adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 28, 2015 23:21:57 GMT
To make the comment history a bit clearer... I believe the platform currently shows the original details with security value £710k and orginal loan £497k = 70% LTV. Loan to be repaid in April 2016. My reading of the information is that the loan remains the same, the security is increased by £1.5m and the payback date has extended by 6 months. So this becomes: Security value £2.21m, loan £497k = 22.5% LTV. Loan to be repaid in October 2016. Yet it says "due: 115 days" - which would be about right for April. I briefly wondered if it started life as a 6mo loan, so expiry Oct '15, and the 6mo extension has taken it to April '16 - but the original loan thread has it as a year. p2pindependentforum.com/thread/2537/pbl-031Perhaps there's been some behind-the-scenes that caused it to be called in early, and which has been quelled with the extra security? <shrug> That thread certainly expresses concern at the 90-day sale value being 85% LTV, but it's not that unusual in the fire-sale val being considerably closer than 70%.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,231
Likes: 11,422
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 28, 2015 23:40:29 GMT
Odd one as it clearly was a 12 month loan as detailed in the overview, though min term was 6mths. Given that SS usually lend interest upfront the early renewal is very puzzling. Actually I havent highlighted an extension to the end date so that must be the original end date and therefore youre quite right sam i am that the 6mnth extension would take it to Oct. I wonder if the fact that it has been extended now is linked to the end of the min term as borrower has realised that he will need longer than 6 months so has effectively paid off the existing loan at the end of the min term with a new 12mth loan Couple of things 1) Overview promises a new version of valuation, did this ever materialise? 2) Planning permission was a component of the valuation, could this have lapsed if the work hadnt begun, hence the need for additional security 3) Could be that Lendy have lent against the extra security without offering it through the platform for some reason SS are extremely bad at amending docs on site, there is extra security on PBL42 which isnt documented anywhere on site only in a comment on the forums, same for PBL50 where planning was granted but again only referenced on forums. PBL26 has additional security backing an extension, again nothing on site or
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,033
Likes: 1,857
|
Post by littleoldlady on Dec 29, 2015 8:14:45 GMT
SS are extremely bad at amending docs on site, According to the site this loan has not even drawn down yet: This is a 12 month loan. The property valuation is available above (we are awaiting a new version). The loan has not gone live yet but Lendy Ltd will commit to pay all...
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Dec 29, 2015 13:17:51 GMT
savingstream please would you provide some further clarification on PBL031 as it appears I'm not the only one who is a bit confused. Please confirm current loan amount, security value and date to which interest has been paid. Thanks.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,231
Likes: 11,422
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 14, 2016 13:52:58 GMT
Somehow, in & amongst the recent hullabaloo, PBL 66/67 have drawndown unnoticed by me. Ive also updated the two graphs illustrating under/over runs on loans (accuracy not guarenteed) in case they are useful for anyone.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,033
Likes: 1,857
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 14, 2016 16:21:10 GMT
Somehow, in & amongst the recent hullabaloo, PBL 66/67 have drawndown unnoticed by me. Ive also updated the two graphs illustrating under/over runs on loans (accuracy not guarenteed) in case they are useful for anyone. IMO this is clearly the most useful thread on the entire forum. Please keep it up.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jan 17, 2016 15:54:25 GMT
I know I've been banging on a bit about PBL031 so this will be my last post (for now) about it. But it does raise some wider questions which are more important. Assuming the latest update and the site are correct, the end of this loan is the same as when it started even though savingstream said there was a six month extension. The only conclusion I can draw (as suggested by adrianc) is that the original loan was not 12 months but 6 months. This means that we thought 12 months of interest had been paid at outset but it hadn't. Only 6 months. This means that holders of the loan were more exposed that maybe they thought. Having said that, this particular loan was probably still on the old T&C so we were lending to Lendy rather than the borrower. (Although now the loan has extended, what T&Cs apply? I would guess the new ones but maybe the old contract terms were just extended.) How many other loans are in this position that we are completely unaware of? Maybe my conclusions are wide of the mark. If so, I invite savingstream to set the record straight. But this leaves a few questions. Most of the loans are launched with a notional 12 month term. I know that this type of loan isn't fixed and that it may be repaid early or extended. But what savingstream does know is the amount of interest that is deducted from the loan at outset. For me this defines the term of the loan. After this point, if interest is not paid, the loan is technically in default (even if it hasn't been declared and proceedings have not started). At this point strain is then placed on the LTV as it then has to start supporting unpaid interest as well as the capital repayment. This is of even greater interest to lenders now with new loans being on a true P2P basis and not lending to Lendy. As a lender I want to be clear about the following information: 1. To which date has interest been paid 2. If a loan has been extended what is the new date to which interest has been paid 3. Which T&Cs apply to each loan Firstly, all loans on the platform should show the remaining term to be the term up to which interest has been paid. Secondly, I find it ridiculous that many loans on the platform show negative term. This makes it look like they are in default. But as far as I am aware they are not because further interest has been paid to extend the term. Some of this information can be gleaned to some extent from the updates but it really should be shown clearly on the website. The remaining term should be updated to reflect the new date up to which interest has now been paid. Thirdly, why does the new website not show which T&Cs apply to which loans? Surely lenders have a right to know the contract under which they are lending money. savingstream, all I want is some clarity as to the position with each loan. I'm not requesting any changes to the terms of business. Is that too much to ask?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 17, 2016 18:48:38 GMT
sam i am, you raise very important points there. Even though SS has a fund that they "forgot to" mentioned in another post we still need to know this information.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 17, 2016 21:17:06 GMT
I totally agree .. I, for one, am reluctant to inject funds into a loan where the public information says 'should have been repaid 4 months ago', and I suspect others feel the same (although with the current state of the SM they may have no choice).
|
|
mack
Posts: 85
Likes: 90
|
Post by mack on Jan 18, 2016 10:21:59 GMT
Sam I Am's post is the most important post on here for quite a while and I am expecting SS to give it the proper response it deserves.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Jan 18, 2016 10:40:31 GMT
Looking at the activity on the SM it appears that most readers of this forum might be dumping their holdings which are mostly being hoovered up by the robot-like m***************3. If repeat if this is SS as some have suggested on another thread could it be that they have a bad loan on their hands which they are trying to deal with under the radar?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2016 10:59:10 GMT
Looking at the activity on the SM it appears that most readers of this forum might be dumping their holdings which are mostly being hoovered up by the robot-like m***************3. If repeat if this is SS as some have suggested on another thread could it be that they have a bad loan on their hands which they are trying to deal with under the radar? No, it wouldn't make any sense for them to buy a defaulted loan. In case of default, there is the security holding up. So they would simply (sooner or later) activate the default procedures and sell the security to recover most of the loan. Not sure why you think the standard procedure should not be followed. Either they trust the borrower (and have reasons to do so, for example he is paying the additional interests) or they don't and declare default.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jan 18, 2016 11:31:39 GMT
Looking at the activity on the SM it appears that most readers of this forum might be dumping their holdings which are mostly being hoovered up by the robot-like m***************3. If repeat if this is SS as some have suggested on another thread could it be that they have a bad loan on their hands which they are trying to deal with under the radar? webwiz, I'm interested to know what leads you to say 'most readers of this forum might be dumping their holdings'. There seems to be little activity on the SM, certainly not at the level that I would associate with 'dumping'. Have you spotted something I haven't?
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Jan 18, 2016 12:33:24 GMT
Looking at the activity on the SM it appears that most readers of this forum might be dumping their holdings which are mostly being hoovered up by the robot-like m***************3. If repeat if this is SS as some have suggested on another thread could it be that they have a bad loan on their hands which they are trying to deal with under the radar? That is nonsense.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 18, 2016 12:36:19 GMT
Looking at the activity on the SM it appears that most readers of this forum might be dumping their holdings which are mostly being hoovered up by the robot-like m***************3. If repeat if this is SS as some have suggested on another thread could it be that they have a bad loan on their hands which they are trying to deal with under the radar? I have to disagree with your post webwiz . If SS user where dumping their holdings; the SM would consist of Tens of Thousands, instead of the shrapnel we have been seeing. I also thought m***************3 was saving stream, but have since changed my mind. I thought it was savingstream selling investments that had overlapped on user accounts, but I have since learned the activity on the "investor activity" tab indicates only buyers not sellers.
|
|