james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on May 29, 2016 10:31:08 GMT
/mod hat off. I agree, Lendy appear to be abiding with the terms of our agreement with them, albeit that they changed the terms w.r.t. accrued interest somewhat (and only in the last week or so). I don't see any reason to either get excited, or point my lawyers at Lendy. I'm sort of amazed (I know I shouldn't be) .. the inevitable, easily foreseen, event happens (one loan defaults) and suddenly several folks (no names, no pack-drill) seem to be in 'Chicken Little' mode. Now I'd prefer NOT to hold this loan, if I have a choice (I did), but I expect people will get their money (eventually), SS will come out rose scented (again), whether or not they have to invoke the PF, and the universe will not have imploded. I think that Lendy Ltd will eventually meet its obligation to repay the capital and interest on its loan but it will be interesting to see what happens along the way and how well they do at meeting their obligations. Given the relationship between loan size and protection fund size if the sale is significantly below valuation it might take a while, but I do think it will happen. I assume that anyone involved would want to give Lendy more time to pay if it turns out that they can't meet their obligations from their own funds and the protection fund, recognising that primary fault here lies with the firm they lent to, not them.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on May 29, 2016 10:43:24 GMT
I suppose a Consortium of saving stream investors with money in PBL20 could get together and bring a joint legal action against lendy to try and get their money back by suing them. But that's dependent on them being able to pay and one of the guys on here said that lendy hasn't got assets and shares as much as the size of this 1.7 million they owe investors on here.
Wouldn't common sense tell you that if they had 1.7 million to spare they would have paid back the investors In the loan on time to avoid all this bad publicity and then pursued the borrower to get their money back without involving the investors
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on May 29, 2016 10:44:35 GMT
I suspect if Lendy Ltd were in default this would be a totally different discussion. However I reiterate that the title of this thread is correct it certainly appears that everyone else believes it has, so do Lendy Ltd. It is also entirely possible that people who have purchased portions of this loan on the SM post September 2015 have a direct relationship with the borrower, not Lendy Ltd cavendum est fenerantis That SM argument is an interesting one. Would you be kind enough to consider a post with more on that subject, since it's clearly an potentially important issue for anyone considering buying on the secondary market? With potentially interest and capital at risk it'd matter to buying decisions. In this case with three parties - consumer lenders, platform borrower and the firm the platform lent to - I think it's desirable to be very clear about which of the parties is involved. So I wouldn't dream of writing that the borrower has had administrators appointed without being very careful to say it's Lendy's borrower, not the investor's borrower, lest it be taken to be Lendy that is in administration. I don't doubt that the firm Lendy lent to has defaulted but this loan is to Lendy and I don't think they have defaulted yet. And it's a difference that matters at least to those buying on the secondary market who are I assume believing that Lendy is obliged to pay them. Personally I'm most interested in how Lendy meets or doesn't meet its obligations as they existed at the time of loan inception, since that'll affect my trust level in the platform. has made some points here, the changes in the T&Cs were those of last September, I understand there were further changes on 11 May, you will have to make any further investigations yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on May 29, 2016 10:50:51 GMT
I suppose a Consortium of saving stream investors with money in PBL20 could get together and bring a joint legal action against lendy to try and get their money back by suing them. But that's dependent on them being able to pay and one of the guys on here said that lendy hasn't got assets and shares as much as the size of this 1.7 million they owe investors on here. Wouldn't common sense tell you that if they had 1.7 million to spare they would have paid back the investors In the loan on time to avoid all this bad publicity and then pursued the borrower to get their money back without involving the investors They, or more likely the associated company, LRPL, assert that they do have c.£2million in a provision fund, which they have discretionary powers to use, but if this fund constitutes part of Lendy Ltd's net assets (it is not clear whether it odes or doesn't) then to use it may constitute a "preference" to those creditors (of Lendy Ltd) involved in PBL20, especially if such payment would cause Lendy Ltd to have negative net assets. This is a point for savingstream to address as there is little information in the public domain.
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818 
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on May 29, 2016 10:59:39 GMT
As per usual with SS, it's the poor communication which is sending people into panic mode.
Theoretically, lenders shouldn't lose any money and SS should still be able to continue because the the provision find currently stands at £2m.
I think the real worry is the whereabouts of this £2m PF, it would be reassuring if they could post a screenshot of the account balance of this 'ringfenced' account so lenders do know it's there and not needed for working capital in order to keep SS going.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on May 29, 2016 11:04:09 GMT
We'll have to see how much Lendy gets for the site. No indication yet of how much "interested buyers" are suggesting they will pay. Lendy liability may be (for instance) £1.7M minus sale value (1.5M+  ) minus fees (£100K??), so a speculative £200K+ to cover with the provision fund. Also, haven't we always been told, on individual loans, capital is at risk? Was that not so with early SS loans? (I have £0.00 in this loan). |
|
davex
Member of DD Central
Posts: 81
Likes: 18
|
Post by davex on May 29, 2016 11:17:01 GMT
Perhaps i am being naive here but <2% of turnover is not something I would be concerned about.
Now if a few of the larger loans went down I would be concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on May 29, 2016 11:28:18 GMT
Interesting little snippet of the T&Cs here, not sure what i make of it, but? Lender's agreements with Saving Stream
15.1 You agree that Saving Stream is making no warranty or representation as to the ability of borrowers to repay loans or pay interest or fees on those loans, and their credit risk, and that *we are in no way liable for the debts of borrowers to you.* You acknowledge that you are lending entirely at your own risk.
