arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810 
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Sept 26, 2016 15:39:15 GMT
It's all "funny money" until withdrawal requests are processed. So they could easily "repay" existing loans, pre-fund new loans, and leave a bunch of positive balances burning a hole in people's pockets for 24 hours or so.... Er, no. Positive cash balances should be real money in the segregated Client Funds Account! Ah, sorry, yes, I was thinking of PonziStream - a completely different site altogether...
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 26, 2016 15:39:17 GMT
It's all "funny money" until withdrawal requests are processed. So they could easily "repay" existing loans, pre-fund new loans, and leave a bunch of positive balances burning a hole in people's pockets for 24 hours or so.... Er, no. Positive cash balances should be real money in the segregated Client Funds Account! And negative cash balances?
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Sept 26, 2016 15:43:54 GMT
Er, no. Positive cash balances should be real money in the segregated Client Funds Account! And negative cash balances? It's a fair question. If it was as simple as SteveT suggests then we could completely bring down SavingStream by selling £20M of loans and buying it all with INPL. They would be obliged to instantly credit the Client Funds Account with £20M yet still give the buyers 24 hours to settle their INPLs. I suspect, therefore, that a certain amount of "funny money" is involved...
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Sept 26, 2016 15:49:33 GMT
Which is one of the reasons why I doubt that INPL will survive the full FCA accreditation process.
|
|
lofty
Posts: 101
Likes: 104
|
Post by lofty on Sept 26, 2016 15:50:26 GMT
And negative cash balances? It's a fair question. If it was as simple as SteveT suggests then we could completely bring down SavingStream by selling £20M of loans and buying it all with INPL. They would be obliged to instantly credit the Client Funds Account with £20M yet still give the buyers 24 hours to settle their INPLs. I suspect, therefore, that a certain amount of "funny money" is involved... If everyone did as you say I'm pretty sure there'd be a "technical issue" or such like in the morning credit run.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 26, 2016 16:05:55 GMT
These all gone now that notification be repaid and reissued tommorow. Gawd knows why anybody would buy them just for repayment tomorrow. And why bother pull them off the SM? Strange. Anyway - yep, 136 - single £5.6m loan. Lots of stuff starting to appear on the SM... People were happily buying the Cardiff loan on MT for a day or two's interest from an ultra-low risk ultra-short term loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by buttchopf23 on Sept 26, 2016 16:08:41 GMT
Gawd knows why anybody would buy them just for repayment tomorrow. And why bother pull them off the SM? Strange. Anyway - yep, 136 - single £5.6m loan. Lots of stuff starting to appear on the SM... People were happily buying the Cardiff loan on MT for a day or two's interest from an ultra-low risk ultra-short term loan. They are gaming the system... easy explanation
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Sept 26, 2016 16:20:18 GMT
It's a fair question. If it was as simple as SteveT suggests then we could completely bring down SavingStream by selling £20M of loans and buying it all with INPL. They would be obliged to instantly credit the Client Funds Account with £20M yet still give the buyers 24 hours to settle their INPLs. I suspect, therefore, that a certain amount of "funny money" is involved... We've already observed that they block purchases if it takes your individual negative balance beyond a per-account limit, and it's not really much of a stretch to assume they'd also block purchases that would cause the total amount being funded by SS's own float to exceed the amount of float being made available for that purpose (and I can't imagine it would be a very complicated fix to add for FCA compliance if it's not being done already). Unclear how much detail they'd go to in the error message displayed to end users of course... Co-ordinated action by hundreds of dishonest users could almost certainly cause SS to exhaust their float, but how easy do you actually expect that to be in practice?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 26, 2016 21:58:21 GMT
Not that I expect the issue to arise, but it would be tricky to repay the existing loans first if only £2-3m were pre-funded in the new loan. I doubt even SS are sitting on a multi-million float. Since SS completed on the £4.2M Cardiff loan about 24 hours after it went live -- a time when many of the pre-funders might not already have cleared their negative balances -- I suspect that means they have a lot of working capital available.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 26, 2016 22:04:51 GMT
Lots of stuff starting to appear on the SM... That suggests to me that those sellers have pre-funded PBL136 at a level greater than their existing PBL77-80 holdings. Which is good news for SS. Without any of that, SS would need current holders to re-invest 86% of their current holdings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 15:23:17 GMT
Old loans 77-78-79-80 are now showing as repaid.
The new 60% LTV loan PBL136 not yet launched
|
|
