|
|
Post by rebsrep on Apr 6, 2016 20:41:00 GMT
One problem with the whole percentage point increments is that if you do not hold top rate, your micro-loans can become unsellable. I too was very happy to see my top-rate micro-loans find a new and hopefully happy home, but am stuck with others. Any chance of opening up the market to allow bigger (or just set your own) discounts? The whole percentage point increments also mean that I am reluctant to re-bid in an auction if it means not holding a top-rate loan, for this same reason that they may later become unsellable. Time for change? What alternative do you suggest to the auction format? a) Everyone gets the final rate? (Not that that would work because you would get low ball bidders intentionally bringing the rate down) b) Fixed Rates, not auction i.e. like FC, SS, FS, eMU c) A pseudo 24hr only bond (I use pseudo because under the regulatory definition it wouldn't be a bond) that lists on the main market, for 24hours only, and it's stocked with a diversified range of ML's autobought from the SM by algorithm. Each time the bond fills (no auction element, once it's full it's full) we close it and a new one opens at a new rate. The rate defined by the underlying mix of SM's each time. This would in effect ensure all loans had some SM's selling each day, and hence ticks it over. It wouldn't buy any loans that were at a premium (only par & discount). We are working on a new idea for offloading the underperforming ML's but until it gets regulatory approval and the software is ready we can't even give you details of that idea nor any timescales.
|
|
kevinkelly
Member of DD Central
Posts: 97 
Likes: 37
|
Post by kevinkelly on Apr 6, 2016 20:52:24 GMT
Wednesday updates being mailed out to loan holders as we speak, 1 out so far and that has positive news too..... Was that the one and only Wednesday update this week? I don't even seem to have received a series of "No update" updates this week.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Apr 7, 2016 10:09:41 GMT
One problem with the whole percentage point increments is that if you do not hold top rate, your micro-loans can become unsellable. I too was very happy to see my top-rate micro-loans find a new and hopefully happy home, but am stuck with others. Any chance of opening up the market to allow bigger (or just set your own) discounts? The whole percentage point increments also mean that I am reluctant to re-bid in an auction if it means not holding a top-rate loan, for this same reason that they may later become unsellable. Time for change? What alternative do you suggest to the auction format? a) Everyone gets the final rate? (Not that that would work because you would get low ball bidders intentionally bringing the rate down) b) Fixed Rates, not auction i.e. like FC, SS, FS, eMU c) A pseudo 24hr only bond (I use pseudo because under the regulatory definition it wouldn't be a bond) that lists on the main market, for 24hours only, and it's stocked with a diversified range of ML's autobought from the SM by algorithm. Each time the bond fills (no auction element, once it's full it's full) we close it and a new one opens at a new rate. The rate defined by the underlying mix of SM's each time. This would in effect ensure all loans had some SM's selling each day, and hence ticks it over. It wouldn't buy any loans that were at a premium (only par & discount). We are working on a new idea for offloading the underperforming ML's but until it gets regulatory approval and the software is ready we can't even give you details of that idea nor any timescales. How about a) but everyone gets the maximum/marginal rate?
|
|
|
|
Post by rebsrep on Apr 7, 2016 12:15:13 GMT
What alternative do you suggest to the auction format? a) Everyone gets the final rate? (Not that that would work because you would get low ball bidders intentionally bringing the rate down) How about a) but everyone gets the maximum/marginal rate? That would discourage early bidders who are rewarded with a higher rate for bidding early.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Apr 7, 2016 12:35:48 GMT
Smaller increments would help a lot, say 0.1 or 0.25. I would have no problem with fixed (lower) rates for some loans where good security is in place, like property charges that really would be enforcable. For selling, maybe that alogorithm method would work, it may be a worthwhile idea, but FC now have hefty discounts possible, and at FK you can sell at any price you want, so why not at Rebs? Regarding this loan, I thought it was no longer classed as underperforming.
