am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 13, 2016 19:22:56 GMT
Nows your chance oldgrumpy , you can legitimately complain to SS that you are discriminated against by their system as they should be well aware by now that you are a gorilla who is only able to access sites using a banana oldgrumpy is at a disadvantage. Gorillas are colorblind . See www.10-facts-about.com/Gorillas/id/980 point number 5. That would appear to be incorrect. All species of apes and old world monkeys are trichromats.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
General P2x Discussion
2016 crash
Jan 13, 2016 17:31:31 GMT
Post by am on Jan 13, 2016 17:31:31 GMT
How many boards have you posted this to?
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
That was fast
Jan 13, 2016 16:11:23 GMT
Post by am on Jan 13, 2016 16:11:23 GMT
Seven loans filled in 4 minutes.
I was intending to put a small amount in each of the 6 car loans, but I wasn't fast enough - only managed 4.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Funding Circle (FC)
17806
Jan 13, 2016 15:15:55 GMT
Post by am on Jan 13, 2016 15:15:55 GMT
It transpired that the same pattern applies for all loans. Which actually is giving false DD information about the amount of loan taken. Check out low numbered loans (before BBB got involved), or property development loans (outside BBB's remit). Hopefully the pattern doesn't apply to them. And complain to customer services, or on the in-house forum.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Funding Circle (FC)
17806
Jan 13, 2016 12:37:16 GMT
Post by am on Jan 13, 2016 12:37:16 GMT
If I look at 17806 on the SM, it shows the loan is for £13500. If I view 17806 in my watchlist, the loan shows as for £15000. The attachment is a crop from my watchlist. The discrepancy might be the British Business Bank's 10%. But inquiries about this sort of inconsistency are perhaps better directed towards the Facing Customers bit of FC (i.e. customer service).
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 12, 2016 21:39:14 GMT
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Lending Crowd
Survey
Jan 12, 2016 10:59:25 GMT
Post by am on Jan 12, 2016 10:59:25 GMT
Personal loan info page is very poor, and I would consider increasing my investment more quickly if the secondary market were more along the lines of elsewhere. That might not suit 'someone' at LC, but may now be essential to grow the platform. I don't have a problem with the loan part sale fee increase per se - it is now just the same as other places - but I do have a problem with being charged a fee and then not being able to cover the fee by a premium. Also, loan parts would be easy to sell if you get a high bid in at the auction - the secondary market is getting a bit stodgy already. If they are going to run the secondary market for the main benefit of just one or two people who want to offload their loans, well that is no way to progress. They need to change, but I think they are stuck in their ways of how they want things to be. Please vote on your preference in the poll. The above sentence is factually wrong. The top p2p companies (RS, FC, Zopa, SS) do not have this level of secondary market fees and never had it in their history! SS never even charged anything to use the secondary market, correctly seen as a liquidity pool. In the case of RS, there isn't a true secondary market, but the charges for selling loans are generally much higher than at LC.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 9, 2016 21:29:51 GMT
I wonder, chris , if there's a compromise somewhere in that the Upcoming Loans page could have an additional bit of text at the bottom that says something like "Plus N additional loans upcoming but have not had funds called yet"? I know it's not much but it would re-assure prospective lenders, and I suspect fairly cheap for the front-end developers to do. I concur. Depressing to log on and see the same old dross at the top of the live loans list, and nothing upcoming. Even if the upcoming is months away, it gives inspiration. Apart from that I don't mind having a month to study upcoming loans (and piggyback on other people's knowledge as it turns up in the Q&A), provided there's a throughflow of loans.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Funding Circle (FC)
18862
Jan 8, 2016 21:40:24 GMT
Post by am on Jan 8, 2016 21:40:24 GMT
