elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 8, 2018 11:40:49 GMT
Appreciated the opportunity to voice feelings and the actions I have had to take to acquire money to cover this hopefully temporary loss ie take out a mortgage ! P2P Investments should only be what you can afford to be without ie allowing for delays in secondary selling or default.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 7, 2018 12:24:54 GMT
If loan ltv is 70% and we got £70k of our loan back the security should reduce by the £100k that it was secured against. Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining, elliott. And thank you for I think being the 1st person to spell my name properly on here
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 6, 2018 17:08:27 GMT
Although MT did have broker permission to introduce borrowers/lenders (from their mortgage antecedent) and so did abl, so it’s not a direct comparison of consumer credit only companies, I haven’t found a p2p authorised company that was only trading with that permission. Yes, I've looked myself and it appears there is no precedent for a business with consumer credit licence alone to start a legitimate P2P platform using that permission. I'm not sure it is a reasonable expectation that consumers searching the register should appreciate these subtleties. In any case, the IP in question was fraudulent and published without checks (for example against the company number). It would be very harsh to suggest investors should have known better than to have assumed COL was operating legitimately based on the information held at the time on the FCA register, even if we can now recognise one or two irregularities with the benefit of hindsight. No problem with your interpretation of a layman’s view (no-one spotted it although I think nick came closest), my point was I hadn’t looked at MT’s ‘non-P2P’ permission and then thought CUK’s must be ok as well per original post.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 6, 2018 16:59:39 GMT
This borrower appears to be trying hard to repay the loan, by paying interest to extend and slowly selling units. The problem is, progress is extremely slow. These developments are, it seems, complete yet appear to be struggling to get refinanced. The other thing I noticed is that the security reduction is more than the amount repaid, does that mean the asset value is being eroded, or is it just the usual situation where the asset was overvalued. If loan ltv is 70% and we got £70k of our loan back the security should reduce by the £100k that it was secured against.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 5, 2018 16:40:42 GMT
It is acceptable. What is unacceptable is that a lot of people investing don’t seem to realise this Now I understand why these borrowers can get away with this. Lenders that accept that getting screwed is expected. In any professional investment environment a 30% safety margin means that markets need to fall 30% to be in the red. In this case it can be argued that the student housing market has been soft lately, but it is nowhere near a 30% crash situation. Capital is being lost here because development funds were poorly administrated by a mediocre (to say the least) developer. The market may need to fall by 30% to make a loss. But this is not a sale at market value. This is the sale of an incomplete, sabotaged development, a distressed sale from a company in administration for which a capital loss should be expected to be a more than likely outcome (as indeed our borrower picked it up for a song). Or am I totally missing something here?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 5, 2018 16:23:16 GMT
That only shows interim permission for consumer credit loans to allow such loans to be made to borrowers - but has nothing to infer interim permission required for p2p/electronic lending. I thought they had "inadvertently" been shown as having p2p interim permission but could be wrong Platforms launching in the window between OFT issuing P2P permission and the new FCA regime requiring full permission didnt have P2P permissions, they operated with consumer credit permissions whilst they went through the authorisation process eg MT. Comparison with MT etc permissions plus Coll own site statement was the basis to believe they were operating with permission.
AIUI the issue with Collateral is that they apparently didnt even have that as the permission belonged to another company to which they had added themselves incorrectly.
Although MT did have broker permission to introduce borrowers/lenders (from their mortgage antecedent) and so did abl, so it’s not a direct comparison of consumer credit only companies, I haven’t found a p2p authorised company that was only trading with that permission.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 4, 2018 16:55:56 GMT
My congratulations to all that knew. My interpretation of the previous updates was that the building was almost finished and little extra work was needed. It is acceptable to suffer delays and defaults. It is not acceptable to have capital loss on secured loans with a 30% safety margin. Was this the one where the pipe work was sabotaged and flooded the rooms?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 3, 2018 14:33:51 GMT
Hi nyneil , In the situation above, Investor A will get the first pick of the 10% AND 15% loans. If there is still remaining sum to be funded on each loan, this will be allocated to Investor B. Hope this answers your questions. Best, Nadeem Thanks Nadeem. That's what I expected, but it's good to have it confirmed. Hi nsiam, is that because A funded first or because her lower rate band prioritises her investments over the greedy B?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 3, 2018 3:46:32 GMT
The answer to the 2nd is No. Col weren’t authorised and so the loans aren’t 36H-compliant. Is this the definite answer? I thinks it deserves to be looked at by experts.
My understanding is that Collateral was listed on the FCA website, how are we supposed to know it was not 36H compliant.
Even if it was the correct company, interim permission did not confirm 36H compliance.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 3, 2018 3:27:06 GMT
I can't see appointment of administrators yet (closest I get is Vxxxx |Burns, Night| club manager ) Edit - Nor Ctrack, strange.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 2, 2018 10:42:01 GMT
‘I really should have looked at their last accounts’ amortisation.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 2, 2018 10:30:08 GMT
The name is ok with us here, because it is held in an 'Innovative Finance' ISA. 'Ad hoc' is so much more snappy than 'making things up as we go along' or 'seat of the pants' amortisation. At least there is a plan and we know where we stand. That's appreciated. I like it (tin, says) 😊 Reminds me of C2F Revenue Loans where the monthly interest repayment is made but capital amounts are made according to affordability. That perhaps lends itself to ‘flexible amortisation’ but that implies optionality which is not really the case here, so I’ll merely add ‘cough-up (or else)’ or ‘wing & prayer’ amortisations.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Sept 29, 2018 13:47:39 GMT
At what level will these connected loans begin to be bought again. Will they go under 90%? No loans on abl are connected as subsidiaries of BNG, the list is available on its group accounts. Edit - there is a bit of a ‘typo’ where startermode is joined to the previous entry, BNL is PSC.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Sept 29, 2018 13:17:11 GMT
Good choice, sir. I can add some 102, bit nearer the mark but the SIPP layer is attractive for me with AH cherry-picking profitable going concerns for his pension. ... Yes, I missed the fact that in our four accounts there is some 102. Same borrower as 59. The message was clear enough from the B&W saga, which you were good enough to bang on about for the benefit of the unwary.
Of course, one retail investor’s banging on, is another professional’s prudent reminder (I’d certainly hope for the same when moving to a new platform). 5M owed to BNG - enough to bring down the mightiest of EBITDAs (although this excluded 1.4 MILLION interest and 0.2M directors’ dividends). Btw - what did you make of Axxxxx’ group of related co accounts yesterday?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Sept 29, 2018 12:40:04 GMT
It was indeed RS, and it made a lot of sense at the time. I am fairly sure they said it was a one off, and for all the lenders it was a result. Back to the main topic however, I liked the newsletter. What always marks out good service/companies is how they deal with the bad things, not the good things The problem with defaults is that these things grind for ages, usually because the law is slooooow, sometimes well into years. Whats the famous inheritance case from the US (name escapes me), has that managed to chalk up 100 years yet. Chocolate - and the approach of Xmas - is a time for reminiscing about the GoodThings, not the bad things
|
|