
While I like this it’s a bit irritating that AC are calling it interest when it is clearly a cashback. For example: time limited offer, finishes with the tax year for ISAs (i.e. incentive to trade), comes from “monitoring income” direct from AC rather than a borrower. Ok, it’s associated with lending but it doesn’t matter what kind of lending so for example the QAA is included but putting cash in the QAA isn’t always lending - it’s often underwriting which attracts fees (or cashback!) rather than interest. If AC had officially called it a cashback they’d also have to account for it differently on the tax statement since it wouldn’t be taxed. Perhaps they are calling it bonus interest because people from cash ISAs can wrap their head round it? If so, that’s not a good reason. I dont think they are allowed to call it cashabck because it will be related to a time period. Same as ablrate instant return. I'm certainly no expert, but I was under the impression that because P2P platforms, including AC, were not licensed as deposit-taking institutions -- or whatever the official descriptive phrase is -- they weren't allowed to pay 'interest'. The interest we earn comes from the borrowers, and anything paid by the platform ought to be considered an incentive payment of some sort rather than interest. Having said that, though, ISTM that even when AC made payments in the past that they described as 'cashback' their statements after the end of the tax year included those payments and indicated that we should be reporting them as income to HMRC. (My 2014/15 AC Tax Statement shows Interest = £XXX, Cashback = £YYY, and Taxable amount = £ZZZ, where £ZZZ = £XXX + £YYY.) IIRC, some people didn't agree with that position and may have omitted those payments from their tax returns, but that was their, or their accountants', choice and had nothing to do with AC -- who, no doubt, will maintain their position that they can't give tax advice/guidance, so it's all up to us to interpret the figures they supply.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 13, 2018 3:36:47 GMT
If AC is charging 6%, paying 3.75% to QAA etc, there is a nice safe return in the margin, a bit for AC and a bit for the PF, fairly risk free all round. IIRC, in the beginning AC said that about a third of the QAA would be held in cash in order to ensure liquidity. If that's still the case, then having two-thirds invested at 5% wouldn't produce enough interest to pay 3.75% on the whole QAA amount. It would require 75% invested to cover the QAA interest, and that would leave nothing to put toward the PF. There's always the chance that now that AC have experience with how people have been using the QAA/30DAA they may have decided that one-third held in cash is more than they feel is necessary. Reducing that chunk of 'idle' funds would allow them to put more low-rate loans into the fund and/or generate more 'surplus' to put toward the PF -- and eventually to AC's bottom line if the PF is built up far enough. But such a move also would increase the risk that a lot of people trying to exit the QAA/30DAA at once would cause a crisis.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 12, 2018 21:08:57 GMT
I grabbed a small chunk, but have not yet increased this because: - it makes no difference to the cashback whether I invest "now" or on the last day of the month, and there seems no imminent danger of this loan becoming fully subscribed today. Because Lendy could decide to remove some or all of those parts from the SM without notice? That's what it looks like they did on Tuesday afternoon with the recent tranches of DFL029 and DFL030. And, based on the previous post, it looks like Lendy have done just that! So where is the other £250k that the borrower wants/needs to continue the development going to come from?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 9, 2018 4:30:15 GMT
This SM currently is mental...can't figure out what is going on! Someone is selling a lot at 1% discount Is it true that a lot is being sold at 1% discount? Or just that a lot is being offered at that discount in an effort to convince someone to buy? How can we know? I've put a few bits up for sale, and while I can't be sure exactly what's happening, it doesn't look to me like many of the parts in front of me in the selling queue are going anywhere.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 9, 2018 4:06:52 GMT
Agreed...there has deffo been an increase of sales on the SM. Especially after the 11am loans went out this morning. Another thing that happened in the afternoon was that non-renewing investors in the C****n Street received their capital and interest. That put something in excess of £500k into investors' accounts, and some of that likely would have gone into buying discounted SM parts.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 8, 2018 4:42:54 GMT
I grabbed a small chunk, but have not yet increased this because: - it makes no difference to the cashback whether I invest "now" or on the last day of the month, and there seems no imminent danger of this loan becoming fully subscribed today. Because Lendy could decide to remove some or all of those parts from the SM without notice? That's what it looks like they did on Tuesday afternoon with the recent tranches of DFL029 and DFL030. - why take only 1% cashback for a loan supported only by a second charge when there's a 2% cashback opportunity for a different loan supported by a first charge likely to go live soon? Because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? ISTM that Lendy are having extreme difficulty funding tranches recently, even small ones. Unless things change significantly, I don't see how they could manage to fund a £5.2M loan, even with 2% cashback on offer.
|
|