ribs
Probably not James Marshall
Posts: 148 
Likes: 151
|
Post by ribs on Mar 9, 2016 17:09:40 GMT
Come on ribs own up. James Marshall has pimped himself to FS and we're financing for your high rolling lifestyle  I wish my man. Sadly, James is the one living the high life aboard his Yacht, which you can see in this totally legit and not at all doctored image: Attachment DeletedI did ask James for a tenner the other day. After checking around the sofa, he claimed to be skint. I suggested he lend SavingStream his Yacht for the capital. He told me to: "Jog on" whilst sipping champagne and laughing. I think I'm getting the raw end of the deal with this friendship.
|
|
|
|
Post by seaninog on Mar 11, 2016 13:54:35 GMT
I have invested in this. I obviously have the same concerns as most people have on here about this, "why would a high-net-worth individual want/need a loan at such a high rate?" "why all the secrecy/sketchiness etc". FS are asking us to trust them with this loan, they wouldn't condone it if they didn't think it would pay imo, the risks far outweigh the benefits for them. I'm not too sure why they have brought this on themselves, but there must be a good reason and strategy behind it.
FS can't afford for this one to go sour, by hook or by crook I strongly believe I will get my money back +15%, they simply can't afford for this seemingly very 'risky' loan to fail. The negative PR and serious risk of annoying those that invest and those that change their opinion about the platform as a whole on account of this bizarre strategy will leave in droves if it goes bad. Most of you won't invest and it is already making you doubt the platform's credibility. FS would basically be committing suicide if they let this one default, so that is the only reason I am investing. It's probably the safest loan on their books when you think about what they are actually doing here, no security on the loan other than the entire future of the platform in my eyes, and for me at 15% its a punt worth taking.
I agree and I'm in too. To be fair to FS, they are innovating here and their job in this capacity is to show us, the investors, investment opportunities. No one is forcing us to invest and all the semantics about the name 'Funding SECURE' are not relevant to me. This loan is not for some - that is clear - but surely it didn't harm to show the opportunity to those of us who are interested.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 11, 2016 20:59:43 GMT
No one is forcing us to invest and all the semantics about the name 'Funding SECURE' are not relevant to me. This loan is not for some - that is clear - but surely it didn't harm to show the opportunity to those of us who are interested. Everything would be fine as long as everyone investing fully understands what they are investing in. But IMHO some people are bound to be misled by the words "PEER-TO-PEER ASSET BASED LOANS" that are part of the FS logo. If this loan were to go bad, it would cause considerable damage to the FS image/platform/business. (I know this loan is described as unsecured, and the fact that it didn't full quickly despite the 15% rate suggests that many people understand the implications, but that still won't stop the complaints.) As such, I'd have to agree with bluechip's comments that FS can't afford to let investors lose money on this one. Which suggests that FS would have to bail out investors if the borrower did default by digging into their own pocket as they've done on occasion in the past. I believe that this loan, however, is a lot bigger than the ones they've been generous on in the past, and any loss probably would be 100% due to the lack of security as opposed to the past situations where the security did produce proceeds, albeit insufficient ones. It's impossible to know how badly such a rescue operation would damage the platform's internal finances. I expect that FS/Lendy are a lot bigger now, and they might be able to handle such a large rescue without too much difficulty these days.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 11, 2016 21:44:33 GMT
If FS had the funds to reimburse lenders after a 100% loss on this scale I would have thought that they would have established a Provision Fund. They are clear on their post in this thread that the risk is with the lender.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 11, 2016 23:01:04 GMT
They are clear on their post in this thread that the risk is with the lender. It won't be the people who read this thread that make the complaints if money is lost on this loan.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 11, 2016 23:01:37 GMT
They are clear on their post in this thread that the risk is with the lender. It won't be the people who read this thread that make the complaints if money is lost on this loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by xyon100 on Mar 12, 2016 6:14:24 GMT
I have invested in this. I obviously have the same concerns as most people have on here about this, "why would a high-net-worth individual want/need a loan at such a high rate?" "why all the secrecy/sketchiness etc". FS are asking us to trust them with this loan, they wouldn't condone it if they didn't think it would pay imo, the risks far outweigh the benefits for them. I'm not too sure why they have brought this on themselves, but there must be a good reason and strategy behind it.
