|
|
Post by meledor on Jun 1, 2016 16:15:21 GMT
It may be just me, but that link took me to the new terms and conditions (whereas ilmoro 's link the other day took me to the old t&Cs) and clause 12 clearly refers to Savings Stream Security Holdings acting as agent for lenders and holding the security as such. The security in this case is held by Lendy Ltd (a free Companies Hose check of the borrower will reveal this in minutes) and, whatever relationship lendy Ltd has with the lenders it is clear that it is principal to the borrower, oherwise the security is invalid.
I've tweaked the link - hopefully works now.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563 
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Jun 1, 2016 16:40:47 GMT
All of those posters hurling abuse and threats at savingstream should take a look at most of the other p2p sites where defaults appear to be quite common and are (apparently) accepted by the lenders as part of the risk. Risk is part of p2p lending and you will need to accept it or put your money elsewhere. The differences are 1 It is probably the platform that has defaulted, because of the way they did things when this loan was sold, not the borrower. Thus some level of risk to the venture as a whole (though I doubt that any shortfall will kill them). That is why after much prompting they came up with the "new structure" 2 What looks like sharp practice changing T&Cs in an attempt to change the basis of the contract in full knowledge that this loan was going bad. NB looks like, it may of course be coincidence, I'm just commenting. Personally it is this that has prompted me to quit the platform. 3 The silence from SS. My interpretation is that they know they are dodgy ground and don't want to make things worse. I stand to be corrected but I think what they could and should have done is repay the loan now out of the PF and or own funds and then dealt with the default in their own time. This would have stopped running up any more interest charges. It's odd that they didn't. Logically I could speculate that it's because they don't have enough or only just or they have wind of another couple of defaults which they couldn't cover. I'd like to hear better explanations
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Jun 1, 2016 17:10:26 GMT
Taking your points in order: -> Where does it say you have a month to accept any changes to the conditions that SS operate under? This was in reply to the previous post. I did not say that I have 1 month to accept the changes. The point I was making is that it is normal practice to give a notice period when changes are being made to a contract. Who decides what is normal practice. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in contract law that states a notice period should be given prior to changes being implemented, as long as either party can withdraw without penalty.-> IMHO if you continue to lend on the platform, that is deemed to be acceptance of all conditions including changes. If for the moment we accept this to be true, you cannot accept the changes until you know of them. Again I think a notice period would have been appropriate to let people decide if they wish to continue under the new conditions. I have set my pre-funding to zero and not made any further purchases while I see how this is handled. Why would a notice period have been appropriate. You either accept the new conditions or you don't. If you don't like them you vote with the withdrawal of your money as many of us have done on FC.-> If you didn't want to lend under those conditions you had the option to sell up and withdraw your money. True apart from one particular loan which is proving a bit slow to sell for some reason  Noted, however there certainly appears to have been major movement over the past few days. It has slowed down today.-> All of those posters hurling abuse and threats at savingstream should take a look at most of the other p2p sites where defaults appear to be quite common and are (apparently) accepted by the lenders as part of the risk. I hope that you do not consider anything I have said to be abuse or threats. I have kept silent on the subject until I have seen what happened with regards to the interest payment today. I think that the communication from SS could have been a lot better regarding this. I can fully understand them not necessarily wanting to do that on this forum due to the hostile reception that they might receive from some people. However I think the hostility might have been less if the communication had been better. I apologise if you thought this comment was aimed at you. It was not. There are however a number of posters who appear to have lost the plot on the subject of PBL 020's default. I was one of the "lucky" ones who decided to sell my loan parts in March, but some of the comments on this subject are uncalled for and repetitive.-> Risk is part of p2p lending and you will need to accept it or put your money elsewhere. Agree with you entirely. If we had been lending to the eventual borrower then I think that the only discussion is how SS could best maximise the recovery. However, in this case we are lending to SS, so they are the ones who have defaulted on us. SS in turn have a borrower who has defaulted on them, but that is a risk they have taken. As you recently said "Risk is part of p2p lending and you will need to accept it or put your money elsewhere." This applies to SS as well as anyone else. Noted.If any of the 'new' loans had defaulted we would be looking for how to maximise the recovery. The same should apply when we are lending to SS. There are varying ways that platforms announce defaults to lenders. Some like AC are very good and involve the lenders in the decision making regarding recovery. There are others who don't formally announce a default, you find out by logging onto the site and looking at the loan details. It's a question of communication. SS are very poor communicators and lenders have been reasonably happy with that approach when loan values were small and and the loan book was much smaller. savingstream need to learn from this episode and nominate someone in their organisation to interact with their lenders. If they adopted the MT, AC, ABL approach much of this discussion would not have taken place
 You make some good points. Several I agree with, some I think we must agree to differ. Fairly moot now as some kind soul has just relieved me of the holding I put onto the SM. My holding now is a token 1p. I shall now watch developments as a relatively uninterested observer.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Jun 1, 2016 17:19:24 GMT
At the risk of repeating myself can you please read the T&Cs?
