Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on May 11, 2018 18:34:48 GMT
Thinking out loud here... does the closure of the GEA mean capital losses for those in the I*I loans becomes quite/more likely, even with the PF?
The PF is partially funded by the difference in interest rate between what the borrower pays and what GEA holders receive. No further loans coming into the GEA means as loans finish this income stream to the PF will gradually diminish.
The expected loss AC have used (from BOE 2016 stress test) is only 0.08%, with PF coverage 3x that.
With the I*I loans all going quite badly awry and given they're some of the largest in the GEA, you can probably assume that the 0.08% is going to be significant underestimate, and with the account now closing there won't be time to move back towards that estimate.
Is it possible to see how much is in the GEA? And how much of each loan is GEA vs MLA? Knowing that you can probably get a rough idea what is in the PF, and whether the expected losses from the I*I loans will be covered or not.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on May 9, 2018 11:45:14 GMT
There's a "cashflow projection" on the marketer's website showing as of 25th Sept 2017, £6.76m had been spent and £2.54m was required to complete. Not sure any more work was done after this date so this should be a relatively close approximation of the state of play (minus any depreciation since, and costs incurred to take over a project). I've put a link in DD-C.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on May 9, 2018 11:34:17 GMT
There could well be unilateral notices on a number of the room sales, which may take preference over Lendy's charge. All of this information should form part of the voting text so lenders know what they are really voting for. They don't. The Lendy charge predates the UNs. That's why our security is so strong. Is this confirmed / checkable somehow? The initial loan details said, "they have currently exchanged on 56 units (as of 5th April 2016) i.e c£1.5m." So potentially these 56 could rank ahead?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Apr 20, 2018 13:51:12 GMT
I picked up a reasonable sized chunk of a non-protected loan yesterday, so thought I'd have a look at the details. It was a group of watches, 75% LTV. Scrolling down I see the borrower has a number of other loans on the platform, so I had a look at each of them, tallied up my investment amount and was a little surprised to find it came to 16% of total Unbolted investment. Mostly not protected and mostly at LTVs in the 70-80% range. Does this seem a little overconcentrated to anyone else? How reliable are watch valuations historically? And should the borrower default, would trying to shift 50+ watches at the same time suppress the sale values (excessively)?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Apr 20, 2018 12:03:52 GMT
This is what I got from chris. Might be worth trying as I have had a similar problem that made the system basically unuseable for me recently. If you have your current tax liability on your dashboard then that can time out when it is calculated with the current implementation. If you change that figure for another by customising your dashboard then you'll find it loads much more quickly and the timeouts stop.I've been getting the timeout errors when logging in pretty much every time recently, but just logged in fine first time and noticed the 'current tax liability' segment on my dashboard has been removed for me, so it seems likely this was the problem for me too.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Mar 30, 2018 15:35:11 GMT
Thanks for the heads up. I'd like to be able to comment on whether this has affected me as well, but as you say, this isn't possible without a proper audit trail. I guess I'll have to start tracking my account figures on a daily basis too... the exact opposite of what I want from a 'fire and forget' platform.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Mar 9, 2018 14:09:35 GMT
2530766843 (London, Fit***** S*****) ended 23/12/17, first update 06/03/18 - 10 weeks! Update says receivers will be appointed at the end of the week if funds aren't received. Having enquired directly about this loan a few times, it does seem they have had some contact with the borrower, they just haven't bothered to update lenders.
More generally, maybe FS should look at Lendy for a lesson. When their overdue loans started to spiral out of control they all but ceased origination to focus on recoveries. Their processes appear to be improved now but the reputational hit they took has meant they're now struggling to fill even tiny loans.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Mar 8, 2018 12:58:43 GMT
Anyone good with websites able to easily scrape and tally the sale prices of all the eligible items off shop.p*******p***b******.co.uk? Not perfect but might give a ballpark figure to compare to the £2.4/2.6M.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 27, 2018 14:22:36 GMT
Worth remembering that six months interest was held on account when looking at the numbers. So assuming this was built into the loan and assuming MT also held back their share such that the overall interest rate was 18%, then the borrower only received ~£746k. Potentially minus some arrangement fees, solicitor fees, cost of VR etc. (don't the exact details of it all) then the borrower probably hasn't made anything here vs the £730k purchase price.
Edit: ~6 weeks of this interest should still be remaining on the account and will presumably be distributed?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 16, 2018 15:46:13 GMT
Noticed this in the VR (pg 7): So, effectively useless if it defaults in 6 months time...
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 16, 2018 15:04:10 GMT
The other 3 loans are also suspended, so they must be in default too, but PF interest was paid out on those, so why not #437? I received... ”The ******** loan has not been missed by the provision fund payments, this loan is in default (recovery stage) and therefore the interest is not covered by the provision fund at this point.” ...if that helps 🤨 Having just scanned the updates, I can't see an official default notice, and as such don't see that this loan is any different to the other 3 turbines, as others have said. Also, assuming it was in fact defaulted, at what exact date? If it was after the start of the missing interest payments then had the provision fund algorithm been 'working properly' at the time then some of these missed payments would've been covered (up to the point of official default).
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 13, 2018 1:26:10 GMT
innov I love your optimism when one update tells you "funds in place" and the next says ....."subject to DD". We obviously speak a different language, as that appears as a definite negative to me! I wouldn't call it optimism, more an observation of the general 'no news is bad news' nature of p2p platform's updates. As to the content, I imagine "legal due diligence" is quite a wide ranging term. They could be at the dotting i's, crossing t's and double checking they're sending several million pounds to the correct account number stage, which wouldn't be out of line with the rest of the update. Or they could still be weeks/months away, in which case Lendy has had another communication malfunction. Time will tell.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 12, 2018 14:14:20 GMT
The fact that we got an on forum update at all is probably a positive sign, pretty sure we'd have got silence if Lendy were concerned about the repayment.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 9, 2018 15:17:04 GMT
I've been with BM coming up to 1.5 years. XIRR picked up after initial cash drag (as Steve said it would) and has remained slightly above the 7% mark since. However, my Watchlist and Default tabs have become quite full recently, and some of the comments don't sound very positive. A few of these go badly wrong and my XIRR could quickly halve, or worse.
The way I see it, the 1.5% fee we pay is in part for the convenience of not having to self-manage loans but also for BM's supposed expertise in loan selection. I feel like it is going to take years to get a real idea of whether they are living up to the latter part of the equation, and even then, with the p2p industry constantly evolving there's always the risk of 'past performance being no indicator of future performance'. As well as the risk of being one of the 'unlucky ones' who gets more than their fair share of the crystalised losses. I guess my point is: there's an element of blind faith investing with BM, it might take several years to know whether it was a good idea or not.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 6, 2018 14:55:51 GMT
Thanks. That was my assumption but then I remembered MT's Birkenhead loan was the latter (although that was a slightly different situation in that the loans went live at the same time).
|
|