Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 6, 2020 3:06:46 GMT
multiaccountmanager - I think you've missed the VAT on the 2.5% fee and the fee is based on the capital+interest amount recovered... (I've assumed 365 day year, i.e. interest applied for 518/365 * nominal rate per annum) £35k @ 12% = £5,960.55 Amount recovered = £40,960.55 2.5% + VAT = 3.0% x amount recovered = £1,228.82 Due to lenders = £4,731.73 within 30p of the actual amount returned to lenders. HTH Room 79 was as expected (and calculated) but the other rooms had slightly larger deductions.
Recreating your method for Room 72 (566 days, interest paid £5,090.73):
(I've assumed 365 day year, i.e. interest applied for 566/365 * nominal rate per annum) £35k @ 12% = £6,512.88 Amount recovered = £41,512.88 2.5% + VAT = 3.0% x amount recovered = £1,245.38 Due to lenders = £5,267.49 out by £176.76 of the actual amount returned to lenders.
The admin proposals said a 2.5% fee "exclusive of VAT and disbursements", so the latter is probably where the 'missing' returns are going, although exactly what falls into this category I'm not sure. If it is legal costs then pre-administration these would've come out of FS' margin not lenders.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 6, 2020 2:47:55 GMT
The contracts are between lenders & borrower with Lendy & SSSH party to the contracts as agents. The security is held by SSSHL, they are the only people who can enforce it on behalf of the beneficiaries of the charge ie lenders, Lendy, SSSH, receivers & any delegate. SSSHL can appoint a receiver or administrator under the security charge to carry out the recovery and Lendy as their agent to manage the recovery on their & lenders behalf. In the case of FS, FS are the security trustee so have the role held by SSSH if the trusts are correctly established for the beneficiaries. That is to be determined. If they are not correct, FS will be the sole beneficiaries (plus the IPs as normal) and lenders will be unsecured creditors of FS. If it turns out the trusts aren't correctly established then FS never was a proper P2P platform, so where would that leave the FCA for giving them full authorisation?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jan 21, 2020 14:27:50 GMT
Room 79 also recovered.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jan 13, 2020 17:12:48 GMT
I'll spare you the percentages but in declining order; FS, Abl, Col, MT, UB, W, L, AC, LW plus small balances in RS, Z, FC, K. Not a pretty picture. I spent a lot of time picking the best and safest loans on the self select platforms but have been somewhat undone by a variety of circumstances. Issues with the borrowers, which I anticipated to some extent, the platforms, where I underestimated their competence and the FCA - where I never for a moment imagined that they would allow third parties the ability to amend their ( the FCA's) own website to say platforms were authorised when they were not. It's really only Abl and UB that I have much enthusiasm for nowadays and this is tempered with a degree of caution. The fact that equities have been racing ahead these past five years just makes my situation worse. Similar story and regrets here.
I only started investing about 4.5 years ago. Naively focused more on P2P than S&S and in that time the respective XIRRs are ~1% (including projected losses) and ~12%, and I’m half expecting more bad news will turn the P2P negative before long. Certainly the worst financial decision I’ve ever made, and factoring in literally thousands of hours wasted on DD, tracking loans, reading forums etc., also one of the worst life decisions.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jan 9, 2020 19:35:51 GMT
Loan repaid in full complete with interest added.
(ref 5592107778)
Just a small matter of waiting to see how long before I can access the money.
