sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428 
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Jun 1, 2019 14:34:58 GMT
Unless you took a risk with a supplemental last charge, this was a good result in the end. Certainly, speaking selfishly in the upper two charges I'm very happy. I don't quite understand though the policy for distribution. I had thought it was 1st charge capital, then 2nd captiol then 3rd capitol then 1st interest, 2nd interest etc. But that can't be the case? Maybe you are confused with the Birkenhead Loan on MT which had unusual priorities.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Jun 1, 2019 14:38:10 GMT
Unless you took a risk with a supplemental last charge, this was a good result in the end. Certainly, speaking selfishly in the upper two charges I'm very happy. I don't quite understand though the policy for distribution. I had thought it was 1st charge capital, then 2nd captiol then 3rd capitol then 1st interest, 2nd interest etc. But that can't be the case? I understand that would make things fairer for the group as a whole, but if that was the case, then those in the first loan would have to be asked for permission before supplemental loans were issued because the risk of them not getting the returns they expected goes up as a lower charge would be getting capital before they get their interest.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Jun 1, 2019 16:00:03 GMT
5.6% back? So 94% loss? Isn't it total loss or close to? Tranche 3 (1815742565 and previously 3134786545) was for £15,500. 100% capital was repaid and there was an interest payment of £920.25, equivalent to 5.3% (APR) Might you be getting confused with the 'Supplemental Loan (3204728975)'?
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Jun 1, 2019 16:13:51 GMT
5.6% back? So 94% loss? Isn't it total loss or close to? Tranche 3 (1815742565 and previously 3134786545) was for £15,500. 100% capital was repaid and there was an interest payment of £920.25, equivalent to 5.3% (APR) Might you be getting confused with the 'Supplemental Loan (3204728975)'? Ah ok. No i just tried to clarify. I wasn t on this loan
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 639 
Likes: 866
|
Post by 09dolphin on Jun 1, 2019 18:07:13 GMT
Really good news that this and the Elephant and Castle loan have very recently been repaid.
Lets have more good news about the many loans that are "overdue" by months or even years.
FS really do need to have a lot more loans like these to restore confidence in the site. It's a start but that's all it is and FS need to demonstrate that they are managing the many loans that are significantly overdue before many people will have the confidence to invest in loans offered - at least that applies to me.
I am really happy for the investors in these two loans and can I say it makes me happy to be able to make a positive post about FS.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,729
Likes: 2,992
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 1, 2019 18:43:49 GMT
Unless you took a risk with a supplemental last charge, this was a good result in the end. Certainly, speaking selfishly in the upper two charges I'm very happy. I don't quite understand though the policy for distribution. I had thought it was 1st charge capital, then 2nd captiol then 3rd capitol then 1st interest, 2nd interest etc. But that can't be the case? Maybe you are confused with the Birkenhead Loan on MT which had unusual priorities. Probably but it still doesn't make sense. I think there were three priorities of loan, lets call them 1,2 and 3. Since interest on loan 2 wasn't paid back in full, why did loan 3 receive anything?
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Jun 1, 2019 19:10:06 GMT
Maybe you are confused with the Birkenhead Loan on MT which had unusual priorities. Probably but it still doesn't make sense. I think there were three priorities of loan, lets call them 1,2 and 3. Since interest on loan 2 wasn't paid back in full, why did loan 3 receive anything? Because there was spare capacity in loan 2, but the capacity wasn't enough to finish the development, so they issued loan 3 which included the final portion of loan 2, plus the additional third charge. So the small element of loan 2 that sits in loan 3 gets repaid, but not the actual third charge. At least that was my quick understanding, I was in the first two loans so didn't pay full attention to third.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Jun 1, 2019 19:12:19 GMT
Precisely - is this a new FS policy to prevent more 100% losses - I think there have been 3 to date. Wimbledon (to be confirmed) Knaresborough and South Wales Hotel?
I wonder how charge 2 holders will view this?
As for the uncompleted Park Homes I am not exactly super confident and don't talk to me about the art loans , when I say "loans" I really mean worthless IOUs signed when half-cut over lunch.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Jun 1, 2019 19:20:37 GMT
Precisely - is this a new FS policy to prevent more 100% losses - I think there have been 3 to date. Wimbledon (to be confirmed) Knaresborough and South Wales Hotel? I wonder how charge 2 holders will view this? As for the uncompleted Park Homes I am not exactly super confident and don't talk to me about the art loans , when I say "loans" I really mean worthless IOUs signed when half-cut over lunch. No, please don't infer FS are acting surreptitiously when they're just following the correct procedure (there are enough real cases of dodgy goings on to not have to invent more 😂 )
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jun 2, 2019 0:08:50 GMT
Precisely - is this a new FS policy to prevent more 100% losses - I think there have been 3 to date. Wimbledon (to be confirmed) Knaresborough and South Wales Hotel? I wonder how charge 2 holders will view this? As for the uncompleted Park Homes I am not exactly super confident and don't talk to me about the art loans , when I say "loans" I really mean worthless IOUs signed when half-cut over lunch. They were traunches . Effectively the one loan split the total would have been agreed. The first loan was separate. The holistic approach is being taken with the director with multiple loans. FS is just doing what the borrower could. They could decide to pay one loan before another or not pay any. This is the best for all in numerous loans from same person otherwise you could get full payment in one and capital or less in another. Probably best to get all capital and less interest in all.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Jun 2, 2019 7:38:16 GMT
fair point - I missed the below
bit confusing if you ask me but I am simple soul - not saying it is a bad thing but the mechanism above does minimise the chance of a 100% loss for a 3rd charge not that a minimal 84.2% capital loss is exactly appealing to the 3rd charge holders.
