|
Post by elljay on Sept 4, 2014 18:15:29 GMT
Those with T***** W***** G***** Ltd will find a request in your inbox that came out around 14:30 to vote by 09:00 tomorrow on a proposal... Hopefully there's something to back up the PG on this one.
|
|
|
Post by topgun on Sept 4, 2014 21:32:21 GMT
OH NO not another failed L*****e loan?
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 4, 2014 21:48:47 GMT
A question to ponder: at what point did one come to the conclusion that the floodgates had opened with this particular sponsor ?
Still: worth bearing in mind that the more loans a sponsor is responsible for, the more bad ones they will have.
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Sept 5, 2014 6:19:22 GMT
Still: worth bearing in mind that the more loans a sponsor is responsible for, the more bad ones they will have. Quite true and I'm probably over reacting, but it's the feeling of "new investors are more important than existing ones" and "we'll quite happily ask you to vote on actions with less than 24 hours notice, but stall* when you'd like an update after three months of silence" that's annoying me. The promised "likely to be Thursday" update on the Cessna loan hasn't materialised yet, though I guess they may be busy organising this latest vote... *: by which I mean ignore forum posts and direct email.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,133
Likes: 1,482
|
Post by pikestaff on Sept 5, 2014 7:20:05 GMT
The good news is the director sounds like an honest chap and he does seem to have assets. I think Ludgate are always going to have a higher failure rate than some because most of their loans are to "real" businesses, and many of them are turnarounds. When they do fail the issue is going to be the quality of the security (see p2pindependentforum.com/post/20915/thread). I'm cautiously optimistic on this one.
|
|