|
|
Post by lotus_eater on Jul 20, 2023 8:30:02 GMT
Email this morning from Kuflink:
"After carefully considering numerous offers from institutional funders in the past, we are delighted to have now secured an institutional funding line from Paragon bank who recognise our platform's immense potential and shares our unwavering commitment to our vision and values.
This achievement is particularly significant because it reinforces our steadfast dedication to working exclusively with partners who align with our platform's mission.
The partnership with Paragon gives us access to a £35m debt facility which will complement our existing offering and allow us to continue to grow our business and fund even more property loans.
We would like to take this opportunity to reassure our retail investors that Kuflink does NOT intend to become an institutionally-funded platform and we remain committed to our retail investors. Furthermore, Paragon will NOT receive preferential treatment over our valued retail lender community.
Kuflink will continue to operate as usual, with a majority retail investor base funding our highly-vetted property loans.
All of the loans that we offer on our platform will meet the same criteria as the deals funded through Paragon. We are so proud of our zero-loss track record and our ability to offer competitive returns to retail investors, and we want to use this partnership to expand our reach even further.
The Paragon funding line provides certainty of funds being available, which means that we can engage with larger intermediary firms and mortgage clubs.
Using institutional funding in tandem with our P2P platform will help us achieve our growth plans. As the business grows and becomes more prosperous this will only strengthen and underpin our ability to offer our investors the stability of the platform to protect their investments."
Good or not-so-good news for private investors guys? What thinks you? The email certainly spins it as good news but we haven't seen that in the long term with other platforms (AZC, Octopus, FC etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by gramsky on Jul 20, 2023 8:36:44 GMT
It takes less staff and hence lower costs to administer loans to a few large institutional investors investing £m than hundreds or thousands of retail investors investing a few quid.
I would say the writing is on the wall eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 20, 2023 8:46:12 GMT
"All of the loans that we offer on our platform will meet the same criteria as the deals funded through Paragon"
This suggests that paragon will be funding a different set of loans to those funded by retail investors. I prefer crowdproperty's model, where each loan is part funded by both groups. It makes it less likely institutions can use their weight to influence which loans they get or to influence where recovery efforts are focused.
|
|
|
|
Post by gramsky on Jul 20, 2023 9:55:10 GMT
"All of the loans that we offer on our platform will meet the same criteria as the deals funded through Paragon" This suggests that paragon will be funding a different set of loans to those funded by retail investors. I prefer crowdproperty's model, where each loan is part funded by both groups. It makes it less likely institutions can use their weight to influence which loans they get or to influence where recovery efforts are focused. Going 'off piste' a bit here but I find the big disadvantage with Crowdproperty is no secondary market and you are locked into the loan for the full term (which is not for me). This is one way Crowdproperty save money on administration over Kuflink.
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 626 
Likes: 749
|
Post by m2btj on Jul 20, 2023 10:09:01 GMT
"All of the loans that we offer on our platform will meet the same criteria as the deals funded through Paragon" This suggests that paragon will be funding a different set of loans to those funded by retail investors. I prefer crowdproperty's model, where each loan is part funded by both groups. It makes it less likely institutions can use their weight to influence which loans they get or to influence where recovery efforts are focused. Going 'off piste' a bit here but I find the big disadvantage with Crowdproperty is no secondary market and you are locked into the loan for the full term (which is not for me). This is one way Crowdproperty save money on administration over Kuflink. I'm not keen on CP's increasing trend of financing multimillion pound development deals. When these go bad they can take down platforms! Kuflink deals are generally smaller & more manageable.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 914
Likes: 503
|
Post by rscal on Jul 20, 2023 10:29:13 GMT
"Paragon. It Does Exactly Wot is it Says on the Tin!"
|
|
|
|
Post by gramsky on Jul 20, 2023 10:35:03 GMT
"Paragon. It Does Exactly Wot is it Says on the Tin!" I thought that was Ronseal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 20, 2023 10:54:03 GMT
Does anyone know whether this tie up with Paragon is related to the recent charges being taken over Kuflink by Alter Domus (UK) Ltd?
|
|
69m
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 200
|
Post by 69m on Jul 20, 2023 11:01:07 GMT
"All of the loans that we offer on our platform will meet the same criteria as the deals funded through Paragon" This suggests that paragon will be funding a different set of loans to those funded by retail investors. I prefer crowdproperty's model, where each loan is part funded by both groups. It makes it less likely institutions can use their weight to influence which loans they get or to influence where recovery efforts are focused. That's the impression I got, but I might be wrong - while Kuflink is good at communicating changes, it's sometimes not very good at communicating them clearly.
