mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 19, 2015 12:28:36 GMT
I have always had difficulty in reconciling the "remaining term" with the original length of the loan as stated when it was offered up for funding. I have had loans which I expected to be repaid on a given date, at the time I invested, only to find that the "remaining term" is still some way off - a bit disconcerting when I needed to get my hands on my lolly. In a separate thread, I asked if anyone knew why Super Yatch 35 was not listed in recent weekly updates but had had no helpful responses - this is one where I need access to my funding as soon as the loan is repaid. It is due to be repaid in 14 days time but the absence of a mention in the updates concerns me. I hope another default is not looming! First, there's the issue -- on the boat loans anyway -- of SS setting the Remaining Term to end a month after the maturity date of a 6-month loan. Then, more recently, there's been the issue of setting the RT at six months from 'today' until a loan is drawn down. PBL018, for instance, has been showing 182 days remaining for months! And it will stay that way until the loan is drawn down and the timer actually starts running. With respect to the status of the boat loans, and specifically the SY35, I'd suggest asking SS directly via email if they've had any indication from the borrower as regards repayment/rollover. With such an active secondary market at the moment, however, it's unlikely to be a problem. Any lender who wants their money back seems to be able to get it pretty quickly by selling their loan parts, though we clearly cannot bank on that since it might not always be the case.
|
|
will
Member of DD Central
Posts: 107 
Likes: 8
|
Post by will on Mar 19, 2015 13:07:16 GMT
Ouhhhhh. Somewhere warm please  [No, not THAT warm] (My response to 'Trips around the bay' - but now in wrong order ....) |
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Mar 19, 2015 14:45:48 GMT
SS know it will default because they have been in contact with the borrower for weeks. The weekly update from Feb 6th said " We are going to be working with this client to provide us with an exit from this loan. Brokers are confident that a commercial facility will be in place by the end of the term". By keeping the system simple they have time to concentrate on the important things. tony said: I have always had difficulty in reconciling the "remaining term" with the original length of the loan as stated when it was offered up for funding. I have had loans which I expected to be repaid on a given date, at the time I invested, only to find that the "remaining term" is still some way off - a bit disconcerting when I needed to get my hands on my lolly. In a separate thread, I asked if anyone knew why Super Yatch 35 was not listed in recent weekly updates but had had no helpful responses - this is one where I need access to my funding as soon as the loan is repaid. It is due to be repaid in 14 days time but the absence of a mention in the updates concerns me. I hope another default is not looming! I don't think the Superyacht will default. If you refer to the bridging details of PBL006 you can see his occasional home.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 19, 2015 15:45:57 GMT
I don't think the Superyacht will default. If you refer to the bridging details of PBL006 you can see his occasional home. Then again, the details of PBL006 include "Client needs funds for a short‐term business transaction and is currently fully invested. He is expecting funds within 4 months." And that was written over seven months ago! At this point, I think I'd bet on a rollover request for the yacht loan.
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Mar 19, 2015 17:47:31 GMT
I have had loans which I expected to be repaid on a given date, at the time I invested, only to find that the "remaining term" is still some way off - a bit disconcerting when I needed to get my hands on my lolly. In a separate thread, I asked if anyone knew why Super Yatch 35 was not listed in recent weekly updates but had had no helpful responses - this is one where I need access to my funding as soon as the loan is repaid. It is due to be repaid in 14 days time but the absence of a mention in the updates concerns me. I hope another default is not looming! As mikes1531 has said, you should be able to sell pretty much any of your loans at any time. The Super Yacht has had several thousand £ worth of sales today alone. They even tend to sell well when they are overdue, so you shouldn't need to worry about not being able to access your money at the moment.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 19, 2015 19:55:58 GMT
...this is one where I need access to my funding as soon as the loan is repaid. It is due to be repaid in 14 days time but ... Further to the previous comment, depending on how awkward a position you'd be in if you didn't have the money in two weeks' time, my own inclination would be to head for the exit well in advance of your need. The only disadvantage of an early exit is a bit of lost interest, and it might be worth giving that up if it meant you'd have the money when you really need it. P2P is not instant access, and any number of things can go wrong that might lock up your money for some time -- or cause it to evaporate entirely! -- so it shouldn't be used as if it were a FSCS bank account.
|
|
|
|
Post by xyon100 on Mar 20, 2015 20:52:20 GMT
I don't think the Superyacht will default. If you refer to the bridging details of PBL006 you can see his occasional home. Some years ago, I took shares in a company that allowed a single client to run up an enormous debt because he was very rich, very well known(I never did find out who he was) and who was good for any debt he ran up. So it was reckoned. In the end, it was his enormous wealth and power that was the problem for the company trying to get their money. "Talk to my Lawyer". Some two years later I sold those shares and he had not paid up to that day. He has a mansion, too.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Mar 20, 2015 21:02:31 GMT
I don't think the Superyacht will default. If you refer to the bridging details of PBL006 you can see his occasional home. Some years ago, I took shares in a company that allowed a single client to run up an enormous debt because he was very rich, very well known(I never did find out who he was) and who was good for any debt he ran up. So it was reckoned. In the end, it was his enormous wealth and power that was the problem for the company trying to get their money. "Talk to my Lawyer". Some two years later I sold those shares and he had not paid up to that day. He has a mansion, too. Maybe that's how he got rich.
|
|
paulg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 312
Likes: 189
|
Post by paulg on Mar 22, 2015 2:13:20 GMT
When it was announced that this loan was in default and arrangements for disposal of the security were in process I wondered how a care home with residents could be auctioned off so quickly. But I see that a care home in the vicinity of this one had its operating licence revoked and its residents moved out a few days after this loan went live, so its just as well that the asset for this PBL was valued on a "bricks and mortar basis" only, and the operating business was not taken into consideration.
