mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jul 28, 2016 19:00:25 GMT
I have posted this before but don't mind repeating. I will feel a little resentful if the PF is used to pay interest. I'll be more than happy with a return of capital following a default, even if there is an extended wait. PF is for covering losses and not for providing additional gain. I would go further and say that the PF should not pay more than capital less interest received. But even that much might not be affordable if the PF is to stand behind all the other loans. Loans bought on the SM would present a problem as the current owners will not have received full interest. If SS wanted to maintain the claim that nobody has lost money on a loan they would have to make this good somehow. : What would you do about people who held parts for a few months early in the loan's life and then sold them on the SM? Claw back the interest they received? I suspect this sort of policy would send an awful lot of people to the exit.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 29, 2016 10:01:47 GMT
I would go further and say that the PF should not pay more than capital less interest received. But even that much might not be affordable if the PF is to stand behind all the other loans. Loans bought on the SM would present a problem as the current owners will not have received full interest. If SS wanted to maintain the claim that nobody has lost money on a loan they would have to make this good somehow. : What would you do about people who held parts for a few months early in the loan's life and then sold them on the SM? Claw back the interest they received?I suspect this sort of policy would send an awful lot of people to the exit. I don't think that would be feasible. The alternatives would be to give up the claim that nobody has lost money on a loan or pay out of their own funds. It would be nice if the PF was always able to fully cover losses but that is fantasy land IMO. The PF ought to be maintained to stand behind all loans on the book to the greatest extent possible - which will not be 100%. I cannot see that it would be fair to exhaust the PF on the first default if there are others to follow. SS have said that they would top up the PF back to 2% of the loan book if there was a payout, but in that case the PF performs no function, SS are simply guaranteeing all loans - another fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jul 29, 2016 11:54:44 GMT
If anyone has several hours of their life to waste the Administrators proposals are now available from the Companies House file of the debtor. (47 pages of them).
Not much more than was already known apart from actual details of costs to date, the statement of affairs only shows marketing values not either book value or estimated to realise. One figure of, perhaps prurient, interest is that "creditors secured by a floating charge, amount to £2.841 million, or over £1million more than the amount of platform lenders. Lendy Ltd is the only holder of a floating charge.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jul 29, 2016 17:29:10 GMT
If anyone has several hours of their life to waste the Administrators proposals are now available from the Companies House file of the debtor. (47 pages of them). Not much more than was already known apart from actual details of costs to date, the statement of affairs only shows marketing values not either book value or estimated to realise. One figure of, perhaps prurient, interest is that "creditors secured by a floating charge, amount to £2.841 million, or over £1million more than the amount of platform lenders. Lendy Ltd is the only holder of a floating charge. Maybe the extra £1m is accrued interest.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 29, 2016 17:31:37 GMT
If anyone has several hours of their life to waste the Administrators proposals are now available from the Companies House file of the debtor. (47 pages of them). Not much more than was already known apart from actual details of costs to date, the statement of affairs only shows marketing values not either book value or estimated to realise. One figure of, perhaps prurient, interest is that "creditors secured by a floating charge, amount to £2.841 million, or over £1million more than the amount of platform lenders. Lendy Ltd is the only holder of a floating charge. Maybe the extra £1m is accrued interest. Interest up to the end of the initial term was collected up front, so I don't think it can be that. Maybe Lendy had their own stake?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jul 29, 2016 18:44:46 GMT
Maybe the extra £1m is accrued interest. Interest up to the end of the initial term was collected up front, so I don't think it can be that. Maybe Lendy had their own stake?That would be a material non-disclosure (as was the non-disclosure of the equity stake that Lendy Ltd took in the debtor) and significantly affect the LTV figures. We already know that the purchase price was c.£1.5million, not the £2.4million of the AMA valuation that formed the basis of 70%. Although we don't know for certain the usual practise is interest for the initial term is taken from the advance, it could well be that it wasn't in this loan but even if it wasn't paid at all and allowing for arrangement fees of say £200,000, the difference would amount to c.50% for the 14 months between the advance and appointment of Administrators.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Aug 9, 2016 14:34:23 GMT
About halfway through this post p2pindependentforum.com/post/132735savingstream state:- "In case of default on a bridging loan, the lender’s recourse is to repossess the asset and use the proceeds of a sale to ensure that it recovers as much of the loan as possible. In the first of the two cases of default from the 125 loans written by Saving Stream, we achieved 100% recovery. We also expect close to 100% recovery in the second case." Given that the second case is PBL020 and that the Administrators statement of affairs show Lendy Ltd's debt (as the sole holder of a floating charge) at £2.841million, with the property on the maket for £1.5million, and no provsion for costs of realisation, perhaps savingstream could explain how they expect to get "close to 100% recovery"? |
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818 
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Aug 9, 2016 17:53:50 GMT
Sorry, I must be missing something here...