Maybe I should have kept my initial investment in the first tranche but better safe than sorry.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jun 2, 2019 10:26:59 GMT
fair point - I missed the below bit confusing if you ask me but I am simple soul - not saying it is a bad thing but the mechanism above does minimise the chance of a 100% loss for a 3rd charge not that a minimal 84.2% capital loss is exactly appealing to the 3rd charge holders. Maybe I should have kept my initial investment in the first tranche but better safe than sorry. Looking at the investors the majority were <£50 and only 16>£100 if as should be you invest <1% in any single loan the loss should amount to way less than 1 months interest . Never good to have any loss of capital but in the holistic approach it is a tiny dent in overall portfolio returns apart from the very smallest of investors and I would suggest they use Welendus.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,729
Likes: 2,992
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 2, 2019 13:42:34 GMT
Precisely - is this a new FS policy to prevent more 100% losses - I think there have been 3 to date. Wimbledon (to be confirmed) Knaresborough and South Wales Hotel? I wonder how charge 2 holders will view this? As for the uncompleted Park Homes I am not exactly super confident and don't talk to me about the art loans , when I say "loans" I really mean worthless IOUs signed when half-cut over lunch. No, please don't infer FS are acting surreptitiously when they're just following the correct procedure (there are enough real cases of dodgy goings on to not have to invent more 😂 ) Hang on a second. Like you I haven't looked into the detail but something I still don't understand. When I invested in loan 2, there were no lower ranking loans. How could any lower ranking loan subsequently issued have received any payment before loan 2 was paid in full? I appreciate your explanation and it makes some sense but that surely means when I invested in loan 2 I should have been aware that lower ranking loans issued subsequently might be partially repaid before my loan 2 was repaid thus I think meaning the LTV on loan 2 was not what was stated (again would need to double check that last bit). Practically I personally am very happy with this result not least because most of my cash was in the top ranking loan but just slightly uneasy that lower ranking charges don't behave as I expected.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Jun 2, 2019 14:33:22 GMT
No, please don't infer FS are acting surreptitiously when they're just following the correct procedure (there are enough real cases of dodgy goings on to not have to invent more 😂 ) Hang on a second. Like you I haven't looked into the detail but something I still don't understand. When I invested in loan 2, there were no lower ranking loans. How could any lower ranking loan subsequently issued have received any payment before loan 2 was paid in full? I appreciate your explanation and it makes some sense but that surely means when I invested in loan 2 I should have been aware that lower ranking loans issued subsequently might be partially repaid before my loan 2 was repaid thus I think meaning the LTV on loan 2 was not what was stated (again would need to double check that last bit). Practically I personally am very happy with this result not least because most of my cash was in the top ranking loan but just slightly uneasy that lower ranking charges don't behave as I expected. You invested in a second facility. The facility was larger than your loan so a subsequent loan could be issued in your facility up to the limit you agreed to when you invested. You knew that in advance so your risk doesn't change. The part of the 3rd facility that lost 100% is the part you didn't know about or agree to.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Jun 2, 2019 15:36:32 GMT
No, please don't infer FS are acting surreptitiously when they're just following the correct procedure (there are enough real cases of dodgy goings on to not have to invent more 😂 ) Hang on a second. Like you I haven't looked into the detail but something I still don't understand. When I invested in loan 2, there were no lower ranking loans. How could any lower ranking loan subsequently issued have received any payment before loan 2 was paid in full? I appreciate your explanation and it makes some sense but that surely means when I invested in loan 2 I should have been aware that lower ranking loans issued subsequently might be partially repaid before my loan 2 was repaid thus I think meaning the LTV on loan 2 was not what was stated (again would need to double check that last bit). Practically I personally am very happy with this result not least because most of my cash was in the top ranking loan but just slightly uneasy that lower ranking charges don't behave as I expected. As always the devil is in the detail. When the development funding first started (9791047956, June '17) the associated info stated: " This is the first tranche of a total facility of £115,000 and will be used to fund the build of the property." Even though that tranche was only for £22.5k, investors in it were given a reasonable heads-up that the facility they were actually investing in would rise to £115k. For tranches 2,3 and 4 the same advisory was given: " This is the [nth] tranche of a total development facility of £115,000 and will be used to fund the build of the property." T's 2,3&4 total £86,050 and, again, expectation has been reasonably set that the total facility will rise to £115k T5 comes along and seeks to close out the development funding. Once again " of a total development facility of £115,000" is stated and this tranche is for £27,450. Total of T's 1 to 5 inclusive = £113,500 against a facility of £115,000 There are however, two significant differences with T5's info: 1) the full sentence now reads: " This is the fifth and final tranche of a total development facility of £115,000 and will be used to fund the build of the property." 2) point 1 is reinforced further when FS state: " However, as this is the final drawdown of the facility ... " Then the Supplemental loan comes along and advises: " This loan of £10,000. is for the balance of a development facility of £115,000, the remaining £8,500 being a supplementary loan ranking behind the development facility.and will be used to fund the build of the property." and is 'acknowledging' the £1,500 under-supply (for want of a better word) in the stated development facility Original investors in T5 might have a reasonable argument that they had an expectation that they would see no further dilution of their investment. Similarly, anyone who bought parts of T's 1 to 5 inclusive on the SM between 05/04 and 25/05 in 2018 might have the same argument. But firstly, I doubt many (if any) realised that there had been an 'under-supply' to the facility and secondly, for those (few) that did, would they have made a different investment decision if the lent sum had been £115,000 .v. £113,500? Lessons learned? 1) one for lenders: check the detail - it's where you'll find the devils 2) one for fundingsecure: when you say "final tranche" and "final drawdown" do yourselves a favour and stick to it 
|
|
