trium
Member of DD Central
Posts: 384
Likes: 304
|
Post by trium on Jul 23, 2019 12:40:22 GMT
Once again, no loan start date is given (as far as I can see). Having a known, predetermined start date was the excuse offered for not paying interest before that in the first place and I won't be investing. The £500 minimum and the 9% rate are two more reasons I won't be investing.
.
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Jul 23, 2019 15:06:45 GMT
Since I started with FS 2 years ago, I've been putting £100 into every (1st tranche only) property loan.
Having £250 or £500 minima sadly precludes me from doing that any more, so my total invested through them is slowly reducing & I'm withdrawing it as it returns.
Take note FS
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 638
Likes: 866
|
Post by 09dolphin on Jul 23, 2019 15:34:19 GMT
Since I started with FS 2 years ago, I've been putting £100 into every (1st tranche only) property loan. Having £250 or £500 minima sadly precludes me from doing that any more, so my total invested through them is slowly reducing & I'm withdrawing it as it returns. Take note FS I think this should have been put into the thread about "I think FS are on their last legs"
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 23, 2019 16:14:34 GMT
Since I started with FS 2 years ago, I've been putting £100 into every (1st tranche only) property loan. Having £250 or £500 minima sadly precludes me from doing that any more, so my total invested through them is slowly reducing & I'm withdrawing it as it returns. Take note FS The same here. £500 or even £250 per loan is outside my budget. I can do it on other platforms with PF protection (i.e. I've put 5k into single loan on GS recently) and go up to £250 for some amortising Abl loans, but not on FS. This + no instant return + 9% rate = I'm not investing in FS property loans any more. But I think this is the goal that FS set - get rid of us lot and focus on wealthier investors for whom £500 isn't a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 23, 2019 17:42:04 GMT
There is nothing here that shouts out that 9% is reflective of the underlying risks. OK, the 70% LTV as it happens is being based on the purchase price / 90 day marketing valuation, but the planning application form states that the office accomodation has been empty since the building was finished, and that it is currently being held by receivers.
It looks likely that the purchaser (i.e. our borrower) had an offer conditional on planning for conversion to residential being approved accepted by the receiver, as he has been the planning applicant since Feb 2018. Planning was approved in November 2018 ... seems odd not to have completed the purchase in the intervening months, which may imply he has struggled to find a source of finance (and/or that the receiver has been unable to pressure a quicker completion via an alternative purchaser) . Given the proposed exit is onto development finance, this is a bit of a concern ... and doesn't sit comfortably with the claim he runs a succesful unregulated bridging finance house. Perhaps informative that FS are not (at this point at least) comfortable in offering dev finance themselves.
For those with access to DD Central, there is quite a bit of background on the prospective borrower, and I think a lot of the risk evaluation comes down to an assesement as to whether his online profiles are a fair reflection of his abilities.
At 12% with immediate interest I might consider it, as it stands, no.
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 638
Likes: 866
|
Post by 09dolphin on Jul 23, 2019 18:01:04 GMT
Since I started with FS 2 years ago, I've been putting £100 into every (1st tranche only) property loan. Having £250 or £500 minima sadly precludes me from doing that any more, so my total invested through them is slowly reducing & I'm withdrawing it as it returns. Take note FS The same here. £500 or even £250 per loan is outside my budget. I can do it on other platforms with PF protection (i.e. I've put 5k into single loan on GS recently) and go up to £250 for some amortising Abl loans, but not on FS. This + no instant return + 9% rate = I'm not investing in FS property loans any more. But I think this is the goal that FS set - get rid of us lot and focus on wealthier investors for whom £500 isn't a big deal. I think even wealthy investors object to their investments not making any return(I know my stepfather does) and I think that the minimum investment FS now require will perhaps be a blessing in disguise and save you money longer term if it prevents you making an investment in their offerings. The security FS offer on loans has been proven to be wildly inaccurate in the recent past and I can see no reason to believe their valuations are more accurate now than they were up to 5 years ago so be glad FS now require a minimum investment you are not prepared to make.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Jul 24, 2019 6:36:14 GMT
Maybe FS should open up about where they see themselves going in the p2p arena.make it clear to lenders who can then decide if they want to be a part of it.lower rates for lower risk, it don't look like it.the new owners seem very keen to implement this 9% and no interest until activation so why not come clean about the situation they now find themselves in.respect to MT and sophiethiing it must have been hard for them to lay their cards on the table but now we know and will more than likely support them in the future.as for FS I just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 24, 2019 10:46:35 GMT
Maybe FS should open up about where they see themselves going in the p2p arena.make it clear to lenders who can then decide if they want to be a part of it.lower rates for lower risk, it don't look like it.the new owners seem very keen to implement this 9% and no interest until activation so why not come clean about the situation they now find themselves in.respect to MT and sophiethiing it must have been hard for them to lay their cards on the table but now we know and will more than likely support them in the future.as for FS I just don't know. Just as with the MT anouncement, I and many others would welcome an increase in lower risk (and hence lower rate) loans at FS.
But, what is not welcome, is a repeat of the Lendy lower rate loans with most no lower risk than the full fat 12% ones. That move, along with what is happening currently at FS reeks of increasing the platforms margin at the expense of lenders.
I consider this loan to have a similiar risk of default as many other p2p loans (primarily due to difficulties which I feel will be encountered in refinancing it), and a similiar risk of loss on default (primarily I think it will take a long time to sell). The £500 min should be a clue that FS believe a careful analysis of the risks is needed before investing.
The Cowes Week sponsorship by Lendy and introduction of Lendy Wealth was I suspect intended to help attract overseas investors (not UK expats) who simply see the UK as a "good" place to invest (witness the bizarrely high % of offplan property sales to overseas investors). What we don't know is whether FS is engaged in similiar activity, but less obviously (perhaps this is the source of new underwriters)
The newsletter at the beginning of July implied they had underwriters lined up. We also know that the software has specific settings for underwritten loans, evidenced by the green shading of the progress bar. This loan would seem an obvious candidate for underwriters to demonstrate their support.
With hindsight the 9% on the 2nd tranche of Isle of Wight vs 10% on the first now makes sense, and was the first salvo of FS skimming margin off lenders.
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 24, 2019 11:16:13 GMT
The same here. £500 or even £250 per loan is outside my budget. I can do it on other platforms with PF protection (i.e. I've put 5k into single loan on GS recently) and go up to £250 for some amortising Abl loans, but not on FS. This + no instant return + 9% rate = I'm not investing in FS property loans any more. But I think this is the goal that FS set - get rid of us lot and focus on wealthier investors for whom £500 isn't a big deal. I think even wealthy investors object to their investments not making any return(I know my stepfather does) and I think that the minimum investment FS now require will perhaps be a blessing in disguise and save you money longer term if it prevents you making an investment in their offerings. The security FS offer on loans has been proven to be wildly inaccurate in the recent past and I can see no reason to believe their valuations are more accurate now than they were up to 5 years ago so be glad FS now require a minimum investment you are not prepared to make. Yes, I'm very happy with this arrangement There're plenty of other investment opportunities with lower risk or the rates appropriate for the risk.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Aug 5, 2019 18:13:14 GMT
now removed from available investments.i thought FS might have underwritten this loan and they might be needed for the remainder of available loans.FS will not like to return funds to lenders who are now more likely to withdraw their money.
|
|