zccax77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 82
Likes: 76
|
Post by zccax77 on May 27, 2019 18:12:11 GMT
PBL103 and PBL156 will likely recovery similar amounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 27, 2019 19:13:35 GMT
Initially yes, but there may be some further recovery against the valuers, our agents, or even (giggle) the borrowers and their PGs.
T'ain't over til the fat lady sings, which could be years or decades away (ZDPs and Equitable Life rumbled on for that long). Hope the lenders are all young and healthy.
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949 
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on May 27, 2019 19:18:23 GMT
Initially yes, but there may be some further recovery against the valuers, our agents, or even (giggle) the borrowers and their PGs.
T'ain't over til the fat lady sings, which could be years or decades away (ZDPs and Equitable Life rumbled on for that long). Hope the lenders are all young and healthy.
Doesn't that depend on the administrators being paid to do this follow up work? What's the likelyhood of someone forking additional funds to keep chasing them?
|
|
zccax77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 82
Likes: 76
|
Post by zccax77 on May 27, 2019 19:25:12 GMT
Unlikely to happen if you ask me. Only thing administrators can do is sell property and make the guarantors bankrupt, most of whom would have hidden their assets anyway.
|
|
damar
Member of DD Central
Posts: 110
Likes: 47
|
Post by damar on May 27, 2019 19:31:24 GMT
Surely the sensible thing would be to continue the trading, to pull in as much money as possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 27, 2019 21:57:15 GMT
I wonder how many of the problems were created from Lendy trying to maintain the "we've never lost client money" claims? With the fear that delivering losses would massively damage their potential to acquire new investors. So instead of recovering money at a loss just leave defaults in limbo.
Surely that is no longer a consideration. The FCA have to balance the recover amount vs the administrator fees. A long protracted recovery process would probably mean the administrator fees would eat up much of the money. I wonder what the recover amounts would be if everything in default is just immediately put to auction.
A £1m valuation with 70% LTV. If that sold at 50% of the valuation, then 71% of the loan is recovered. Maybe 10% lost to fees. Lets say another 10% or so lost to some other costs. Is it too hopeful to expect 50% recovered?
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 1,350
|
Post by ptr120 on May 28, 2019 5:33:30 GMT
Lendy just got a brief mention on the local BBC news but mostly in the context of Cowes week being without a sponsor. Perhaps we should email them in the hope that their coverage focuses more on the investors who may lose money, and the shoddy action of the FCA and the directors of Lendy.
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on May 28, 2019 5:49:49 GMT
How about if we got a share of all the assets remaining from Lendy and Borrowers (i.e. in asset form rather than liquidated) - of course based and calculated from the amount of money we are owed. I would have preferred that. Would anyone else?
If, by miracle, 100% of lenders preferred that option, would this be something that could be discussed with the administrators?
(sorry if these are stupid deliberations/questions)
|
|
|
|
Post by balloonthief on May 28, 2019 5:51:46 GMT
We have to see miss sold p2p loan claims from this.
No different to ppi in the fact they have been lying to investors for the last 3 years.
Thinking back I had multiple phone calls with Lendy after filling in the non disclosure form, every single thing they said on the phone was complete and utter lies. They should be named and shamed publicly!
Anyone wondering what Tim Gordon is spending our interest on should have a search online, absolutely no shame. I hope they loose it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 28, 2019 6:35:11 GMT
How about if we got a share of all the assets remaining from Lendy and Borrowers (i.e. in asset form rather than liquidated) - of course based and calculated from the amount of money we are owed. I would have preferred that. Would anyone else? If, by miracle, 100% of lenders preferred that option, would this be something that could be discussed with the administrators? (sorry if these are stupid deliberations/questions)
I doubt anyone really wants 3 square inches of a building site, or 6 bricks in Wolverhampton. It's not like the assets are 9 tons of mars bars, or anything else easily divisible, assignable, or shipable. So sorry, but that is not a very workable idea.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on May 28, 2019 6:49:40 GMT
As a rule, they do not engage in long term solutions unless they can charge a fortune for it. The normal MO for this type of administration is to check what funds are available for paying them - we know that the answer to that is likely to be zero. The next step will be to sell the loan book for at least enough to recover their own fees. Lenders will be lucky to see a penny of capital returned, perhaps 20% might be realistic with the wind behind the process and only because the FCA will be watching closely so the administrators will not be able to act entirely in their own interests. While you are correct in that the Administrators fees are taken, before we see anything, I believe that we still hold an interest in each loan proportional to our investment, therefore as there are several loans that should return £m’s, which likely should be in excess of the fees, then if you hold those loans, you should see more than a few p in the pound. Although, sadly, there are no guarantees, and final resolution will probably be years - see Collateral! Do the administrators actually have any hold on the loan book? Lendy were operating legally, have no interest in the loan book (except a few early loans), the loans are between the borrowers and the lenders. On the failure of Lendy the loan book is to be run down by a third party in lenders interest using ring fenced funds for that purpose.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on May 28, 2019 7:07:03 GMT
One would think so. Is lender-to-borrower relationship being regarded in COL and if not, is that purely because they ran out of interim permissions (then)?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on May 28, 2019 7:37:59 GMT
One would think so. Is lender-to-borrower relationship being regarded in COL and if not, is that purely because they ran out of interim permissions (then)? Because Col were acting 'illegally' lenders were classified as creditors and the loan book part of Cols assets by the administrators, there is no reason for Lendy lenders to be classified as creditors or the loan book to be part of Lendy's assets. And the operation of the loan book has been passed (should have been anyway) to the third parties designated to run it down, with the ring fenced funding.
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on May 28, 2019 7:42:36 GMT
One would think so. Is lender-to-borrower relationship being regarded in COL and if not, is that purely because they ran out of interim permissions (then)? Because Col were acting 'illegally' lenders were classified as creditors and the loan book part of Cols assets by the administrators, there is no reason for Lendy lenders to be classified as creditors or the loan book to be part of Lendy's assets. And the operation of the loan book has been passed (should have been anyway) to the third parties designated to run it down, with the ring fenced funding. Thanks. What if it's found that Ly were acting illegally? Would that be used as an 'excuse' to not treat it this way? No worries if you don't know for sure. I suspect this is a worry that others will have if it comes down to this point of how the company was acting according to FCA rules.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on May 28, 2019 8:35:24 GMT
Because Col were acting 'illegally' lenders were classified as creditors and the loan book part of Cols assets by the administrators, there is no reason for Lendy lenders to be classified as creditors or the loan book to be part of Lendy's assets. And the operation of the loan book has been passed (should have been anyway) to the third parties designated to run it down, with the ring fenced funding. Thanks. What if it's found that Ly were acting illegally? Would that be used as an 'excuse' to not treat it this way? No worries if you don't know for sure. I suspect this is a worry that others will have if it comes down to this point of how the company was acting according to FCA rules. I'm sure the administrators will be looking closely at what Lendy have been doing, but as long as the run down plan was done to FCA standards (and the FCA have been watching closely) I don't see why that arrangement should be questioned, surely it was put in place to protect lenders in this situation. How much funds are actually in the ring fenced account for the run down is a good question though. Edit: Of course at the minute we have no idea how it all actually works out in practise. Another test for the FCA p2p procedures.
|
|
