|
|
Post by transo on Jan 12, 2015 17:46:15 GMT
Bit baffled today by auction 9974. It's rated as an A (over 36 months), and is due to repay a loan that the company took out last July, when it was rated C (over 60 months). No new financials are attached and the credit score has remained consistently abysmal (~15) over that time. No commentary to explain the increase in risk band, although someone has asked FC a question about it.
Anyone got any idea on how FC might have worked out that increase in risk band, or want to bet on the loan having to be withdrawn?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 12, 2015 18:09:41 GMT
Either the company's financial position (taking account of the loan) has substantially improved, or FC's criteria for an A loan have been substantially relaxed, or maybe a bit of both.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 12, 2015 18:12:38 GMT
I've never known Fishy Casseroles ever explain their apparent .... "inconsistencies" in Risk bands. They always trot out the default "many factors" but refuse to explain anomalies. I trust them for this just as much as I trust them to provide accurate details of all transactions immediately, or robust recovery of investors' cash when defaults occur.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 12, 2015 18:18:32 GMT
I've never known Fishy Casseroles ever explain their apparent .... "inconsistencies" in Risk bands. They always trot out the default "many factors" but refuse to explain anomalies. I trust them for this just as much as I trust them to provide accurate details of all transactions immediately, or robust recovery of investors' cash when defaults occur. Someone has clearly run out of bananas.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 12, 2015 18:39:50 GMT
Edit: to remove claptrap.
|
|
ianb
Posts: 161
Likes: 54
|
Post by ianb on Jan 12, 2015 19:16:31 GMT
If the loan amount requested has decreased that could be viewed as a positive factor in the determination of the risk grade as the financials would better be able to support repayments. Though personally I am also sceptical about their grading and don't trust it - I think the credit scores are far more trustable.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 12, 2015 20:21:06 GMT
"I think the credit scores are far more trustable."
Crappwll ap Scrappwll had good credit scores. >:(Some A and A+ have bad ones. Fawlty Crowers NEVER explain. 
|
|
|
|
Post by longjohn on Jan 13, 2015 12:40:54 GMT
9974 is shown after 9999 in the request list. I assume this means it has been sat unloved in the whole loans queue for quite a while before being passed down to us.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 13, 2015 13:40:31 GMT
Yep, that's a fairly safe assumption.
Vast numbers of loans are now going the whole loan route, before we get to sift among the rejects, offer them 14.7% (Ok, OK, this week only .. anything will get down to MBR, almost) and get the offer rejected.
Or you can have guaranteed take-up of a megabuck property loan at the rate they choose to offer it at.
|
|
wysiati
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 86
|
Post by wysiati on Jan 13, 2015 16:07:24 GMT
9974 is shown after 9999 in the request list. I assume this means it has been sat unloved in the whole loans queue for quite a while before being passed down to us. John It was listed on the whole loans market on 16/01 and relisted (having found no whole loan taker) as an auction for general consumption the following working day, as appears to be the norm. Other apparent whole loan rejects from 16/01 were also relisted on 19/01.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldservice on Jan 13, 2015 20:46:47 GMT
9974 is shown after 9999 in the request list. I assume this means it has been sat unloved in the whole loans queue for quite a while before being passed down to us. John It was listed on the whole loans market on 16/01 and relisted (having found no whole loan taker) as an auction for general consumption the following working day, as appears to be the norm. Other apparent whole loan rejects from 16/01 were also relisted on 19/01. I'm lost. Today is 13/01. When was 16/01? 19/01? Ah - now I get it!
|
|
wysiati
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 86
|
Post by wysiati on Jan 13, 2015 21:56:16 GMT
It was listed on the whole loans market on 16/01 and relisted (having found no whole loan taker) as an auction for general consumption the following working day, as appears to be the norm. Other apparent whole loan rejects from 16/01 were also relisted on 19/01. I'm lost. Today is 13/01. When was 16/01? 19/01? Apologies, I quoted the scheduled auction end dates which is how I keep track of them. So, listed as whole loans on 09/01/15 then re-listed on the auction market on 12/01/15.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldservice on Jan 14, 2015 6:36:02 GMT
So it wasn't after all an ironic reference to Front-to-back Calendars?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 14, 2015 8:15:58 GMT
Is that what is meant by a 'reverse auction'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 10:17:44 GMT
So basically I'm moving money out of FC because I cannot get the interest rate I want to, because I want to spread my money amongst multiple bids (as per advice from FC) rather than just join the whole loan bid game. I'll try again (you can tell I don't like the logic of this), FC don't want my business because I follow their recommendations?  Okay.... that really p@@ses me off. Sounds like FC needs to work out which market it wants to be in. Have a great day Bobo |
|
