Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 8, 2019 19:22:16 GMT
Green Energy Income Account 0.06% Assetz Capital Stree Test Expected Loss Lol. Looks like they're going to be at least 2 decimal places out, quite possibly closer to 3.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Nov 21, 2018 17:43:44 GMT
I know mrclondon touched on this a few pages back but worth (re-)reading these threads in light of what we know now (in particular, Unbolted’s statement I’ve linked separately):
It appears the borrower just did the same thing with another pawnbroker. So FS can’t say they weren’t warned, and seem seriously gullible if they believe their own statement that this was “with a view to refinancing the painting” when Unbolted clearly state they were about to take the painting into their possession having had no knowledge of FS’ loan prior to being informed by a lender. It also stresses again the importance of identifying linked loans. I sold out of the above loan after this episode but am in some others I wasn’t aware were from the same borrower.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Sept 20, 2018 18:02:05 GMT
Sold is good...but im not so sure the realisation will be as close as you think...wasn't the loan for £46K ? (excl interest) This also appeared on the asset tab :- "Previously valued at £70,000, we have an updated realtime valuation that puts the current value between £85k-£129k, with an estimated OMV of £106,00" £53K...Not even close ! You're probably right. £46K loan. £4.73K lender interest due currently. Auction website advertises "0% selling fee, £0 entry fee and £0 marketing costs", so... £0 there? Receiver has only been on the job a few months and seemingly just stuck it in an online auction, so the damage there possibly depends on whether this was a fixed % fee or a timed rate? FS' fees and admin costs... not entirely clear to me what these are or where they rank in a recovery from the T&Cs, which read like they haven't been updated since FS moved into property and not just pawn loans.
Will be an interesting test case, especially given FS' culpability.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Sept 20, 2018 14:36:22 GMT
Sold for £53k. Looks like it will be close for full recovery after fees. Serious questions for FS either way given the original description and subsequent update of "refurbishment complete" turned out to be wide of reality.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Sept 1, 2018 1:07:34 GMT
my likely losses from a modest GEIA investment will wipe out most of the year's interest from a 10 times larger MLIA investment. GEIA has been a disastrous and ill-conceived investment product. Yep, similar here. Despite the GEIA being only a small percentage of my p2p pot, the loss is looking likely to be my largest in all P2P. Potentially significantly larger than anything in the much maligned FS, MT and even Lendy.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 25, 2018 0:21:45 GMT
This is only speculation on my part but reading between the lines my guess is that the claim will be against the valuers insurance for the poor valuation. It was this inflated valuation that led me to believe that the risk was acceptable. I do not see that their can be a claim against the borrower if we have a full and final settlement with him. That was my reading of it too.
Presumably this remains a possibility for Option 2? So Option 2 has two arrows in its quiver: borrower's PG and the valuer's insurance?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 24, 2018 18:02:40 GMT
I don't think they can do this...pawn loans are clearly defined by law. When an item is sold at auction the Pawnbroker can take the loan + interest + auction fees but the surplus has to be returned to the borrower. They can't just arbitrarily add on another x days interest as a fee. This was a property if that changes things? AIUI the receiver has a duty to balance the want of the lender with fairness to the borrower. FS / the receiver set the reserve as "the full debt". Had the reserve been set at "another x days" and the purchaser completed in < x then I'm sure the borrower wouldn't have complained about getting the surplus.
Not saying it's a big issue, about £10 per £1000 lent if it takes a month, but it just seems a bit odd/off that the transaction hasn't completed yet interest has stopped accruing - our funds are just in the ether earning nothing. For comparison, the Prestbury loan on MT took over a month between exchange and completion but AFAIK the interest still accrued during that time.
I'm sure those on the AC board that get rather irked by AC's tardiness in settling repayments costing them just a couple of days interest wouldn't be happy losing up to a month's worth.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 24, 2018 0:48:55 GMT
Well my funds are lent until they are returned surely? It would be grossly unfair to consider that the point of return (ie the date funds are no longer lent) be dependant upon an unknown process of an unknown length that actually might not even be completed.
ETA: The contract with FS defines repaid as "the date that all repayments due under the Loan Agreement have been made to the FundingSecure Client Deposit Account"
I'm in this loan and was similarly unimpressed when I read the update. By their logic half the defaults should stop accruing interest because they've got 'cheque's in the post' type updates. As you say, there's no guarantee when or if this auction sale will complete. Their terms and conditions does cover this specific scenario though: "6.2.7 Any amount due back to Investors will only be settled once cleared funds have been received from the auction house or the private buyer. Interest will not accrue between the date of the auction and the settlement date." Seems contradictory to the term you quoted, so which takes precedence? Whole thing could've been avoided if FS had the foresight to set the reserve price at the auction as capital + accrued interest + 28 days more accrued interest.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 18, 2018 12:55:07 GMT
Interesting. Maybe another reason to claim a lucky escape re: RR. (Would this have happened regardless of Collateral, or is this a result of the FCA / Courts / etc, re: Collateral) I suspect it has more to do with the pension scandal GC is involved in mentioned a few pages back.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 18, 2018 12:44:26 GMT
Option 2 for me as well for many of the reasons already mentioned:
1) I expect Option 2 is effectively the ‘renegotiate’ option. These people are taught that all debts are negotiable.
