wysiati
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 86
|
Post by wysiati on Dec 31, 2014 15:07:08 GMT
Regarding loan 9591 to which the OP refers (the one where the borrower explicitly denied FC's claim that the Holding Company would provide guarantees), Failed Concience didn't pull the loan, as they should have done. Out of pure curiosity I kept this loan in my watch list , even though I had no bids. I now notice the loan has been rejected (no surprise there!), and I was wondering what weasel words FC used to describe the reason for rejection. I can't view the auction myself - is there some kind soul who placed a bid who can tell us how FC finally excused their egregious behaviour : the auction number was 49697. Thanks. Paraphrasing: the borrower did not accept the funds within the allowed time frame. These are not 'weasel words' as the statement is technically correct, but it avoids addressing the underlying reason(s) for those who would like greater transparency.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldservice on Dec 31, 2014 15:40:43 GMT
The full text was "Please note this auction has not been accepted as the borrower hasn't accepted the funds within the time frame. FC." This is trite alongside so many loans that are accepted after more than seven days. And given the recent bank holidays etc there is even more excuse than usual for late acceptances. There is something that FC are not saying. There is no truth in the rumour that in order to avoid the public kicking that I was worried about (see above) I bribed F****f*** not to take up the loan  |
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072 
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Dec 31, 2014 18:33:33 GMT
There is something that FC are not saying. Just look at the Q&A, it's all there (until someone deletes it all) -- FC told lenders that there would be a guarantee from a related company. Borrower said that there would NOT be a guarantee, borrower never offered that, and would not provide one if asked. It looks like FC have "suggested" the guarantee, as in "I suggest you give me your dinner money or you might get your head flushed down the toilet"  So Mexican standoff: Y ou don't get the loan unless you agree to this extra requirement vs I ain't taking the loan with that requirement crowbarred in.I can't see how strong-arming borrowers by backing them into a corner like this is useful behaviour. As we kinda all expected, the loan has been rejected, and no-one's happy about it -- lender's time and money wasted, borrower has no loan, FC gets no fees!
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 1, 2015 9:35:56 GMT
It did bump up the 'loans listed this week' number though!!
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jan 3, 2015 20:13:22 GMT
I can't see how strong-arming borrowers by backing them into a corner like this is useful behaviour. It seems to me the borrower backed themselves into the corner, by refusing either to comply with the terms on which the loan was being offered or to withdraw the loan application. Presumably THEY were trying to strong-arm US into accepting a lesser amount of security than had been promised in the original agreement, and have clearly failed to do so. It doesn't seem to me FC's place to presume a borrower won't eventually decide they can comply with the terms of the loan, unless the borrower themselves explicitly asks to withdraw the loan application or declines the loan offer - although I suppose they could have been more pro-active about confirming the borrower's intentions? For myself it was fairly immaterial - around the time the borrower was "holding onto" the funds pending a decision, the general lack of loans over the Christmas / New Year season meant I had plenty of spare funds to bid on other opportunities so didn't miss the amount tied up in that one.
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 549
Likes: 407
|
Post by baldpate on Jan 4, 2015 10:13:26 GMT
Whichever party is to 'blame' for the 'misunderstanding' (and I think that the more likely explanation is that the FC Account Manager didn't make this aspect of the loan terms crystal clear to the borrower), once the borrower had publicly stated he would not comply with the terms of the offer I think it was quite remiss of FC to allow the auction to continue. This was what I meant by egregious conduct on the part of FC.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 4, 2015 12:09:41 GMT
... once the borrower had publicly stated he would not comply with the terms of the offer I think it was quite remiss of FC to allow the auction to continue. This was what I meant by egregious conduct on the part of FC. I tend to agree with baldpate on this. There was a clear disagreement which invalidated the auction as presented to us. However, it may well be that FC were in the process of pulling it, in that I think good practice would have required FC to have a short 'dear sir unless' interchange with the borrower rather than pre-emptively pulling it. We do not know what was happening and maybe there was not time before close. However, the important thing was that the worsened 'quasi security' that the borrower was offering was not accepted by FC, and they were willing to forego the fee rather than pass an unacceptable risk to the lenders. I would be far more critical of FC if they had let it through, rather than just apparently handled it in a sub-optimal way.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jan 4, 2015 18:18:41 GMT
... I think good practice would have required FC to have a short 'dear sir unless' interchange with the borrower rather than pre-emptively pulling it... by my understanding that's what happens during the 5 days after the scheduled end of the auction. Quite possibly this same scenario may have played out several times before, with the communication of the "oh no we're not" / "oh yes you are" w.r.t. the required guarantees playing out in private. Maybe some borrowers are bluffing when they initially refuse to provide guarantees - perhaps other creditors have been willing to waive the requirement for guarantees to avoid losing the loan. Until it reaches the point where FC actually call the borrower's bluff (by refusing to release the funds without the signed guarantee) some borrowers may continue to believe they can get the loan without complying with the necessary conditions, and I recall other cases where the deadline has been extended slightly because FC were awaiting a signed document... possibly having had a similar scenario play out "behind the scenes".
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 4, 2015 19:48:45 GMT
... I think good practice would have required FC to have a short 'dear sir unless' interchange with the borrower rather than pre-emptively pulling it... by my understanding that's what happens during the 5 days after the scheduled end of the auction. Quite possibly this same scenario may have played out several times before, with the communication of the "oh no we're not" / "oh yes you are" w.r.t. the required guarantees playing out in private. Maybe some borrowers are bluffing when they initially refuse to provide guarantees - perhaps other creditors have been willing to waive the requirement for guarantees to avoid losing the loan. Until it reaches the point where FC actually call the borrower's bluff (by refusing to release the funds without the signed guarantee) some borrowers may continue to believe they can get the loan without complying with the necessary conditions, and I recall other cases where the deadline has been extended slightly because FC were awaiting a signed document... possibly having had a similar scenario play out "behind the scenes". Quite possibly. Or to put it another way, perhaps when a borrower creates a limited liability company for one area of his or her business, the purpose is to limit the liability to that company. I do not really expect FC to display all of the dirty washing for us - especially post mortem.
|
|
