|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 2, 2016 20:50:32 GMT
Any information regarding a loan or potential loan needs to be shared But it can be done in a way that does not identify the borrower, and is not in breach of the platforms T&C which a lot of the discussion in this thread is. I regularly post detailed due dilligence on the Funding Secure board, but never do in a way that allows the borrower to be identified. Lenders know which loan is being discussed and can easily find the source material via google given the clues in the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Aug 2, 2016 20:58:02 GMT
So the safest way to avoid any censorship issues would be to post the links in a private message to others .
That way no mistakes can be made.
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818 
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Aug 2, 2016 21:05:14 GMT
From the loan particulars:
They have been paying commercial rent for the past 5 years that they have owned it. This has been evidenced to us.
This is a new trading entity so needs a few months of trading activity before a bank will lend long term.
This leaves me a little confused. It's been tenanted for 5 years and SS have seen confirmation of rent being paid for 5 years but the borrower needs a few months of 'trading' before a buy to let mortgage can be obtained??
Bearing in mind that the SS bridging loan took out another short term bridging loan which was with a long term view of getting long term finance from a bank, why is the borrower now saying he's selling up? And if that's the case why isn't it on the market?
The reason behind obtaining the SS loan in the first place is very unclear Especially when you consider he's probably borrowing at 18% whilst earning a yield of only 12.5% 😕
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 2, 2016 21:06:47 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? The wording is indeed critical. " A newspaper has reported that a director/shareholder of the borrower has a history of fraud/bankruptcy/goat probing" would I think be fine in most circumstances. It does not identify the borrower, nor makes it obvious where to look. However, you also need to be careful that your interpretation of what the newspaper has written could not itself be called into question. Far better would be " A newspaper may have implied that a director/shareholder of the borrower has a history of fraud/bankruptcy/goat probing" EDIT: From www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133651
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Aug 2, 2016 21:26:37 GMT
Don't forget Ian Hislop's favourite cop-out phrase. Allegedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Aug 2, 2016 21:49:52 GMT
Inflexible rules are bad rules. In terms of loans and borrowers' activities I would suggest that a one size fits all policy is a bad policy. What we are dealing with here is not a bit of hearsay and gossip. It is facts reported all over the place including facts about court cases and bankruptcies. There is nothing defamatory about facts. If something is true and proven then it cannot be defamatory in law. Yet the rules as they exist prevent us from quoting things and linking to things that are 100% not defamatory because they are proven facts evidenced by facts.
There is a big difference between a bit of gossip about a borrower having an affair with his secretary and a borrower being a proven rascal and former bankrupt.
What we have here is a pretty serious situation with regard to quite a lot of investors money not to mention the reputation and security of an entire platform yet it seems to me that this forum is trying to brush it all under the carpet and in the long run that is not in the best interests of any of us.
In particular I feel quite uncomfortable about the fact that there is an awful lot of important information out there that potentially has a big impact on people's investments thst this forum is making it quite difficult for investors to access or be aware of. Withholding and censoring such information that could subsequently lead to members of this forum suffering financial losses would in itself seem to be legally dubious to me - or at the very least very ethically dubious.
In regard to this particular loan and borrower,I would respectfully urge the admins and moderators to reconsider the forum's position.
Quite frankly, if this matter and mention of the borrower is reported in The Times newspaper tomorrow it will be an absolute absurdity that we cannot link to it or even mention the borrower's name on this forum where many of the interested and most affected parties are members.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 2, 2016 21:59:36 GMT
[mod hat off]
I have to say I have to agree with the twitter response by SS ... this is a secured loan, the assement of the loan risk (ie. whether repayment will be forthcoming) is related to the security not the borrower. Unless a supported PG is given in addition to the primary security, then the expectation should be that if the loan defaults and the security fails to realise enough to cover the debt, lenders will suffer capital losses. That applies irrespective of the background of the borrower.