2) If someone is willing to lend the borrower £11m for the first charge, then it seems likely there is more value in this project than what we’re being offered.
3) Lendy haven’t given enough information to decide for myself whether this really is the likely best offer, and haven’t provided an explanation of how this situation occurred.
4) Misalignment of interests. A quick resolution suits Lendy far more than it does us lenders. It gets the loan off their books so their recovery team can work on one of the other numerous defaults they have stockpiled, and they’ve already made a tidy sum off this (read: us).
5) I don’t like the scaremongering/manipulative tactics Lendy have used to encourage people into Option 1. They tried the same thing with the PBL120 vote, encouraging us to take the quicker but worse option with the threat that declining would mean a long drawn out “12-18 months to sell”. End result: the vote was split and lo and behold full repayment magically appeared a few weeks later.
6) It sets a bad precedent for all future repayments, across the whole of p2p.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 7, 2018 0:41:08 GMT
AC has just lent 1m to complete a loan for sale so I think all this criticism is a bit unfair. I would agree that the size of some of the loans are a bit large but a lot of the loans coming through are a lot smaller. I would agree that AC faces some challenges over the next year but their initial response has been good so far in my opinion. People aren't criticising AC for the recovery, we are criticising them for getting many of us so heavily exposed through the poor design/implementation/transparency of the (early) automated accounts.
I suspect if AC were able to be honest they would concede they have failed a lot of their customers here. Customers who likely decided to use these accounts because they didn't have the time/expertise/confidence to manually select loans and trusted that AC would do a better job than they could themselves. Perhaps the fact that AC are willing to sink seven figures of their own funds (interest free) to help sort this mess out backs up this conjecture? And as someone who IIRC is in these loans in the MLA, perhaps you are fortuitously benefiting from this enhanced recovery strategy? Would AC be going to these lengths if the loans were 100% MLA funded?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jun 29, 2018 17:13:27 GMT
Why would you face a capital loss when there is a PF that has yet to be used? The issue is more that until the loans are recovered or declared irrecoverable, the money is stuck. Because the size of the PF was recently revealed to be only £116k. With the closure of the account to new investment, this isn't going to rise a significant amount before the loans close out. I'm (pessimistically?) predicting the losses to be larger than this, although as I said, this is hard to gauge with any degree of accuracy.
If so, then the fact the money is stuck is just the fly on the turd.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jun 29, 2018 15:30:34 GMT
You are, of course, correct. But the level of diversification offered, together with the way the PF functioned meant they were very inadequate, ill thought out products, not really fit for purpose, and bound to result in the scabrous comments seen on this thread. Very silly product design, and very flawed - if not toxic. Yep, couldn't agree more in the form they first appeared. Originally a complete black box (which has now been fixed). Originally with no automatic PF payments for late interest (now been fixed) – although AC’s explanation of this is as a ‘technical glitch’ felt a little dubious. Originally no complete explanation of how the PFs would work (now fixed). Originally no automatic diversification (now fixed). Originally no clear documentation of the size of the PFs (now fixed). So while there have been improvements in the functionality and transparency of these accounts, unfortunately, all these changes have come too late for many investors. In hindsight, they should never have been released by AC in their original guise.
Which begs the question, why did I invest in the first place? Firstly, I have only a toe dip in the GEA (3% of my total p2p exposure) and slightly more in the GBBA (~6%). I don’t have the time or expertise to do the quantity and quality of DD as many on this forum, so automated accounts appealed to me and I wanted to test them out. Secondly, the general consensus is that AC is (one of) the most professional, well-run p2p platforms, so there was an element of blind trust (I suppose it had to be blind given the original complete black box situation), for which I can only blame myself. Thirdly, the chatter about the PFs ‘not being guaranteed only because it would then be called insurance’ gave me the belief, naively it seems, that the PFs were extremely well backed and would only fail in extreme circumstances - in a similar fashion to how people treat the instant access of the QAA now. Had the size of the PFs, especially for the GEA, been clearly documented at the time, I definitely wouldn’t have invested.
Personally, I have over 60% of my GEA in the turbine loans (a failing in borrower diversification if not a technical breach of the 20% rule). It’s hard to even guesstimate the return from these but the updates don’t make good reading to my inexpert eye. I’m bracing myself for potential capital losses way above and beyond the (IMO inadequate) PF. If so, and despite only being a toe dip, I’m looking at investing in the GEA as being one of the worst investment decisions I’ve made in p2p.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jun 7, 2018 0:42:51 GMT
Description now reads:
Literally stops mid sentence. They literally don't know what they're doing.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on May 18, 2018 1:05:31 GMT
This second charge business has been going on for four months? Has as anyone written to Lendy asking them is going on First mentioned on 22/12/17, so nearly 5 months. I think the 'official' explanation is that they are trying to negotiate with the UN1 holders so that Lendy's charge ranks ahead of them, making it easier to stay within the maximum 70% LTGDV stated for the 2nd charge loan(s). But with the issues on the developer's other site and Lendy's less than stellar communication history, who knows at this point?
|
|