james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 7, 2017 15:56:19 GMT
The company that has gone into administration is not the (defacto) borrower, but there is a charge against this company in the favour of SS for the assets held in the hotel. It would now seem that the actual borrower is an ROI company. Does this seem to be another case where Saving Stream have described the borrower as a party other than the actual borrower, as seems to have happened in PBL020 where the description was an individual but lending was to a limited company only 30% owned by the individual and 10% owned by Lendy?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 7, 2017 16:03:35 GMT
The company that has gone into administration is not the (defacto) borrower, but there is a charge against this company in the favour of SS for the assets held in the hotel. It would now seem that the actual borrower is an ROI company. Does this seem to be another case where Saving Stream have described the borrower as a party other than the actual borrower, as seems to have happened in PBL020 where the description was an individual but lending was to a limited company only 30% owned by the individual and 10% owned by Lendy? No - a borrower is not indicated on the particulars or VR. Some DD on this loan when I was invested turned up the company that is in now in admin as Lendy Ltd do have a charge there, but it is only a charge for the assets, not the property. As I said, this could have easily been cleared up by SS.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 7, 2017 16:17:12 GMT
Does this seem to be another case where Saving Stream have described the borrower as a party other than the actual borrower, as seems to have happened in PBL020 where the description was an individual but lending was to a limited company only 30% owned by the individual and 10% owned by Lendy? No - a borrower is not indicated on the particulars or VR. Some DD on this loan when I was invested turned up the company that is in now in admin as Lendy Ltd do have a charge there, but it is only a charge for the assets, not the property. As I said, this could have easily been cleared up by SS. I'm confused. The company in administration is not (as I understand) the operating company (which has changed its name several times). If it's not the owner of the property either, what does it do, and what assets does it have?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 7, 2017 16:47:59 GMT
No - a borrower is not indicated on the particulars or VR. Some DD on this loan when I was invested turned up the company that is in now in admin as Lendy Ltd do have a charge there, but it is only a charge for the assets, not the property. As I said, this could have easily been cleared up by SS. I'm confused. The company in administration is not (as I understand) the operating company (which has changed its name several times). If it's not the owner of the property either, what does it do, and what assets does it have? Changed its name several times? The company I'm looking at has never changed its name? (I*** P**** HOTELS LIMITED) 1. You have the primary security (the building), which is a long lease. This is held by a ROI company and is likely the borrower. 2. You have the business with its assets which is separate from the above company. SS hold a charge against this business as secondary security (the business and its assets)
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 7, 2017 17:08:02 GMT
I'm confused. The company in administration is not (as I understand) the operating company (which has changed its name several times). If it's not the owner of the property either, what does it do, and what assets does it have? Changed its name several times? The company I'm looking at has never changed its name? (I*** P**** HOTELS LIMITED) 1. You have the primary security (the building), which is a long lease. This is held by a ROI company and is likely the borrower. 2. You have the business with its assets which is separate from the above company. SS hold a charge against this business as secondary security (the business and its assets) The company that changed its name was G* N* Hotels then N* Hotels then T* H* Hotels. The hotel web site leads to a web site under the first name which claims the hotel as part of its chain. (I don't see any ambiguity in my original statement, which does not say that the company in administration changed its name.)
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 7, 2017 17:22:01 GMT
Changed its name several times? The company I'm looking at has never changed its name? (I*** P**** HOTELS LIMITED) 1. You have the primary security (the building), which is a long lease. This is held by a ROI company and is likely the borrower. 2. You have the business with its assets which is separate from the above company. SS hold a charge against this business as secondary security (the business and its assets) The company that changed its name was G* N* Hotels then N* Hotels then T* H* Hotels. The hotel web site leads to a web site under the first name which claims the hotel as part of its chain. (I don't see any ambiguity in my original statement, which does not say that the company in administration changed its name.) Apologies, I misread your OP That company seems to be simply a booking company, separate from the hotel business and not our borrower (but possibly connected)
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 8, 2017 22:49:01 GMT
However, interestingly, even PBL020 (in default, even according to SS) has only 4.6% available on the SM.
I can only assume that investors would rather stay on board the sinking ship, in the hope of earning some interest and being repaid some proportion of their investment, rather than attempt to sell it on the SM.
