mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 29, 2014 23:18:24 GMT
As FS appear to be attracting more than a couple of these larger loans then they really should revisit the SM subject. If folks need out as a matter of urgency then really there is no out and this could be something that comes back to bite them sooner rather than later IMO. I agree. If there was a way out, FS would find funding their larger loans easier to accomplish. And that would help their long-term growth prospects.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Oct 30, 2014 1:04:20 GMT
Is this a policy specific to this loan? I ask because I haven't bothered to read the info relating to this loan since I'm not interested, as already noted. Fresh bidding normally only occurs on those loans for which interest to date and rollover fees are paid. If the borrower is properly in default, this doesn't normally happen with FS loans. So unless this is a new policy specific to this loan, then if it went into default, you really don't have an 'out' until some other arrangement is made as far as I'm aware. (Apologies in advance if I'm wasting people's time by giving opinion on something I haven't bothered to look into). I'm going to expand on what ramblin rose has said. Loans are 'renewed' at FS only if the borrower pays the accrued interest (to lenders) and fees (to FS) on the maturing loan. If they can't/don't then -- except for the few cases where FS have granted the borrower a short extension -- the loan is declared to be in default and the security is sold to repay the lenders. In the case of relatively small loans -- say less than £4k -- the fees seem to be greater than the interest, so six months' worth might be something in the order of 15-25% of the amount borrowed. Because the loans are small, the amounts required to renew a loan might be manageable by the borrower, and that's what happens. The situation would be very different for a substantial bridging loan. If the borrower of the current bridging loan were to want to renew it, they would have to come up with something in excess of £20k, and that might not be easy. The good news is that the borrower in this case has a huge incentive not to default, because if they did and the property were to be sold at auction in a foreclosure sale the price achieved likely would be considerably below the 'value' put on it by the estate agent and the borrower would lose a substantial amount of their equity. This is quite a contrast with the situation of 70% LTV jewellery loans where most of the borrower's equity would be eaten up to pay the accrued interest and fees, so they're unlikely to lose much if they default FS and sell the security. Finally, echoing what others have said, I'd really appreciate it if fundingsecure would give us a little more info here. Do they expect the further tranches of this loan to be funded before or after this tranche goes live around the end of November? Is the borrower taking this loan so that they can do something to the property development-wise or for a completely different purpose? If the latter, we don't need to know any more than that. Is the interest on the loan being retained at drawdown as AC and SS often do? If the loan needs to be renewed in six months then the outstanding interest could be paid to lenders and the amount added to the loan. Lenders would be asked if they wanted to renew their holding at a slightly higher LTV. Considering the LTV is first charge and less than 35% it could happen two or three times.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 31, 2014 12:17:20 GMT
The attached document is not a valuation, but "a letter purely as general marketing advice". Not quite what most lenders would expect. Ah, and the author didn't even "look around at the house itself". Poor chap , he wasn't offered a cuppa coffee or tea. The “valuation” letter prepared by the estate agents was done in June without even an onsite visit, so there was plenty of time to get a proper VR drawn up for lending purposes. What the estate agent actually wrote was... Perhaps I'm being generous with my interpretation, but it looks to me like the agent actually was at the property the week before writing the letter (dated 06/Jun/14) and has seen the house before. And depending on the purpose of the Apr.'11 visit, he may have good notes to rely on. And maybe he did get a cuppa -- in the garden! As for whether a full valuation report is necessary, doesn't it depend on the size of the loan being requested? If the borrower were trying to obtain the largest loan they could, and the LTV was going to be 70+%, then a valuation would be appropriate. But in a case like this, where the proposed loan would have a LTV of more like 35%, I wouldn't have thought a valuation would be necessary. After all, how far wrong could the £800k 'marketing advice' estimate be? Even if it turned out to be double what actually could be achieved in a foreclosure 'fire sale' there should be enough proceeds to repay the £275k loan plus accrued interest, fees, and costs. Or am I being too optimistic?