And fully secured on minus half a million of net worth too!! Well, autobid will fill it up, so excuse me if I look elsewhere for something approaching sane value. I suspect that FC is looking at the current profits, which would put the company back in the black in a couple of years, and at the directors' assets. The company appears not to own the Hall (tangible assets too low), so I suspect that it is leasing it from the directors. We have no idea how much equity the directors have in the Hall, but FC may well know. This may well be another case where the loan would look better if FC were to deign to tell us more about it, but since it'll probably fill on autobidders we're going to remain in ignorance.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 8, 2016 20:56:51 GMT
I was also pleased to catch it and probably qualify as a usual suspect. If and when cash back comes it will not be 2% - unless possibly on a 24 month late-tranche loan. I wasn't aware of it until I read of it here a few minutes ago. Does anyone have any speculation why it went in at 10% and not 8% - it's a top of the range house in an expensivish area, so one might be concerned about a turn in the housing market, but on the other hand it's at a good LTV (and FC hasn't as far as I've noticed shown any concern about property valuation levels). At 10% and a relatively small total loan value this one might be flippable. I would have put my loose cash into this; I guess I now wait for the second tranche, whenever it comes along.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 7, 2016 17:43:31 GMT
What I am concerned about, inter alia, is the inclusion of hope value in LTVs. If planning permission is obtained there will be an uplift in value, and the borrower will refinance and repay us, and all should be well. But, if planning permission is rejected, the hope value will at least partially evaporate, the borrower's exit strategy disappears, and our margin of safety on the LTV diminishes or vanishes. As the security is to cover the case when the borrower's plans go astray, the valuation should reflect that case.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 6, 2016 23:08:07 GMT
Buying on SM. Loan 18705 Before this loan was fully funded I purchased 1 item at £20. Earlier this evening I purchased a further part on the SM at £40.00 and the following information came up regarding this purchase. Price £40.00 (no premium) Principle £40.00 Interest 0.18, Delta -0.24 fee 0.1 Can someone please explain what the interest of 0.18 and the Delta -0.24 represent? The interest of £0.18 is the interest which has accrued since the last interest payment (or the commencement of the loan if no repayments have been made). What you have bought is the capital and the entitlement to interest since the last payment. The delta of £0.24 means that it was sold at a discount of 0.6%. In which case you should have paid £39.94, not £40.00.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 6, 2016 11:39:22 GMT
When I wrote the above I had satisfied myself that the Seedrs funding post-dated the 31/3/2015 annual report, and the burn rate is £2m, not £5m. OK. But where has the £3M gone? IIRC, Seedrs have said they're no longer holding it and that it has gone to AC. The annual report is for the 12 months to the 31st March 2015. Since the funding from Seedrs was after than date it is not reflected in that annual report. The £3m has gone onto AC's books. AC's current NAV would be £3m - £2.7m + (profits for the 9 months to 31st December 2015).
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 5, 2016 21:49:06 GMT
Those appear to be the 31/3/2014 figures, except that most (not all) data sources, including Companies House, give the Net Worth as £-786k. The 2015 figures are net worth £-2.75m, intangibles £380k, tangibles £26k, current assets £1.2, including cash of £95k, current liabilities of £1.8m, and long term liabilities of £2.5m. So Assetz SME Capital had a burn rate of £2m per annum. beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08007287Anyone interested should presumably also look at the other companies in the group. I can see how the burn rate could be £2M/year based on the £2M decrease in AC's net worth. But how is that calculation affected by the £3M raised during 2015 via Seedrs? Does that mean the burn rate is really more like £5M/year? If so, AC need to get the institutional part of their fundraising organised in a hurry. When I wrote the above I had satisfied myself that the Seedrs funding post-dated the 31/3/2015 annual report, and the burn rate is £2m, not £5m.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 4, 2016 15:55:09 GMT
Monthly rates spiked to 10% this afternoon just after 1500 or thereabouts. I managed to stick some short term money in at 4.3%, provided it progresses beyond matched. The market is looking very thin at the moment, as opposed to £2m borrowers and £1.3m lenders earlier today.
|
|