locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Nov 27, 2019 12:19:42 GMT
Well it’s about six months isn’t it? And RSM said they would here: p2pindependentforum.com/post/356526/threadAs for your second question, I can’t answer that yet, they haven’t said. I’d imagine LAG would want to challenge anything unfair that would impact lenders getting their money back. What we all really need to know first is how these interim returns are being calculated. I know the administrators promised a breakdown on 15/11 but they didn't specify when exactly this will happen, just used vague "shortly". I think we (non-LAG investors) need to organise ourselves and get a legal advice regarding fairness of T&Cs (waterfall rules). What LAG intentions are is not clear at the moment. Even if they are good for us LAG is very bad at communicating them with the rest of the investors.
It is completely unacceptable to keep lenders in the dark and not provide a breakdown of the distribution. How can it be challenged unless they reveal the deductions they have made. The more complaints submitted, the more likely they are to sit up and actually do something.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Nov 4, 2019 15:42:21 GMT
45.5% and no explanation or breakdown. Pretty pathetic return! and very poor information from the administrators. Is this the original "INTERIM PAYMENT" Lendy advised us off - or is this all of it??? Who do we contact to complain???
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Nov 4, 2019 13:28:49 GMT
Did the advisory update ever appear?
Nope. Do we know when it will be issued? I imagine lots of angry emails heading their way.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Nov 4, 2019 12:56:01 GMT
Update: Interim distributions for Loans: DFL012 / 032 / 034 / 037 have been processed a short while ago. Advisory update will follow tomorrow. Withdrawals functionality will be reinstated from tomorrow onwards subject to individual Investors’s AML qualification.
Did the advisory update ever appear?
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Oct 28, 2019 19:02:03 GMT
The % return seems worse than most predictions further up this thread. I do hope the administrators will show their working and clarify if we can expect to see anything else? £2.1m missing. Not a small amount by anyone's measure.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Oct 25, 2019 8:10:04 GMT
Even if you're not in the art loans but are an FS investor, you should support further litigation. The expensive part is already done and if FS win, they will get their costs paid for which runs into hundreds of thousands already spent. This money will then be returned to the pot, along with significant fees from the loans themselves, for distribution to general creditors. It would be crazy to stop pursuing at this point given the cost/benefit. I only have minimal exposure to these loans, so my comments based upon the partial knowledge I have of the proceedings to date. Points to note: This is subject to there being enough left after reimbursement to the lenders, for the costs to also be paid back to FS. Have any monies been deposited to the Court by MG yet for costs? General creditors: I do not believe that the lenders are “general creditors” at this point, my stance in this matter is that we are the ultimate secured lenders of the loans. The excess monies/"costs" will therefore be repaid to FS kitty, which will then be disbursed to the shareholders and suppliers to FS who are owed monies or have secured charges against FS. On consideration, a litigation funder might find the art loans a viable project to continue funding, as that would remove the cost implication from the Administrators and ultimately reduce their costs. One caveat, there were a few T&C’s in the last agreement between MG&FS that were not to my liking, and wont be to the liking of any litigation funder. At the time I could not fathom why FS had agreed, now all is becoming clearer.
