jnm21
Posts: 441 
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Apr 20, 2018 2:38:19 GMT
Sorry for another poll, but bugs4me suggested the very option I had wanted to poll, so I took that as an omen! |
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Apr 20, 2018 8:00:26 GMT
Thanks for voting folks - kuflink are you reading? So far 4 from 4 feel that they would have been more confident had you halved the skin coverage! |
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Apr 20, 2018 8:04:25 GMT
Neither option appeals to me. 10% skin is too easy to mask with fees etc. 20% was their USP and no lower figure will do.
|
|
puddleduck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 537
Likes: 489
|
Post by puddleduck on Apr 20, 2018 8:29:09 GMT
Neither option appeals to me. 10% skin is too easy to mask with fees etc. 20% was their USP and no lower figure will do. I voted 10% but I agree. The polls being run here seem rather binary, just two choices, whereas I want things left as they are. If Kuflink bridging are confident enough to put up 20% of their own money, this gives me confidence in their behind the scenes DD, and the borrower. If they no longer risk their own money, they can expand by taking on much riskier loans at no material cost to themselves.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Apr 20, 2018 20:34:13 GMT
Neither option appeals to me. 10% skin is too easy to mask with fees etc. 20% was their USP and no lower figure will do. I hear you & I agree that the 20% skin was a USP & a sad loss, but the purpose of this poll is not to say we want or accept any dilution, but to say to kuflink ( IF they are listening) that where they think/pretend that the new PF arrangement is equivalent to the old 20% skin that they are barking mad! If the weight of opinion is that we would prefer ( not like/want/welcome/accept) a 10% skin over the PF arrangement, it would highlight the massive drop in confidence the PF arrangement brings & hopefully they will listen (albeit silently)! I don't know about anyone else, but I have reserved a bit of the last 20% skin investment on the platform - I can see things going 2 ways - other fully reserved investments becoming available as folk vote with their money or the last investment filling double quick as people get one last piece of a palatable pie! I'm in the latter group - I didn't post that thought until I munched my slice! 
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Apr 20, 2018 20:57:18 GMT
The poll is like asking burnt alive or drown 😩
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Apr 20, 2018 21:23:01 GMT
But if the purpose is to show the person that thinks burnt alive should be gratefully received that it is not...
|
|
puddleduck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 537
Likes: 489
|
Post by puddleduck on Apr 20, 2018 21:27:01 GMT
Neither option appeals to me. 10% skin is too easy to mask with fees etc. 20% was their USP and no lower figure will do. I don't know about anyone else, but I have reserved a bit of the last 20% skin investment on the platform - I can see things going 2 ways - other fully reserved investments becoming available as folk vote with their money or the last investment filling double quick as people get one last piece of a palatable pie! I'm in the latter group - I didn't post that thought until I munched my slice! The issue I see is that Part 2 onwards of this loan is not going to have Kuflink's 20% stake. So if those parts do not fill (and some of these big multi-tranche loans filled VERY slowly ie W******k C*****t - ME1 - Loan Part 1) there may be issues. Too be honest, for multi-tranche loans, I will only invest if I see Kuflink putting up 20% too - no skin in the game, I am not going to risk a multi-tranche loan as these seem to go wrong with alarming frequency if reports here are to be believed. It's far too easy to end up with a hole in the ground, or a part completely development and then you find the valuations turn out to be nonsense. In this loan in particular, 6.5% seems to be too low, with Part 2 and no 20% stake, then this needs to be 11 to 12% in my view.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Apr 20, 2018 21:49:57 GMT
puddleduck that was my first investment! You make a good point - I wonder could tranche 1 investors argue a material change to the investment & request a refund?
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Apr 20, 2018 22:05:51 GMT
Neither option appeals to me. 10% skin is too easy to mask with fees etc. 20% was their USP and no lower figure will do. I hear you & I agree that the 20% skin was a USP & a sad loss, but the purpose of this poll is not to say we want or accept any dilution, but to say to kuflink ( IF they are listening) that where they think/pretend that the new PF arrangement is equivalent to the old 20% skin that they are barking mad! If the weight of opinion is that we would prefer ( not like/want/welcome/accept) a 10% skin over the PF arrangement, it would highlight the massive drop in confidence the PF arrangement brings & hopefully they will listen (albeit silently)! I don't know about anyone else, but I have reserved a bit of the last 20% skin investment on the platform - I can see things going 2 ways - other fully reserved investments becoming available as folk vote with their money or the last investment filling double quick as people get one last piece of a palatable pie! I'm in the latter group - I didn't post that thought until I munched my slice! Be careful if it's a multi tranche loan and double check your part retains the 20% skin in the game till redemption. The tranches will not be skin in the game for any loans where they (the tranches) are not already drawn down.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Apr 21, 2018 6:55:02 GMT
After this change the only reason that I can see to remain with KL is to restrict lending to single tranche residential, preferably owner occupied, loans because the rate is low, in the (naiive?) hope that the borrower's rate is correspondingly low and a default is unlikely. However with mortgages from High St lenders at such low rates currently any borrower going to KL must have some credit problem. It would help if KL revealed the borrowers' rates.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Apr 22, 2018 20:38:02 GMT
After this change the only reason that I can see to remain with KL is to restrict lending to single tranche residential, preferably owner occupied, loans because the rate is low, in the (naiive?) hope that the borrower's rate is correspondingly low and a default is unlikely. However with mortgages from High St lenders at such low rates currently any borrower going to KL must have some credit problem. It would help if KL revealed the borrowers' rates. I have to agree - for me kuflink have taken a most unique USP which overcame relatively low rates & slaughtered it with no notice (and I fear some retrospection for tranche loans). My prophecy that the last skinned loan would fill quickly was fulfilled so promptly it shocked me!
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Apr 22, 2018 21:30:05 GMT
I would still prefer 20% protection. However, if this only comes from a provision fund I would need transparency on how much is in the fund and the policy for maintainance and use of the fund so I can evaluate the level of protection before deciding whether to invest. I am less likely to invest than before. My decisions will also partly depend on the loan security.
|
|
