blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 16, 2016 21:52:22 GMT
Would you Adam and Eve it? Someone has asked the pari parsu question. The OED are no doubt on standby to add another definition. A very good question, particularly the order of repayment, - poor old FC. I see you have repeated the questioner's 'pari parsu' for 'pari passu' or equal footing (or equal pacing to be more exact). Pars is part, and so the new definition will have to be 'equal parts or shares'. The lender with the £20 loan part gets the same as the lender with the £2000 loan part.
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264 
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Feb 17, 2016 7:20:41 GMT
Many financial organisations offer ongoing promotional cashback - banks, credit cards, stocks & shares ISA providers, financial advisors for example. Agreed, but they're not all trying to become ISA providers by April. You may have a point here. As CB is an incentive and not interest it may not be eligible to be rolled up in any ISA. It would be a headache to Fumbling Computerising to have to pay it out into another account if earned in an ISA. Of course if the ISA holder had not reached their limit it could be added and they might technically have to be asked to confirm an ISA declaration each time CB was paid as a new ISA contribution. Hence FC may be keen to simplify their interest structure ahead of the arrival of the ISA. Are there other examples of incentives paid WITHIN an ISA wrapper?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 17, 2016 9:32:02 GMT
Agreed, but they're not all trying to become ISA providers by April. You may have a point here. As CB is an incentive and not interest it may not be eligible to be rolled up in any ISA. It would be a headache to Fumbling Computerising to have to pay it out into another account if earned in an ISA. Of course if the ISA holder had not reached their limit it could be added and they might technically have to be asked to confirm an ISA declaration each time CB was paid as a new ISA contribution. Hence FC may be keen to simplify their interest structure ahead of the arrival of the ISA. Are there other examples of incentives paid WITHIN an ISA wrapper? Thanks for these considerations. I had thought general cash back over, but had not linked it to the ISA. It seems that FC wish to set up the ISA as dedicated ISA accounts and after controlling the maximum cash allowance, they wish the lenders to operate it as freely as possible, as if a non-ISA account, without any extra controls, supervision or intervention. In particular there should be access to all partial loans, and cash back might require exclusion/control of buying from the ISA account. I wonder if there are any classes of FC loans which are not permitted in an ISA? I assume not. This reinforces the view that anyone waiting for the return of cash back should be looking elsewhere.
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 612
Likes: 178
|
Post by min on Feb 17, 2016 9:56:39 GMT
The interest always comes from the borrower - never FC. So they have restructured it and kept their fee. I think this a sensible and successful move for FC - they do not always get it wrong. So I will be taking some. I have no doubt that you are correct about interest always coming from the borrower but it seems strange to change the interest rate part way through an agreed loan deal. In fact to the borrower it may appear to be a breach of contract. I would surmise that it has been restructured in the following way (numbers are an indication) Amount to borrow = £100 8% interest over 12 months = £8 5% Financially Complicated Fee = £5 Total borrowed = £113 Borrower gets £100 Furtive Cashback change the interest rate to 10%, put £10 in the interest pot and keep £3 as their fee. To Fiddling Contracts it's the same result as giving 2% cashback but it's spread over the length of the loan. Only problem I can see from their perspective is if the loan doesn't pay back in time and they end up paying extra months at 10% while only getting 8% from the borrower.
|
|
fasty
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 388
|
Post by fasty on Feb 17, 2016 10:01:10 GMT
Suddenly, variable rate auctions seem like a really neat idea.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 17, 2016 10:36:18 GMT
The interest always comes from the borrower - never FC. So they have restructured it and kept their fee. I think this a sensible and successful move for FC - they do not always get it wrong. So I will be taking some. I have no doubt that you are correct about interest always coming from the borrower but it seems strange to change the interest rate part way through an agreed loan deal. In fact to the borrower it may appear to be a breach of contract. I would surmise that it has been restructured in the following way (numbers are an indication) Amount to borrow = £100 8% interest over 12 months = £8 5% Financially Complicated Fee = £5 Total borrowed = £113 Borrower gets £100 Furtive Cashback change the interest rate to 10%, put £10 in the interest pot and keep £3 as their fee. To Fiddling Contracts it's the same result as giving 2% cashback but it's spread over the length of the loan. Only problem I can see from their perspective is if the loan doesn't pay back in time and they end up paying extra months at 10% while only getting 8% from the borrower. Your analysis could well be correct. I had thought that the property team were wishing to avoid cash back in order to keep the fees. If the ISA hypothesis is correct then maybe the property team have had the cash back option removed from their bag of tricks, which may well make life more difficult. They will need to be more flexible on rates, and perhaps will wish to start these large projects at a lowish rate anticipating a need to increase in later tranches - the borrower being aware of that (the lenders preferably not).
