r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692 
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on May 26, 2018 7:30:55 GMT
It seems to me FS have made a bit of a Friday afternoon job on this supplemental tranche. Have copied what they've said below, but it appears: 1) They've incorrectly stated the 2nd tranche is £15k, when it's £16.5k 2) This error has carried through to their LTV calculations, so it's actually 71% LTV. Ok, no great shakes, but it's wrong. 3) More important than this numerical error, their wording is misleading in several places. What this actually is a supplemental loan that ranks behind a development facility that itself ranks behind a land loan. What they've said is "This is a supplemental loan for a development facility of £115,000". 4) They've then added to this statement by saying "In the event of a default this facility will rank behind the original loan..." when it actually ranks behind 2 loans. 5) Finally, to finish that same sentence "....as such the interest rate has been increased to reflect the additional risk". But it hasn't, it's still 13%, as with the original development facility. This is all really sloppy, and I think fundingsecure need to cancel and re-launch this. I'm sure it'll fill anyway, but it needs to be clearly explained and placed at 14%. "A 6 month loan secured by a first legal charge against a plot of land in H***n, Formby with planning permission to build a new 4 bed detached house. This is a supplemental loan for a development facility of £115,000 and will be used to fund the build of the property. This loan is for £10,000 and the funds will be sent directly to the contractor. The first tranche for £22,500 was issued under loan ref 1389141701. The second tranche for £15,000 was issued under loan ref 3211185615 The third tranche for £15,550 was issued under loan ref 1815742565. The fourth tranche for £33,000 was issued under loan ref 1034974685. The fifth tranche for £27,450 was issued under loan ref 2398604786. FundingSecure already have an existing loan against the property for £60,000 (Ref: 1423479533) The LTV has been calculated in the following way: Tranche 1 - £22,500 + Tranche 2 - £15,000 + Tranche 3 - £15,550 + Tranche 4 - £33,000 + Tranche 5 - £27,450 + Supplemental Loan - £10,000 + Land Loan - £60,000= £183,500£183,500/£262,000 (current value) = 70%In the event of a default this facility will rank behind the original loan and as such the interest rate has been increased to reflect the additional risk." |
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on May 29, 2018 9:59:29 GMT
It seems to me FS have made a bit of a Friday afternoon job on this supplemental tranche. Have copied what they've said below, but it appears: 1) They've incorrectly stated the 2nd tranche is £15k, when it's £16.5k 2) This error has carried through to their LTV calculations, so it's actually 71% LTV. Ok, no great shakes, but it's wrong. 3) More important than this numerical error, their wording is misleading in several places. What this actually is a supplemental loan that ranks behind a development facility that itself ranks behind a land loan. What they've said is "This is a supplemental loan for a development facility of £115,000". 4) They've then added to this statement by saying "In the event of a default this facility will rank behind the original loan..." when it actually ranks behind 2 loans. 5) Finally, to finish that same sentence "....as such the interest rate has been increased to reflect the additional risk". But it hasn't, it's still 13%, as with the original development facility. This is all really sloppy, and I think fundingsecure need to cancel and re-launch this. I'm sure it'll fill anyway, but it needs to be clearly explained and placed at 14%. "A 6 month loan secured by a first legal charge against a plot of land in H***n, Formby with planning permission to build a new 4 bed detached house. This is a supplemental loan for a development facility of £115,000 and will be used to fund the build of the property. This loan is for £10,000 and the funds will be sent directly to the contractor. The first tranche for £22,500 was issued under loan ref 1389141701. The second tranche for £15,000 was issued under loan ref 3211185615 The third tranche for £15,550 was issued under loan ref 1815742565. The fourth tranche for £33,000 was issued under loan ref 1034974685. The fifth tranche for £27,450 was issued under loan ref 2398604786. FundingSecure already have an existing loan against the property for £60,000 (Ref: 1423479533) The LTV has been calculated in the following way: Tranche 1 - £22,500 + Tranche 2 - £15,000 + Tranche 3 - £15,550 + Tranche 4 - £33,000 + Tranche 5 - £27,450 + Supplemental Loan - £10,000 + Land Loan - £60,000= £183,500£183,500/£262,000 (current value) = 70%In the event of a default this facility will rank behind the original loan and as such the interest rate has been increased to reflect the additional risk." Bump. fundingsecure in case you missed it, there are both numerical and factual errors (by omission) in the loan tranche mentioned above that you launched at the end of last week. Can you confirm whether you are going to correct these?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on May 29, 2018 12:23:47 GMT
well spotted and for a commercial loan I think this is a serious (if not illegal) error
The loan listings are still confusing to me - this looks like 13% for a 3rd charge- are FS having a laugh or what. We all know what happened to the 3rd charge for Knaresborough, Wimbledon
etc - the 3rd charge for the other Formby flat development is not looking too good to me either...
