1985 Bourne 43

PBL009 is the bridging loan that is being used to repay the 1985 Bourne 43.

As Lendy is confident that the PBL009 is going ahead we have repaid all investors their investment in the Bourne 43 from our own capital.

The guy can't pay for his boat and now he has put his house up as security? Unless he is expecting a windfall from somewhere before the property loan is due? Should we avoid PBL009 or doesn't it make any difference how risky a particular loan is - just how risky Lendy itself is?

Thanks Rose. I infer from that that I should be concerned about the risk of investing in any particular loan that Lendy makes, even though I am lending to Lendy and not the end borrower. I don't quite get the logic of that, can you elucidate? If someone defaults on their loan to Lendy do the investors in that loan lose their money? If so, what is the point of having Lendy between the investor and the borrower?

You've nailed every point there. From experience of bridging loans with AC, one or two do over-extend & I'm sure we'll get the same with SS. Depending on their contract with the borrower, higher default rate might be paid but, considering we have a fixed 12% agreement we won't see it. On the other hand, we do get 'guaranteed' payment from SS regardless, even in default. I would still like to see clarification from SS/Lendy on how they are/their lenders are protected if Lendy get in trouble. I have either missed it or it hasn't been forthcoming, which is slightly worrying as SS tend to be very open & communicative

I was aware of this and thought I had seen it elsewhere beforehand too, but agree their information does I think need updating generally. In addition to this all your loan parts are allocated a number that ties directly to the particular asset and its term that you wanted your money to fund; SS have told me when I enquired about it at the beginning of my lending with them that “This is imperative …… to provide all data necessary to administrators to wind the loan book down in the unlikely event of administration”. Again I thought I thought I had seen it somewhere else before but couldn't find it.

Quite frankly that is sufficient for me to feel that while Lendy are in operation my risk is diversified across (almost all now) of their loans offered. Lets face it all I have on any other platform is a number and maybe a description/ docs of an asset and its term etc (this includes Zopa and RS too). Across all the P2P platforms I lend on I have personally identified a few of the actual borrowers, but not many, and at the end of the day its curiosity I’m not sure it will ever do me any good in the face of a meltdown.

I am neither a lawyer nor a liquidator / administrator, however, from my experience they don’t necessarily do what an outgoing management or owner would want them or expect them to, and I could foresee that despite any platform’s best intentions an administrator would lump borrowers as debtors and lenders as creditors (and we are unlikely to be the only type) and you would get x pence in the £ against your overall holding. On the other hand you may with luck get an ‘orderly’ wind down as most platforms state. In SS’s case that would be against your specifically chosen loans and assets; and in their favour, at least this should be a lot quicker than on any other platform I lend on simply because they have short term loans only (max one year).

So for me I will continue to both lend and diversify on SS, keeping an eye on the bridges in particular, and making sure if I occasionally ‘overspend’ because of an opportunity I reign and realign it later so I stick to my target investment. The only other thing to be said from my point of view is that from joining AC and SS at the same time my AC holding is less than half what I was intending, and my SS one is double!


Sorry for the double post I struggle to get more than one quote into a post for some unknown reason.

Until a P2P platform has been trading for three plus years it is hard to draw any conclusions about the what the consequences of loans defaulting will have on overall returns, or indeed as many lenders on the now defunct "Yes Secure" and "Quakle" platforms experienced, the level of capital losses. 

Anyone investng in virtually all P2P/P2B platforms (with the probable exception of Zopa & Ratesetter) should expect capital losses. The further away from (say) 5% the headline rate is, the more likely it is that capital losses will occur.

The T&C's of many of the P2P platforms are not as watertight as they should be  (only today I raised a query with FS concerning a potential issue in their T&C's). This is partly a reflection that the platforms are not updating their T&C's as their business model evolves.

My perception of the risk of the Lendy/SS model comes if the the platform was wound up, as it is probable a lquidator would pro-rata the losses on the bad loans which have brought the platform down across all lenders not just those holding the bad loans. Which means any attempt the dodge the bullets (and I regard one of the PBL's as a much higher risk than the platform average) would be futile.  Which is where the repost by pepperpot (4 above this one) of SS's comment re insurance is critical - an orderly wind down of the loan book is likely to apportion the losses on the bad loans to the holders of those loans, and hence those who do their due diligence on each loan before piling in might escape the worst.