cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 6, 2017 15:55:57 GMT
reply received........ 'The latest update is correct. The borrower on PBL040 is not in liquidation and is working with our insolvency practitioners with a view to us achieving a satisfactory outcome. ' Kind regards, Customer Services Team Saving Stream Still no mention of an administrator (the company is not necessarily in liquidation, so they have dodged the question it seems)... I'm at a loss  - why are Lendy so afraid to announce that the administrator has been appointed? - anyone can see it on the gazette, and presumably, it will appear on CH any time now.
|
|
moist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 241
Likes: 251
|
Post by moist on Feb 6, 2017 16:37:40 GMT
to pull in more investors? Only one headline default looks fine....6 or 7.....well would you?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Feb 6, 2017 16:44:08 GMT
reply received........ 'The latest update is correct. The borrower on PBL040 is not in liquidation and is working with our insolvency practitioners with a view to us achieving a satisfactory outcome. ' Kind regards, Customer Services Team Saving Stream Still no mention of an administrator (the company is not necessarily in liquidation, so they have dodged the question it seems)... I'm at a loss - why are Lendy so afraid to announce that the administrator has been appointed? - anyone can see it on the gazette, and presumably, it will appear on CH any time now. Quite correct the compay is not in liquidation it is in Administration.
As reqyuired in law the following statement must appear on any documentation that contains the company's name The business and affairs of the company are being managed by the administrators.
So (the confusion between the type of insolvency prorceding aside) are savingstream saying that the borrower is not in Administration?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 6, 2017 16:55:56 GMT
to pull in more investors? Only one headline default looks fine....6 or 7.....well would you? It shouldn't - personally, it wouldn't put me off; as I have said before, 'default' shouldn't be a swear word, instead it should be anticipated - recovery and realistic initial MV are what are important Anyone scared by defaults shouldn't be investing here. In any case, SS should be cementing what they consider a default because ATM it is hard to justify why PBL040 (and some others) have escaped the big red box.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2017 17:38:37 GMT
The latest loan book update talks of re visiting the official defaults policy - I guess we will see what this means in due course. Do not think the cash repayment has been actioned yet - wonder what amount will be top sliced to meet SS costs before repayments to investors?
@cooling_ Dude on a seperate topic, other than the lack of valuations, why did you mention that you thought DFL LTV's were unreliable and probably over 70%. Just interested as ever in your thoughts?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 6, 2017 17:55:55 GMT
@cooling_ Dude on a seperate topic, other than the lack of valuations, why did you mention that you thought DFL LTV's were unreliable and probably over 70%. Just interested as ever in your thoughts? I wouldn't say that LTVs for DFLs are unreliable; in fact SS don't show it, instead they use a LTGV*, but you can often calculate the LTV from the VRs (or look at my OPs on any DFL thread!) The majority of these DFLs are over 70% LTV on day one (i.e. the value of the security on the day the valuation is carried out) and some are over 100% (the worst is DFL012 which will make your eyes water!). If you have a look at any DFL threads OP, it shows the day one LTV (at tranche 1). However, it should be noted that as soon as a development starts the value of the security can increase or decrease depending on what activity is being carried out, and the 'day one' LTV become more irrelevant as the project progresses. Unfortunately, this makes following the valuation of the security hard; SS get Monitoring Surveyor Reports to confirm that each Tranche has been spent and the project is going to plan (or indicate any problems), but much to my and others frustration, SS don't share these reports. Occasionally we may be lucky and get an updated VR mid development to get an accurate LTV, but this is rear. *SS use an interpretation of LTGVs which is next to useless for investors. It shows current loan against the GDV, so increases every time a new tranche is released. Instead, it would be better to indicate what the LTV is at each Tranche (Hard to achieve, and costly) or simply indicate the anticipated full loan to show the 'ultimate LTGV'
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Feb 7, 2017 0:18:52 GMT
Somebody's keen, T***T just bought £15K. Good luck with that buy!
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 7, 2017 2:43:45 GMT
As reqyuired in law the following statement must appear on any documentation that contains the company's name The business and affairs of the company are being managed by the administrators.
If it is in administration, I do hope that the administrator is including that in every new loan contract they are signing, like say for every secondary market trade and the loan documents promoting them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Feb 7, 2017 7:07:36 GMT
As reqyuired in law the following statement must appear on any documentation that contains the company's name The business and affairs of the company are being managed by the administrators.
If it is in administration, I do hope that the administrator is including that in every new loan contract they are signing, like say for every secondary market trade and the loan documents promoting them. PBL 040 like PBL 020 is under the old terms and conditions the counterparty to the lender is Lendy Ltd not the borrower so the company if it is in Administration is not entering into secondary market transactions /contracts and the Administrators are not required to sign them
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Feb 7, 2017 11:22:34 GMT
Somebody's keen, T***T just bought £15K. Good luck with that buy! c'mon. Why would T***T have just bought £15k? Anyone with £15k to invest is not careless or stupid. I still reckon we're missing something here. Is someone privately underwriting some lenders' loans? Or something?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 7, 2017 11:27:26 GMT
Somebody's keen, T***T just bought £15K. Good luck with that buy! <snip> I still reckon we're missing something here. Is someone privately underwriting some lenders' loans? Or something? You can't do that via the SM on SS. All you're doing is buying into a pre-existing contract
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 7, 2017 12:08:15 GMT
Somebody's keen, T***T just bought £15K. Good luck with that buy! c'mon. Why would T***T have just bought £15k? Anyone with £15k to invest is not careless or stupid. I still reckon we're missing something here. Is someone privately underwriting some lenders' loans? Or something? The assumption that anyone with £15k is invest is not careless or stupid is unsafe.
|
|
|
|
PBL 040
Feb 7, 2017 12:16:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by geraldine1210 on Feb 7, 2017 12:16:34 GMT
c'mon. Why would T***T have just bought £15k? Anyone with £15k to invest is not careless or stupid. I still reckon we're missing something here. Is someone privately underwriting some lenders' loans? Or something? The assumption that anyone with £15k is invest is not careless or stupid is unsafe. Agreed
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 500
Likes: 189
|
Post by baz657 on Feb 7, 2017 12:45:08 GMT
I'm guessing it's the same T***T that put £6000 into PBL 071 today?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 7, 2017 12:56:37 GMT
There seems to be some confusion about this loan via DD using only available information online; I feel this would have and should have been clarified by a simple and quick post by SS or a better more informative update.
The company that has gone into administration is not the (defacto) borrower, but there is a charge against this company in the favour of Lendy for the assets held in the hotel. It would now seem that the actual borrower is an ROI company.
SS have sent the administrators into the above (UK) company and I do think that this is relevant information that should have been disclosed to investors (something SS have still yet to do).
I'm still unsure why this loan has not defaulted...
|
|
- why are Lendy so afraid to announce that the administrator has been appointed? - anyone can see it on the gazette, and presumably, it will appear on CH any time now.