Anyway, it is a good thing to have live communication with Rebs through this board, thank-you. Regarding communication, a unique thing about Rebs is the 'lending community' discussion boards. It is essential that Rebs plays an active role in these discussions, as an active part of that community. Many threads might still often wait a week or more for Rebs input, and whilst it is appreciated that you no doubt are busy with other important things, there is scope for improvement. ( I see some outstanding queries being attended to today, and appreciate you give updates when available). You might also consider a general discussions board on the Rebs website too, because only a small minority of lenders probably look at this place.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 7, 2016 12:48:01 GMT
How about a) but everyone gets the maximum/marginal rate? That would discourage early bidders who are rewarded with a higher rate for bidding early. Why not set it up so that lenders bid the minimum they are prepared to lend at, but everyone receives the top rate left in once the auction closes? If an auction exactly fills then everyone gets 20% (assuming a C auction). As soon as it goes oversubscribed then people who are only prepared to lend at 20% start dropping out, beginning with those that bid latest (so there's still an incentive to bid early). If someone bids 15% then they're pretty likely to stay in to the end, and may well end up with 18% / 19% / 20% depending on how popular is the loan. Basically a cross between a Dutch auction and eBay auto-bidding.
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 549
Likes: 407
|
Post by baldpate on Apr 7, 2016 13:34:14 GMT
I have one serious issue with the way this 'refactoring' is being represented : it may be only a temporary condition, but as things stand as I write this new refactored loan has 'clean' status of "Funded & confirmed" (and is marked in the loanbook as a Performing loan), as opposed to the "Default - Under Enforcement" status of the old loan (which was showing in the loanbook as a Recovery, but has now been completely erased from the loanbook). Now, I am happy that sqh if 'happy' to see the loan removed from his defaults box, although I imagine his comment was very much tongue-in-cheek. The reality is that this is still the same old loan to the same old business, and is no less a defaulted loan just because one repayment has been made against a formally agreed recovery plan. I imagine that the way the refactoring has been handled - by creating a new loan with accrued interest incorporated in capital with a revised period/interest rate - was necessitated by the inability of the existing software to deal with an adjustment of this magnitude to an existing loan. Fair enough. But to my way of thinking, the 'new' loan should immediately be marked as "Default - Under Enforcement", so that the loan shows as Recovery in the loanbook, and the Default is still properly recorded in the Statistics table. As it stands, the Stats show only 7 defaulted C loans, whereas there were 8 before this manoeuvre was executed : I CONSIDER THIS TO BE MISLEADING
May I ask rebsrep to respond to this specific point. PS: ReBS - by all means mark it as having a 99% expectation of recovery, if you feel that is justified - although personally, I shall be pleasantly surprised if this new agreement in adhered to for more than a few months. I also note that there were some conditions attached to the new agreement, one of which was that the borrower should present herself on the Discusion thread and engage in open discussion with the lenders - so there's one condition not yet met! Have the others? I am seriously disappointed that rebsrep has chosen not to repond to my post of April 2nd (reproduced above). ReBS have since, in my opinion, compounded the error by allowing ML trading in this loan : at the very minimum, ReBS should have waited a decent interval before doing so, until the defaulting borrower had demonstrated a history of consistent adherence to the new plan. Placing a warning notice on the home page of the refactored loan is a weak solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebsrep on Apr 7, 2016 14:20:31 GMT
I have one serious issue with the way this 'refactoring' is being represented : it may be only a temporary condition, but as things stand as I write this new refactored loan has 'clean' status of "Funded & confirmed" (and is marked in the loanbook as a Performing loan), as opposed to the "Default - Under Enforcement" status of the old loan (which was showing in the loanbook as a Recovery, but has now been completely erased from the loanbook). Now, I am happy that sqh if 'happy' to see the loan removed from his defaults box, although I imagine his comment was very much tongue-in-cheek. The reality is that this is still the same old loan to the same old business, and is no less a defaulted loan just because one repayment has been made against a formally agreed recovery plan. I imagine that the way the refactoring has been handled - by creating a new loan with accrued interest incorporated in capital with a revised period/interest rate - was necessitated by the inability of the existing software to deal with an adjustment of this magnitude to an existing loan. Fair enough. But to my way of thinking, the 'new' loan should immediately be marked as "Default - Under Enforcement", so that the loan shows as Recovery in the loanbook, and the Default is still properly recorded in the Statistics table. As it stands, the Stats show only 7 defaulted C loans, whereas there were 8 before this manoeuvre was executed : I CONSIDER THIS TO BE MISLEADING
May I ask rebsrep to respond to this specific point. PS: ReBS - by all means mark it as having a 99% expectation of recovery, if you feel that is justified - although personally, I shall be pleasantly surprised if this new agreement in adhered to for more than a few months. I also note that there were some conditions attached to the new agreement, one of which was that the borrower should present herself on the Discusion thread and engage in open discussion with the lenders - so there's one condition not yet met! Have the others? I am seriously disappointed that rebsrep has chosen not to repond to my post of April 2nd (reproduced above). ReBS have since, in my opinion, compounded the error by allowing ML trading in this loan : at the very minimum, ReBS should have waited a decent interval before doing so, until the defaulting borrower had demonstrated a history of consistent adherence to the new plan. Placing a warning notice on the home page of the refactored loan is a weak solution. My apologies kaya had asked a similar question about this loan on this thread and I was unaware I had ignored your post. This was the answer I gave: We admit we do need to make it clearer that this is a refactored loan and I personally requested this change was made and it's now in the development pipeline (it's our 1st refactored loan so needs development work to display it correctly)
However as I also said earlier today, you can't please all the people all the time. If we hadn't opened ML trading and kept it closed as per your suggestion, we would have had many queries about why it wasn't now open. There are arguments for and against.
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 549
Likes: 407
|
Post by baldpate on Apr 7, 2016 17:10:12 GMT
rebsrep : than you for reponding, but I'm afraid you have not really addressed my point. What I cannot understand is why the arrangement you now have with the borrower is not regarded as the continuation of the recovery process of a defaulted loan. As I understand it, 'refactoring' in itself is simply a reprogramming of the debt repayment plan : I do not understand why it should necessarily mean that the refactored loan be treated as pristine. Are you saying that when and if you eventually come to a full repayment arrangement with any defaulting borrower, no matter how egregious the circumstances of the default nor how bad the behaviour of the borrower has been, the slate will immediately be wiped clean in this manner? If so, I can only say that such an approach seems like madness. If not, perhaps you could explain why ReBS felt it appropriate to do so in this case. Please understand that I am full of admiration for the manner in which ReBS have handled the recovery process so far; but I believe that the borrower has only been dragged to this point by ReBS' judicious use of carrot & stick, and cannot be relied upon to keep to the new agreement - hence the reason I think it should be seen, and presented, as no more than a continuation of the recovery process of a defaulted loan. Perhaps I am missing some important point here, or perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of 'refactoring' - I'm always willing to be enlightened  !
|
|
kevinkelly
Member of DD Central
Posts: 97
Likes: 37
|
Post by kevinkelly on Apr 8, 2016 8:35:18 GMT
Wednesday updates being mailed out to loan holders as we speak, 1 out so far and that has positive news too..... Has anybody received more than just this one update this week?
|
|
|
|
Post by rebsrep on Apr 8, 2016 9:06:41 GMT
Wednesday updates being mailed out to loan holders as we speak, 1 out so far and that has positive news too..... Has anybody received more than just this one update this week? There were 3 sent out this week: S*b*** D**** M****** Aca**** Ad*****
|
|
|
|
Post by rebsrep on Apr 8, 2016 14:46:51 GMT
rebsrep : than you for reponding, but I'm afraid you have not really addressed my point. What I cannot understand is why the arrangement you now have with the borrower is not regarded as the continuation of the recovery process of a defaulted loan. As I understand it, 'refactoring' in itself is simply a reprogramming of the debt repayment plan : I do not understand why it should necessarily mean that the refactored loan be treated as pristine. Are you saying that when and if you eventually come to a full repayment arrangement with any defaulting borrower, no matter how egregious the circumstances of the default nor how bad the behaviour of the borrower has been, the slate will immediately be wiped clean in this manner? If so, I can only say that such an approach seems like madness. If not, perhaps you could explain why ReBS felt it appropriate to do so in this case. Please understand that I am full of admiration for the manner in which ReBS have handled the recovery process so far; but I believe that the borrower has only been dragged to this point by ReBS' judicious use of carrot & stick, and cannot be relied upon to keep to the new agreement - hence the reason I think it should be seen, and presented, as no more than a continuation of the recovery process of a defaulted loan. Perhaps I am missing some important point here, or perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of 'refactoring' - I'm always willing to be enlightened ! @baldplate, sorry again for not having addressed your point earlier in the thread. Following your further query posted last night I have been in touch with the office team to get further clarification on their reasoning for the treatment of the L** J** loan. I understand your main points to be as follows: 1. Display of the Repayment History on refactored / recovered loans. This is a point that we have identified and have made progress on implementing. We expect the changes to be merged to the site either later today or over the weekend. The changes will show the old repayment history along with the new repayment schedule. Along with this, a refactored loan will also be highlighted as such on the Secondary market overview page. 2. Refactored loan = Pristine loan? Aside for the changes above, we had already included a warning about the loan on the loan profile, which would be visible to any lender looking to view the profile from the secondary market. We do not want to treat the loan as pristine by any means. This being said, we would like to allow lenders the opportunity to buy/sell the loans should they wish. We are conscious of the fact that the warnings need to be clear so that lenders can make informed decisions, this was behind the reasoning to add the text warning as well as copy across all previous discussions and updates on the previous loan; as advised by our Compliance Team 3. Decision and timing to allow Micro Loan Sales We try and take a balanced and objective view on these types of decisions rather than resigning to a ‘Computer Says No’ approach. Once the loan was refactored, the security in place and the repayment received we reviewed the loan and decided that given the recent history and the steps taken to see the loan fully repaid in the future, that ml trading should be allowed. The primary reasons for this decision were: a. The borrower has been very communicative and willing to comply with the requirements set by the recovery team, including paying to reinstate their PGI. b. Regular payments had been received from the director, even before the loan was officially refactored. Repayments were received in Dec, February and March. - - Ordinarily, as you pointed out, we would have waited for a period of repayments to be made before re-allowing the sale of ML I’m not aware whether you are part of another recently ‘refactored / rescued loan’, Av***K or not. However, on this loan the decision was taken not to allow micro loan trading on the current secondary market, due to the manner in which this loan is proceeding. It was decided that this loan would be bettered suited to a ‘Non-performing Loans Market’, which we would like to introduce in the future, as discussed elsewhere in this thread. I have been informed by the recoveries team that whilst the director was initially quite evasive and uncommunicative, there has been a noticeable change in her attitude and that the refactoring process has not solely been achieved by a ‘judicious carrot and stick approach’. Admittedly, initially this was definitely the case – not unusual for recovery processes. I hope that the above now address your points of concern, if not, please let me know where I can offer further clarification and reassurance. On a side note Baldplate, we sincerely appreciate your honest and fair views. We know we don’t always get it right, but it’s good to hear from lenders such as yourself, when we do.
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 549
Likes: 407
|
Post by baldpate on Apr 10, 2016 8:47:03 GMT
Hi rebsrep , thank you for that very full reply. It is encouraging to hear what the recoveries team have to say about the recent marked change in attitude of the lender - this doesn't perhaps come across as clearly as it might from a simple reading of the loan update record (particularly when viewed in the ample context of the borrower's previous behaviour!). That isn't intended as a criticism, BTW - I appreciate that such a change of attitude is something that is difficult to convey & which only the people 'on the spot' (i.e. the recoveries team) can really assess. Whilst remaining doubtful, I believe I should at least temporarily suspend judgement to see how the new arrangement goes over the coming months. I imagine, however, that ReBS will be keeping that stick I mentioned very much to hand! |
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 549
Likes: 407
|
Post by baldpate on Jun 3, 2016 13:42:44 GMT
Whilst remaining doubtful, I believe I should at least temporarily suspend judgement to see how the new arrangement goes over the coming months. I imagine, however, that ReBS will be keeping that stick I mentioned very much to hand! Oh dear - it looks like that stick will be needed after all.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 3, 2016 13:51:08 GMT
Whilst remaining doubtful, I believe I should at least temporarily suspend judgement to see how the new arrangement goes over the coming months. I imagine, however, that ReBS will be keeping that stick I mentioned very much to hand! Oh dear - it looks like that stick will be needed after all. The only real surprise is that she made the first of the rescheduled payments, albeit still 4 days late. Selling out at a discount as soon as the "refactored" loan went live now looks to have been one of my better decisions. Amazingly, the discount cost me significantly less than the value of the rolled-up unpaid interest from the first loan that had been consolidated in the new loan parts!
|
|
!