travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Jun 14, 2019 17:17:23 GMT
Stand by and wait while we  carry on milking it . |
|
|
|
Post by df on Jun 14, 2019 17:30:20 GMT
Well that was a totally pointless non-update. It was not informative, but one shouldn't expect much more at this stage. I think the fact that administrators communicate frequently is positive alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 17:31:24 GMT
Stand by and wait while we carry on milking it . Don't expect the completion of the report and reconciliation to take place much before the 8 week deadline in mid July. You must be realistic. Anything before then should be an unexpected bonus, and certainly not a failure in any sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 17:33:29 GMT
It was not informative, but one shouldn't expect much more at this stage. I think the fact that administrators communicate frequently is positive alone. I wonder what hourly rate they charged for that information-free drivel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 17:34:08 GMT
Mmmm , that advice has been on offer for the last 20 years, but it never seems to work out in the modern era. In relatively recent times of crisis (eg. the 2007 crisis), there was much more of a flight to the US Dollar than to Gold (or Silver). To all physical gold holders who feel they are "protected" , I ask them this : If the Armegeddon they are predicting (ie. a total financial meltdown) actually happens, how exactly are they going to profit from their gold holding ? Best of luck when you try paying for your Tescos shopping with a Gold sovereign .... ok that's flippant, but if there is a total loss of confidence in fiat currency there will literally be blood on the streets, and there won't be any way of actually using Gold coins as a medium of exchange. How could the recipient trust them , value them, weigh them etc etc. Nice one lobster, how about Armageddon in the streets, Somalia et al = Gold for Kalashnikovs, seems to work in most lawless societies. As for the minuscule update…..not sure I am satisfied with the wording “we are in the process of reviewing these” and “share analysis”…… deciphered, that is likely [hopefully i am wrong] to imply - brace for impact. You should adjust your expectations to expect the report mid July, as this is the legally allowed time to provide their comprehensive report and reconciliation. The fact that we are even getting weekly emails is above expectations, so sit tight as there are still 5 weeks to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by zee on Jun 14, 2019 17:45:26 GMT
Lot of speculation out there so thought I'd put my understanding to the test, fire away if you think of know I have anything wrong.
1. As with all P2P companies, all loans are contained entities with no reliance on the existence of Lendy.
2. As with all P2P companies Lendy were required to ensure that sufficient funds were ring fenced such that a third party administrator could close out all such loans with no reliance on the existence of Lendy, as I understand it it was to ensure this requirement that Lendy moved when they did.
3. All Lendy loans have security and were based on a maximum outlay of 70% of the value of that security.
4. All Lendy valuations required that the valuer had sufficient insurance in place such that if the valuation AT THE TIME OF LOAN EXPIRY proved inaccurate, a claim could be sought against that insurance. This was part of Lendy's due diligence and a route they have exercised on some loans to date with success.
With regards to individual loans, unless it transpires Lendy have operated outwith code then they are no more or less likely to return our capital now than under Lendy, in other words each loan stands on it's own merits.
Security valuations, a major criticism on this forum against Lendy, being insured means that's an avenue the administrators can pursue if they think property was over valued, and even if those valuers were to go into admin, their insurance would still have to man up where there were legitimate claims.
Does anyone know how Lendy funded the contingency fund, was it from their profits or geared to loans, I see the admins are saying it's not clear cut in which case it's not simply Lendy's money available to their own creditors, at least not for now?
Finally, I think one of the big worries is if whether the FCA envisaged this percentage of troubled loans when setting the amount that needed to be ringfenced for this type of collapse, and if given the likely litigation to come, whether any shortfall falls to being paid via return on loans or Lendy assets.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jun 14, 2019 17:48:19 GMT
It was not informative, but one shouldn't expect much more at this stage. I think the fact that administrators communicate frequently is positive alone. I wonder what hourly rate they charged for that information-free drivel. Don't know what their hourly rate is, but it takes seconds to send an e-mail and shouldn't take long to write an update like this.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Jun 14, 2019 17:51:14 GMT
I do feel quite strongly when reading the anodyne comments of professionals upholding the financial depredations of the closed shop. I am in no way impatient but I'm appalled that people feel they can charge so much just because they had to' pay for their education'. Most of us have had to do this without such recompense. Such thinking should be challenged, not meekly justified. I have enough inside knowledge of this to know that it is conniving b*llsh*t .