web.archive.org/web/20150919113942/http://www.savingstream.co.uk/terms
Just because you are lending to SS under the old T&Cs it does not mean that SS is obliged to make you whole on default. Read particularly paragraphs 5 and 12. These are the T&Cs you have agreed to and you are at risk of suffering loss of capital. (I have said elsewhere that I think in reality that is unlikely because of the security for the loan and the provision fund)
There are far too many people on here ignorantly talking of suing SS, or SS is in default, or SS could be in financial difficulties because of this default without showing any evidence that they are in the least bit familiar with the relevant T&Cs. The old T&Cs make very clear that SS is only obliged to pass back to lenders what is recovered (less fees).
Thank you for the link. As I joined SS after the change of the T&Cs for new loans, I had not had read the old T&Cs, so I look forward to reading them. As far as I have read there does not seem to be a consensus regarding whether purchases made on the SM after the change over date are rules by the old or new T&Cs. If they are still under the old T&Cs, I think it would be beneficial for them to be available on the SS site, rather than having to rely on yourself or some other kind person finding them on archive.org. Being bound by T&Cs not easily accessed is not quite Hitchhiker's Guide, but it is heading in that direction.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,333
Likes: 11,552
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 1, 2016 17:44:39 GMT
At the risk of repeating myself can you please read the T&Cs?
web.archive.org/web/20150919113942/http://www.savingstream.co.uk/terms
Just because you are lending to SS under the old T&Cs it does not mean that SS is obliged to make you whole on default. Read particularly paragraphs 5 and 12. These are the T&Cs you have agreed to and you are at risk of suffering loss of capital. (I have said elsewhere that I think in reality that is unlikely because of the security for the loan and the provision fund)
There are far too many people on here ignorantly talking of suing SS, or SS is in default, or SS could be in financial difficulties because of this default without showing any evidence that they are in the least bit familiar with the relevant T&Cs. The old T&Cs make very clear that SS is only obliged to pass back to lenders what is recovered (less fees).
Thank you for the link. As I joined SS after the change of the T&Cs for new loans, I had not had read the old T&Cs, so I look forward to reading them. As far as I have read there does not seem to be a consensus regarding whether purchases made on the SM after the change over date are rules by the old or new T&Cs. If they are still under the old T&Cs, I think it would be beneficial for them to be available on the SS site, rather than having to rely on yourself or some other kind person finding them on archive.org. Being bound by T&Cs not easily accessed is not quite Hitchhiker's Guide, but it is heading in that direction. ISTM that based on the update today which specifically refers to old T&Cs that all loan parts would have to be under the old T&Cs otherwise they would need to quote new T&Cs as well. Problem is that the old T&Cs dont cover the SM, no reference to it. Todays update had to add a bit in brackets which isnt in the T&Cs. (Is there a more recent intermeditate set we havent found yet) Where SS stands legally on the fact that people are investing in loans without seeing the relevant T&Cs I dont know (or loan contracts as specified in new T&Cs) and there are a lot of bits in the old T&Cs which probably raise questions. eg all loans are fixed term 7 months, in all cases and all renewals will be offered as new opportunities, neither clearly being adhered to. Suddenly a lot less simple than it seemed, though still retain confidence in SS.
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Jun 1, 2016 17:58:41 GMT
At the risk of repeating myself can you please read the T&Cs?
web.archive.org/web/20150919113942/http://www.savingstream.co.uk/terms
Just because you are lending to SS under the old T&Cs it does not mean that SS is obliged to make you whole on default. Read particularly paragraphs 5 and 12. These are the T&Cs you have agreed to and you are at risk of suffering loss of capital. (I have said elsewhere that I think in reality that is unlikely because of the security for the loan and the provision fund)
There are far too many people on here ignorantly talking of suing SS, or SS is in default, or SS could be in financial difficulties because of this default without showing any evidence that they are in the least bit familiar with the relevant T&Cs. The old T&Cs make very clear that SS is only obliged to pass back to lenders what is recovered (less fees).
