david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Lendy (L) in Administration
Weekly update
Feb 16, 2015 18:39:50 GMT
Post by david42 on Feb 16, 2015 18:39:50 GMT
Dear Investor, NEW LOAN ALERTPBL 004b - Just gone live on the platform for £1,455,000 against a valuation of £3,000,000. Due to the size of this loan we did not feel that a 24h notice was required. but savingstream isn't loan pbl 4a also secured on the same piece of land. If that is true then the stated ltv of 48.5% on the web site should be corrected. I agree with you that an LTV of 48.5% does not reflect the true risk. The bridging loan particulars document for PBL4b says the LTV is 70% because both loans are secured against the same £3M land.
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Feb 3, 2015 12:24:01 GMT
I agree that the failure to buy a loan part was not caused by someone else successfully buying it. When I reported being charged twice for the same loan part FC said it was a known problem when the system gets busy. This is the most relevant part of their explanation:
"I have looked into your account and can agree that your account did not reconcile by £40 and this was due to a problem known as a 'double sale'. Thank you for providing the loan ID number.
Unfortunately there are occasions where the first attempt to purchase a loan part is unsuccessful, though the investor is charged for the purchase.
When you successfully purchased the loan part on the second attempt, you were charged again. This means that you had effectively paid twice for the same loan part."
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Feb 3, 2015 11:07:35 GMT
David 42, when you say double charge do you mean that you were charged twice for the same loan part on the SM (which has not been known I think)? Or do you mean that you were charged for other loan parts which you did not receive. Either is a bad experience, even once. Just the SM in meltdown, then. On three occasions I was charged twice when I bought a loan part in the secondary market. On the fourth occasion I was charged once but did not receive the loan part.
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Feb 3, 2015 8:52:25 GMT
Updated my vote as Flaky Calculations have mislaid one of the loan parts I bought today. I have had a total of 4 double charge errors since I started building my FC portfolio 6 weeks ago, which is an error rate of 0.8% as I have 530 loan parts in my portfolio. Luckily all the errors were on £20 loan parts, so that is 0.4% of my portfolio by value. That is really awful - meltdown. Guess that you are not too impressed with Furtive Corrections? A double charge error (primary market?) is not the same as a double sale error on the SM. I wonder if whole loan purchasers are ever charged twice for a loan? Maybe it's time to sell my portfolio twice and run, before Betty catches me. All four errors related to my purchases from the secondary market.
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Feb 2, 2015 22:26:30 GMT
Updated my vote as Flaky Calculations have mislaid one of the loan parts I bought today.
I have had a total of 4 double charge errors since I started building my FC portfolio 6 weeks ago, which is an error rate of 0.8% as I have 530 loan parts in my portfolio. Luckily all the errors were on £20 loan parts, so that is 0.4% of my portfolio by value.
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Feb 1, 2015 21:45:44 GMT
I routinely achieve a reconciliation between my own spreadsheet and the downloaded FC statements. On the two occasions that I was charged twice for purchases, I emailed FC and they corrected it within a day. I did notice that today the downloaded accounts would not reconcile with the website summary until around mid morning. FC seemed to be dribbling in the routine loan repayments and interest for many hours, and nothing balanced while they were doing that.
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Feb 1, 2015 18:41:49 GMT
It does not seem clear who has the liability for interest costs when drawdown is delayed. For the four month delay to drawdown on PBL 11/12/13, Saving Stream retrospectively negotiated for the borrower to increase the fee to cover the cost of the extra interest: p2pindependentforum.com/post/35265
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Jan 18, 2015 23:49:56 GMT
... they also offer upfront interest as a discretionary incentive for investors to commit to the loan for term. Making them tradeable would defeat SSs objective as far as I can see (although I may be wrong). It makes no difference to Saving Stream who owns a loan part, so it cannot be an objective of Savings Stream to reward investors for committing not to trade their loan parts in the secondary market. Quite the opposite: Saving Stream benefits from making the secondary market as active as possible, because an active secondary market helps all investors, which attracts more investors to place more of their funds with Saving Stream.
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Jan 18, 2015 0:39:36 GMT
Thank you all for your comments on my suggestion that all types of loan part should be accepted on the secondary market. Unlike Pepperpot, I think that would give a simpler and more consistent user experience. Calculating the correct interest adjustments and tax implications are a matter of arithmetic that the software can do for us.
I agree with Mikes1531 that at the moment Savings Stream enables investors to achieve a slightly higher overall return by accepting interest up front, and making the secondary market available to all loans would enable more people to take advantage of the better return.
As the majority of replies prefer the status quo I will rest my case. While the current restrictions remain, I hope the unavailability of the secondary market can be highlighted at the point where the interest option is selected.
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Jan 17, 2015 17:44:10 GMT
DuncanDive and FastFox - thank you both for your suggestions and for making me feel welcome. Both your suggestions are possible workarounds.
On a platform that differentiates itself by being easy to use, would it not be so much better to fix the problem by removing the restriction? That was my reason for posting the suggested improvement on the forum. I could not see this suggestion raised or discussed elsewhere.
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Jan 17, 2015 16:22:55 GMT
Fictitious Computation confirmed that the reconciliation bot is sick at the moment.
I emailed after waiting a week in vain for the bot to correct a double charged purchase on my account. The prompt and comprehensive reply mentioned that there is an 'issue' with the script generator they use to correct such errors. They said:
"unfortunately the issue is affecting more investors at present due to some database performance issues we have been experiencing.
When an investor account does not reconcile, the system will detect this immediately. The detection and deletion of the transaction is however manual; that is, we need to run a script to detect the transaction, check this manually, and finally delete it.
We aim to reconcile an account as soon as possible, normally within 1 working day. Unfortunately this is taking a little longer than usual due to an issue with our script generator.
As you may have seen the Financials team have reconciled your account today and your balance is now correct.
If you would like to contact us as soon as you spot the discrepancy the Customer Relations team can identify and resolve this within our 2 working day service level, however please be assured that the Financials team are always aware if an account does not reconcile and will work to reconcile the account as soon as possible. "
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Jan 17, 2015 15:51:16 GMT
Savingstream - I joined Saving Stream today, encouraged by the informative and positive discussions on this forum. Excitedly making my first investment on the apparently easy to use platform I immediately made my first mistake: selecting to have interest paid upfront without realising I was depriving myself of access to the excellent secondary market.
Enhancing the software to allow all types of loan to be sold on the secondary market would save me making a tricky decision about my unknown future needs and it would enhance both of Saving Stream's main competitive advantages: the simplicity and uniformity of the user experience and the flexible access to funds. The appropriate proportion of any prepaid interest could be deducted from the sale proceeds.
|
|