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 17:53:30 GMT
Don't know what their hourly rate is, but it takes seconds to send an e-mail and shouldn't take long to write an update like this. I'm sure it didn't take long. Theres no content, just platitudes and filler. How many hours they bill for it is another question entirely 
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jun 14, 2019 17:57:24 GMT
Nice one lobster, how about Armageddon in the streets, Somalia et al = Gold for Kalashnikovs, seems to work in most lawless societies. As for the minuscule update…..not sure I am satisfied with the wording “we are in the process of reviewing these” and “share analysis”…… deciphered, that is likely [hopefully i am wrong] to imply - brace for impact. You should adjust your expectations to expect the report mid July, as this is the legally allowed time to provide their comprehensive report and reconciliation. The fact that we are even getting weekly emails is above expectations, so sit tight as there are still 5 weeks to go. mfry - I believe you misunderstood, or I did not explain clearly enough, it is not the size for the administrators report that I am concerned with, it is the specific wording they used and its implications.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jun 14, 2019 18:00:54 GMT
Lot of speculation out there so thought I'd put my understanding to the test, fire away if you think of know I have anything wrong. 1. As with all P2P companies, all loans are contained entities with no reliance on the existence of Lendy. 2. As with all P2P companies Lendy were required to ensure that sufficient funds were ring fenced such that a third party administrator could close out all such loans with no reliance on the existence of Lendy, as I understand it it was to ensure this requirement that Lendy moved when they did. 3. All Lendy loans have security and were based on a maximum outlay of 70% of the value of that security. 4. All Lendy valuations required that the valuer had sufficient insurance in place such that if the valuation AT THE TIME OF LOAN EXPIRY proved inaccurate, a claim could be sought against that insurance. This was part of Lendy's due diligence and a route they have exercised on some loans to date with success. With regards to individual loans, unless it transpires Lendy have operated outwith code then they are no more or less likely to return our capital now than under Lendy, in other words each loan stands on it's own merits. Security valuations, a major criticism on this forum against Lendy, being insured means that's an avenue the administrators can pursue if they think property was over valued, and even if those valuers were to go into admin, their insurance would still have to man up where there were legitimate claims. Does anyone know how Lendy funded the contingency fund, was it from their profits or geared to loans, I see the admins are saying it's not clear cut in which case it's not simply Lendy's money available to their own creditors, at least not for now? Finally, I think one of the big worries is if whether the FCA envisaged this percentage of troubled loans when setting the amount that needed to be ringfenced for this type of collapse, and if given the likely litigation to come, whether any shortfall falls to being paid via return on loans or Lendy assets. I guess they didn't when they granted Ly full authorisation. It was quite clear at the time that the majority of Lendy loans are in trouble.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179 
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jun 14, 2019 18:15:02 GMT
Lot of speculation out there so thought I'd put my understanding to the test, fire away if you think of know I have anything wrong. 1. As with all P2P companies, all loans are contained entities with no reliance on the existence of Lendy. 2. As with all P2P companies Lendy were required to ensure that sufficient funds were ring fenced such that a third party administrator could close out all such loans with no reliance on the existence of Lendy, as I understand it it was to ensure this requirement that Lendy moved when they did. 3. All Lendy loans have security and were based on a maximum outlay of 70% of the value of that security. 4. All Lendy valuations required that the valuer had sufficient insurance in place such that if the valuation AT THE TIME OF LOAN EXPIRY proved inaccurate, a claim could be sought against that insurance. This was part of Lendy's due diligence and a route they have exercised on some loans to date with success. With regards to individual loans, unless it transpires Lendy have operated outwith code then they are no more or less likely to return our capital now than under Lendy, in other words each loan stands on it's own merits. Security valuations, a major criticism on this forum against Lendy, being insured means that's an avenue the administrators can pursue if they think property was over valued, and even if those valuers were to go into admin, their insurance would still have to man up where there were legitimate claims. Does anyone know how Lendy funded the contingency fund, was it from their profits or geared to loans, I see the admins are saying it's not clear cut in which case it's not simply Lendy's money available to their own creditors, at least not for now? Finally, I think one of the big worries is if whether the FCA envisaged this percentage of troubled loans when setting the amount that needed to be ringfenced for this type of collapse, and if given the likely litigation to come, whether any shortfall falls to being paid via return on loans or Lendy assets. I guess they didn't when they granted Ly full authorisation. It was quite clear at the time that the majority of Lendy loans are in trouble. Indeed. It seems The FCA may have been aware of this also nine months before Lendy were granted their full authorisation in July 2018 (although the comment at the bottom seems to make it sound less concrete). www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/08/lendy-finances-property-valuations-fca-spotlight/At least they made it as a fully regulated operation for a whole four months before being apparently asked to sign up for VREQ and monitoring in November 2018: www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/news/lendy-troubles-deepen-peer-to-peer-investors-fear-cash/ 
|
|
jane
Posts: 145
Likes: 214
|
Post by jane on Jun 14, 2019 19:18:41 GMT
Who exactly is calling all the shots at Lendy now? The old Lendy communication strategy of sending everything out last thing on a Friday seems to have remained.
|
|
sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Jun 14, 2019 19:34:50 GMT
4. All Lendy valuations required that the valuer had sufficient insurance in place such that if the valuation AT THE TIME OF LOAN EXPIRY proved inaccurate, a claim could be sought against that insurance. This was part of Lendy's due diligence and a route they have exercised on some loans to date with success. You're saying that an insurance company would underwrite that a development would actually be completed or that property prices generally wouldn't decrease in the intervening period?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 14, 2019 19:47:04 GMT
4. All Lendy valuations required that the valuer had sufficient insurance in place such that if the valuation AT THE TIME OF LOAN EXPIRY proved inaccurate, a claim could be sought against that insurance. This was part of Lendy's due diligence and a route they have exercised on some loans to date with success. You're saying that an insurance company would underwrite that a development would actually be completed or that property prices generally wouldn't decrease in the intervening period? They are talking about Professional Indemnity insurance, so if the recovery resulted in a significant shortfall there would be recourse to claim against the valuer if Lendy felt the valuation was suspect. Not really anything to do with Lendy other than to make sure the PI is of sufficient level which for a major RICS valuer of the type they used is to be expected.
|
|
carry on milking it .