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Oct 31, 2014 12:33:10 GMT
The attached document is not a valuation, but "a letter purely as general marketing advice". Not quite what most lenders would expect. Ah, and the author didn't even "look around at the house itself". Poor chap , he wasn't offered a cuppa coffee or tea. The “valuation” letter prepared by the estate agents was done in June without even an onsite visit, so there was plenty of time to get a proper VR drawn up for lending purposes. What the estate agent actually wrote was... Perhaps I'm being generous with my interpretation, but it looks to me like the agent actually was at the property the week before writing the letter (dated 06/Jun/14) and has seen the house before. And depending on the purpose of the Apr.'11 visit, he may have good notes to rely on. And maybe he did get a cuppa -- in the garden! As for whether a full valuation report is necessary, doesn't it depend on the size of the loan being requested? If the borrower were trying to obtain the largest loan they could, and the LTV was going to be 70+%, then a valuation would be appropriate. But in a case like this, where the proposed loan would have a LTV of more like 35%, I wouldn't have thought a valuation would be necessary. After all, how far wrong could the £800k 'marketing advice' estimate be? Even if it turned out to be double what actually could be achieved in a foreclosure 'fire sale' there should be enough proceeds to repay the £275k loan plus accrued interest, fees, and costs. Or am I being too optimistic? No I don't think you are being too optimistic and it looks a reasonable investment. But FS still need to provide an opportunity for lenders/investors to exit early if their needs change. Appreciate that it will just be a capital return with interest being paid when the loan matures. Without that I've now adopted a far more cautious approach and am at my comfort level with them apart from the odd £50 here and £100 there. Think though this request is continuously falling on deaf ears.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Oct 31, 2014 13:27:43 GMT
I cannot see any real justification for a secondary market when the indicated loan term is six to seven months. There would have to be some Moral Hazard in selling out after 3 or 4 months - if the loan pays out take the interest, if it fails pass on the loss. Seems easy enough to only invest funds you do not need back immediately.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 31, 2014 18:14:45 GMT
Think though this request is continuously falling on deaf ears. I'm afraid fundingsecure have become rather unresponsive on the forum lately. This issue has been raised repeatedly here, and FS haven't even bothered to reply. At least six months ago they said they were working on a secondary market, but they've said absolutely nothing since. If they want to change their position, they're entitled to, but I do think they owe us the courtesy of telling us that they have done that. For that matter, have there been any changes/improvements to the website at all this year? The worst problem the website had was its failure to cope when lots of people try to use the system at once. The solution hasn't been a positive one of improving the website, it's been a negative one of stopping the announcements of auction start times so that nobody knows exactly what's happening until it happens. This spreads the load on the webserver, but I wouldn't call it a proper solution. Now that FS seem to be bringing larger loans to the platform they've offered shadow bidding to their deeper-pocketed investors. That's a positive move, but it seems to be a completely manual process. I suppose that's not a problem at the moment, but it's not exactly scalable. And is an investor supposed to keep their own records of how many shadow bids they have placed and when they are likely to be called? Surely they shouldn't have to be doing that -- that's something the system should be telling them. I could go on, but what's the point?
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Oct 31, 2014 22:38:10 GMT
Think though this request is continuously falling on deaf ears. I'm afraid fundingsecure have become rather unresponsive on the forum lately. <snip> I could go on, but what's the point? There is no point mikes1531 - it seems par for the course that once a platform has enough lenders, or what it feels are enough lenders then they seem to stop engaging. There are exceptions of course, AC being one that springs to mind. Irrespective, the vast majority of lenders do not visit these forums.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 8, 2014 3:23:32 GMT
Think though this request is continuously falling on deaf ears. I'm afraid fundingsecure have become rather unresponsive on the forum lately. This issue has been raised repeatedly here, and FS haven't even bothered to reply. At least six months ago they said they were working on a secondary market, but they've said absolutely nothing since. If they want to change their position, they're entitled to, but I do think they owe us the courtesy of telling us that they have done that. Now that FS seem to be bringing larger loans to the platform they've offered shadow bidding to their deeper-pocketed investors. That's a positive move, but it seems to be a completely manual process. I suppose that's not a problem at the moment, but it's not exactly scalable. And is an investor supposed to keep their own records of how many shadow bids they have placed and when they are likely to be called? Surely they shouldn't have to be doing that -- that's something the system should be telling them. I raised the latter issue with fundingsecure directly. The response I received didn't really address my question. It simply restated the position that they will give shadow bidders 48 hours notice when their shadow bids need covering. I take that to mean that if I want to know how many outstanding shadow bids I have placed -- and when they are likely to be called -- I have to develop my own system to provide that info. A really poor solution, IMHO. When I raised that issue I also commented on their seeming lack of engagement here. Their response was... In a subsequent message I suggested that a good subject for their next general communication would be an update on the secondary market that they said was coming many months ago. In their last newsletter they wrote "if there are any particular areas you would like to see covered in future Newsletters ... please let us know." OK, I've made a suggestion. We'll find out before long if they really mean what they say.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 28, 2014 23:21:56 GMT
For those awaiting news of drawdown on this one which was originally targetted for today, shadow bids have just been called for settlement by Tuesday with drawdown expected Tuesday or shortly thereafter.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 29, 2014 2:53:45 GMT
For those awaiting news of drawdown on this one which was originally targetted for today, shadow bids have just been called for settlement by Tuesday with drawdown expected Tuesday or shortly thereafter. It's going to be rather difficult to complete on Tuesday if they've not asked for shadow bids to be covered before then. But perhaps they're willing to to use their own funds to complete and replenish their own funds as lender money arrives.
|
|