blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 1, 2015 17:21:57 GMT
I think I would prefer my recoveries team to be always optimistic and disappointed, even upset, when things go more slowly then they hoped. Better than doubling the expected time and trying for an easy life from the creditors. Alternative note by recoveries robot, Marvin: "We know we are justified in our claim and that the guarantors have the required assets, but they really do not want to pay up and its going to take ages, months and months, to force them though all the required processes, and lots of effort and expense. We doubt that we are going to get much for lenders any time soon, if at all, and it's probably not worth bothering, but we suppose we ought to try."
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2015 17:38:47 GMT
A point I don't understand is why a guarantee from a non-involved director should be invalid. My guess as to why 17810 is A+ rather than E is that there's a non-involved director with (I suspect) serious assets. (But in this case he's involved enough to be answering questions on the Q&A.) The issue is that a non-involved director could claim (as looks like the current case) that they did not fully understand the risk they were taking on in providing the guarantee as they are not privy to the business (unlike executive directors, shareholder or any other party involved in the business) and that the information available to them was over asymmetric or there was a mis-representation to them over the state/prospects of the business. I don't think they have any chance of successfully making that argument as all directors have a responsibility to understand, control and manage the companies they are directors for. There is no distinction between executive and non-executive directors under UK law and thus their responsibilities under UK law are the same. If the wife was a non-director then they might have had an argument. I disagree that a guarantor might claim not to fully understand the business. After all they signed a very serious and risky document on their own will and they had all the chances to investigate the situation... And to my understanding FC does NOT have a requirement of having two guarantors, so if she choose to guarantee the company now she cannot retreat. FC must be careful with timings. In other occasions I have even seen a borrower (a layer) sell his huge house and escape with nothing paid up of the debt fur to the total lack of prompt actions from FC...
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264 
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Dec 10, 2015 10:17:53 GMT
They defaulted 4325 formerly A - a second dodgy lawyer i have lost money on. Not much Christmas spirit there.
Quote from the borrowers website ..."xxxx Solicitors Ltd is a Category 1 quality rated (LSC) firm and a Panel A member of the Very High Costs Cases Panel" so it should be a doddle for Fumbling Courtcases legal eagles to tie it up in a few weeks and at little cost!
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare on Dec 10, 2015 13:30:00 GMT
2529 — defaulted, exposure £4.90. Oh dear it looks like the wife won't be getting a Christmas present this year, ... unless she gets one from someone else, of course!  They'll have to buy the kids presents as well after this week's news: Top Tier Law Firm (2799) — defaulted, exposure £5.43.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Dec 10, 2015 14:09:59 GMT
Top Tear Law? ... see thread from Feb 2014 ... is #4325 still alive (defaulted too?), and I think there was another loan, that firm caused trouble all the way from failed first payments, then only paying when threatened. I sold up in March 2014 I think. I commented somewhere that the firm's name, which included the director's real name, made then appear very English, and the multiple web hits on Google made them look very important and efficient. Mmmmm!
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Dec 10, 2015 14:17:49 GMT
Top Tear Law? ... see thread from Feb 2014 ... is #4325 still alive (defaulted too?), and I think there was another loan, that firm caused trouble all the way from failed first payments, then only paying when threatened. I sold up in March 2014 I think. I commented somewhere that the firm's name, which included the director's real name, made then appear very English, and the multiple web hits on Google made them look very important and efficient. Mmmmm! Yes I remember all that - they did pay back one tranche I think - but they went RBR on the two others a long time back and have been paying intermittently ever since. I was left with a small slice of 4325. Edit : Checking it now, it went RBR in May 2014 before I could get out!
|
|
|
|
Post by valerieb on Dec 10, 2015 14:20:39 GMT
Ah, I see one of my many (too many) bike companies is in trouble so £15 down but only myself to blame as I knew I was overexposed and that biking bubble would have to burst. I'm thinking festive spam for Christmas dinner; I wonder if Heston has a recipe?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Dec 10, 2015 14:27:44 GMT
Ah, I see one of my many (too many) bike companies is in trouble so £15 down but only myself to blame as I knew I was overexposed and that biking bubble would have to burst. I'm thinking festive spam for Christmas dinner; I wonder if Heston has a recipe?