As I said earlier I haven't been following this thread in detail, as other than the discussion of the lease(s) of the security, none of the other discussion affects my view of the risk of this loan.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Aug 2, 2016 22:09:44 GMT
[mod hat off] I have to say I have to agree with the twitter response by SS ... this is a secured loan, the assement of the loan risk (ie. whether repayment will be forthcoming) is related to the security not the borrower. Unless a supported PG is given in addition to the primary security, then the expectation should be that if the loan defaults and the security fails to realise enough to cover the debt, lenders will suffer capital losses. That applies irrespective of the background of the borrower. Think of (ongoing) problems that are happening on AC loans (where I pay more attention) as a result of borrower uncooperation. There are plenty of obstructions that can be caused by the borrower and the resulting disrepair to the property often substantially damages the security value. Not to mention potentially long running court cases, or other legal costs associated with recievership. In principal, I generally view all borrowers neutrally until they prove themselves to be reaonable (eg Leeds on AC or Spondon) or else something comes to light that makes me question their commitment to the lenders and looking after the security in a proper way. While this loan is not my concern any more, I have followed this thread and it doesn't look like someone I would want to be lending to.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Aug 2, 2016 22:14:22 GMT
[mod hat off] I have to say I have to agree with the twitter response by SS ... this is a secured loan, the assement of the loan risk (ie. whether repayment will be forthcoming) is related to the security not the borrower. Unless a supported PG is given in addition to the primary security, then the expectation should be that if the loan defaults and the security fails to realise enough to cover the debt, lenders will suffer capital losses. That applies irrespective of the background of the borrower. As I said earlier I haven't been following this thread in detail, as other than the discussion of the lease(s) of the security, none of the other discussion affects my view of the risk of this loan. With the greatest respect, surely you cannot be serious by saying that none of the substance of this discussion and the borrower's long track record affects the level of risk and chance of repayment. That would be like saying you have 2 Borrowers and one has taken out 10 loans and repaid them all on time and the other has taken out 10 loans and not repaid one of them yet you think there is no difference in the risk of lending to either borrower. The financial journalist who writes for the big national newspaper made this very point on Twitter only this afternoon. In a situation like this where the borrower has taken out previous secured loans and defeated big banks in protracted legal proceedings regarding repossession, then I fear quoting the simple matter of the security offered on paper is not the big consideration and to try and simplify it to that level is to completely miss the point and the bigger picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Aug 2, 2016 22:17:06 GMT
SS does not lend SS's money, it lends mine, if there is information in the public domain that indicates to me that it would be unwise to lend my money to them, then i would like to know.
I do not wish to spend my precious time trying to decode subtle posted innuendo's.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Aug 2, 2016 22:17:40 GMT
Whilst this to my knowledge is the first occasion that the SS thread has had a problem with naming individuals it is not the first time this happened on this Forum. Previously several of us on the FC thread have been threatened with suspension and one banana lover actually suspended for mentioning a newspaper article which named a borrower (Crappy Scrappy) who had committed a criminal act. As it turned out those of us that had invested in the loan all lost our money and the borrower was eventually declared bankrupt. However, fortunately all the smoke and dust created on the Forum no doubt put off a number of lenders from putting their money in. So it served a very important purpose despite the mods blowing a fuse or two.
Whilst it may seem a good idea to have to have pink pages as AC have. AC I believe retain the right to censor the content, although I have no evidence of them doing so. The pink pages have no doubt helped investors when the odd loan got into difficulties. However AC are far more open to robust questioning through their main loan site provided you are a client of AC. This may be a better way for SS FS and others to go in the future.
|
|
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 23:54:03 GMT
SS does not lend SS's money, it lends mine, if there is information in the public domain that indicates to me that it would be unwise to lend my money to them, then i would like to know. I do not wish to spend my precious time trying to decode subtle posted innuendo's. Then go and find it. All the info you need is available on the SS site. That's all the rest of us are doing ... Googling with obvious search terms. Dont rely on us obsessives, you might find something CDs missed - then you can post your own subtle innuendo to taunt him :-)
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Aug 2, 2016 23:58:23 GMT
SS does not lend SS's money, it lends mine, if there is information in the public domain that indicates to me that it would be unwise to lend my money to them, then i would like to know. I do not wish to spend my precious time trying to decode subtle posted innuendo's. Then go and find it. All the info you need is available on the SS site. That's all the rest of us are doing ... Googling with obvious search terms. Dont rely on us obsessives, you might find something CDs missed - then you can post your own subtle innuendo to taunt him :-) Erm... I honestly don't want to be taunted by innuendos... 
|
|
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 3, 2016 0:10:10 GMT
Then go and find it. All the info you need is available on the SS site. That's all the rest of us are doing ... Googling with obvious search terms. Dont rely on us obsessives, you might find something CDs missed - then you can post your own subtle innuendo to taunt him :-) Erm... I honestly don't want to be taunted by innuendos... :-D
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 3, 2016 0:58:18 GMT
Two snipets that I don't think have been mentioned thus far on this thread in relation to the security and its tenants:
a) there was a fair bit of favourable local press coverage at the time I** moved in which explains what the building is used for
b) it appears the non-I** part of the building is currently being advertised for rent at £10 per square foot (either ground or first floors or both together)
both can be further researched by googling I** and the name of the building.
|
|