If it is the case that the 'Paragon loans' are entirely separate, then I think it's a mistake. Some of the 'retail loans' seem to be taking ages to fill currently, which probably reflects a reduced inflow of retail money (hence the £1k minimum deposit for new lenders). Ensuring that all existing and future projects on the platform are fully funded should be the priority, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 20, 2023 11:04:07 GMT
"All of the loans that we offer on our platform will meet the same criteria as the deals funded through Paragon" This suggests that paragon will be funding a different set of loans to those funded by retail investors. I prefer crowdproperty's model, where each loan is part funded by both groups. It makes it less likely institutions can use their weight to influence which loans they get or to influence where recovery efforts are focused. That's the impression I got, but I might be wrong - while Kuflink is good at communicating changes, it's sometimes not very good at communicating them clearly.
If it is the case that the 'Paragon loans' are entirely separate, then I think it's a mistake. Some of the 'retail loans' seem to be taking ages to fill currently, which probably reflects a reduced inflow of retail money (hence the £1k minimum deposit for new lenders). Ensuring that all existing and future projects on the platform are fully funded should be the priority, in my opinion.
Having both groups fund all loans would also lead to much greater diversification potential.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 20, 2023 11:15:51 GMT
Going 'off piste' a bit here but I find the big disadvantage with Crowdproperty is no secondary market and you are locked into the loan for the full term (which is not for me). This is one way Crowdproperty save money on administration over Kuflink. I'm not keen on CP's increasing trend of financing multimillion pound development deals. When these go bad they can take down platforms! Kuflink deals are generally smaller & more manageable. The larger loans are easy to avoid. I don't see any prospect of a single large loan failure taking either platform down, unless they were seen to be grossly negligent, which I wouldn't expect. If anything, I'd expect a failure to have more impact on K due to it being more reliant on fickle retail lenders. I'm back to favouring CP over K, not least due to the much higher rates currently for similar loans on CP. Still very happy to invest in both.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 20, 2023 12:01:12 GMT
The issue is significant institutional lending can't be article 36h so there is a danger of polluting the loan agreement (see unbolted legal case) so either they fund different loans, there contribution is minimal or the structure woulbe be more complex.
I suspect funding will be for KBL not via the platform itself
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 20, 2023 13:08:22 GMT
The issue is significant institutional lending can't be article 36h so there is a danger of polluting the loan agreement (see unbolted legal case) so either they fund different loans, there contribution is minimal or the structure woulbe be more complex. I suspect funding will be for KBL not via the platform itself We've been here before, but I've never completely understood. Is there a definition of significant? CP seem to have no problem having their loans co-funded. I don't know what proportion is institutional funded, but even their larger loans seem to be fully funded within a day, so I imagine that some must have "significant" Institutional funds. It seems that some platforms interpret the "rules" differently to others.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Jul 20, 2023 18:22:16 GMT
I have been out of P2P for a while - how informative is the "zero-loss track record" claim - is it only factual because they don't write off loans that are lost causes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 20, 2023 19:47:31 GMT
I have been out of P2P for a while - how informative is the "zero-loss track record" claim - is it only factual because they don't write off loans that are lost causes? As we're in a Kuflink thread I'm assuming it's Kuflink that you're asking about. FWIW I don't believe that they are dragging out loans just to avoid declaring losses. I thought that there was a Kuflink loan that did have a loss, but that Kuflink coughed up to prevent lender losses. Hence, their statement specifically says "no lender loses". However, I can't find any mention of it. Does anyone have the details, or am I getting my platforms mixed up?
|
|
