j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188 
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Jun 16, 2015 11:06:19 GMT
Certain other platforms (will leave nameless) might take a leaf of how SS dealt with this one. It might only be the one & only example, granted, but the swiftness of not messing around is a good example, especially if other borrowers are made aware of it. You don't fulfill your legal/ethical obligations, your security will be under risk.
|
|
gc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 152
Likes: 141
|
Post by gc on Jun 16, 2015 11:06:19 GMT
I'm glad that this one got sorted. Have they paid people back that have invested in this one? Also, ff one had invested in this specific loan and got out, are they not owed the interest they accrued whilst they invested or have I got that wrong? Yes, everything paid up. The interest was still being paid monthly so they only owed lenders interest for June. Anyone who sold out was only owed interest if they sold in June & only up until the point they put the loan on the SM which would have also been paid yesterday. Thanks il moro. It is just an interest discrepancy that threw me a little and currently sorting it out with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Jun 16, 2015 16:02:10 GMT
I have to admit, I am becoming more and more confident with 'Saving Stream' and I'm slowly increasing my investment. Same here. I emailed SS this morning (and received a very prompt reply from Tim) to ask about the status of the planned "Trust" loan ownership structure. His answer was that it's about 3 weeks away, although it will only be applied to new loans since the borrower agreements on existing loans can't be changed. Welcome news. It would be good if SS put a flag on such loans to help distinguish them from the rest. Or bring in a new naming convention, or restart the clock at a memorable number, e,g, PBL1**, etc...
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Jun 16, 2015 16:23:35 GMT
Same here. I emailed SS this morning (and received a very prompt reply from Tim) to ask about the status of the planned "Trust" loan ownership structure. His answer was that it's about 3 weeks away, although it will only be applied to new loans since the borrower agreements on existing loans can't be changed. Welcome news. It would be good if SS put a flag on such loans to help distinguish them from the rest. Or bring in a new naming convention, or restart the clock at a memorable number, e,g, PBL1**, etc... My investment in SS remains static until the Trust status is live. So far so good with SS, they have a discretionary provision fund in place but I'm still lending to Lendy without any other safeguards in place. IIRC, the Trust 'status' was due to be introduced some time ago but while SS do not appear to have any difficulty in filling loans then no doubt there has been little, if any, reason for the subject to be top of the list of priorities. Not sure if others feel the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Jun 16, 2015 17:34:48 GMT
Welcome news. It would be good if SS put a flag on such loans to help distinguish them from the rest. Or bring in a new naming convention, or restart the clock at a memorable number, e,g, PBL1**, etc... My investment in SS remains static until the Trust status is live. So far so good with SS, they have a discretionary provision fund in place but I'm still lending to Lendy without any other safeguards in place. IIRC, the Trust 'status' was due to be introduced some time ago but while SS do not appear to have any difficulty in filling loans then no doubt there has been little, if any, reason for the subject to be top of the list of priorities. Not sure if others feel the same.
My investment in SS has been increasing a little as like others I have become more confident - still quite small and would be 10 x greater if the right structure was in place. Sounds like from what has been posted earlier that could be fairly soon.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jun 16, 2015 20:48:20 GMT
Email just received "We are pleased to announce that PBL007 (our first loan default) has now been repaid in full. This process took roughly three months from the date of default to progress through the required legal stages and to facilitate a sale. Our valuation of this property was £260,000 and the price that the property was eventually sold for was £250,000. All investment capital, plus June's interest (15 days) for PBL007, has been credited to investor's accounts and is now available for reinvestment or withdrawal. For information Lendy was able to recoup all legal fees along with the extra interest costs incurred." Well done savingstream. ...but they would say that wouldn't they. I'm not suggesting that SS aren't telling the truth but consider the following scenario. The loan defaults and the full amount isn't recovered. There's a deficit but this can't really be taken from the investor because we lend to Lendy not the borrower. Lendy has to pay unless they are insolvent. So would they say they had to dig into their own pocket to bail out this loan and potentially scare investors. Or would they say everything is fine? On the balance of what I have read from and read about SS they seem reasonably honest, and I certainly don't have any evidence to suggest they're not, so I'm inclined to believe them. But if times get tough we don't always live up to our ideals.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Jun 16, 2015 21:29:16 GMT
