greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jul 23, 2018 16:21:10 GMT
Latest on the Vase loan (1179005019), from Live Chat: Well, they have confidence guys! Don't know why I was ever worried about 45% LTV ratio loan that is now 230 days overdue. It wouldn't surprise me at this point if FS don't even have the items in their possession, I can't understand why else they would not have just sold the items, unless the valuation is a crock. The same as the response to a query about other art loans - obviously the stock cut'n'paste answer to any question about the however many loans involved in this 'complex' case. I still don't understand what could be complex about unredeemed pawn loans where FS holds the pledged item …..
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jul 23, 2018 6:21:05 GMT
It stinks to high heaven and FS aren't telling us everything. Obviously. What the hell do lawyers have to do with it, unless maybe there's a question over provenance/ownership? It's a Straight Pawn Loan. Supposedly. FS' track record with this type of security is that they get shot of it fairly swiftly because FS knows the valuation is probably, reasonably accurate. Unlike the Property Loans, which FS knows ................... When I emailed them (about loan 1614460897, at least), their line was that if they go through lawyers, as lawyers are bound by certain professional conduct obligations, FS can have more faith/trust in what they are being told. Whereas they wouldn't necessarily be able to have that same confidence in what they are being told if going straight to the borrower (the penny finally drops that maybe they're being led up the garden path by these borrowers!). This isn't to excuse any of what FS is doing, and it doesn't necessarily explain why lawyers are involved in the first place. In that regard, though, they also told me: This is a complex case and therefore will take some time to recover. Unfortunately the repayments have not arrived as expected, but we have confidence that there will be tangible progress shortly. We are unfortunately not able to disclose details at this time but we are still talking to the borrower as well as their legal teams.Apologies if I wasn't meant to post that for some reason, but I assume it's okay as there isn't anything much concrete in it. Thanks for sharing. Personally I can't see what's 'complex' about selling items held as security against unredeemed pawn loans. That assumes, of course, that the items are held by FS and the lending agreement is straightforward pawn.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jul 22, 2018 18:11:52 GMT
I'm accepting (sort of) of business and property loans running over, and that a certain amount of flexibility is sometimes needed to obtain the best result for borrowers and lenders. But these daubs are straightforward 6 month pawn loans where FS holds the items as security for our money (aren't they, don't they ). The loan is unredeemed, the items should be sold to recover our money. The fact that there a number of loans to the same borrower only makes this more pressing - if they're struggling to extend or redeem one loan they've probably no chance of settling multiple loans. Given that the three I'm in are all supposedly 50-55% LTV, even the need to recover a year's interest at 13% would allow them to flogged at prices that should sell quickly.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jul 22, 2018 11:29:45 GMT
Some of this is jawdropping. Take 5073631341.
In March there's this very reassuring statement:
26/03/2018
Borrower has advised that we should have interest this coming week.
By May, with no money or intervening updates, we've gone to:
23/05/2018
We apologise for the infrequency of updates on this loan. We are currently working with the borrower’s lawyers to repay this and all other loans as soon as possible. At the moment we expect all loans to be fully repaid within the next 3 months with some partial repayments starting next month.
And now another two months on, still no repayments, partial or otherwise, and no update.
A charitable interpretation would be that FS are too ready to accept glib promises from delinquent borrowers. Others may have less charitable, and potentially libellous, interpretations.
I've voted with my wallet and stopped investing through FS a while back. Others seem to have done the same. I wonder if they will still be around in 12 months?
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jul 18, 2018 22:30:35 GMT
Site either throws me out after a long wait or tells me
Maybe just as well, I wasn't overly keen on this loan and this might be an omen …
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jul 16, 2018 20:25:39 GMT
We chose to invest in P2P, and we know or should know it's high risk. If we get it wrong our bad. Unfortunately a lot of people have assumed P2P is not a high risk prospect, and they think a 12% return can be expected, seems there is a reality check taking place at the minute. At the start of this boom some of the early P2P adopters tried to point out the inevitability of defaults and the pain this would bring, but until you experience it you don't really understand it. I'm not sure what regulators can do about it, banks etc have always had to deal with fraud and lower credit borrowers not paying back, P2P is also seeing the same problems, which will lead to generally lower rates if you want to avoid the worst borrowers. Pretty much sums it up. As a 'retail', low net worth, unsophisticated, whatever lender I don't feel the need to be 'protected' by the government - it's my call whether I invest in a loan or not, same as it's my call if I put the money on an outsider in the 3:30 at Haydock. That said I would like to see a more vigorous recovery process by some platforms, although I can't see any way to impose/enforce this that didn't involve a much larger and very intrusive regulator.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jul 16, 2018 14:35:13 GMT
Of the 16 or 18 loans available now about half are additional s or tranches and many folk will be in earlier tranches and dont want anymore, another 4 I wouldn't touch and a few I think are ok and have put money down. Another reason the number of loans at 12% are growing, nearly all were once 13% What, you mean you don't want a subordinated loan against a dilapidated squatter's paradise in liverpool offered at the same rate as the senior loan? Or, the 10th iteration of a development currently worth £1,300,000 that appears to be largely at waist height? Or, the disused RAF recreational field/floodplain/triangle of amenity land? There really is no pleasing some people. Safe as park houses the lot of 'em. And what prudent investor wouldn't be tempted by the umpteenth job lot of swords and clocks?
