ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,333 
Likes: 11,552
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 2, 2016 18:11:26 GMT
The saga has now hit SS's twitter account. In response to comments about the borrower's trading record, the 2014 purchase price, a previous attempt by a bank to enforce against the borrower, SS says "If a borrower chooses not to repay at the end of a loan term, the (70% ltv) security is then sold to repay our investors." Not very informative. Not good, seems to be a journalist. Prepare for doom laden press stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Aug 2, 2016 18:14:35 GMT
I'm not following this thread in any great detail, but will make one observation .... if the valuation of the property is based on a multiple of rental income, then consideration should be given to who the ultimate source of that rental stream is ... which is in this case is IBM. If IBM terminated the contract under which Manpower provides services (office plus staff) to IBM at this location, Manpower would have no further need for the property and would in turn (depending on lease conditions) cancel the lease with the owner of the property, and make the staff redundant (or deploy them to other Manpower locations). Yes, its sloppy language that has allowed the impression that Manpower is part of IBM, and could have misled a few lenders, however the degree to which any such lenders have been misled is IMO minimal as it is IBM that is the source of the cash that is paying the rental (via an intermediary, Manpower) + It's important to remember that the Manpower/IBM occupied premises is only one part of the total property against which the loan was made. Obviously, a lease is a contract and one party to a lease can't just "cancel the lease" when it suits them. A tenant has to try and assign the lease or sub-let if the lease permits such alienation. The lease in question is for a 15 year term from 2010 and we don't know what early break provision, if any, is in place, or the timing of that, and what conditions have to be met to exercise any break option. Also, exercising a break option against a cunning landlord isn't always easy. A landlord would not be keen to let a good tenant like Manpower off the hook easily - perhaps a point in our favour. The remainder of the property is supposedly let to a company connected to the borrower (freeholder) on a 20 year lease which commenced just one month before the SS loan was made and that letting is reported to be at a "substantially" above market rent.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Aug 2, 2016 18:21:10 GMT
We have evidence that they have been paying this rent for the previous 5 years at or near the amount mentioned in the valuation in the company that owned it previously. This new co has just been set up to manage all the groups own assets.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Aug 2, 2016 18:22:56 GMT
The saga has now hit SS's twitter account. In response to comments about the borrower's trading record, the 2014 purchase price, a previous attempt by a bank to enforce against the borrower, SS says "If a borrower chooses not to repay at the end of a loan term, the (70% ltv) security is then sold to repay our investors." Not very informative. Not good, seems to be a journalist. Prepare for doom laden press stories. Yes, a journalist from The Times - seems to be making something of this. 2 of his recent tweets on this matter -
"Links to long history of personal & corporate insolvency "not relevant" to ability to repay, says P2P lender. OK..."
"savingstream response when asked why P2P loan given to firm linked to this former bankrupt "
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Aug 2, 2016 18:42:08 GMT
Not good, seems to be a journalist. Prepare for doom laden press stories. 2 of his recent tweets on this matter -
"Links to long history of personal & corporate insolvency "not relevant" to ability to repay, says P2P lender. OK..."
"savingstream response when asked why P2P loan given to firm linked to this former bankrupt "
x xxxxx xx xxxxx xx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxxx xx xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxx xx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xx xxx xxx xxx xxxx. *EDIT comment removed on advice of admin.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Aug 2, 2016 19:21:07 GMT
Whoever rightly or wrongly opened the so called can of worms was correct to do so.
These situations could and i stress could effect the platform whether you are a lender in this loan or not
|
|
|
|
Post by moonshine on Aug 2, 2016 20:07:44 GMT
I don't think it's at all necessary for the mods of this forum to ban posting publicly available knowledge. It often depends how you word it. For example:
"Mr X is a scoundrel and a fraudster" - could be libellous
"Newspaper Y has reported that Mr. X has a history of fraud/bankruptcy/goat probing" - totally fine, not libellous.
Similarly, these loans are publicly available to be invested in, with much of the information well within the public domain.
Why the big fuss about protecting names (especially company information), when a lot of people may (or may not) be exposed to less than solid information about what they are investing in?
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 2, 2016 20:11:47 GMT
I don't think it's at all necessary for the mods of this forum to ban posting publicly available knowledge. It often depends how you word it. For example: "Mr X is a scoundrel and a fraudster" - could be libellous "Newspaper Y has reported that Mr. X has a history of fraud/bankruptcy/goat probing" - totally fine, not libellous. Similarly, these loans are publicly available to be invested in, with much of the information well within the public domain. Why the big fuss about protecting names (especially company information), when a lot of people may (or may not) be exposed to less than solid information about what they are investing in? I have to agree and think the rules should be revisited otherwise the forum will become neutered. Supplying a link to publicly available information is reasonable and should be just fine. If Google can index torrent sites and not be held responsible, then I don't see how posting a link in a forum is any worse. Perhaps someone would like to run a poll?
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Aug 2, 2016 20:17:40 GMT
I don't think it's at all necessary for the mods of this forum to ban posting publicly available knowledge. It often depends how you word it. For example: "Mr X is a scoundrel and a fraudster" - could be libellous "Newspaper Y has reported that Mr. X has a history of fraud/bankruptcy/goat probing" - totally fine, not libellous. Similarly, these loans are publicly available to be invested in, with much of the information well within the public domain. Why the big fuss about protecting names (especially company information), when a lot of people may (or may not) be exposed to less than solid information about what they are investing in? It's a fair point. When there are numerous articles about somebody, including in the mainstream Media, which the whole world can read it does seem rather to be acting against the best interests of forum members who are actual investors to deny them links to important information that could have a serious impact on their investments. It also seems a bit pointless given the hints that many people give out in their posts which cause some of us to spend a lot of time hunting for what we are looking for through Google and we nearly always find it in the end. Just carrying a hyperlink to something on an external website cannot implicate this website in any way surely because this website nor a member of it are the author of it and we have only provided a link to something external. And a general disclaimer can make clear that any opinions on views expressed on external websites are not necessarily the views of this website.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Aug 2, 2016 20:23:19 GMT
Maybe time for a pink sub-forum like AC.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Aug 2, 2016 20:29:17 GMT
Maybe time for a pink sub-forum like AC. Not being an AC investor, I have no experience of that locked forum, but I see you are allowed to name an AC borrower. > How does the investor prove they are AC investor? > Is linking to outside & sources articles allowed?
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Aug 2, 2016 20:29:34 GMT
Maybe time for a pink sub-forum like AC. I've never used AC so I don't know what you are talking about but if you were talking about a private members only area of this forum where more information could be revealed because it would only be accessible to signed in forum members then I would support that. And it would probably also increase activity on the forum and memberships because more people would want to join up in order to read the non-public section. Also I note the rules say you must not name Borrowers on the forum. Well just posting a link to an article on an external website would still mean that a borrower wasn't being named on this forum. The borrower would be named on the external website. As long as all that was on this forum was a link and not the actual name of the borrower then would it not strictly be in accordance with the existing rules anyway? Saving Stream name the Borrowers on their own website and this is a forum about saving stream loans yet as I understand it I would be breaking the rules of this forum if I posted a link to a loan page on the saving stream website. I could be wrong about that but if that is the case that does seem slightly absurd.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Aug 2, 2016 20:35:07 GMT
> How does the investor prove they are AC investor? AC cross reference via email the account holder and the username. So they could identify every pink post to a real person they should 'know' (if they wanted). Yes as far as I remember. The pink pages are not used that much (less than they have been), since now much of AC's interesting comms are sent to lenders on individual loans only on the understanding the info shouldn't be shared (even on pink pages). There is a bit of a generalisation to my comment here but court cases etc etc can complicate things (and they have in the past required lenders to agree not to share things before granting access).
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 2, 2016 20:42:15 GMT
> How does the investor prove they are AC investor? AC cross reference via email the account holder and the username. So they could identify every pink post to a real person they should 'know' (if they wanted). Yes as far as I remember. The pink pages are not used that much (less than they have been), since now much of AC's interesting comms are sent to lenders on individual loans only on the understanding the info shouldn't be shared (even on pink pages). There is a bit of a generalisation to my comment here but court cases etc etc can complicate things (and they have in the past required lenders to agree not to share things before granting access). Correct. Access to the AC private board is controlled by AC who request the forum admins give access to forum members who requested AC verify them as AC lenders. Naming of borrowers and linking to outside info is permitted on the AC private board.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Aug 2, 2016 20:42:48 GMT
With the heavy handed censorship in my opinion. Something needs to be done.
Any information regarding a loan or potential loan needs to be shared
|
|