I also note the renewal loan is due to be repaid on 21st June 2018 - so what then ;renewal of the renewal putting the 3rd charge at even greater risk?
As the immortal Ian Drury almost said "hit me with your smutty stick - HIT ME - hit me slowly, hit me quick - HIT ME!".
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jul 18, 2018 13:29:25 GMT
Lower ranking development loan renewal of this loan put up for later this afternoon. fundingsecure , (with apologies if you were about to list it anyway) To avoid re-igniting the renewal order debate again, would it not be appropriate to list the renewal of the overdue higher ranking 1423479533 at the same time? As per the Lytham debate, if there's any doubt about borrower funds it should in any case be put towards the higher ranking facility. And if there is no doubt, then you might as well renew the higher ranking loan as well given that it'll be filled in double-quick time and further reduce your overdue loan pile. |
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Sept 11, 2018 13:06:09 GMT
Photos taken Mon 3rd Sept at 1:30pm No workmen present. Gardens front and rear are a mess. Fence alongside the public footpath at the left of the property is missing, but some new fence posts have been erected. Building materials in evidence inside and out.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,722
Likes: 2,987
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 22, 2018 14:20:35 GMT
And here's today's update after a month: We have spoken to the borrower this morning who was unable to speak but will call back later today. Once we have a further update from them, we will post another update.Seems earily similar to this pathetic update. p2pindependentforum.com/post/298787/threadMonthly updates are fine as long as they contain something of substance. That one reads as if updates are being provided daily. Did you ever think to wait until "later today" before providing an update FundingSecure ? |
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Nov 23, 2018 18:49:46 GMT
They've updated it now.
"The borrower has confirmed that the property is complete and they are waiting for the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) to be provided before it can be marketed publicly. Even though the property is not being marketed, they already have offers which are being considered. We have requested proof of the works being complete which should be available next week and we anticipate repayment early in the New Year"
Now, that's all fine and dandy in itself, but given yesterday's embarrassment you might have thought they'd look a little closer.
Their last update (of substance) said "Borrower has accepted an offer of £298k for the property with completion expected in December. This loan will remain open until fully repaid".
Do they not think that their investors might have liked to know what happened to that accepted offer? I think we all know the answer, but nonetheless...
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,722
Likes: 2,987
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 23, 2018 19:43:22 GMT
They've updated it now. "The borrower has confirmed that the property is complete and they are waiting for the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) to be provided before it can be marketed publicly. Even though the property is not being marketed, they already have offers which are being considered. We have requested proof of the works being complete which should be available next week and we anticipate repayment early in the New Year"Now, that's all fine and dandy in itself, but given yesterday's embarrassment you might have thought they'd look a little closer. Their last update (of substance) said "Borrower has accepted an offer of £298k for the property with completion expected in December. This loan will remain open until fully repaid". Do they not think that their investors might have liked to know what happened to that accepted offer? I think we all know the answer, but nonetheless... Its just incredible isn't it? I don't understand how they can get away with it. If FS prosper for many years to come, I wonder whether regulation will eventually catch up and this kind of blatant cr*p they come out with will be become the new "miss-selling" scandal.