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jul 10, 2018 20:41:13 GMT
If the funds have not arrived then how can funding be 'ongoing', you illiterate wretches.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jun 23, 2018 17:48:14 GMT
Although he doesn't post on this forum anymore...I personally would have gone for Dualinvestor I would too and he has his plaudits in the other place as well. Someone has already asked him (in the other place) if he would be prepared to be part of the Creditor's Committee and he has said that if nominated, he would. He is a retired insolvency practitioner (qualified as a chartered accountant) and I've always found his posts to be calm, reasoned and certainly on matters of insolvency, erudite. My bold. Surely excellent credentials for the job and from what I recall of his postings I would agree with the rest of that sentence. Does it need a creditor to be elected and then immediately hand their proxy to DI?
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jun 23, 2018 17:36:01 GMT
Mine just arrived, a few pennies more than my most recent record (presumably an interest payment before the shutters came down.)
Lots of rather (IMHO) fruitless speculation here about whether BDO are doing this work efficiently or not ... without knowing what crippled form of data they've managed to get hold of, it's impossible for anyone here to know whether they could have done it better. My equally humble opinion is the same ... the forum does seem blessed with a fair number of what in America are known as 'Monday morning quarterbacks'.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jun 22, 2018 20:55:04 GMT
Nothing here too, so you are not alone. Sending 750+ emails with attachments without automation is definitely an unefficient waste of time. These people are paid too much for their skills. I'm not sure you could automate a one off action like this, presumably they are doing it in a steady focused way to avoid any mistakes. We have been wanting this conformation for quite a while. Pretty sure I would like them to get it right, so suspect it is a one doing and one checking task, so probably costing twice as much as you are unhappy with. On this occasion I can live with this level of care and cost. (Admittedly I got mine hours ago, so maybe have a more tolerant take on the situation) Yup. Better I think it's done thoroughly. And while I get that folk are eager/anxious to see their numbers it's not particularly time sensitive.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jun 22, 2018 18:05:09 GMT
Mine is correct. I had no pending transactions when it all went belly up.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jun 17, 2018 15:14:53 GMT
- the owners have gone rogue, trying to destroy the evidence, Is there any evidence that this is the case?
I think the only facts are that COL had investor records when they were running the platform, but BDO do not. I assume RR had them (as they were anticipating an orderly distribution of funds as loans repaid) and would have been responsible for safeguarding them though the administration process. The first court case didn't remove RR, but it severely limited what they could do (for example collect borrower payments, but not spend any of that money). So if RR had investor data when they took over were they responsible for its safe retention until BDO took over?
I think it has been said here (with what authority I know not) that the restrictions placed on RR prevented them paying the fees needed to maintain off-site backups of data, and hence they lost whatever access to these records they may have had - although BDO are apparently talking the service provider concerned. I do have to wonder why among the immediate actions of RR on being appointed wasn't making copies of every accessible electron whether on- or off- site. I would have.
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jun 13, 2018 5:51:38 GMT
Morning, Given that the administrator yesterday determined that Collateral lenders would be classified as creditors to the business and that platform data may no longer be available, this places Collateral lenders in a somewhat difficult position. While this is not our concern, we do have considerable sympathy for lenders involved and we have been considering what practical help we may be able to provide. We have made contact with an insolvency practitioner that may be prepared to act on behalf of any individual lenders to give them a collective voice. While they would not be the IP of course, since one has already been appointed, they are familiar with the P2P set up as they have acted for us before and they are an experienced administrator themselves. We have sent them some information and they are currently reviewing this to assess whether they can assist. In the meantime, if any lenders are interested in this type of solution, please let me know. Kind regards, Ed I've not been keeping up to date on this, but I find it next to impossible to believe that this data does not exist. If there is no physical record, then their would be some backups, somewhere. Presumably offsite. Even in the event the provider quickly killed off and wiped the client server, they'd not have cleared down any backups, if they existed. If collateral were maintaining their own backups, they would likely be off site. Having worked for well over a decade in data centres and providing servers/developing platforms in scenarios similar to this, I think it, unthinkable, that a recoverable backup is not somewhere... I'd be more than happy to volunteer my time to liaise with any providers and extract usable data from a database backup. fwiw - whilst in these situations in the past, I have been asked by clients to specifically delete and purge data held on servers. You can I expect draw conclusions from this. Either should be investigated imo, because either intent to commit fraud or yet more blatant incompetence and thus possible grounds for further legal action could be gained. A pessimistic non-lawyer writes. There may well be extant backups, in the shape of 1s and 0s residing on a system somewhere. I suppose the first question is where? - and of course it may not even be in UK. The next question that occurs to me is that of who now owns it? Presumably if the fees to the service provider have not been paid Col, RR or BDO don't own the data now residing with Servers'R'Us of High St, Lagos? Which leads onto the question of how does a non-owner access those 1s and 0s? Or maybe it's all much more straightforward - there's a first time for anything, even the law. As for any in-house backups that may or may not have existed - well, it's amazing what even a Guardian journalist can achieve with a few simple power tools - see here from 0:40 on
|
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jun 5, 2018 7:44:11 GMT
Those who grew up reading stories of the Fat Owl of the Remove will doubtless recall the long awaited postal order.
|
|