|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 12, 2019 9:14:33 GMT
Update on 18/02/2019 "We have received a cheque from the borrower which we have banked. Once this has cleared, the loan will be renewed." fundingsecure - an update on this loan would be appreciated. We could guess that either you've forgotten to renew or the cheque bounced because you'd of known at the time of the last update whether the sum was sufficient to renew the loan. Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 13, 2019 17:13:50 GMT
Update on 18/02/2019 "We have received a cheque from the borrower which we have banked. Once this has cleared, the loan will be renewed." fundingsecure - an update on this loan would be appreciated. We could guess that either you've forgotten to renew or the cheque bounced because you'd of known at the time of the last update whether the sum was sufficient to renew the loan. Thanks Renewing today at 6pm. I wonder why did it take so long for cheque to clear? It normally takes about 3-4 working days + day in post. Or did FS simply forgot to send it to the bank?
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048 
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Mar 13, 2019 18:01:27 GMT
Who cares..took less than 4 seconds to renew..nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 13, 2019 21:53:40 GMT
Update on 18/02/2019 "We have received a cheque from the borrower which we have banked. Once this has cleared, the loan will be renewed." fundingsecure - an update on this loan would be appreciated. We could guess that either you've forgotten to renew or the cheque bounced because you'd of known at the time of the last update whether the sum was sufficient to renew the loan. Thanks Renewing today at 6pm. I wonder why did it take so long for cheque to clear? It normally takes about 3-4 working days + day in post. Or did FS simply forgot to send it to the bank? New processes implemented? *sigh*
|
|
p2pstephan
Member of DD Central
Posts: 91
Likes: 79
|
Post by p2pstephan on Mar 14, 2019 16:13:29 GMT
A most unusual loan. It is bling and it has a LTV of 37.5 so on the face of it looks very good. As such I would expect this to be 9%-10% but it is 13%. So I assume FS had some reason to consider this risky and worth the 13%. Its bling at a low LTV so it went fast and nobody wants to sell, but on the “cup half empty” side the first renewal was not exactly smooth “We are currently chasing the borrower but at present have not been able to make contact with them” and FS consider it risky and hence the 13%. If the next renewal runs into problems, then I do not think we should be too surprised. The loan is only 3K, so it would be easy for recovery fees to take a significant proportion of the sale. Interested to know what other’s think.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Mar 14, 2019 16:29:16 GMT
A most unusual loan. It is bling and it has a LTV of 37.5 so on the face of it looks very good. As such I would expect this to be 9%-10% but it is 13%. So I assume FS had some reason to consider this risky and worth the 13%. Its bling at a low LTV so it went fast and nobody wants to sell, but on the “cup half empty” side the first renewal was not exactly smooth “We are currently chasing the borrower but at present have not been able to make contact with them” and FS consider it risky and hence the 13%. If the next renewal runs into problems, then I do not think we should be too surprised. The loan is only 3K, so it would be easy for recovery fees to take a significant proportion of the sale. Interested to know what other’s think. There may well be future problems, but from past FS experience, recovery fees on bling are very low so at least that shouldn't be one of the problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 14, 2019 16:40:55 GMT
A most unusual loan. It is bling and it has a LTV of 37.5 so on the face of it looks very good. As such I would expect this to be 9%-10% but it is 13%. So I assume FS had some reason to consider this risky and worth the 13%. Its bling at a low LTV so it went fast and nobody wants to sell, but on the “cup half empty” side the first renewal was not exactly smooth “We are currently chasing the borrower but at present have not been able to make contact with them” and FS consider it risky and hence the 13%. If the next renewal runs into problems, then I do not think we should be too surprised. The loan is only 3K, so it would be easy for recovery fees to take a significant proportion of the sale. Interested to know what other’s think. I think 13% is to do with the age of this loan. 13% used to be a norm for bling. Newer bling loans are 9%-10% (I guess due to competition with UB???).