I just don't get it. There's no point in trying to sell PBL020 parts, simply because they aren't being bought. (OK, a few are being bought -- who knows why -- but it's just peanuts.) I put a part up for sale on 5/Oct, and it's still in the queue. If someone is convinced that investors will receive no more than a portion of their capital when PBL020 finally is settled, then they might as well offer their parts for sale because they have nothing to lose. If, on the other hand, they believe that some accrued interest will be paid, either from sale proceeds or via a PF payment, then they might as well hang onto their parts to allow their accrued interest to continue to increase and possibly increase their return upon settlement. And just to add a further complication, AFAIK, SS never have indicated how a payout that was less than 100% of accrued interest would be allocated among those who have accrued interest. Would they pay the interest accrued to some date? Would they pay a fraction to everyone who have accrued interest? In short, we haven't a clue, so it's not possible to make an informed decision on the relative merits of holding or selling.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 8, 2017 22:52:29 GMT
Just look at the timeline for PBL 040 updates - absolute joke... Barclays has made an offer to refinance > Expected repayment > expecting refinance (from non-existing BS) > arranging another loan from friends and family > sale is to complete within 3 weeks > Supposedly refinancing this week > Borrower is working with us to sell the property > The customer is working towards a refinance : You left one out...  
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Feb 8, 2017 23:39:02 GMT
However, interestingly, even PBL020 (in default, even according to SS) has only 4.6% available on the SM.
I can only assume that investors would rather stay on board the sinking ship, in the hope of earning some interest and being repaid some proportion of their investment, rather than attempt to sell it on the SM.
I just don't get it. There's no point in trying to sell PBL020 parts, simply because they aren't being bought. (OK, a few are being bought -- who knows why -- but it's just peanuts.) I put a part up for sale on 5/Oct, and it's still in the queue. If someone is convinced that investors will receive no more than a portion of their capital when PBL020 finally is settled, then they might as well offer their parts for sale because they have nothing to lose. If, on the other hand, they believe that some accrued interest will be paid, either from sale proceeds or via a PF payment, then they might as well hang onto their parts to allow their accrued interest to continue to increase and possibly increase their return upon settlement. And just to add a further complication, AFAIK, SS never have indicated how a payout that was less than 100% of accrued interest would be allocated among those who have accrued interest. Would they pay the interest accrued to some date? Would they pay a fraction to everyone who have accrued interest? In short, we haven't a clue, so it's not possible to make an informed decision on the relative merits of holding or selling. I am sorry to hear that you have a vested interest in PBL020. Your detailed answer reasons perfectly why PBL020 is not being sold and I think I fully understand your logic. I am not quite so convinced about PBL040, which is still selling on the SM, why enormous numbers are not attempting to bail out while there is a good chance they still can.
I sincerely hope that the outcome for PBL020 is favourable for its investors. I think that the specific outcome will be one of the most crucial events in SS's brief history. The outcome will have, I think, a huge impact on lender confidence and the future of the SS business.
A favourable outcome for the invested parties will also be a favourable outcome for all SS investors and, I believe, SS itself. If, on the other hand, PBL020 loses significant capital then it will of course be the first loan to do so for SS and would be a significant 'event' which may cause a long period of uncertainty on the SM with the accompanying loss of confidence in those of us who play on the current liquidity of the SM. Certainly, if liquidity of longer term loans (e.g. 100 days or more) were to be adversely affected for a month or more then I would consider bailing out of SS.
To reiterate, I wish you the best possible result with PBL020.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 13:57:27 GMT
Still no repayment to investors as far I can see - would be paid this week according to the last weekly loans update
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Feb 10, 2017 13:54:40 GMT
This one's gone from live loans and is not in default.
I'm not in it.
Has it been repaid?
I see it's appeared in 'repaid'.
|
|
dawn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 308 
Likes: 275
|
Post by dawn on Feb 10, 2017 13:55:55 GMT
This one's gone from live loans and is not in default.
I'm not in it.
Has it been repaid? It is now under the repaid loans tab... repaid on 10/2/2017 Edit - now back under live but reduced in amount and with 70 days to run Edit 2 - days to run now increased to 120 !!
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 10, 2017 13:56:20 GMT
This one's gone from live loans and is not in default.
I'm not in it.
Has it been repaid? YepKudos to SS - I must admit I'm pleasantly surprised...Nevermind - It's back at a reduced amount
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Feb 10, 2017 14:01:46 GMT
Kudos to SS - I must admit I'm pleasantly surprised... However bad it seems to look from the outside, they have a habit of pulling it out of the fire when we least expect it.
Definitely a confidence boost for the lenders.
Would be interesting to know the details of the final settlement.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 10, 2017 14:05:07 GMT
When the farms were partially repaid were they moved to Repaid first before the new capital amount was reinstated on Available loans?
|
|