Thank you for the link. As I joined SS after the change of the T&Cs for new loans, I had not had read the old T&Cs, so I look forward to reading them. As far as I have read there does not seem to be a consensus regarding whether purchases made on the SM after the change over date are rules by the old or new T&Cs. If they are still under the old T&Cs, I think it would be beneficial for them to be available on the SS site, rather than having to rely on yourself or some other kind person finding them on archive.org. Being bound by T&Cs not easily accessed is not quite Hitchhiker's Guide, but it is heading in that direction. I think that's a valid point that the old T&Cs should still be available on the SS site - especially as SS is referencing them in its latest update on PBL20
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jun 1, 2016 18:57:16 GMT
... there are a lot of bits in the old T&Cs which probably raise questions. eg all loans are fixed term 7 months, in all cases and all renewals will be offered as new opportunities... The above terms are leftovers from the time before SS offered property loans, when all loans were secured on boats. The same applies to the term regarding interest being paid only when a loan was repaid. It seemed obvious when SS moved into property loans that the Ts&Cs needed updating. It was brought up in this forum. A search of the archives probably would show it was requested and discussed ad nauseum. In the end, however, nothing was changed until the whole SS structure was changed to be more 'correctly' P2P with SS acting as agent, since that was deemed necessary in order for SS to become approved by the FCA under the new regulations. On various occasions during the discussions of the Ts&Cs that didn't seem consistent with the way SS were operating at the time, SS made statements of 'policy' regarding how they intended to operate, and that's when they said that they'd insulate their investors from losses as best they could. (I haven't trawled the archives to find their exact words, but that was the gist as I remember it.) While that was reassuring somewhat, it seemed clear -- to me, anyway -- that if a situation ever came up that meant the conflict between the published Ts&Cs and the policy statements needed to be reconciled, it was going to give lawyers plenty to argue over. And that, unfortunately, is where we are at the moment. If the security is being offered for sale at £1.9M then, unless there are numerous potential buyers fighting over it, IMHO there's no chance that the net sales proceeds will be enough to pay all that is owed -- to the receivers, lawyers, estate agents, SS/Lendy (including unpaid interest and fees owed directly to them plus any interest they may have advanced to SS investors during the five months that the Time Remaining on PBL020 was negative) and SS investors (including accrued interest from 27/May until the matter is wound up). About all we can do now is cross our fingers and let the receivers and SS/Lendy deal with the liquidation. And see what the PF trustees decide to do if there is a shortfall for SS investors.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,333
Likes: 11,552
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 1, 2016 19:10:50 GMT
... there are a lot of bits in the old T&Cs which probably raise questions. eg all loans are fixed term 7 months, in all cases and all renewals will be offered as new opportunities... The above terms are leftovers from the time before SS offered property loans, when all loans were secured on boats. The same applies to the term regarding interest being paid only when a loan was repaid. It seemed obvious when SS moved into property loans that the Ts&Cs needed updating. It was brought up in this forum. A search of the archives probably would show it was requested and discussed ad nauseum. In the end, however, nothing was changed until the whole SS structure was changed to be more 'correctly' P2P with SS acting as agent, since that was deemed necessary in order for SS to become approved by the FCA under the new regulations. On various occasions during the discussions of the Ts&Cs that didn't seem consistent with the way SS were operating at the time, SS made statements of 'policy' regarding how they intended to operate, and that's when they said that they'd insulate their investors from losses as best they could. (I haven't trawled the archives to find their exact words, but that was the gist as I remember it.) While that was reassuring somewhat, it seemed clear -- to me, anyway -- that if a situation ever came up that meant the conflict between the published Ts&Cs and the policy statements needed to be reconciled, it was going to give lawyers plenty to argue over. And that, unfortunately, is where we are at the moment. If the security is being offered for sale at £1.9M then, unless there are numerous potential buyers fighting over it, IMHO there's no chance that the net sales proceeds will be enough to pay all that is owed -- to the receivers, lawyers, estate agents, SS/Lendy (including unpaid interest and fees owed directly to them plus any interest they may have advanced to SS investors during the five months that the Time Remaining on PBL020 was negative) and SS investors (including accrued interest from 27/May until the matter is wound up). About all we can do now is cross our fingers and let the receivers and SS/Lendy deal with the liquidation. And see what the PF trustees decide to do if there is a shortfall for SS investors. Only issue is that the policy statement was published on the site when new T&Cs/structure launched. I have asked them to clarify the discrepancy between todays statement and the policy statement made on site re old structure and shortfalls. (not raised the policy statements on the forum so as not to cloud the issue)