Email just received "We are pleased to announce that PBL007 (our first loan default) has now been repaid in full. This process took roughly three months from the date of default to progress through the required legal stages and to facilitate a sale. Our valuation of this property was £260,000 and the price that the property was eventually sold for was £250,000. All investment capital, plus June's interest (15 days) for PBL007, has been credited to investor's accounts and is now available for reinvestment or withdrawal. For information Lendy was able to recoup all legal fees along with the extra interest costs incurred." Well done savingstream. <snip> On the balance of what I have read from and read about SS they seem reasonably honest, and I certainly don't have any evidence to suggest they're not, so I'm inclined to believe them. But if times get tough we don't always live up to our ideals. It has IMO nothing to do with the honesty and/or integrity of the ownership of Lendy Ltd. I'm confident enough in the integrity of the individuals heading the platform. My concern is if a third party event directly affected Lendy which was totally unrelated to the loan book and not covered by the PI insurance as required by the FCA. There is nothing to stop Lendy becoming involved in other business ventures either today or tomorrow outside of their SS model. AFAIK, lenders are lending directly to Lendy themselves and the funds and loans are not segregated from the main business in such a way as to be safeguarded against any legal action that may be brought against Lendy by another party. 'Normal' P2P does not apply to Lendy. In such a (hopefully) hypothetical scenario then all lenders could be seriously disadvantaged financially. If there was segregation in place then my investment would not be capped at the level it is now.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jun 16, 2015 21:32:35 GMT
Welcome news. It would be good if SS put a flag on such loans to help distinguish them from the rest. Or bring in a new naming convention, or restart the clock at a memorable number, e,g, PBL1**, etc... My investment in SS remains static until the Trust status is live. So far so good with SS, they have a discretionary provision fund in place but I'm still lending to Lendy without any other safeguards in place. IIRC, the Trust 'status' was due to be introduced some time ago but while SS do not appear to have any difficulty in filling loans then no doubt there has been little, if any, reason for the subject to be top of the list of priorities. Not sure if others feel the same. A trust arrangement will give investors more protection in the event that SS/Lendy fails and is therefore to be welcomed but what other changes will come our way? 1. We currently lend to Lendy so Lendy pays interest as soon as our money is committed. If we lend to the borrower will interest not be payable until the loan draws down? 2. Related point. What happens if the loan doesn't go ahead? Will any interest be payable? 3. If money is lent to the borrower instead of centrally to a single borrower (Lendy) does this mean that interest rates will become variable? May be good, may be bad, may be the end of 12% for all except the dodgiest loans. Will we be required to bid for loans? 4. What happens to the SM when loan parts are really traded rather than the current position where it is all notional? Will it make some loans much harder to trade? (I note PBL 7 was still being traded in default. Either the investors who bought were oblivious or realised that ultimately Lendy would bail it out.) 5. Will the SM introduce market pricing where the loan can be sold for something other than face value? 6. If trusts are brought in for new loans, will this make existing loans harder to sell? (Admittedly it is very easy at the moment as trading in PBL 7 proved.) 7. Although a trust arrangement will make the platform overall safer it may make individual loans more risky. At the moment all loans to Lendy must be repaid in full by Lendy even if the underlying loan is in default (unless we get to the point that Lendy goes bankrupt). With a trust arrangement there is a greater risk of investors taking a haircut on any individual loan. 8. With risk being taken on individual loans rather than a collective risk being taken by lending to Lendy, it makes it even more vital that risk is spread across a wide range of loans. SS has a relatively small number of large loans and many loans (especially the smaller ones) are rarely traded on the SM. It could be difficult to build up a sufficient spread of risk on the platform. 9. To mitigate the point above will SS introduce a means by which risk can be automatically spread across multiple loans? Anyway that's just a few thoughts from a newbie.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jun 16, 2015 21:37:06 GMT
<snip> On the balance of what I have read from and read about SS they seem reasonably honest, and I certainly don't have any evidence to suggest they're not, so I'm inclined to believe them. But if times get tough we don't always live up to our ideals. It has IMO nothing to do with the honesty and/or integrity of the ownership of Lendy Ltd. I'm confident enough in the integrity of the individuals heading the platform. My concern is if a third party event directly affected Lendy which was totally unrelated to the loan book and not covered by the PI insurance as required by the FCA. There is nothing to stop Lendy becoming involved in other business ventures either today or tomorrow outside of their SS model. AFAIK, lenders are lending directly to Lendy themselves and the funds and loans are not segregated from the main business in such a way as to be safeguarded against any legal action that may be brought against Lendy by another party. 'Normal' P2P does not apply to Lendy. In such a (hopefully) hypothetical scenario then all lenders could be seriously disadvantaged financially. If there was segregation in place then my investment would not be capped at the level it is now. Yes, a very valid point. I was commenting specifically on their statement but your wider view is of greater importance.