FS can't afford for this one to go sour, by hook or by crook I strongly believe I will get my money back +15%, they simply can't afford for this seemingly very 'risky' loan to fail. The negative PR and serious risk of annoying those that invest and those that change their opinion about the platform as a whole on account of this bizarre strategy will leave in droves if it goes bad. Most of you won't invest and it is already making you doubt the platform's credibility. FS would basically be committing suicide if they let this one default, so that is the only reason I am investing. It's probably the safest loan on their books when you think about what they are actually doing here, no security on the loan other than the entire future of the platform in my eyes, and for me at 15% its a punt worth taking.
It was exactly this logic that lead me to lose a lot of money with a small company that let one customer run up a million pound debt. After a year of messages from the directors telling us they were expecting payment "shortly" it was finally admitted that this high profile and wealthy person with his strong personal guarantee had told the company to take him to court, where he would counter sue for allowing him to run up the debt while not explaining the risk to him. Of course, FS know far more about this person than we do, but so did the directors of the spread betting company that allowed Mr slick to run up his million pound debt.
|
|
woodie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 120
Likes: 78
|
Post by woodie on Mar 13, 2016 11:17:34 GMT
Having just read through this thread I would like to say thanks to all the contributors for a very entertaining read.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 13, 2016 23:24:05 GMT
Following the discussion in this thread it appears to me that this is going to be a free crowd-funding adventure rather than a p2p lending.
|
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Mar 21, 2016 1:52:00 GMT
I was curious to find how appetite for an unsecured loan would play out. This offer comes at a time when there are many typical asset-backed loans on the platform. For comparison I chose the Neath loan because it is broadly similar in size and in number of investors to the unsecured loan. I hoped to see some striking difference either in takeup rate or in the spread of individual investments. By the way I like FS for making these figures available but am surprised that no one has raised security concerns. I havn't seen such information displayed on any of the other six platform I invest in. Anyway back to my comparison. Against expectation I find little difference between the unsecured loan and what I see is a typical loan. Table 1 shows funding progress to be not markedly different. Tables 2 and 3 gives the spread of individual investments. Again there is no great difference here. I take this to mean that there is a high degree of trust in FS management with the extra interest the spice bridging the gap. Or is this evidence of blind greed causing investors to throw caution to the wind? I confess to have placed two-and-half times my usual figure on this. Trust plus greed.
Table 1. Funding progress.
Loan ID Loan (% funded)
amount opened 16/3 17/3 18/3 19/3 20/3
1089233557 Unsecured 15% 125000 08/3 68 70 73 79 84
7922488913 Neath Prop. 105000 12/3 61 66 80 84 86
6712763837 Mark Prop. 175000 11/3 44 46 61 62 64
1659874045 Farm, Norfolk 150000 15/3 22 31 34 36 38
4045698166 6-bed Norfolk 350000 15/3 53 68 Active
8079414962 Domain name 12000 16/3 49 78 Active
1580288266 Barn 75000 16/3 18 56 60 89 Active
3106570643 Bath Prop. 2nd tr. 300000 19/3 8
Table 2. Spread of individual investments -- Unsecured loan.
Loan 1089233557 - Unsecured - £125,000
£98,525 funded (79%)
£
25-100 148
125-500 56
525-1000 20
1025-5000 12
10000 2
Total investors 238 [total should be 242 due to some allocation errors]
Table 3. Spread of individual investment -- Property secured on a first charge.
