dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 11, 2018 11:44:52 GMT
The public does not have the expertise to weigh up a 600 page deal - that is what Parliament is for. in which case deal is firmly rejected - or would be if there was a vote. So Brexit is off? No. If deal on table is rejected, then no deal it should be. I do understand the views of remainers like yourself. I voted to remain so I understand many of the good points of remaining in EU and believe the EU has achieved many great things since it was formed. I also think it does many things wrong and is slowly becoming something bad in many ways. However, the country voted to leave and MPs and us mere mortals should have then united in seeking the best deal possible together - whilst also preparing fully for no deal. Instead we had many who still simply refuse to accept the result and that dramatically weakened our position in negotiations when we should have shown solidarity and complete preparedness for no deal. The EU are not blind or deaf, if we are unprepared for no deal (or something close) and we have our MPs threatening catastrophe in such event, then we allow the EU to control the negotiations, as we did. So the pretty bad deal now offered is frankly due to those MPs who refused to accept the electoral vote because they know better and have been maneuvering ever since to overturn it or totally fudge it. Shameful.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 11, 2018 10:51:19 GMT
The democratic issue with a second referendum is only if Remain is still an option - when it lost already. A referendum on type of brexit would be ok - even though it would be silly and now it is Parliament that should decide - deal or no deal! And if people were truly interested in the public's view on the largest constitutional change since WW2, they would be actively seeking clear unambiguous consent on the negotiated deal. The public does not have the expertise to weigh up a 600 page deal - that is what Parliament is for.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 11, 2018 10:48:04 GMT
The democratic issue with a second referendum is only if Remain is still an option - when it lost already. A referendum on type of brexit would be ok - even though it would be silly and now it is Parliament that should decide - deal or no deal! It lost against a concept not a reality. Furthermore, I am afraid that the idea that the electorate could never ever change its mind is profoundly antidemocratic. See also: all totalitarian regimes ever. Well now you are stretching in to arch-remoaner territory of believing the electorate to be thick - leaving the EU was not a concept it is the democratic will of the UK people
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 11, 2018 10:40:15 GMT
Amazing that the dialogue has shifted so that a referendum on an aspiration is the irreversible will of the people and the ultimate in democracy but a referendum on an actual negotiated deal is seen as anti-democratic and a betrayal. I smell a rat. The democratic issue with a second referendum is only if Remain is still an option - when it lost already. A referendum on type of brexit would be ok - even though it would be silly and now it is Parliament that should decide - deal or no deal!
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 11, 2018 10:03:00 GMT
I think they will find some new wording over the backstop and the deal will get voted through eventually ... Doubt that'll happen.
Best May/EU can hope is to say "trust us, the deal doesn't really mean what is says in black and white, please sign". Not going to happen. Even if there were a second referendum (which would cause a huge distrust in the political system and destruction of the Tories), wouldn't happen by next March.
Or how about Donald Tusk's "but we are ready to discuss how to facilitate UK ratification" - it is all about wording and egos at the end of the day. Luckily we are using "English" - we have a lot of descriptive yet flakey words that can be used As for a second referendum, there is slim chance of that imo - no one is even going to agree on the question, let alone the answer!!
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 11, 2018 9:45:02 GMT
I think they will find some new wording over the backstop and the deal will get voted through eventually ... nothing else seems even vaguely plausible or desirable. Even if it is just to keep the communists out. Seriously!!!