Repaid early, but the administrators have still taken a 2.5% fee + VAT etc. Only pennies because this is a very small loan, but it just shows administrators aren't acting fairly and can't be trusted. Of course, the administrators will charge for their time costs for the complaints and correcting their mistakes. Have they since adjusted this? I've only just checked but it looks closer to the expected 0.125%(+VAT) to me.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jan 8, 2020 21:20:18 GMT
How do you see the security on this one? To my inexpert eye, if the company folded tomorrow there would be very little in tangible security. You are right but risk = consequence x likelihood. I don't want to sound like I'm selling this loan (and should declare myself as an aggressive S&S investor), but it looks a great company and their repayments always come flooding in for each loan. What makes you say it looks a great company? Not saying it's not but there's a lack of info to go on and given recent experiences in P2P I'm reluctant to lend on trust. Balance sheet on CH shows net liabilities.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jan 8, 2020 14:11:26 GMT
If you want a surer bet than the artwork, funding their auction house partner has been very consistent at a good rate: £42K of a new loan to them still for sale at the time of writing. The only negative is that they pay back too quickly! How do you see the security on this one? To my inexpert eye, if the company folded tomorrow there would be very little in tangible security.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Dec 4, 2019 15:46:46 GMT
Wait! isn't the court case today? Are you getting mixed up with the MT court case which is today?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Nov 25, 2019 16:50:17 GMT
Risk is, and I think its a very real one, that spending two years with the administrators trying to "realise the best outcome for investors" could actually end up with little in the way of recoveries and a lot in the way of administrators fees. Which is exactly why the administrators have proposed taking their fees as a fixed percentage of recoveries. They rightly pointed out that doing it on a time cost basis creates a potential conflict between the administrators and investors - Collateral springs to mind!
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Nov 18, 2019 19:07:28 GMT
Dear God at c£500 / hr (without Shoesmiths advise) I should hope RSM have enough common sense, to work out that Lendy's latest T&Cs were an attempt to discourage further lender investment with a gradual engineered platform self destruct. By taking their exorbitant fees before lenders capital return (in the event of a default) is tantamount to a sophisticated scam. It appears that they were hoping many inexperienced retail investors, would not read or understand the significance of the changes. Aided by Lendy Support who when asked what had changed responded:
"The refreshed T&Cs are by and large a tidying up exercise to reflect changes we have been making to the model over recent months, and had previously been communicated, for example, cash preferencing. The main addition is the new section 16, which relates to a new voting feature that will enable us to seek the views of 'eligible lenders' before we take action in relation to a loan. Further information on this feature will be communicated to all investors ahead of launch."
I guess the new repayment order that could quite easily see lenders' capital returns reduce by 30+% slipped their mind.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Nov 18, 2019 18:42:23 GMT
It was sort of fun but I’m afraid after experiencing collateral and lendy disorderly and orderly shutdowns I no longer believe anything a platform or FCA says about what happens during platform failure or that client monies are safe or ring fenced. But I gave the answer AC wanted me to so yippee skip. Can add FundingSecure to that list as it turns out their supposed ring fence may actually have a rather large open gate in it.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Nov 15, 2019 15:06:06 GMT
My savings account tip of the day - The Investec Notice Plus account. 1.8% interest and only tied in with 95 days notice. Given that the rate beats the best currently available 1 year fix, that's not a bad deal I think. (also has various flavours of shorter notice/immediate access for slightly less interest, and i believe an extra 0.05% interest if you don't withdraw for 90 days) Now existing customers only and the rate is dropping to 1.6% from 02/03/20 for the 95 days notice.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Nov 8, 2019 15:03:01 GMT
No, not yet. I thought I’d leave it til Tuesday (so two more banking days) and then contact them. I know we are all frustrated but probably better to not inundate them with unnecessary questions in my view. Rumour has it their email inbox notification is the ka-ching noise.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Oct 22, 2019 13:13:38 GMT
Do FS expect us to have forgotten about this loan. Last update was in July so isn't it about time FS proved they have "improved communication" with investors and made it clear that the borrower has taken lenders (via FS) for a ride and that lenders have lost every penny they lent. l know FS don't actually have a charge against the land they were supposed to have and they only actually have a charge against someone who has a charge against this loan. Obviously FS misrepresented this loan when it was offered to investors. Am I shocked at this - well no but I do want to know what FS intend to do to retrieve the money lent, and as an investor I think I have a right to know. There was a High Court hearing on Friday 11th of October involving this set of borrowers as mentioned by Mousey here, so maybe fundingsecure have an update for us now?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Oct 16, 2019 1:23:09 GMT
I'm currently winding down my Moneything holding, but that's to raise cash for other things, rather than due to loss of faith in the platform. My non-ISA account (which is now at zero) returned 10.9% over its lifetime - this could increase a little if/when any more recoveries are made from Birkenhead or Prestbury. My ISA account has so far (since April 18) returned 10.8%, although this has fallen from 12.2% earlier this year mainly due to the Scottish holiday park's lack of interest payments recently. Apart from a trivial amount in Wandsworth, I only have the Scottish holding left now.
|
|