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Jun 1, 2016 19:27:11 GMT
Only issue is that the policy statement was published on the site when new T&Cs/structure launched. I have asked them to clarify the discrepancy between todays statement and the policy statement made on site re old structure and shortfalls. (not raised the policy statements on the forum so as not to cloud the issue) I think that it is fair to say that the whole situation is a mess! I look forward to reading their reply to your question.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianac on Jun 1, 2016 19:59:46 GMT
Amazingly now actually sold Queue is now 59k26 (I've put the rest up for sale) (And mikes1531 I've noted the interest accrued) Brian for anyone still interested here's the figures (including sale queue) mikes1531 30/5/16 17:50 Value: £100.00 Start date: 08/05/2016 Age: 22 days Interest earned: £0.72 31/5/16 20:23 Value: £100.00 Start date: 08/05/2016 Age: 22 days Interest earned: £0.72 Sale Queue £52,925.29 1/6/16 16:30 Value: £100.00 Start date: 08/05/2016 Age: 22 days Interest earned: £0.72 Sale queue £4,362.88 And even more amazing, that has now sold too!! Not to sure exactly when, but sometime between 16:30 when I last posted and 10 mins ago. Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by uncletone on Jun 1, 2016 20:25:37 GMT
I'm out - eight loan parts totalling £1020, all gone. Good luck to those that bought them. I'm sure they'll be OK, but meanwhile I have one less concern in my collection. |
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 1, 2016 20:29:05 GMT
Intriguing statement in that update from SS.
"Once the assets have been realised Lendy will repay your investment. In the event that there is a shortfall then Lendy will pay you a proportion of the recovery proportionate to the amount invested by you in the loan (clause 5.3.1)."
Pretty clear what is going to happen here.. and still the gullible pile their money in. edit.. and should have been issued pre-default
I don't like the sound of this update, edit PF is mentioned at the discretion of SS, but not interest.
In my opinion the sale of this asset on the SM should be stopped now.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Jun 1, 2016 20:39:12 GMT
It does not look like they have to pay the interest if the asset does not cover that which to me is pretty sensible as could take two years to sort out.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 1, 2016 20:50:54 GMT
It does not look like they have to pay the interest if the asset does not cover that which to me is pretty sensible as could take two years to sort out. it says on the big red box "interest will continue to accrue but will not be credited until sale of the security completes" i take that statement to mean when the asset IS sold then the interest will be paid... from where? ( IMO this asset will not realize anything like enough) and if the t&cs clearly say interest may not be paid, then what? IMHO If there is the slightest doubt that interest may not be paid on realization of this asset then it should be pulled of the SM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 20:58:19 GMT
All of those posters hurling abuse and threats at savingstream should take a look at most of the other p2p sites where defaults appear to be quite common and are (apparently) accepted by the lenders as part of the risk. Risk is part of p2p lending and you will need to accept it or put your money elsewhere. The differences are 1 It is probably the platform that has defaulted, because of the way they did things when this loan was sold, not the borrower. Thus some level of risk to the venture as a whole (though I doubt that any shortfall will kill them). That is why after much prompting they came up with the "new structure" 2 What looks like sharp practice changing T&Cs in an attempt to change the basis of the contract in full knowledge that this loan was going bad. NB looks like, it may of course be coincidence, I'm just commenting. Personally it is this that has prompted me to quit the platform. 3 The silence from SS. My interpretation is that they know they are dodgy ground and don't want to make things worse. I stand to be corrected but I think what they could and should have done is repay the loan now out of the PF and or own funds and then dealt with the default in their own time. This would have stopped running up any more interest charges. It's odd that they didn't. Logically I could speculate that it's because they don't have enough or only just or they have wind of another couple of defaults which they couldn't cover. I'd like to hear better explanations Sorry, but I find your words totally wrong. You are reasoning like this was the 'do it or break it' loan for the company, while you should understand that defaults are unavoidable part of the business. You have an ENORMOUS number of defaults within FC (and most of them with ZERO security behind...) and many other networks. I don't see your points at all in asking SS to deplate the whole of the PF or their personal resources to cover this default. Even thinking it would be totally CRAZY. You have to ask them to do their best to maximise returns and keep the company safe from any direct consequences. I am confident there will be a substantial recovery, so certainly there will not be people coming out of this empty handed (and this is already far better than you get in most defaults elsewhere). Also those not too confident or willing to risk, could and still can (and should!) put their slices on sale. ALL the people I heard here that put their slices on sale SOLD already.... And hopefully those buying are confident in what they do.
|
|
