|
Post by Paul64 on May 1, 2017 13:49:19 GMT
Hi, it is important that we stress this in the general instruction letter to put the valuer on notice that we rely more on the security value than a normal high street lender would. The valuer is therefore reminded to bear this in mind and to be additionally cautious when putting a value on a property.
Our DD is no less than a mainstream lender would carry out, given that the companies undertaking the DD are from mainstream lenders.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on May 1, 2017 13:48:41 GMT
LY deal with high-risk borrowers, which doesn't mean they should accept all applications, but there is an acceptance (as far that I am concerned) that these are borrowers who struggle to find finance elsewhere for a reason. I don't see why LY shy away from this; they should have that statement from that instruction letter on the website, on the T&Cs, maybe on every loan. What they should say is " We deal with borrowers with a high-risk level, and when you invest you should understand this" instead of trying to convince lenders that everything is dandy with regards to borrowers. However, now that rates are falling, LY probably feels that they need to argue that they are vetting borrowers more thoroughly. Security should be paramount; this is where LY should concentrate their efforts. To seek an accurate MV and only offer loans that have adequate security. From some of the current security that is listed online (and the garden centre sale), I think that LY is failing in this regards. They need to improve this side of their DD procedure because there is only so long they can hide behind the PF.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 28, 2017 19:59:50 GMT
Hi, I will raise this request with the relevant department. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 28, 2017 13:42:02 GMT
Warrington DFL has become DFL024 (13:27). Going Live tomorrow and still with a defective GDV Paul64 Hi. I am not sure what you mean. It is entirely reasonable, and usual practice, for a lender to add the value of the freehold ground rent interest (£400k) to the GDV of a development (£2.7m) to arrive at the security valuation (£3.1m).
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 26, 2017 12:51:25 GMT
Hi, it is an interesting idea, with merit. It will need some exploration however.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 26, 2017 12:20:56 GMT
Hi, and yes. It has.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 26, 2017 9:47:25 GMT
All, further to the discussion yesterday, I've looked into PBL175.
As per our thorough legal and property due diligence process, we always carefully review and consider the valuation report.
As a result of this, for the above loan we are aware that the 'investment' value of the property is lower than the vacant possession value. This means that whilst the LTV is 65%, based upon the vacant possession value, it is 81% of the market value subject to the existing tenancy.
As part of our lending T&Cs the borrower is required to mandate the net rental income to Lendy, which is held in a separate client account, until the loan is repaid.
This account effectively provides an increasing cash reserve throughout the term of the loan and will only be released back to the borrower upon full and satisfactory repayment of the loan.
Effectively the LTV reduces as the account balance increases. With this provision, we are comfortable with the risk profile of this loan. In the event of the tenant defaulting and the property being vacated, the reported value of the property will increase.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 25, 2017 19:33:36 GMT
Hi, I will look at this in the morning and get back to you.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 21, 2017 12:30:15 GMT
Hi all, for clarification, the seven day sales limitation only exists for customers with a negative balance. We technically give you 48hrs to make good before we delete the loan parts. We try and be sympathetic if there are very good reasons why this can't be done, but best practice, as stated before, is to clear ASAP. If an investor has paid for their loan parts, they are free to sell them at any time i.e. if they have a positive or neutral balance.
The rule is there to prevent people earning interest on loan parts that have not been paid for.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 21, 2017 12:25:20 GMT
Fair enough.... The rule: Investors are unable to sell SM purchases (when your account is negative) within 7 days of purchasing the loan part My suggestion: the above is abolished. It was introduced to minimise gaming when INPL was in force, but now that SM INPL has been removed I see no reason for the above rule. I think there's still some potential for gaming where there are several loans being launched in quick succession (happening more recently as Ly looks to increase lending) whereby lenders bid more than they have available knowing they could dump the ones they want least once allocations are known. That would still leave Ly potentially unwinding unsettled prefunding. Paul is on record as saying Ly are nice people. Although they must have rules, a stricter application of the 24 hours PM settlement could allow this to be scaled back to at least 3 days (to cover gamers holding new loan parts they have no intention to pay for over, say, a weekend).
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 21, 2017 11:44:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 21, 2017 7:49:42 GMT
As most of you are aware, the loans in bold are live. The remaining two are still expected to go shortly.
DFL005 - Tranche 9 - Arboretum, Land with PP DFL015 - Tranche 3 - Herefordshire DFL021 - Sewerby, Nr Bridlington DFL022 - Manchester Road, Huddersfield PBL173 - Branksome Park PBL174 - Barrowford, Nelson
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 20, 2017 23:24:41 GMT
First rule is clear any negative balance asap. It's good for you and good for us. We're nice people but there are rules.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 20, 2017 22:30:51 GMT
No idea. Will need to look at the thread tomorrow as the discussions on here are not always linear.
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 20, 2017 17:56:57 GMT
Hi, all investment carries risk and P2P is no different. Our credit checks are as good if not better than you will find anywhere else in the lending industry, and we have a good track record of protecting lenders. I will be looking at publishing our due diligence process in due course so you can judge for your self if our approach is robust enough. We believe it is very thorough.
|
|