Loan 7922488913 – Neath Property - £105,000
£89,950 funded (86%)
£
25-100 116
125-500 72
525-1000 26
1025-5000 8
15000 1
Total investors 223 [total should be 227 due to some allocation errors]
|
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Mar 21, 2016 2:50:15 GMT
No one is forcing us to invest and all the semantics about the name 'Funding SECURE' are not relevant to me. This loan is not for some - that is clear - but surely it didn't harm to show the opportunity to those of us who are interested. Everything would be fine as long as everyone investing fully understands what they are investing in. But IMHO some people are bound to be misled by the words "PEER-TO-PEER ASSET BASED LOANS" that are part of the FS logo. If this loan were to go bad, it would cause considerable damage to the FS image/platform/business. (I know this loan is described as unsecured, and the fact that it didn't full quickly despite the 15% rate suggests that many people understand the implications, but that still won't stop the complaints.) As such, I'd have to agree with bluechip 's comments that FS can't afford to let investors lose money on this one. Which suggests that FS would have to bail out investors if the borrower did default by digging into their own pocket as they've done on occasion in the past. I believe that this loan, however, is a lot bigger than the ones they've been generous on in the past, and any loss probably would be 100% due to the lack of security as opposed to the past situations where the security did produce proceeds, albeit insufficient ones. It's impossible to know how badly such a rescue operation would damage the platform's internal finances. I expect that FS/Lendy are a lot bigger now, and they might be able to handle such a large rescue without too much difficulty these days. To mikes1531 . In my previous post I thought I had just shown this not to be true [ie there was no noticeable difference in takeup rate, other loans were equally slow in takeup -- see table 1]
|
|
Neil_P2PBlog
P2P Blogger
Use @p2pblog to tag me :-)
Posts: 355
Likes: 209
|
Post by Neil_P2PBlog on Sept 2, 2016 15:32:37 GMT
I was curious to find how appetite for an unsecured loan would play out. This offer comes at a time when there are many typical asset-backed loans on the platform. For comparison I chose the Neath loan because it is broadly similar in size and in number of investors to the unsecured loan. I hoped to see some striking difference either in takeup rate or in the spread of individual investments. By the way I like FS for making these figures available but am surprised that no one has raised security concerns. I havn't seen such information displayed on any of the other six platform I invest in. Anyway back to my comparison. Against expectation I find little difference between the unsecured loan and what I see is a typical loan. Table 1 shows funding progress to be not markedly different. Tables 2 and 3 gives the spread of individual investments. Again there is no great difference here. I take this to mean that there is a high degree of trust in FS management with the extra interest the spice bridging the gap. Or is this evidence of blind greed causing investors to throw caution to the wind? I confess to have placed two-and-half times my usual figure on this. Trust plus greed. Table 1. Funding progress.
Loan ID Loan (% funded) amount opened 16/3 17/3 18/3 19/3 20/3 1089233557 Unsecured 15% 125000 08/3 68 70 73 79 847922488913 Neath Prop. 105000 12/3 61 66 80 84 866712763837 Mark Prop. 175000 11/3 44 46 61 62 64 1659874045 Farm, Norfolk 150000 15/3 22 31 34 36 38 4045698166 6-bed Norfolk 350000 15/3 53 68 Active 8079414962 Domain name 12000 16/3 49 78 Active 1580288266 Barn 75000 16/3 18 56 60 89 Active 3106570643 Bath Prop. 2nd tr. 300000 19/3 8 Table 2. Spread of individual investments -- Unsecured loan.
Loan 1089233557 - Unsecured - £125,000 £98,525 funded (79%) £ 25-100 148 125-500 56 525-1000 20 1025-5000 12 10000 2 Total investors 238 [total should be 242 due to some allocation errors] Table 3. Spread of individual investment -- Property secured on a first charge.Loan 7922488913 – Neath Property - £105,000 £89,950 funded (86%) £ 25-100 116 125-500 72 525-1000 26 1025-5000 8 15000 1 Total investors 223 [total should be 227 due to some allocation errors] Have these tables now been hidden by FS?
|
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Sept 2, 2016 16:20:36 GMT
Have these tables now been hidden by FS? Hi Neil_P2PBlog. No sure what you mean by hidden. These are tables I, not FS, produced. BTW I renewed this unsecured loan. That shows that I still trust FS to come up with the goods eventually. Afaik FS has not presented any other unsecured loan since then.
|
|
Neil_P2PBlog
P2P Blogger
Use @p2pblog to tag me :-)
Posts: 355
Likes: 209
|
Post by Neil_P2PBlog on Sept 2, 2016 16:27:34 GMT
Have these tables now been hidden by FS? Hi Neil_P2PBlog . No sure what you mean by hidden. These are tables I, not FS, produced. BTW I renewed this unsecured loan. That shows that I still trust FS to come up with the goods eventually. Afaik FS has not presented any other unsecured loan since then. AH - I thought when you said 'By the way I like FS for making these figures available but am surprised that no one has raised security concerns.' that it was a stats page on the FS site somewhere... had my hopes up! For me its really interesting to track the funding progress - just wish there was an easier way to get it from FS.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 2, 2016 17:20:58 GMT
Blind greed!
Unsecured loans on a site for secured loans requires more than a little explanation, I reckon.
|
|
