|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 26, 2016 13:17:00 GMT
Just playing devil's advocate here. If SS can fill the loan at 9% (which I"m sure they can) then why not? If they can fill it at 8% or 7% or even 6% then why not? Isn't the goal of any business in a capitalist society to maximise profits? The rest is left to compertition and market forces. I guess they don't owe us 12%. I'm going to regret posting this aren't I Personally, i will not be in this one.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 26, 2016 12:10:04 GMT
As a new investor in this platform (but not to P2P) I bought into 056 in a small way. This was after the chickens were known to be coming home to roost - or maybe it was pigs flying past the full moon. There was nothing on the SS site to indicate a particular problem, no big red box for example. I only later found this forum and including the valuable insights and contributions from CD. Leaving aside for the moment what investors and potential investors were or were not told and when, and what they arguably should have been told, (see previous posts) no-one seems to have questioned the validity of the valuation - which was for £650k in August 2015. Now the site is for sale at £450k (and open to offers??). Lendy might well be funding the interest on the loan for 2 to 3 months (so it looked a reasonable short term investment at a time when the SM was very thin) but if these interest payments are ultimately to be taken from capital - and if the NET sales proceeds are significantly below the £450k figure (as they seem certain to be), where does that leave SS investors? How can we rely on valuations if these are so far off the mark? Are they worth the paper they are written on? Granted values can change, key personnel may die and a business or building project can lose its way - these are risks investors must accept - but I would question £650k down to £450k or less within a year or so unless maybe all farmland has been similarly affected? It does not give confidence in other farm valuations? The other general point is that if a borrower has a string of failed companies behind him, then we might be told. In other loan details we are told that (I paraphrase here) the borrower is 'a wealthy man, an highly experienced and successful property developer, a building surveyor with a 27 year history of developing similar sites', etc etc - so as to give prospective investors some extra degree of reassurance. If these 'positive' comments about borrowers are considered relevant to be included by SS in their information to lenders, maybe it could be argued that 'highly negative' characteristics of borrowers should be included by SS also - as an equally valid point of additional information upon which an investment decision could be based? I'm not casting aspersions, but I've decided not to take any SS updates at face value. There's luckily much more accurate and balanced information on this forum (a big thank you to those that do research and share their findings and insights, it's much appreciated). Should SS be totally open with us and share all the bad news that they know but we don't? Yes, I believe they should. However, we don't live in a fair and transparent world. When Coca-Cola markets their soft drinks they tell you it tastes delicious and makes you look cool, they do NOT tell you it makes you fat and will rot your teeth.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 26, 2016 11:14:37 GMT
The updates from SS are very welcome. I'd also like to think that SS did read this thread and listen to our pleas. My next request/ hope is that SS do their DD on all updates. If they state that the borrower has secured alternative finance or there are buyers willing to purchase the asset then have they seen evidence of this? Cynically, some of the updates feel half-baked and unsubstantiated (just a gut feeling). Regarding the Gloucs loans, which I'm holding 5 figures of, then I feel it looks like time will tell. I'm not confident I can shift them on SM or that they'll be repaid. I'm not complaining, we all know the risks. I mentally prepared myself for losses; c'est la vie. Have you tried putting on the sm? Maybe putting it out a little at a time. I did. I'm going to be patient. There's some much better stuff on the SM right now, but I noticed it's starting to slowly dry up. Once we are back to a SM famine it might shift. Thanks for the advice folks.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 25, 2016 12:27:06 GMT
The updates from SS are very welcome. I'd also like to think that SS did read this thread and listen to our pleas. My next request/ hope is that SS do their DD on all updates. If they state that the borrower has secured alternative finance or there are buyers willing to purchase the asset then have they seen evidence of this? Cynically, some of the updates feel half-baked and unsubstantiated (just a gut feeling).
Regarding the Gloucs loans, which I'm holding 5 figures of, then I feel it looks like time will tell. I'm not confident I can shift them on SM or that they'll be repaid. I'm not complaining, we all know the risks. I mentally prepared myself for losses; c'est la vie.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 23, 2016 16:03:37 GMT
"I want SS to improve this aspect of their game for the good of all investors/ lenders (regardless of whether I stay on the platform or not). I truly feel if the borrower is bankrupt and SS know that (which they do) then they should tell us. I don't buy the assertion that it's our own job to do due diligence."
It is our own job to do due diligence. That includes assessing the loan from the information SS gives us. If SS is avoiding posting on the loan details page any detrimental material changes of which which they are aware which affect the loan subsequent to it being launched, that is unacceptable. That includes such matters as borrower and/or director bankruptcy!
I do hope SS is not skating on thin ice.
