mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 7, 2017 4:44:03 GMT
Further to the above, the charts have gone missing again. I refreshed the page at about 0300 GMT today and they were fine, but when I refreshed it again just now (at 1720) they were nowhere to be seen. jonah : Is it fair to presume that the PNG files are on a server somewhere? And that I could access them directly if I had the URLs? If so, can you please supply the URLs? With those, we ought to be able to tell whether the source of the problem is the P2PIF system or the server supplying the images. Try jonah.890m.com/smcomplete.pngjonah.890m.com/ratesummary.png jonah: I should have reported that the problem went away when I refreshed next. I wonder if it's just a matter of bad timing on my part -- i.e. me happening to try to refresh at just the moment the charts are being updated. Thanks for the links. Both work now. I'll try them again the next time the charts disappear for me -- if there is one.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
Defaulted loans
Feb 7, 2017 3:27:04 GMT
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 7, 2017 3:27:04 GMT
It's the " any day" comment that rankles. I get the feeling FS shouldn't have used "any". It appears that "some" would have been a better word to choose!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
Overdue loans
Feb 7, 2017 3:23:16 GMT
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 7, 2017 3:23:16 GMT
When the email arrived announcing the renewal stating 13% yield I was preparing to reinvest (having sold out from the previous loan on the SM) as I felt the uplift of 1% represented a fair acknowledgement that the borrower was 2 months late in renewing. However when it became clear that was a mistake, and the yield remained at 12% I decided against. I wasn't too concerned about the delay to the repayment because the borrower did seem to have a genuine transaction in progress that should have produced a substantial chunk of cash. The confusion over the interest rate didn't help, of course. IMHO the 13% rate was appropriate -- not because of the delayed renewal, but because the going rate for FS loans has increased since the maturing loan was made back in May/Jun. My biggest concern at the moment is the exit plan. The transaction to produce the necessary cash was reported as having completed before Christmas. Here we are 6-7 weeks later and the borrower still hasn't received the money! I'm beginning to wonder whether they'll ever get the money. If they don't, and FS have to sell the security, I expect it will take a long time before the right person shows up to buy.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
Overdue loans
Feb 6, 2017 17:20:30 GMT
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 6, 2017 17:20:30 GMT
I have suggested the reasons there loans don't fill as quick as Mt ect but to no avail. I have to agree. The current NI loans have received very little support so far, and I expect that's related to the situation where other NI loans are overdue and updates on those loans are severely lacking. This may suggest there's a problem with FS's NI introducer(s) not providing enough 'after-sales' service. Even if resolution still is some way off, keeping FS lenders informed would build confidence and probably result in more investment and fewer loans sitting around waiting to be funded. A positive resolution of some overdue loans would help even more as even if some of the proceeds do leave the platform, I'd expect a fair amount to stay and be reinvested.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
Defaulted loans
Feb 6, 2017 17:01:11 GMT
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 6, 2017 17:01:11 GMT
Bootle 2417118890 21/01/2017 We are expecting payment of interest any day
Anyone know any more ?
I don't. But since that's dated over two weeks ago, I think it's reasonable to ask fundingsecure for an update.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 6, 2017 12:28:29 GMT
fundingsecure: Thanks for the input. May I ask why FS didn't ask the valuer to provide any limited marketing period values? IMHO, those provide a very useful insight into the discount that might be required in order to sell the property in a reasonable time should that become necessary.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 5, 2017 17:28:26 GMT
Further to the above, the charts have gone missing again. I refreshed the page at about 0300 GMT today and they were fine, but when I refreshed it again just now (at 1720) they were nowhere to be seen. jonah: Is it fair to presume that the PNG files are on a server somewhere? And that I could access them directly if I had the URLs? If so, can you please supply the URLs? With those, we ought to be able to tell whether the source of the problem is the P2PIF system or the server supplying the images.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 4, 2017 23:27:24 GMT
Thats because the GEIA has just gobbled it all up. Looks like they fixed the under 71% issue sl75 Did AC just change the criterion from 70% to 71%? If so, might they have done that in order to make this loan GEIA-eligible?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 4, 2017 22:13:50 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts about the valuations? The first thing that struck me was that fundingsecure didn't get -- presumably because they didn't ask for -- any restricted marketing period (such as 90 or 180-day) values. 