However, I did have some funds invested in this loan for a time, and I invested in it under the impression from the "Bridging loan particulars" that it was a going concern with "scope for increasing the cash flow significantly", so it's a little disconcerting to discover now that at the time I invested it probably wasn't.
Lesson learned!
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Mar 22, 2015 8:24:11 GMT
When it was announced that this loan was in default and arrangements for disposal of the security were in process I wondered how a care home with residents could be auctioned off so quickly. But I see that a care home in the vicinity of this one had its operating licence revoked and its residents moved out a few days after this loan went live, so its just as well that the asset for this PBL was valued on a "bricks and mortar basis" only, and the operating business was not taken into consideration. However, I did have some funds invested in this loan for a time, and I invested in it under the impression from the "Bridging loan particulars" that it was a going concern with "scope for increasing the cash flow significantly", so it's a little disconcerting to discover now that at the time I invested it probably wasn't. Lesson learned! (Mod hat off) The subject of using a care home as security for a loan is something that's been on my mind for a while now. I know this is finance and all about the numbers but the original concept of P2P was that it put human lenders in contact with human borrowers to their mutual benefit. It was all a bit idealistic in the old days of ZOPA. Now we have the prospect of a defaulting loan resulting in multiple personal catastrophes as vulnerable old folk are shipped out of what they thought was their secure residence in order to recover the value of 'bricks and mortar'. I don't know what the answer is while care of oldies is still considered a business rather than a calling, but it doesn't sit well with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 22, 2015 8:41:46 GMT
The subject of using a care home as security for a loan is something that's been on my mind for a while now. I know this is finance and all about the numbers but the original concept of P2P was that it put human lenders in contact with human borrowers to their mutual benefit. It was all a bit idealistic in the old days of ZOPA. Now we have the prospect of a defaulting loan resulting in multiple personal catastrophes as vulnerable old folk are shipped out of what they thought was their secure residence in order to recover the value of 'bricks and mortar'. I don't know what the answer is while care of oldies is still considered a business rather than a calling, but it doesn't sit well with me. Not in on this one, but am lending to care homes in one form or another via a number of platforms. My observations: 1. If a business is going/has gone bust, its likely to have its license revoked is it not ? One way or another a bust care home business is going to cause disruption for the residents. 2. It ought to be in the interests of the lender (and indeed a legal requirement of LPA receivership in protecting the borrowers interest?) to secure the maximum value from the assets, which under normal circumstances would for it be sold as a going concern business rather than bricks and mortar (ok, a bit controversial. But if the bricks and mortar value is higher than the business going concern value, given a building is 'configured' for the current business purpose, then it probably just reflects that the business is terminal) 3. All I saw in the posts was mention of the bricks and mortar value being used as the conservative asset value (which is eminently sensible), not an implication that would be the preferred disposal route. 4. if as a p2p lender you have lent to a business which couldn't get funding elsewhere, you have for a while allowed that business to continue functioning when perhaps it wouldn't have. One wants of course to see all reasonable efforts to keep such businesses - and indeed all borrowers - running as a going concern. But if such efforts have either failed or are most likely to fail, then other actions are just crystallising an inevitable outcome.
|
|
paulgul
Member of DD Central
Posts: 401
Likes: 92
|
Post by paulgul on Mar 22, 2015 8:54:16 GMT
I notice in the valuation report it says "at the time of inspection the premises were vacant" - so did it ever get off the ground.
Edit: The report was dated July 2014
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Mar 22, 2015 8:58:18 GMT
The subject of using a care home as security for a loan is something that's been on my mind for a while now. I know this is finance and all about the numbers but the original concept of P2P was that it put human lenders in contact with human borrowers to their mutual benefit. It was all a bit idealistic in the old days of ZOPA. Now we have the prospect of a defaulting loan resulting in multiple personal catastrophes as vulnerable old folk are shipped out of what they thought was their secure residence in order to recover the value of 'bricks and mortar'. I don't know what the answer is while care of oldies is still considered a business rather than a calling, but it doesn't sit well with me. Not in on this one, but am lending to care homes in one form or another via a number of platforms. My observations: 1. If a business is going/has gone bust, its likely to have its license revoked is it not ? One way or another a bust care home business is going to cause disruption for the residents. 2. It ought to be in the interests of the lender (and indeed a legal requirement of LPA receivership in protecting the borrowers interest?) to secure the maximum value from the assets, which under normal circumstances would for it be sold as a going concern business rather than bricks and mortar (ok, a bit controversial. But if the bricks and mortar value is higher than the business going concern value, given a building is 'configured' for the current business purpose, then it probably just reflects that the business is terminal) 3. All I saw in the posts was mention of the bricks and mortar value being used as the conservative asset value (which is eminently sensible), not an implication that would be the preferred disposal route. 4. if as a p2p lender you have lent to a business which couldn't get funding elsewhere, you have for a while allowed that business to continue functioning when perhaps it wouldn't have. One wants of course to see all reasonable efforts to keep such businesses - and indeed all borrowers - running as a going concern. But if such efforts have either failed or are most likely to fail, then other actions are just crystallising an inevitable outcome. I have no argument with your analysis - life, and particularly the end of it, is, on occaision, unavoidably messy.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 22, 2015 10:13:28 GMT
But still, does it matter to an SS lender if they are in this particular loan or not?
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Mar 22, 2015 10:32:00 GMT
But still, does it matter to an SS lender if they are in this particular loan or not? Yes and no. If they had got a loan elsewhere, would the result be any different?
|
|
