|
|
Post by charliebrown on Aug 3, 2018 12:22:01 GMT
If the LTV is truly max. 70% then I think as soon as the loan is overdue it should be defaulted and receivers appointed. Apply a zero tolerance approach.
|
|
paulb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 131
Likes: 112
|
Post by paulb on Aug 3, 2018 12:29:58 GMT
If the LTV is truly max. 70% then I think as soon as the loan is overdue it should be defaulted and receivers appointed. Apply a zero tolerance approach. I think most lenders will be willing to tolerate a slight delay where there is a valid reason (an actual, real, genuine, committed, contract-signed sale is happening, for example), and as I understand it, going through the default process can take a long time, so I'm not sure a zero tolerance approach would be the best. However, FS are (in my opinion) way way beyond zero tolerance to near-infinite tolerance - somewhere in the middle would be much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Aug 3, 2018 12:36:37 GMT
I think most lenders will be willing to tolerate a slight delay where there is a valid reason (an actual, real, genuine, committed, contract-signed sale is happening, for example), and as I understand it, going through the default process can take a long time, so I'm not sure a zero tolerance approach would be the best. However, FS are (in my opinion) way way beyond zero tolerance to near-infinite tolerance - somewhere in the middle would be much better. Exactly
|
|
Imothep
Member of DD Central
Posts: 106
Likes: 72
|
Post by Imothep on Aug 3, 2018 16:50:55 GMT
FS send out a statement , 3 months , 2 month and 4 weeks before the loan is due , it is very clear on the statement that interest or interst and capital must be paid or you are in default and will incur additional charges ... Thanks for that though you're the 1st investor ever in my time on FS to allude to that..and if true goes a long way to explain the appalling state of affairs. I wonder where your intel came from ? It makes the current situation more plausible, albeit unacceptable but by default, FS's amateurish administration toothless and not fit for purpose. Investors have every right to vent their spleens in such circumstance and explains why there is so much angst, frustration and no little sarcasm directed at FS. Comparisons with a whelk stall are inevitable. you are absolutely correct, investors / I / we do have the right to vent spleens , but, i repeat, at 1% a month , it’s high risk investment , asset based or none ... the dd is useful and i thank the people that do that , but a lot of it on here is opinion, opinion, opinion ... i’m no mathematician , but i would be interested in knowing how many loans have been repaid ? lots i hazard a guess at ? and i’m guessing that’s a good thing ? decent returns ? for sure there are some howlers , tier 1 banks have them , governments have them , you pays your money you takes your chance... and eventually loans ( the good ones ) will not get funded , borrowers ( the good ones ) will move on , no more 1 % a month , but hey , that’s life .. 
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949 
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Aug 4, 2018 9:12:36 GMT
I have to admit that I always thought a loan was due for repayment on the day of its exact renewal and not some vague date a few weeks later. Clearly not in the world of fundingsecure ! That is why I have quickly become so disillusioned with fundingsecure. Don’t they have any T&Cs for borrowers? They are the ones who should be making the contact. Get them to ask if they need a few extra days to complete, or pay the interest due, show they are still viable, person of substance, and apply to renew. They can still terminate early. fs are making a rod for their own back, creating extra work. Give the impression of absolute chaos. Lose investors trust, confidence and ultimately customers. FS really do need to make it clear if their very high risk borrowers don’t renew on time they risk paying for aborted (?) recovery proceedings. What baffles me is how many developers have supposedly put up 30%+ of their own money (the 70% max LTV), yet go into such high risk gambles. Why not start on projects within their capabilities and much lower borrowings? Greed? “Neither a borrower nor a lender be; / For loan oft loses both itself and friend.” I was told when knee high to grasshopper. (Polonius in Hamlet) 70% LTV doesn't mean 30% was put by the développer. I think the typical scenario is the développer wants to buy a land / property at "cheaper" price due to its nature (no planning / conservative area / etc) Then he apply for planning and request a loan from funding secure which would overvalued the property. So at the end they may have paid nothing. You need to be very careful reading the valuation report.
|
|
