sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 29, 2015 22:01:29 GMT
Futile Chuntering's system already checks that every bid placed has sufficient "Funds Available" to cover it before accepting it and updating the "My Live Bids" total. How much harder can it be also to check that the "My Live Bids" figure hasn't reached 20% (or, in a fairer world, 5%) of the total loan, a figure fixed and known at the outset? Probably quite a lot harder than you think... Reserving available funds would occur on the "virtual banking" layer, which would deal only with ensuring a transaction was valid and can be fulfilled from available funds. Limits such as the 20% per-customer limit or the 100% overall limit occur at a higher layer that needs to refer to the main "business" database(s). You may observe that on many auctions - especially those which attract large numbers of rapid bids - that bids continue to be accepted beyond 100% funding before the systems all discover that the 100% limit has been reached (so that they see the "bidding closed" indicator). The same would undoubtedly occur with a per-lender 20% limit, and it seems to me this could be easily handled in the same way (by rejecting bids in excess of the 20% limit after the event).
|
|
jamesc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 447
Likes: 253
|
Post by jamesc on Nov 30, 2015 10:25:32 GMT
After all the grumbling the new Wolves still has not draw down and the old wolves has paid interest and therefore if they drawdown now and settle the old I assuming they will have to pay a whole months interest on the old? Or does this mean that they are going to reject the new loan again, has there ever been a case of a loan being rejected twice and then coming for a third time ?
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 555
Likes: 432
|
Post by metoo on Nov 30, 2015 17:08:53 GMT
Bidding on this loan (17752) closed at 26 Nov 2015 15:47. How was a Q&A question posted by J*** S***** at 26 Nov 2015 23:35 - "Would we will able to come and see you about discussing this?" Does that seem bizarre?
There is someone of the same name on LinkedIn, based fairly local to the borrower, in a firm that helps businesses find finance. The head of this firm has been interviewed on radio about why p2p is better than banks.
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Nov 30, 2015 17:17:53 GMT
Bidding on this loan (17752) closed at 26 Nov 2015 15:47. How was a Q&A question posted by J*** S***** at 26 Nov 2015 23:35 - "Would we will able to come and see you about discussing this?" Does that seem bizarre? The whole thing is bizarre. It was pushed through (twice) super super fast cash back blazing top interest rate - and then the urgency all goes and the customer does not draw down. Someone is not talking to someone - but that 'question' surely cannot have anything to do with it. Who is JS? Yes bizarre.
|
|
|
|
Post by betterthanworking on Nov 30, 2015 17:23:32 GMT
Suspicious. It would do no harm to inform FC.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Nov 30, 2015 17:53:50 GMT
I was under the impression that it was impossible to ask a question after the loan auction was finished, which adds to the bizaaritude.
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 555
Likes: 432
|
Post by metoo on Nov 30, 2015 18:03:58 GMT
My inference is that this was the loan broker, who has privileged access to the Q&A, attempting to find a way to prevent the loan from drawing down as planned on Friday. And here we are at the end of Monday, after the monthly interest payment was made on Saturday on the loan that was supposed to be repaid with this loan.
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Nov 30, 2015 18:10:27 GMT
My inference is that this was the loan broker, who has privileged access to the Q&A, attempting to find a way to prevent the loan from drawing down as planned on Friday. And here we are at the end of Monday, after the monthly interest payment was made on Saturday on the loan that was supposed to be repaid with this loan. Sounds plausible - if true we could be up for yet another "technical error" on this loan!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 30, 2015 21:26:38 GMT
My inference is that this was the loan broker, who has privileged access to the Q&A, attempting to find a way to prevent the loan from drawing down as planned on Friday. And here we are at the end of Monday, after the monthly interest payment was made on Saturday on the loan that was supposed to be repaid with this loan. How do you infer all that from the garbled cryptic question? The fact of the interest payment is very worrying.
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 555
Likes: 432
|
Post by metoo on Nov 30, 2015 21:36:39 GMT
My inference is that this was the loan broker, who has privileged access to the Q&A, attempting to find a way to prevent the loan from drawing down as planned on Friday. And here we are at the end of Monday, after the monthly interest payment was made on Saturday on the loan that was supposed to be repaid with this loan. How do you infer all that from the garbled cryptic question? The fact of the interest payment is very worrying. Because it is impossible for ordinary lenders to post Q&A questions after the loan closes. It is a distinctive name, rather a strong coincidence that there is someone of the same name on LinkedIn working for an intermediary that arranges p2p loan finance local to the borrower.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Nov 30, 2015 22:34:02 GMT
The investors' report states that this is a refinance of a development loan onto a short-term bridging loan, because it's not certain that the borrower can refinance in time to repay the original.
The borrower will on completion of the conversion require to refinance to a "buy-to-let" mortgage. They would probably prefer, if at all possible, to refinance directly to such, rather than take out a bridging loan at a higher rate from FC. I rather get the impression that FC have pushed this loan on the borrower and they're not too keen - they may well be hoping that they can find an alternative in time. A possible problem for the borrower is that the 2nd tranche is due to repay on the 7th January, while the larger 1st tranche is not due until the 28th January. (And given that part of the time pressure is due to delays in completing the purchase of the property, setting the 2nd tranche at 5 months rather than 6 looks like an error on the part of both FC and the borrower, except that at the time they were still predicting completion of the conversion in September, rather than January or February.)
I don't know why they weren't offered an extension (as per Harrogate) which would have been cheaper than paying the arrangement fee on a new loan even with a penalty interest rate. (Refinancing Hammersmith and Harley Street however did seem the right decision.)
|
|