|
|
jamesc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 447
Likes: 253
|
Post by jamesc on Feb 18, 2016 17:03:32 GMT
WB7 appeared 10% again no CB but should sell fine at that rate. Does anyone know is this the last of the WB'S or is there anymore finance needed ?
|
|
acky
Posts: 481
Likes: 262
|
Post by acky on Feb 18, 2016 22:23:10 GMT
WB7 appeared 10% again no CB but should sell fine at that rate. Does anyone know is this the last of the WB'S or is there anymore finance needed ? WB7 takes total to £2.6m. Estimated funding is £3.391m, so another £791k to come.
|
|
acky
Posts: 481
Likes: 262
|
Post by acky on Feb 18, 2016 22:26:44 GMT
I see Maulden1 was sold to the IT at 8%, and now Maulden2 is on the PM at 9%. After West Byfleet, is this now going to become more common practice? Who in their right mind would buy early tranches of a property loan now, other than Autobodgers - well, as I say, who in their right mind ..... ?
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Feb 19, 2016 20:09:03 GMT
Anyone else think there is a whiff of Tewkesbury at 12% in the air? Why? Tranche 8 is over 30% in 6hrs. What am I missing?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,857
Likes: 5,085
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 20, 2016 11:45:12 GMT
I see Maulden1 was sold to the IT at 8%, and now Maulden2 is on the PM at 9%. After West Byfleet, is this now going to become more common practice? Who in their right mind would buy early tranches of a property loan now, other than Autobodgers - well, as I say, who in their right mind ..... ? There's something in Maulden2 (20361) which makes me scratch my head... "The borrowers have already exchanged on the property with completion due within 4 weeks. The agreed purchase price is confidential at this point to minimize the risk of gazumping."Umm, are they using a different definition of "exchanged" to the normal one? Or does somebody not understand how it all works? After exchange, both sides are contractually obliged to complete - there can be no gazumping. Four weeks from exchange to completion would also be very unusual, and they really need to have their funding all tied up before exchange. So has it actually not exchanged, just offer accepted?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 20, 2016 14:06:09 GMT
I see Maulden1 was sold to the IT at 8%, and now Maulden2 is on the PM at 9%. After West Byfleet, is this now going to become more common practice? Who in their right mind would buy early tranches of a property loan now, other than Autobodgers - well, as I say, who in their right mind ..... ? There's something in Maulden2 (20361) which makes me scratch my head... "The borrowers have already exchanged on the property with completion due within 4 weeks. The agreed purchase price is confidential at this point to minimize the risk of gazumping."Umm, are they using a different definition of "exchanged" to the normal one? Or does somebody not understand how it all works? After exchange, both sides are contractually obliged to complete - there can be no gazumping. Four weeks from exchange to completion would also be very unusual, and they really need to have their funding all tied up before exchange. So has it actually not exchanged, just offer accepted? In the Q&A they actually apologise for the use of the word gazumping. Very rare. Exchanged contracts is probably right, but it seems odd that FC would use this case to trial an A at 8% then 9%. Would you want it at 9%?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,857
Likes: 5,085
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 21, 2016 22:24:12 GMT
In the Q&A they actually apologise for the use of the word gazumping. Very rare. They've answered questions? Sensibly! Ye gods! Pass the smelling salts! I didn't say I was putting any money at it...
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Feb 22, 2016 12:48:57 GMT
To get 20151 away it looks as if they will have to relaunch it as a 'B' or tell the borrower that it is not able to be financed on this platform. Or of course they could add CB and we could watch the pigs fly away into the sunset....
Edit. Also releasing the £500k+ in processing might help too...
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 22, 2016 13:18:26 GMT
To get 20151 away it looks as if they will have to relaunch it as a 'B' or tell the borrower that it is not able to be financed on this platform. Or of course they could add CB and we could watch the pigs fly away into the sunset.... Edit. Also releasing the £500k+ in processing might help too... Surely they're close enough that Fiddling Closes will just buy up the last £40k themselves and feed it into the SM later?
|
|