Original loan was £1.7 million. How's it ended up at £2.8M?
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Aug 9, 2016 18:15:12 GMT
Sorry, I must be missing something here... Original loan was £1.7 million. How's it ended up at £2.8M? Maybe savingstream could answer this, because i'm baffled.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Aug 9, 2016 18:29:28 GMT
About halfway through this post p2pindependentforum.com/post/132735savingstream state:- "In case of default on a bridging loan, the lender’s recourse is to repossess the asset and use the proceeds of a sale to ensure that it recovers as much of the loan as possible. In the first of the two cases of default from the 125 loans written by Saving Stream, we achieved 100% recovery. We also expect close to 100% recovery in the second case." Given that the second case is PBL020 and that the Administrators statement of affairs show Lendy Ltd's debt (as the sole holder of a floating charge) at £2.841million, with the property on the maket for £1.5million, and no provsion for costs of realisation, perhaps savingstream could explain how they expect to get "close to 100% recovery"? I'm probably being stupid, but the link above isn't relevant to this loan, so I'm guessing, neither is the 2.81m loan to a different borrower to the one on this loan.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Aug 9, 2016 18:42:17 GMT
About halfway through this post p2pindependentforum.com/post/132735savingstream state:- "In case of default on a bridging loan, the lender’s recourse is to repossess the asset and use the proceeds of a sale to ensure that it recovers as much of the loan as possible. In the first of the two cases of default from the 125 loans written by Saving Stream, we achieved 100% recovery. We also expect close to 100% recovery in the second case." Given that the second case is PBL020 and that the Administrators statement of affairs show Lendy Ltd's debt (as the sole holder of a floating charge) at £2.841million, with the property on the maket for £1.5million, and no provsion for costs of realisation, perhaps savingstream could explain how they expect to get "close to 100% recovery"? I'm probably being stupid, but the link above isn't relevant to this loan, so I'm guessing, neither is the 2.81m loan to a different borrower to the one on this loan. No, not the wrong loan; he is taking the number from the "Statement of administrator's proposal", under "abstract of receipts and payments" it lists a "Floating Charge Holder" as Lendy Ltd with the sum £2.841million
I note on the CH page that a "Notice of deemed approval of proposals" is pending (will be available in 5 days).
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Aug 9, 2016 18:45:36 GMT
I'm probably being stupid, but the link above isn't relevant to this loan, so I'm guessing, neither is the 2.81m loan to a different borrower to the one on this loan. No, not the wrong loan; he is taking the number from the "Statement of administrator's proposal", under "abstract of receipts and payments" it lists a "Floating Charge Holder" as Lendy Ltd with the sum £2.841million
I note on the CH page that a "Notice of deemed approval of proposals" is pending (will be available in 5 days). I was being stupid 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Aug 9, 2016 18:55:00 GMT
No, not the wrong loan; he is taking the number from the "Statement of administrator's proposal", under "abstract of receipts and payments" it lists a "Floating Charge Holder" as Lendy Ltd with the sum £2.841million
I note on the CH page that a "Notice of deemed approval of proposals" is pending (will be available in 5 days). I was being stupid Not stupid; you would only know this if you read the entire "Notice of deemed approval of proposals" document, which is 47 pages of mind-numbingly boring stuff... which I was all too happy to read the day it became available  However, it would be nice to know £2.841million figure comes from. I guess it includes the legal & administrator fees, but surely that doesn't amount to £1.141m... or maybe it does, who knows... This is where I tag savingstream in the hope they drop us an answer...
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Aug 9, 2016 19:01:42 GMT
I was being stupid Not stupid; you would only know this if you read the entire "Notice of deemed approval of proposals" document, which is 47 pages of mind-numbingly boring stuff... which I was all too happy to read the day it became available However, it would be nice to know £2.841million figure comes from. I guess it includes the legal & administrator fees, but surely that doesn't amount to £1.141m... or maybe it does, who know.... This is where I tag savingstream in the hope they drop us an answer...The £1.41M is the administrator's expense account  Disclaimer: That was a joke.
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Aug 9, 2016 19:04:57 GMT
Or maybe they're giving loans out D** P******s style 😆
Also a joke
|
|