The first line is important regarding whether this loan is on new or old T&Cs, OR..does this exonerate SS either way edit * |
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on May 29, 2016 11:31:47 GMT
Perhaps i am being naive here but <2% of turnover is not something I would be concerned about. Now if a few of the larger loans went down I would be concerned. What do you mean by "turnover?" If £1.7million represents less than 2% of turnover it would mean the nett interest income of Lendy Ltd was more than £85million per annum.
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on May 29, 2016 11:40:47 GMT
I think a few comments here about Lendy/Saving Stream's responsibilites and liability when there is a default to be at odds with the old T&C's (assuming they are applicable here).
Under the old T&Cs
- we agreed that Saving Stream did not guarantee the market value of any asset would be realised.
- we accepted that the proceeds would be applied in the following order: 1) principal, 2) fees due to Saving Stream, 3)interest - such an order clearly implies the possibility of a shortfall
- we accepted that Saving Stream's liability to us on any basis whatsoever would not exceed the total amount of revenue earned by Saving Stream in respect of transactions entered into by us (unless it could be proved there the valuation was incorrect).
On the last point assuming SS's revenue was 20% (interest and fees) than the cap on liability for 18 months loan duration would be £510k
I have never held this loan and had not looked at it until the last couple of days but I would have thought it highly unlikely there would be any serious loss for lenders. Also the provision fund is more than adequate in this case.
|
|
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 May 29, 2016 11:50:29 GMT
I think a few comments here about Lendy/Saving Stream's responsibilites and liability when there is a default to be at odds with the old T&C's (assuming they are applicable here).
Under the old T&Cs
- we agreed that Saving Stream did not guarantee the market value of any asset would be realised.
- we accepted that the proceeds would be applied in the following order: 1) principal, 2) fees due to Saving Stream, 3)interest - such an order clearly implies the possibility of a shortfall
- we accepted that Saving Stream's liability to us on any basis whatsoever would not exceed the total amount of revenue earned by Saving Stream in respect of transactions entered into by us (unless it could be proved there the valuation was incorrect).
On the last point assuming SS's revenue was 20% (interest and fees) than the cap on liability for 18 months loan duration would be £510k
I have never held this loan and had not looked at it until the last couple of days but I would have thought it highly unlikely there would be any serious loss for lenders. Also the provision fund is more than adequate in this case. Might also add at interest would be paid at term, monthly payments are a practice that developed with PBLs but isnt actually stated in old T&Cs. Also terms permitting variation of terms at SS discretion. If anyone wants to read them web.archive.org/web/20150919113942/http://www.savingstream.co.uk/termsIve added a link to the updates list for future reference
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on May 29, 2016 11:52:14 GMT
i have a feeling the old T&Cs mean nothing. Any lenders use of the platform automatically means that they accept the current T&Cs
24.5
These terms and conditions and the Loan Contracts set out the entire agreement between you and us with respect to your use of the platform and the services provided via the platform and supersede any and all representations, communications and prior agreements (written or oral) made by you or us.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on May 29, 2016 12:02:50 GMT
I suppose a Consortium of saving stream investors with money in PBL20 could get together and bring a joint legal action against lendy to try and get their money back by suing them. But that's dependent on them being able to pay and one of the guys on here said that lendy hasn't got assets and shares as much as the size of this 1.7 million they owe investors on here. Wouldn't common sense tell you that if they had 1.7 million to spare they would have paid back the investors In the loan on time to avoid all this bad publicity and then pursued the borrower to get their money back without involving the investors Have I missed something? What's all this talk of suing SS?
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on May 29, 2016 12:16:58 GMT
Even if the interest is covered by SS, I imagine the bulk of what people are owed (and want back) is in the capital they have lent - it seems more important to get a good recovery rate on that surely. I think the focus should be on efficient sale of the asset and return of capital as quickly as possible. Interest after that is surely just a "bonus" on a defaulted loan, 12% is the upper bound for what we can expect from SS in the long run. Technically SS could cover the interest but return less capital. E.g. for those who sold since the default they might get their May interest (and be happy), but the new owner of the loan gets less than their full investment back (and be very unhappy even if they had some accrued interest!). The provision fund could cover any capital shortfall, but it is unclear if it would also cover accrued interest that wasn't recovered. Personally I think the provision fund should stick to compensating capital and not interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2016 12:18:37 GMT
I suppose a Consortium of saving stream investors with money in PBL20 could get together and bring a joint legal action against lendy to try and get their money back by suing them. But that's dependent on them being able to pay and one of the guys on here said that lendy hasn't got assets and shares as much as the size of this 1.7 million they owe investors on here. Wouldn't common sense tell you that if they had 1.7 million to spare they would have paid back the investors In the loan on time to avoid all this bad publicity and then pursued the borrower to get their money back without involving the investors I think this reasoning is totally crazy. Defaults are unfortunately a part of the p2p lending. I have had 40+ defaults on FC, and on some of them there was CLEAR and explicit fraud (one of the borrowers was later imprisoned as well). I have taken that into account and tried to minimise the losses not trusting any DD except mine... Even if Lendy had spare cash they should NOT pay back this default loan as it is not their fault or negligence. What is important is that Lendy does its best to maximise recovery here and hopefullyif the valuation was correct there should be no problems for anyone.
|
|
) minus fees (£100K??), so a speculative £200K+ to cover with the provision fund. Also, haven't we always been told, on individual loans, capital is at risk? Was that not so with early SS loans? (I have £0.00 in this loan).