You know what's coming!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click: Take your pick
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2015 15:22:17 GMT
They defaulted 4325 formerly A - a second dodgy lawyer i have lost money on. Not much Christmas spirit there. Quote from the borrowers website ..."xxxx Solicitors Ltd is a Category 1 quality rated (LSC) firm and a Panel A member of the Very High Costs Cases Panel" so it should be a doddle for Fumbling Courtcases legal eagles to tie it up in a few weeks and at little cost! Before joining Funding Circle (and for a while afterwards) I had high respect and trust in lawyers. This has been my single biggest mistake in the investments on this network. I had four defaults (close to each other) in this precise category (and in at least two of them very strong smell of fraud, almost unchallenged by FC.... I am still furious at that). Actually after the third lawyer firm default I logged in and furiously searched and put on sale all my loans which contained the word lawyer or a synonim of it. Unfortunately I still missed the forth (the title was misleading and my search missed it....) which also defaulted shortly after. Since then I would not lend a penny to a lawyer even if he promised to pay me 50% in a month.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Dec 10, 2015 18:36:19 GMT
Yep, at least jobbing builders can usually be relied on not to slime their way out from under when things go wrong (maybe they just don't know how), whereas 'professionals' (of which lawyers are rumoured to be a subset) seem to be expert at escaping unscathed.
|
|
fasty
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 388
|
Post by fasty on Dec 10, 2015 22:51:51 GMT
Just for once, I'm quite enjoying Thursday. Just one comment from our Festive Chums : "E" loan 15367 has just coughed up after being late for the second month in a row.
"But how did you allow that to happen twice", I hear you cry. Well, it was SO late last month, I forgot that the time until the next payment was not a month, but merely a few days, so didn't have opportunity to find caring new homes for all loan parts. Careless.
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Dec 17, 2015 10:21:27 GMT
I missed the bullets this week. I hope to shed a few more 'dangerous' SME loans over Christmas to the newbies seeking diversity on Boxing Day. Christmas is such a time for rejoicing.
No D's and E's this week despite the lists seemingly getting longer week by week.
The following loans have been defaulted today. If you are lending on any of these loans a full update can be found in the recent loan comments section on your summary page.
Loan ID 2783 (Original risk band A+)
Loan ID 3427 (Original risk band A+)
Loan ID 2214 (Original risk band C)
Loan ID 6875 (Original risk band B)
Loan ID 3328 (Original risk band C)
Loan ID 14456 (Original risk band A)
The following loans are whole loans:
Loan ID 8141 (Original risk band A+)
Loan ID 15118 (Original risk band C)
Loan ID 13413 (Original risk band B)
Loan ID 12302 (Original risk band C)
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 615
Likes: 182
|
Post by min on Dec 17, 2015 11:14:18 GMT
I missed the bullets this week. I hope to shed a few more 'dangerous' SME loans over Christmas to the newbies seeking diversity on Boxing Day. Christmas is such a time for rejoicing. No D's and E's this week despite the lists seemingly getting longer week by week. The following loans have been defaulted today. If you are lending on any of these loans a full update can be found in the recent loan comments section on your summary page.
Loan ID 2783 (Original risk band A+)
Loan ID 3427 (Original risk band A+)
Loan ID 2214 (Original risk band C)
Loan ID 6875 (Original risk band B)
Loan ID 3328 (Original risk band C)
Loan ID 14456 (Original risk band A)
The following loans are whole loans:
Loan ID 8141 (Original risk band A+)
Loan ID 15118 (Original risk band C)
Loan ID 13413 (Original risk band B)
Loan ID 12302 (Original risk band C)After 7 weeks without a default, Festive Crackers have given me a present of -£12 in 3328. Thanks Father Christmas
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Dec 17, 2015 11:25:19 GMT
In many ways I trust the 'E' loans more, as they are often small businesses with people working hard to succeed. Time will tell. I certainly don't trust the risk bands anymore - are they not becoming rediculously 'optimistic'? Glad to see that they are doing a careful check on that cycle shop owner, as its hard to believe there can be nothing there to pay back such a small loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare on Dec 17, 2015 11:31:04 GMT
|
|