|
|
Kyrios
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 135
|
Post by Kyrios on Mar 14, 2019 16:47:55 GMT
A most unusual loan. It is bling and it has a LTV of 37.5 so on the face of it looks very good. As such I would expect this to be 9%-10% but it is 13%. So I assume FS had some reason to consider this risky and worth the 13%. Its bling at a low LTV so it went fast and nobody wants to sell, but on the “cup half empty” side the first renewal was not exactly smooth “We are currently chasing the borrower but at present have not been able to make contact with them” and FS consider it risky and hence the 13%. If the next renewal runs into problems, then I do not think we should be too surprised. The loan is only 3K, so it would be easy for recovery fees to take a significant proportion of the sale. Interested to know what other’s think. Malaya Garnet Estimated Value : £90,000 Loan : £60,000 LTV : 66.67% Defaulted Sold for £10,591.47 Recovery 17.66% That's my view.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Mar 14, 2019 17:02:46 GMT
A most unusual loan. It is bling and it has a LTV of 37.5 so on the face of it looks very good. As such I would expect this to be 9%-10% but it is 13%. So I assume FS had some reason to consider this risky and worth the 13%. Its bling at a low LTV so it went fast and nobody wants to sell, but on the “cup half empty” side the first renewal was not exactly smooth “We are currently chasing the borrower but at present have not been able to make contact with them” and FS consider it risky and hence the 13%. If the next renewal runs into problems, then I do not think we should be too surprised. The loan is only 3K, so it would be easy for recovery fees to take a significant proportion of the sale. Interested to know what other’s think. Malaya Garnet Estimated Value : £90,000 Loan : £60,000 LTV : 66.67% Defaulted Sold for £10,591.47 Recovery 17.66% That's my view. A massive purple malaya garnet has little to do with valuing a bog standard diamond ring. Yes, it serves to highlight the possible risks, but it's like comparing bitcoin price history to gold- neither have intrinsic value, but one is much more reliable than the other.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 14, 2019 17:30:05 GMT
Wonder how much the garnet costs to buy now ?
As to this ring it looks overvalued to me - I hope the valuation was trade and not retail value.
Some bling has gone well - some hasn't - be interesting to see how this one does but my tea leaves say no.
|
|
Kyrios
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 135
|
Post by Kyrios on Mar 14, 2019 17:44:52 GMT
Malaya Garnet Estimated Value : £90,000 Loan : £60,000 LTV : 66.67% Defaulted Sold for £10,591.47 Recovery 17.66% That's my view. A massive purple malaya garnet has little to do with valuing a bog standard diamond ring. Yes, it serves to highlight the possible risks, but it's like comparing bitcoin price history to gold- neither have intrinsic value, but one is much more reliable than the other. It's a stone. We are talking of a 9 to 1 valuation ratio. Since you mention Bitcoin, it looks like a safe investment next to that...
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Mar 14, 2019 17:49:06 GMT
A massive purple malaya garnet has little to do with valuing a bog standard diamond ring. Yes, it serves to highlight the possible risks, but it's like comparing bitcoin price history to gold- neither have intrinsic value, but one is much more reliable than the other. It's a stone. We are talking of a 9 to 1 valuation ratio. Since you mention Bitcoin, it looks like a safe investment next to that... A car is also a car, yet for some unfathomable reason, two different cars may have differing values and desirability.
|
|
Kyrios
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 135
|
Post by Kyrios on Mar 14, 2019 18:02:54 GMT
It's a stone. We are talking of a 9 to 1 valuation ratio. Since you mention Bitcoin, it looks like a safe investment next to that... A car is also a car, yet for some unfathomable reason, two different cars may have differing values and desirability. Sorry, but I do not understand that argument. It makes no sense. No one compares here the value of a Ferrari and a Fiat Panda. They obviously have different values. But if you tell me my Fiat Panda is worth £5000 and 3 days later, you sell it £600, there's a problem.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Mar 14, 2019 18:18:55 GMT
A car is also a car, yet for some unfathomable reason, two different cars may have differing values and desirability. Sorry, but I do not understand that argument. It makes no sense. No one compares here the value of a Ferrari and a Fiat Panda. They obviously have different values. But if you tell me my Fiat Panda is worth £5000 and 3 days later, you sell it £600, there's a problem. I mentioned desirability. What I meant was liquidity, but decided to avoid that term. A diamond is almost perfectly liquid. Values are relatively stable and the constant demand for a standard diamond ensures the value can be realised almost immediately for its true worth. Stones with lesser demand (malaya garnet) or unusual pieces (large carat) create huge uncertainty in both valuation (due to lack of comparables) and also hugely restricts the possible market for the stone. Going back to my original point, the loss you posted is a good reminder for all of us of the dangers of p2p, but drawing a direct comparison to a small diamond isn't really suitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 14, 2019 20:51:33 GMT
Sorry, but I do not understand that argument. It makes no sense. No one compares here the value of a Ferrari and a Fiat Panda. They obviously have different values. But if you tell me my Fiat Panda is worth £5000 and 3 days later, you sell it £600, there's a problem. I mentioned desirability. What I meant was liquidity, but decided to avoid that term. A diamond is almost perfectly liquid. Values are relatively stable and the constant demand for a standard diamond ensures the value can be realised almost immediately for its true worth. Stones with lesser demand (malaya garnet) or unusual pieces (large carat) create huge uncertainty in both valuation (due to lack of comparables) and also hugely restricts the possible market for the stone. Going back to my original point, the loss you posted is a good reminder for all of us of the dangers of p2p, but drawing a direct comparison to a small diamond isn't really suitable. I don't know anything about stones, but noticed that recoveries of small (under 10k) bling are more successful than the larger ones.
|
|