Here, here. Totally agree. Withholding information such as a borrower's bankruptcy is unacceptable. That was my point too, well said.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 23, 2016 15:46:17 GMT
I will go on my definition of a default. A loan is in default when it is due to repay and the borrower hasn't either a) extended the loan by paying additional interest in advance. b) paid me all my money back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SS stop paying interest on a loan that's officially classed as defaulted? So let's not push them too hard to default loans. I only request timely and meaningful updates. I think we all know that if neither condition a) or b) is true then most layman feel we are in a heap of trouble.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 23, 2016 15:24:35 GMT
Yes, there's another thread saying the borrower received a bankruptcy order. This illustrates the point being made about updates. The poster of the other thread being "in the know" was able to offload his Gloucs loans on SM, presumably to the people like me who didn't know because SS hadn't provided updates. Unfair. Hi Charlie, whilst I do sympathise, to be fair to SS there is also a line to be drawn between them providing updates and our own due diligence. If SS believe loan repayment will not be affected by a bankruptcy, or something like the situation on PBL064 (another fascinating thread somewhere on here), then they don't necessarily need to give us a blow-by-blow account. Personally, I sold the Gloucs ones ages ago when the borrowers husband's history came to light on this forum - look up "C***** (obvious word from the loans) in the hills" on this is money. It was only when I chased the status of these again a month or so back that it was flagged by a good DD'er here that the borrower herself was now also bankrupt too. Anyway, the good news for you is that SM liquidity is still there for those loans. Don't be put off by a £10k queue, they'll still more than likely sell quickly. Alternatively, some would probably argue that the borrower's circumstance is irrelevant and that the asset is the security. But not me! I (we) invest in SS with some acceptance of risk - more risk than a bank savings account, less risk than a casino. To help us manage that risk, or at least understand our exposure, I believe SS owes it to us to provide meaningful updates. It's not sour grapes, I want SS to improve this aspect of their game for the good of all investors/ lenders (regardless of whether I stay on the platform or not). I truly feel if the borrower is bankrupt and SS know that (which they do) then they should tell us. I don't buy the assertion that it's our own job to do due diligence. Do I expect too much?
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 23, 2016 10:49:40 GMT
I have said before that SS should ditch this silly "one month ago" approximation on updates and just put the actual date in the column. When it says "a month ago" sometimes that actually means up to seven or eight weeks!!! Then it clicks up to "two months ago". When it says "a week ago", that can mean anything up to thirteen days. For instance, the update saying "repayment on 22 September" for PBL035" was not given one month ago but on 16 September, 37 days ago (and the previous update , also "one month ago" promising repayment imminently!!) was actually on 5 September, 48 days ago. edit: actual dates of updates can be seen by right clicking on "view page source" and scrolling down all the coding until you get to the updates part. These Gloucs loans worry me. I think there is another thread on here saying the borrow has declared bankruptcy. How can it be that there is such an update on this forum but no update at all on SS. Can someone confirm this is true, and what's the implications if it is true. Yes, there's another thread saying the borrower received a bankruptcy order. This illustrates the point being made about updates. The poster of the other thread being "in the know" was able to offload his Gloucs loans on SM, presumably to the people like me who didn't know because SS hadn't provided updates. Unfair.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 23, 2016 10:38:13 GMT
I have said before that SS should ditch this silly "one month ago" approximation on updates and just put the actual date in the column. When it says "a month ago" sometimes that actually means up to seven or eight weeks!!! Then it clicks up to "two months ago". When it says "a week ago", that can mean anything up to thirteen days. For instance, the update saying "repayment on 22 September" for PBL035" was not given one month ago but on 16 September, 37 days ago (and the previous update , also "one month ago" promising repayment imminently!!) was actually on 5 September, 48 days ago. edit: actual dates of updates can be seen by right clicking on "view page source" and scrolling down all the coding until you get to the updates part. These Gloucs loans worry me. I think there is another thread on here saying the borrow has declared bankruptcy. How can it be that there is such an update on this forum but no update at all on SS. Can someone confirm this is true, and what's the implications if it is true.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 23, 2016 10:24:00 GMT
This is a good thread, I agree with the sentiments of those posting. It's got to the point where the information on this forum is much more useful and timely than anything on the SS site. I have money in a lot of those overdue loans with no updates and it worries me greatly.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 21, 2016 13:28:31 GMT
Hi, board members. I've been reading this board for a while but this is my first post. I've sunk quite a bit of my hard earned cash into SS over the last couple of months (more than I intended to, got a bit carried away). I like the simplicity of the interface and the rates but I felt compelled to post and agree with others that the updates given by SS on loans are terrible. They're either nonexistent, misleading or just plain wrong. I'm vested in PBL070 and the last update is "will repay 22nd September". I'm tempted to vote with my feet and take my money out. I feel if we can't trust the updates then we can't trust the platform. If you do want to sell now would seem a good time as most SM sales take only a few minutes even in loans where there are problems (except PBL020) Well, what I really meant was why don't they do better. Me selling up won't fix the problem and there are clearly other people who think that SS should improve, but thank you for the advice on when to sell. I sold 2k of 070 and it certainly hasn't gone "in a few minutes" it's still in the queue a few hours and counting
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 21, 2016 13:15:26 GMT
Hi, board members. I've been reading this board for a while but this is my first post. I've sunk quite a bit of my hard earned cash into SS over the last couple of months (more than I intended to, got a bit carried away). I like the simplicity of the interface and the rates but I felt compelled to post and agree with others that the updates given by SS on loans are terrible. They're either nonexistent, misleading or just plain wrong. I'm vested in PBL070 and the last update is "will repay 22nd September". I'm tempted to vote with my feet and take my money out. I feel if we can't trust the updates then we can't trust the platform.
|
|