invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612 
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Sept 8, 2017 15:39:33 GMT
The way I see it these Exeter loans are shaping up to be an absolute disaster. The valuations of some of these homes even in their reduced state seem optimistic and I think across all the projects the shortfall will be in excess of £1m, although the consolation is that at least they can be liquidated.
For future reference, is there any difference in which tranche you invested in here with regard to who the shortfall hits?
|
|
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 Sept 8, 2017 15:56:16 GMT
The way I see it these Exeter loans are shaping up to be an absolute disaster. The valuations of some of these homes even in their reduced state seem optimistic and I think across all the projects the shortfall will be in excess of £1m, although the consolation is that at least they can be liquidated. For future reference, is there any difference in which tranche you invested in here with regard to who the shortfall hits? No, the tranches are irrelevant once they launch as they are merged into the main loan. All lenders rank equally whether they invested at launch, via tranche or via SM.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 8, 2017 23:29:02 GMT
Lots of loans both on Lendy and other platforms show wild fluctuations of the amount for sale - the large one in Wolverhampton comes to mind, also the large house by the River Thames with the gold plated bathroom. There is often more delisting these days too as investors realise they might as well have some interest rather than sit is a queue going nowhere. I've delisted many in recent month, incl. Exeter loans. There's no point trying to sell something that won't sell and loose your potential interest. It may never come, but at least some of the capital should be repaid one day.
|
|
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 Sept 12, 2017 23:45:44 GMT
Hadnt noticed until doing a bit of poking about today. A new charge was registered against the borrower in June on behalf of SSSH which may indicate the loan has migrated to the new T&CS (previous Lendy debenture/mortgage are unsatisfied though) Lendy have a new one too, both are fix & float debentures. Additional charges (mortgage/debenture) have been registered against a further company (same principal director) in respect to the leasehold of the two commercial units in favour of both SSSH and Lendy. All this ties in with additional funding advanced in June referenced in the update at that time
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Sept 22, 2017 16:10:12 GMT
Hadnt noticed until doing a bit of poking about today. A new charge was registered against the borrower in June on behalf of SSSH which may indicate the loan has migrated to the new T&CS (previous Lendy debenture/mortgage are unsatisfied though) Lendy have a new one too, both are fix & float debentures. Additional charges (mortgage/debenture) have been registered against a further company (same principal director) in respect to the leasehold of the two commercial units in favour of both SSSH and Lendy. All this ties in with additional funding advanced in June referenced in the update at that time My recent naive question here has been met with some good replies, so thanks to all. Now I have more silly questions. I've read ilmoro's message above three times (more really, I just don't want to sound too thick) and I do not comprehend. