|
|
Post by batchoy on Jun 9, 2015 12:52:43 GMT
Mitosan Just to help clarify. The ownership of the domain has been transferred to FundingSecure - we own the domain. It is registered in our name through our registrar with verisgn - the top level controlling organisation for all .com domains. Only we can sell it, which we would of course not do unless the loan defaulted. We have full control of the domain, allowing the borrower to continue to set up a web site and receive mail. Hope this helps FundingSecure This is not strictly true, if someone comes along who has rights to the name due trademark, pre-existing trading and registered business names, the domain name is not in active use i.e cybersquatting etc, the registrar can transfer the domain to that person regardless who it is currently registered to and without compensation. Some countries have legislation on cybersquatting, and the majority of the organisations responsible for controlling domains have processes along these lines, as a result whilst there is a value in a domain name for a brand holder, there is only a cost ($75 every 5 years) for anyone who does not have rights to the name by dint of trademark etc and is not actively using it for viable business/service. Some years ago I was regularly pestered by a cybersquatting company that had registered my then employer's registered business name as a domain name (we used the trading name as our domain name) wanting to sell it to us at a vastly inflated price, in retaliation we used the dispute process run by the registration body and had the domain name re-assigned to us, whilst we paid the registration body a fee for the process we paid the cybersquatter nothing, and the fee was significantly less than the cybersquatter was demanding. In this instance since the domain ending ".co.uk" is in active use so the registrant of that of that domain could have a valid claim over the domain ending ".com" and seek to have it reassigned. The other thing to note is that you don't 'own' a domain you only have rights to use it for as long as you keep the registration fees paid up, fail to pay the fees in time and people can slip in and take over the registration and control of the domain name at the standard registration fee price of $15 a year or $75 for five years.
|
|
|
|
Post by mitosan on Jun 11, 2015 8:51:36 GMT
All good points.
Due respect to FS though for considering this unconventional security, breaking out from the traditional finance model and banks is what I like about all this and I applaud FS (and investors!) for taking the risk on this one, just not for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jun 11, 2015 17:06:48 GMT
Let me start by saying I buy and sell domains and have been doing so for 10 years and I wouldn't touch this loan for any amount.
It also makes me very nervous that FS is loaning large sums of money on such questionable virtual items at unreasonable LTV's. This valuation is pure speculation. Domains are worth what people will pay on a given day (or hour). Buyers come and go quickly. It's not like there are 100's of buyers for a domain name. Got to a domain auction site and look at the high priced domains and see how few people bid of them. Yes, someone may of offered to buy the name at some point, but finding a new buyer in the event of a default could take years. I know this first hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by mitosan on Jun 12, 2015 13:26:16 GMT
It also makes me very nervous that FS is loaning large sums of money on such questionable virtual items at unreasonable LTV's. They aren't though. The lenders are. I wouldn't worry about it too much even if the loan book was filled with a lot of risky stuff, as long as the info is there from the start and they are transparent, its up to each user to decide what level of risk they are comfortable with.
|
|
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 Jun 12, 2015 14:36:25 GMT
It also makes me very nervous that FS is loaning large sums of money on such questionable virtual items at unreasonable LTV's. They aren't though. The lenders are. I wouldn't worry about it too much even if the loan book was filled with a lot of risky stuff, as long as the info is there from the start and they are transparent, its up to each user to decide what level of risk they are comfortable with. Although you are correct in that mitosan, and that tends to be my own personal view, the trouble is that as p2p is gradually becoming more widely known about, people are starting to come in to these platforms with their eyes 'wide shut', believing that because they read about it in some mainstream source that it's really quite safe and that if the platform offers a loan it can't be that risky. If any of the platforms start to get a bad rap as a result of naive lenders having lost money they couldn't really afford to lose (and hence shouldn't have been putting with p2p) then those of us who use them advisedly will find them folding beneath us and we'll all lose out. So, although I'm a firm adherent to the 'caveat lender' approach, I don't think it's an approach a platform should be relying on their lenders to use - most of them just won't.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Jun 12, 2015 15:35:21 GMT
They aren't though. The lenders are. I wouldn't worry about it too much even if the loan book was filled with a lot of risky stuff, as long as the info is there from the start and they are transparent, its up to each user to decide what level of risk they are comfortable with. Although you are correct in that mitosan, and that tends to be my own personal view, the trouble is that as p2p is gradually becoming more widely known about, people are starting to come in to these platforms with their eyes 'wide shut', believing that because they read about it in some mainstream source that it's really quite safe and that if the platform offers a loan it can't be that risky. If any of the platforms start to get a bad rap as a result of naive lenders having lost money they couldn't really afford to lose (and hence shouldn't have been putting with p2p) then those of us who use them advisedly will find them folding beneath us and we'll all lose out. So, although I'm a firm adherent to the 'caveat lender' approach, I don't think it's an approach a platform should be relying on their lenders to use - most of them just won't. Agreed ramblin rose 100%. Lenders tend to just pile in based upon a couple of headline rates and of course believing they are dealing with experts. Many property LTV's are based on a 'going concern' valuation but in the event of a default, you often no longer have that 'going concern' and how much is a failed pub worth these days. Usually these valuation variations are covered in the original report but nonetheless LTV's are based on the higher figure and I do wonder just how many lenders bother to read and digest the associated paperwork. The same applies to plant and machinery which is often calculated at the write down value in the audited accounts. Unfortunately, if the business fails rarely do these assets attract more than pennies in the pound so I tend to discount them for valuation purposes but many platforms do not. Sooner or later there's going to be more than a few tears shed and once the media finds a story worth getting their hands on it may be a rocky ride for many of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jun 13, 2015 11:29:11 GMT
