alison
Member of DD Central
Sanctuary!!
Posts: 356 
Likes: 99
|
Post by alison on Jan 7, 2014 13:23:53 GMT
After my first short term dip in the stream my loan has been repaid together with 26 days' interest so I'm quite a happy bunny.
The loan has been renewed but I have reinvested my funds in a couple of the slightly shorter duration loans.
All in all I am happy with their progress so far.
The website is improving and having the redacted valuations is a comfort.
There are still parts of 4 loans available plus another 4 loans in the pipeline so I'm feeling more confident about their business model.
Forgot to give my thanks to mrclondon for his visit and report - excellent stuff, thanks very much.
|
|
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 Jan 7, 2014 14:52:59 GMT
Yes, I had 2 chunks of that one myself and I'm also more than happy with the return. I considered withdrawing before re-investing to check that it is real, but decided to re-invest immediately as it amounted to a relatively small amount. I find I can run myself in rings with suspicion more often than not - on this occasion I decided it would make very little difference at this stage. However, if anybody has decided to test the withdrawal mechanism already I'd be interested to know if it was successful. Like Alison I've put the proceeds into a different two boats though instead of back into the same one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Come_on_Grandad on Jan 7, 2014 16:00:47 GMT
I also dipped a toe into this one, and have decided to test the withdrawal button. Lendy / SS have made improvements in response to the criticisms directed at them, but I think they still have some way to go yet.
For example, the 1983 Westerly Sealord loan has been renewed, as savingstream said it would be. Looking at it, I note that there does not seem to have been a fresh valuation, despite the T&C 5.5 requiring it and despite the questions raised over the survey report by mikes1531 including that it, initially, appeared to mis-identify the vessel. I say initially, because the same valuation report is attached to the new loan, but it now reports the correct year and model. I feel that redacting the survey report to hide identity is understandable and acceptable, but that editing to correct the surveyor's words - if that is what has happened - is not OK. Did anyone save a copy of the original report we were shown?
I'd like SS to succeed. But at the moment I feel a lot more comfortable with FS.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Jan 7, 2014 16:56:12 GMT
Just trialled the withdraw button and funds are already in my account! - FPS payment. Which makes them in my limited knowledge the most slick site for transferring funds both ways. If the proof is in the pudding then I can't complain too much so far. Especially considering the first 7 days worth of interest was earned on money that hadn't left my current account (courtesy of go-cardless and all the recent bank hols). And I'll get the best part of another free week sending it back in! This might become a habit  . The only thing that would scupper my dastardly masterplan would be if SS/Lendy go pop due to a silly oversight or technicality that hasn't yet been picked up on/rectified. Still cautious, but cautiously optimistic that we're heading in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Jan 7, 2014 18:12:09 GMT
Be careful, you'll give the flippers ideas, lol.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 7, 2014 23:09:33 GMT
For example, the 1983 Westerly Sealord loan has been renewed, as savingstream said it would be. Looking at it, I note that there does not seem to have been a fresh valuation, despite the T&C 5.5 requiring it and despite the questions raised over the survey report by mikes1531 including that it, initially, appeared to mis-identify the vessel. I say initially, because the same valuation report is attached to the new loan, but it now reports the correct year and model. I feel that redacting the survey report to hide identity is understandable and acceptable, but that editing to correct the surveyor's words - if that is what has happened - is not OK. Did anyone save a copy of the original report we were shown? I'm afraid I have a similar dim view of what happened with the valuation report. I do not have a copy of the original report, but I think I can say with a high degree of confidence that the report now available is a very clumsily edited version of the original report. The fact that neither the original nor this version was/is dated doesn't help, but I can't believe that the valuer would have amended the report in this way. As CoG noted above, the build year has been corrected to match what's shown on the SS website, but the other details given have not been changed, and still are not those of a Westerly Sealord, which is a different length, displacement, etc., etc. We know from previous postings by SS that this boat is for sale with a buyer somewhat in hand, and the sale is expected to complete in the next month or so. On that basis, I can understand why SS/Lendy could feel that the expense of an updated valuation might not be warranted. But I could accept SS saying that a lot more easily than I can accept what looks like a very amateurish -- and, I might add, seemingly unethical -- alteration of the valuation report. Perhaps, I'm misinterpreting the evidence. I really hope that I am. And I'll be happy to apologise if that's the case and it really was the valuer who did the rather poor job of updating the report. I look forward to hearing SS/Lendy's version of what happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Jan 7, 2014 23:42:26 GMT
I can confirm that we did not deem a new valuation necessary due to the sale of the vessel expected to complete within the next few weeks. Also the difference in valuation between a 30 year boat and a 30 year 6 month boat that has been stored out of the water will be negligible.
The valuation document was corrected to reflect the correct year of the vessel to correspond to the rest of the boat's documentation, apologies if the other tabbed particulars such as 'displacement' are not all accurate, however the surveyor does state that they have not all been checked and their accuracy cannot
therefore be guaranteed. I shall be contacting the surveyor again tomorrow to request that they be updated with the correct information also.
I should like to point out that Saving Stream is not obliged to make these documents available to Investors and has done so as a level of courtesy purely to provide reassurance that the asset exists and is valued at the level that Saving Stream states. If every technicality within the documents is going to be raised then these documents will simply be redacted to only show boat model & valuation figure.
|
|
. The only thing that would scupper my dastardly masterplan would be if SS/Lendy go pop due to a silly oversight or technicality that hasn't yet been picked up on/rectified. Still cautious, but cautiously optimistic that we're heading in the right direction.