'Market' values are a nice starting point, but can be pretty irrelevant if the market for the sort of property involved, or its location, is thin and selling would require either waiting a long time for the right buyer to come along or offering potential buyers a hefty discount. Where a valuer has provided restricted marketing period values, the discount they suggest might be required in order to sell the property relatively quickly says a lot about the local property market, and is very relevant in a foreclosure situation. I haven't a clue whether the current state of the NI property market would suggest larger or smaller discounts than in England might be required. Another thing that struck me was the value given to the 55 acres of land let to a local farmer. At £392k it is by far the most valuable part of the portfolio, so it's very important that the valuation be reasonable. IIRC, £7k/acre seems similar to the value given for other FS land parcels, so that's not a red flag in itself, unless NI land is generally considered not to be as valuable as English land. (Again, I haven't a clue.) But I see that this land is being let for £150/acre, and that seems very low relative to its 'value'. The farmer might be a relative or friend of the owner so the rate might not reflect the market. If it does, however, then I can't imagine that anyone would pay anything remotely close to £392k for land capable of generating a gross income of only £8.25k/year. That's a gross yield of only 2.1% p.a.! My final observation was the curious names of the VR documents -- one is called 'Reduced Valuation Redacted.pdf' and the other is 'Web valuation reduced.pdf'. Might the presence of 'reduced' in the names suggest that these are replacement VRs because the ones originally provided by the valuers were too optimistic for FS to accept? Hopefully not!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 4, 2017 18:55:56 GMT
It would obviously be better for lenders, but it would then be FS paying us the money, not the borrowers (as per Instant Returns on Ablrate) SteveT: But isn't that what's happening now? I wouldn't have thought that borrowers start accruing interest to FS before a loan is 'activated'. Do you? I suppose FS might have an agreement with borrowers that says they have to pay pre-activation interest. That would mean FS would end up paying it only if a loan failed to proceed and be activated. If the interest does come from the borrower, it might come via a reduced drawdown amount upon activation, at which point FS effectively have collected it in advance, and therefore would be in a position to pass it along to investors at that time. It's obviously a bit more awkward if borrowers pay the pre-activation interest but not until they renew the loan or redeem the security. Or, I suppose, if FS have to sell the security in order to repay their investors. Even in those cases, FS could make a note of which investors are due pre-activation interest, and defer paying that until the loan is closed out.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 4, 2017 18:42:29 GMT
I pay 40%/60% tax as I am in the littoral zone of. I would thus get under 3% in 6 months and it would count as income tax pushing me further towards higher rate income tax. @leopardcat: How can someone who's in the zone of losing personal allowance not be in the higher-rate tax band already? Or did you mean to refer to the 45% 'additional' rate band?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 4, 2017 18:32:32 GMT
It is perhaps worth taking the worked example from my previous post and looking at it from the point of view of the SM purchaser buying £1000 at 12% after 137 days (46 remaining) with 0.9% discount costs £1036.04 and on maturity (183 days) will receive £1060.16 back (see previous post for calcs), so a gross gain of £24.12 over 46 days For a non tax payer the annual yield is 18.47% (=24.12/1036.04/46*365) For a basic rate tax payer the tax due is £12.03 (=60.16*0.2) so the net gain is £12.09 (=24.12-12.03) and hence the net annual yield is 9.26% (=12.09/1036.04/46*365) For a higher rate tax payer the tax due is £24.06 (=60.16*0.4) so the net gain is £0.06 (=24.12-24.06) and hence the net annual yield is 0.05% (=0.06/1036.04/46*365) Thanks to mrclondon for this good example. Here are some observations I can add... Non-taxpayer: This is, AFAIK, how FS calculate the 'Effective rate' they show for parts for sale on the SM. Basic rate taxpayer: The after-tax rate doesn't match the 9.6% the seller is achieving only because the buyer is having to pay £1036.04 for the part rather than the par value. Higher rate taxpayer: This explains clearly why HRTs don't buy on the FS SM!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 4, 2017 16:33:21 GMT
I take it that accrued means that interest from the date of placing the bid, and not the go live date, which has been considerably later in some cases. Please confirm. stub8535: If you're referring to setting the price of parts on the SM, AFAIK that's correct. That's one of the reasons why identically-sized parts of the same loan on the SM at the same discount rate can have different prices and different estimated returns. (There's also another problem causing small pricing inconsistencies. These have been brought to FS's attention, and they are working on a solution.)
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 4, 2017 0:06:23 GMT
I didn't think the bonus was paid of the loan wasn't held for term? will: It looks like you understand the situation, but in case you -- or anyone else -- want a fuller explanation of how it works, FS have a good description on their 'Secondary Market' page within the 'Investing with us' pages. See the 'How Secondary Market transactions are reflected in your account" section. (It's about halfway down the page, just above the Taxation section.)
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 3, 2017 18:34:09 GMT
This is 50% guesswork, but it shows how a seemingly stunning asset could become a pig-in-a-poke very quickly, with developers (purchasers) shying away. It does illustrate quite clearly how relatively small changes in assumptions can have major effects on the resulting valuation. The land value of a development project usually is calculated as the difference between two large numbers -- the GDV, and the cost to develop. As a result, a seemingly small percentage change in one or the other of those two numbers will have a greatly magnified impact on that difference.
|
|