No monies have been deposited by MG for costs. However, he is a very wealthy individual from a very wealthy family and a fraud has occurred. Once the case concludes, the payment should return lender capital on the loans themselves including interest, pay for FS legal fees to date (returning many hundreds of thousands already spent) and also pay FS fees on the loans themselves which for £2m of loans will be significant. I agree that in general lenders are not creditors. However, there are a number of loans where lenders were let down by FS for various reasons and where lenders will indeed become creditors. Enabling that pot to grow as large as possible will help to offset lender losses in those loans when they are crystallised.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Oct 25, 2019 7:27:12 GMT
2) Confirmation of intent to continue the litigation on the Lytham St Annes and Art loans. To comment on your point above; litigation will be hugely expensive for the art loans. Ultimate returns per investor over all their loans will depend on which loans each individual is in (I assume) and the money to pay for legal costs may well have to come from repayments of loans. Many folk not in the art loans would be unhappy to have administrators costs spent on this activity. I am in them a small way and would choose to accept a write off rather than part fund an expensive legal action
Even if you're not in the art loans but are an FS investor, you should support further litigation. The expensive part is already done and if FS win, they will get their costs paid for which runs into hundreds of thousands already spent. This money will then be returned to the pot, along with significant fees from the loans themselves, for distribution to general creditors. It would be crazy to stop pursuing at this point given the cost/benefit.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Oct 15, 2019 11:41:15 GMT
I contacted them this morning about not having received any emails, and they replied saying that they did send one to me, attaching the request for documentation. I can guarantee that I never received it, not even in my spam folder. Ditto for two separate accounts.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Oct 14, 2019 15:38:46 GMT
The loan has been split into two parts, one for the two sold yachts (where a 'B' has been added to the loan number, and you can see the 19k), and one for the remaining. In the unlikely(?) event FS fail to make a full recovery, the loss should be declared on the original loan which you can then claim as a tax loss. This does seem to be how FS do it - including in cases where the borrower redeems part of the loans - one I'm in is up to J at the end of the loan number. Got it thanks Just to thrash it to bits, why doesn't it appear on www.fundingsecure.com/myaccount/secondary-sell-add ?
Email support with the suggestion.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Oct 12, 2019 9:34:17 GMT
In my opinion FS are basically bust. They don't have enough money to chase the borrowers who have taken them for a ride and they have nobody to blame but themselves. It seems improbable that FS have the money to chase the numerous loans which are quite complex so they choose not to (power boat, Harrogate, Whittington. Lytham St Ann's etc) and prefer to take the ostrich approach. This is just wishful thinking and not based on reality at all. FS have very wealthy backers who have invested large sums into the business. They are a profitable business according to accounts filed at CH. Every one is welcome to their opinion but at least ground it in some facts rather than what you would like to happen. FS have historical problem loans that do need to be dealt with and have made some poor decisions in the past but constantly predicting their demise helps no one.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Sept 27, 2019 11:43:40 GMT
I expect opportunist investors follow web-sites such as this in order to identify target opportunities. I expect some even post here to further depress the value of the security. There are certainly a handful of posters that fit the criteria.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Sept 14, 2019 8:30:53 GMT
Very suspicious the forum isn’t now just full of plants. Your personal experience isn't reflective of the aggregate. Regarding plants, if anything the opposite is true. Just look at the overwhelmingly hostile and negative perception of FS that has been created by a very vocal handful of posters. Are they really who they claim to be with no ulterior motives. There is no way to find out for sure which of us is correct so ultimately the conversation topic is pointless.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 30, 2019 11:48:57 GMT
This is a welcome statement and in my view a mature and sober assessment. Since the new management have taken over, there has been a lot of progress and the new loans have all gone well. There are plenty of people making good money on FS but I'm not surprised they don't want to raise their head above the parapet when the climate is so hostile around here. Some posters will not be happy until the platform itself fails and have no desire to see the new management succeed even if it means lenders lose money.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 21, 2019 18:11:47 GMT
samford71 are you talking about the 30 year bond that redeems in 2050? According to Bloomberg, the sale was a flop.
Can you explain who would buy these bonds and for what reason? Even if you expect an upcoming global recession, surely no one thinks it will last 30 years so how can these bonds ever be a good investment choice?
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Jul 29, 2019 12:13:12 GMT
That's why there are such hard fought battles between investors on here, those looking to warn on one hand, and on the other those seeking to protect their locked in investments. It comes as no surprise the way the forum has evolved.
An interesting perspective and not one I agree with although it does begin to explain some of the more unusual moderation decisions around here. Criticism of platforms, loans and borrowers is very welcome as long as it is supported by sound analysis and real evidence. Unfortunately, a lot of the saner posters have now deserted leaving a vocal minority that are free to rant and rave without ever saying anything of value.
|
|