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Dec 4, 2018 14:12:02 GMT
Hi, just wondering if anyone notice the increase of the interest of latest Welendus loans? My current longest live loans is 120 days, the loan term is 179 days and the borrowers rate is 0.22% per day. The latest new loans ranges from 0.66% to 0.8% per day, that's an increase of at 200%, but no reflection of lender investment rate. What's your thought? The maximum any borrower can pay is capped at 0.8% per day and/or a total of 100% of the amount borrowed (to inc all fees/charges/interest etc) - so if a borrower gets £500 the max they would ever have to repay is £1,000. So the effect of increasing daily rates is simply the speed at which the 100% cap is reached - and the quickest is 125 days @ 0.8% per day. If the rates are being dramatically increased to match the risk then I think there is a fundamental flaw here as a) "good" borrowers will typically repay well before 100% cap is reached b) bad borrower wont ever pay anything regardless of when 100% is reached. Seems like more reliable borrowers are needed as opposed to spiking rates to make this model work. Whilst I understand the rationale that pay day loans are at least better than loan sharks it is still a bit too ursury like for me. I wouldn't want anyone to pay me such rates, especially those can least afford it.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 30, 2018 12:38:13 GMT
One way to look at it is that *if* and I stress the if, people have less money after Brexit - perhaps they are more likely to borrow.
There's always different ways to look at things.
no need to stress the if - the only uncertainty is how much less. I would say that is a very BIG and ARGUABLE "if". The only thing that would be certain is that we start with an extra £39 BILLION - so actually we are GUARANTEED to be better off on day 1! No experts needed. It is very sad how the govt has negotiated with a fragmented institution we could have run rings around.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 29, 2018 15:03:56 GMT
Between this thread, and the radical action thread, I have to ask... ... is there some kind of 'Terrible Idea' competition going on, open only to Lendy investors? The goal being to find the most effective way to whip people into an emotional frenzy, waste everyones time, or shoot themselves in their metaphorical feet? Yes the whole country is playing the same game - prime minister is currently odds on favorite to win
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 27, 2018 14:05:45 GMT
The costs are high but let's not forget we are talking about a loanbook of the value of £17m. So a few % here or there is really not worth going to war over.
Blaming the FCA for all this seems a bit silly. Either that was a red line for you or it wasn't. For me (and I really believe at least 99% of investors) it wasn't. Even if it was it was only ever Interim capable of subsequent rejection for full permission. If it was a red line for you then I empathize with that but be prepared to show that you have never before invested through a company that does not have an FCA (or equivalent) permission. Other than that the FCA are hardly to blame for the shambles we are in, in fact they got rid of the biggest dangers to all of us imo, the owners and their cosy administrator.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 25, 2018 11:40:35 GMT
BTC now around $3500. Reality dawning? I think we are still far away from reality which is probably somewhere in single digits. So at least another $3,490 to go ... and people I know who are VERY VERY smart (Bank CEO, no less) thought we would see $100k. Not sure if that was a guesstimate as to how dumb markets can be, or a belief in its core value, but probably the former. Anyway I think we will see it go much higher as the price is largely controlled by a small group of big holders. When they want it to rise again, it will rise although zero chance of anything close to last year's highs. Best avoided in my opinion.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 20, 2018 11:47:44 GMT
You are trying to drag into the net people who have no existing contract with the borrower, and who Lendy has no agency powers over relating to said contract. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. In the event that there is found to be a valid claim against Lendy investors for not funding the putative build loan, whether that be issued as subsequent tranches to the land loan or as a separate one, then the entire pool of Lendy investors would certainly have been available to fund it, with zero additional obligation on land loan investors. So there is a strong argument that non-land-loan investors are just as much "on the hook" as those who did invest.A strong argument needs to have a basis in law. There is no legal basis for that whatsoever, so it is in fact a very weak argument that will never fly. Unless I am mistaken I don't see that it actually has been argued at all by the borrower so more of a pointless argument. As is this entire claim, which obviously has failed to materialise because it is pure fantasy. Actions speak louder than words.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 19, 2018 15:42:22 GMT
Hi Dandy Given that the original lenders have never promised to lend further money for the redevelopment work, the borrower’s claim in this respect will fail. However if Lendy has exceeded its power of agency (e.g. by promising further loans before any money was raised on the platform) then the Borrowers claim against Lendy if valid could succeed. In which case all persons registered with Lendy would be liable in the first instance and we would then have to claim from Lendy for having exceeded its powers acting as our agent. I emphasise all persons registered with Lendy would be liable (Not just the original lenders) and we would all then have to claim in turn from Lendy for having exceeded their powers. I see. So it is actually everyone that has ever registered with Lendy that is liable. Gotcha. How about anyone that has seen the website? Or clicked an advert? Are they safe?