They aren't though. The lenders are. I wouldn't worry about it too much even if the loan book was filled with a lot of risky stuff, as long as the info is there from the start and they are transparent, its up to each user to decide what level of risk they are comfortable with. Although you are correct in that mitosan, and that tends to be my own personal view, the trouble is that as p2p is gradually becoming more widely known about, people are starting to come in to these platforms with their eyes 'wide shut', believing that because they read about it in some mainstream source that it's really quite safe and that if the platform offers a loan it can't be that risky. If any of the platforms start to get a bad rap as a result of naive lenders having lost money they couldn't really afford to lose (and hence shouldn't have been putting with p2p) then those of us who use them advisedly will find them folding beneath us and we'll all lose out. So, although I'm a firm adherent to the 'caveat lender' approach, I don't think it's an approach a platform should be relying on their lenders to use - most of them just won't. I understand what you are saying however, but the riskier the loan, domains are very risky, the higher the chance of default. A few defaults at these loan amounts can sink a business quickly. Seems like this platform is already experiencing defaults. If the platform goes pop, possibly so does your money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jun 13, 2015 11:46:55 GMT
Agreed ramblin rose 100%. Lenders tend to just pile in based upon a couple of headline rates and of course believing they are dealing with experts. Many property LTV's are based on a 'going concern' valuation but in the event of a default, you often no longer have that 'going concern' and how much is a failed pub worth these days. Usually these valuation variations are covered in the original report but nonetheless LTV's are based on the higher figure and I do wonder just how many lenders bother to read and digest the associated paperwork. The same applies to plant and machinery which is often calculated at the write down value in the audited accounts. Unfortunately, if the business fails rarely do these assets attract more than pennies in the pound so I tend to discount them for valuation purposes but many platforms do not. Sooner or later there's going to be more than a few tears shed and once the media finds a story worth getting their hands on it may be a rocky ride for many of us. You bring up an excellent point. I'm starting to feel euphoric comfort syndrome maybe settling within P2P lenders . Just to share a default experience from the real world. Several years ago I invested in a bar that was secured by the fixtures and fittings. The bar owner decided it would be nice to spend the investors money on a nice car, his wife's shoe collection and boob job, and a safari to Africa. He eventually defaulted on the loan payments and was forced into bankruptcy. The bar was sold and fixtures and fittings and other assets only totaled £75,000. Amount owed was £500,000. I personally took a £150,000 hit. Ouch. So why make this investment? I was being paid a 18-33% interest rate. Looking back it was a stupid decision but nice interest returns clouded the 'ol judgement portion of the brain. Point being, businesses can default on loans at anytime and it's so easy to become comfortable when things run smoothly for a few months. I fully agree that some tears will be shed. Especially when the US stock market pops and the world economy suffers once again.
|
|
|
|
Post by profunder on Sept 13, 2015 0:13:15 GMT
Oops, this loan was already completed.. Deleting post.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 13, 2015 8:04:36 GMT
I guess that everyone on this forum is sufficiently clued up to realise that some loans are going to default with any asset value insufficient.
There are two ways of dealing with this risk.
1) Scrutinise each loan and only invest in ones you are confident about. A mug's game IMHO.
2) Diversify, diversify, diversify. The interest rates are so much higher than safe opportunities, that provided only a relatively small proportion of losses occur you will still be ahead of those safer options.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 13, 2015 13:35:39 GMT
Whatever happened to this loan? I've looked at FS's list of all their loans and don't see it. Was it pulled before the money was raised? Or after that but before the money was passed to the borrower?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 13, 2015 17:24:54 GMT
Whatever happened to this loan? I've looked at FS's list of all their loans and don't see it. Was it pulled before the money was raised? Or after that but before the money was passed to the borrower? It was repaid 31/7, type 'domain' in the search bar on the past loans page. : Thanks for that. I failed to find it in the complete list of loans when I looked earlier because I started looking beginning with loans dated about a week before the time of the announcement of the upcoming loan (7/Jun) whereas the loan actually became 'Active' -- not to be confused with 'Activated' -- before that (26/May).
|
|
lexo
Posts: 52 
Likes: 30
|
Post by lexo on May 24, 2016 12:35:20 GMT
In the description of the loan 1068145233 they say that the registration of the domains has been transferred to FundingSecure for the duration of the loan. I checked whois of those 3 domains on who.is and couldn't find any traces of FundingSecure. Can somebody clarify? |
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on May 24, 2016 13:16:44 GMT
In the description of the loan 1068145233 they say that the registration of the domains has been transferred to FundingSecure for the duration of the loan. I checked whois of those 3 domains on who.is and couldn't find any traces of FundingSecure. Can somebody clarify?
Well spotted - this may be a case of FS being a little sloppy with the language / process of securing a domain name.
In each of the 3 cases, the whois record contains these two lines
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited
See the bottom table on www.icann.org/resources/pages/epp-status-codes-2014-06-16-en for the definition of these statuses. My guess these statuses are part of the answer.
fundingsecure - it would be helpful if you could clarify the process by which the domain names have been secured, and confirm what prevents the domain owner requesting the removal of these statuses.
|
|