|
|
gb007
Member of DD Central
Posts: 131
Likes: 74
|
Post by gb007 on Jun 16, 2015 21:50:41 GMT
...Our valuation of this property was £260,000 and the price that the property was eventually sold for was £250,000... ...The loan defaults and the full amount isn't recovered. There's a deficit... ? sam i am the loan was for £168,000 so there is no deficit.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jun 16, 2015 22:08:52 GMT
...The loan defaults and the full amount isn't recovered. There's a deficit but this can't really be taken from the investor because we lend to Lendy not the borrower. Lendy has to pay unless they are insolvent. So would they say they had to dig into their own pocket to bail out this loan... ? the loan was for £168,000 so there is no deficit. I was proposing a scenario where if there was a deficit, would SS tell us? And in any case there are a lot of other costs to cover when a loan defaults. SS said that all of these were recouped as well. Probably in this case they were. My point was that it's easy to take at face value that SS did the right thing here. And I'm quite sure they did. But there is a bit of a difference between someone doing the right thing because they chose to and doing the right thing because they had to. SS had to repay investors in full regardless of whether there was a deficit or not because investors had lent to SS/Lendy and not the ultimate borrower. In either case best to say that all is good.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Jun 17, 2015 7:55:06 GMT
The price obtained from a property sale is in the public domain. We can always see the difference between that and the loan amount and judge whether it is likely that Lendy's legal costs etc are covered. Frankly I think there are more important concerns.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 17, 2015 7:59:33 GMT
My investment in SS remains static until the Trust status is live. So far so good with SS, they have a discretionary provision fund in place but I'm still lending to Lendy without any other safeguards in place. IIRC, the Trust 'status' was due to be introduced some time ago but while SS do not appear to have any difficulty in filling loans then no doubt there has been little, if any, reason for the subject to be top of the list of priorities. Not sure if others feel the same. A trust arrangement will give investors more protection in the event that SS/Lendy fails and is therefore to be welcomed but what other changes will come our way? 1. We currently lend to Lendy so Lendy pays interest as soon as our money is committed. If we lend to the borrower will interest not be payable until the loan draws down? 2. Related point. What happens if the loan doesn't go ahead? Will any interest be payable? 3. If money is lent to the borrower instead of centrally to a single borrower (Lendy) does this mean that interest rates will become variable? May be good, may be bad, may be the end of 12% for all except the dodgiest loans. Will we be required to bid for loans? 4. What happens to the SM when loan parts are really traded rather than the current position where it is all notional? Will it make some loans much harder to trade? (I note PBL 7 was still being traded in default. Either the investors who bought were oblivious or realised that ultimately Lendy would bail it out.) 5. Will the SM introduce market pricing where the loan can be sold for something other than face value? 6. If trusts are brought in for new loans, will this make existing loans harder to sell? (Admittedly it is very easy at the moment as trading in PBL 7 proved.) 7. Although a trust arrangement will make the platform overall safer it may make individual loans more risky. At the moment all loans to Lendy must be repaid in full by Lendy even if the underlying loan is in default (unless we get to the point that Lendy goes bankrupt). With a trust arrangement there is a greater risk of investors taking a haircut on any individual loan. 8. With risk being taken on individual loans rather than a collective risk being taken by lending to Lendy, it makes it even more vital that risk is spread across a wide range of loans. SS has a relatively small number of large loans and many loans (especially the smaller ones) are rarely traded on the SM. It could be difficult to build up a sufficient spread of risk on the platform. 9. To mitigate the point above will SS introduce a means by which risk can be automatically spread across multiple loans? Anyway that's just a few thoughts from a newbie. My understanding is that the core SS lending model will remain unchanged (why change a winning formula??). By writing future loans in trust, as most other major platforms already do, the aim simply is to fix the one obvious issue with SS, being that there are no "fire-walls" between individual loans and no clear legal separation from any other business venture Lendy might enter into.
|
|
fuzz
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by fuzz on Jun 17, 2015 12:02:08 GMT
Hi new investor here. I been scanning all the posts regarding Lendy and savings stream and am a little puzzled that no one has pointed out the obvious problem that the company and therefore investors may have in the future, that is Lendys ability to attract new loans. I have searched google and i think they appear at around page 35 so they are not relying of adwords or SEO. Has anyone any ideas where and how they advertize as, without good quality loans coming online the 3000+ investors will have nowhere to invest and, of course, with more investors chasing a limited amount of loans the rates are bound to reduce.
Prehaps Saving stream can answer this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 17, 2015 12:51:52 GMT
Hi new investor here. I been scanning all the posts regarding Lendy and savings stream and am a little puzzled that no one has pointed out the obvious problem that the company and therefore investors may have in the future, that is Lendys ability to attract new loans. I have searched google and i think they appear at around page 35 so they are not relying of adwords or SEO. Has anyone any ideas where and how they advertize as, without good quality loans coming online the 3000+ investors will have nowhere to invest and, of course, with more investors chasing a limited amount of loans the rates are bound to reduce. Prehaps Saving stream can answer this one. Most commercial bridging finance in the UK is sought through brokers, who then apply to the banks and/or introduce loans to p2p platforms on behalf of the borrowers. Lendy, in common with most other p2p platforms, will most likely be engaging in targetted direct marketing to a few hundred brokers at most. There is little point in advertising campaigns in such circumstances.
|
|