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 19, 2018 12:16:38 GMT
Hi Meledor Again you’re quite correct in what you say, however the law of agency also applies to this matter. All investors have appointed Lendy as their agent and under agency law if Lendy have exceeded its powers (e.g. by promising loan money when it had not even obtained it from investors) then the borrower (Assuming she has a valid claim) has a right to claim in the first instance against the lenders, and the lenders can only recover their losses by in turn suing Lendy for exceeding their power of agency, but of course by then Lendy may not have sufficient funds to compensate us (assuming they still exist at the time). I think you are a bit confused. The borrower is claiming that lenders who loaned it money committed to lending them more money. There is no claim being suggested against anyone other than lenders that already loaned them money (i.e. lenders in the "purchase" loan - possibly inc. prior lenders in that loan that have sold out). As there is a separate loan agreement for the "build" loan (which is the subject of the proposed claim) this can only draw in lenders from the "purchase" loan IF (big IF) there is an express link between the loan agreements such that lenders in loan 1 retain any obligations for loan 2. Obviously the entire claim is doomed to fail at the first hurdle in any event (and so wont ever be issued imo) but hey people make even more spurious claims than this before the courts are forced to avail them of some common sense, if their lawyers wont/cant.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Nov 16, 2018 10:35:10 GMT
... the issue is tariffs and (I assume) NI/UK would not charge any tariffs to EU/ROI. If ROI are forced to charge tariffs to UK then once again that would be a ridiculous "shot in foot" decision taken elsewhere, by un-elected people that are neither British nor Irish, and would not last very long. Sorry but I can't fathom how one could take that view. It doesn't stand up to any logical test. Its not a question of what ROI/UK or even EU/UK or ROI/NI politicians might want, its a simple matter of fact arising from being in or out of a customs union.
You can't have the ROI de facto inside a customs union by having free movement of goods between it and an EU member state, without then having an internal customs border between NI and rest of UK.
Likewise you can't have free movement of goods between NI and rest of UK as if it is in the internal UK customs union, without have a customs "border" (however implemented) between NI and ROI.
Edit: It would make NI like some incarnation of Schrodinger's cat: it would be "in" the EU customs union and "out" of the UK customs union, while simultaneously being "out" of the EU customs union and "in" the UK customs union.
And probably from a legal and WTO rules view: a simpler perspective: free trade between NI and ROI = free trade between EU and a country outside of EU (since NI = UKI): therefore all WTO members can challenge to have the same privileges.
Car manufacture sets up in NI. Imports parts from both UK suppliers, and EU suppliers via ROI. Builds cars. Ships cars to UK inside the UK internal market. Exports cars to ROI for onward movement to other EU countries within the EU customs union. Cars going to EU containing UK parts which have not been subject to EU-UK customs tarrifs. Cars going to UK containing EU parts which have not been subject to EU-UK custom tarriffs.
If ever that particular rabbit was ever pulled out of a hat, I think I would immediately give up my job to invest in an import / export business in NI.
This issue and the impact on NI/ROI border arrangements (and its potential implications for the peace process in NI because of the Good Friday agreement requirements) has always been there. It can't be magiked away. [Edit] Putting it another way, its simply not even within the 'gift' of EU politicians to allow this even if they were slightly inclined to want to do so.
Edit: correcting some typos etc.
Hi I dont really understand any part of what you have written or what your points are other than that no deal apparently means a hard border is guaranteed - to which I would simply refer you to the Common Travel Area the rationale for which would inevitably be applied to goods and services also probably from the get go The biggest problem with all this is that the electorate voted to LEAVE - yet MPs and Business overwhelmingly wanted to remain. So we are now seeing a deal which basically says very simply that in the UK the way we roll is that MP's + Business > Electorate
|
|