|
|
mariner
Member of DD Central
Posts: 168
Likes: 338
|
Post by mariner on Nov 23, 2018 22:07:36 GMT
Funnily enough, I was thinking exactly the same thing the other day
FS have no one, other than themselves to blame, if it does come about
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Nov 23, 2018 22:40:28 GMT
Funnily enough, I was thinking exactly the same thing the other day FS have no one, other than themselves to blame, if it does come about When it comes to accuracy of the updates, what would you have them do? This is a serious question, how should FS verify the accuracy of the informal updates they are given? It would seem the obvious answer is to not give updates until a real and incontrovertible action is taken, e.g. Repayment, receivers appointed etc, but then I would imagine lots of people would complain about lack of updates.
|
|
mariner
Member of DD Central
Posts: 168
Likes: 338
|
Post by mariner on Nov 23, 2018 22:50:10 GMT
Simple Arby, or are you FS in disguise?
Get a local expeditor in at a cost of circa £30 ph & submit a report, 1 hour work tops
Used them all the time in Oil Industry projects
Aint rocket science mate
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Nov 23, 2018 22:50:34 GMT
Funnily enough, I was thinking exactly the same thing the other day FS have no one, other than themselves to blame, if it does come about When it comes to accuracy of the updates, what would you have them do? This is a serious question, how should FS verify the accuracy of the informal updates they are given? It would seem the obvious answer is to not give updates until a real and incontrovertible action is taken, e.g. Repayment, receivers appointed etc, but then I would imagine lots of people would complain about lack of updates. What I'd like to see, and what, to be fair, we do see occasionally from some platforms are updates like the following: "The borrower has advised that he has had an offer accepted for the property. However we have yet to receive proof that legals have been instructed. <then either> a) Given sufficient headroom LTV we are comfortable to allow borrower to proceed for now or b) To ensure capital/interest return for investors we have requested proof of legals being instructed. Should we not receive such proof we stand ready to appoint receivers etc etc.. It's not always possible of course, and sometimes platforms genuinely should be being particularly discreet given certain situations. But, in any case, this is a whole different level of thing to apparently forgetting there was an offer accepted or "remaining confident of funds arriving next week" for over a year, which FS seems partial to on occasion.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Nov 23, 2018 23:02:12 GMT
Simple Arby, or are you FS in disguise? Get a local expeditor in at a cost of circa £30 ph & submit a report, 1 hour work tops Used them all the time in Oil Industry projects Aint rocket science mate You're right, because rocket science is simple and factual. This isn't science, this is people management and there's no way to keep everyone happy. Who pays for the £30 ph fee for every report for every loan every week/month/quarter? Am I FS in disguise? Because disparaging anyone who shares a different opinion is such a constructive response.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Nov 23, 2018 23:59:09 GMT
When it comes to accuracy of the updates, what would you have them do? This is a serious question, how should FS verify the accuracy of the informal updates they are given? It would seem the obvious answer is to not give updates until a real and incontrovertible action is taken, e.g. Repayment, receivers appointed etc, but then I would imagine lots of people would complain about lack of updates. What I'd like to see, and what, to be fair, we do see occasionally from some platforms are updates like the following: "The borrower has advised that he has had an offer accepted for the property. However we have yet to receive proof that legals have been instructed. <then either> a) Given sufficient headroom LTV we are comfortable to allow borrower to proceed for now or b) To ensure capital/interest return for investors we have requested proof of legals being instructed. Should we not receive such proof we stand ready to appoint receivers etc etc.. It's not always possible of course, and sometimes platforms genuinely should be being particularly discreet given certain situations. But, in any case, this is a whole different level of thing to apparently forgetting there was an offer accepted or "remaining confident of funds arriving next week" for over a year, which FS seems partial to on occasion. Yes, that's very fair. I'm sure that I'm not alone when I say that's how I personally read any update anyway; I don't get excited at all about any offer because it means nothing until there's proof of exchange, and even then I only allow myself a glimmer of hope 
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 24, 2018 9:12:42 GMT
exactly - totally reasonable when large sums of our money are at stake.
Also very simple to ask the developer to take a photo with this phone and mail to FS - shame they never did this for the Whitehaven timber frame!
|
|
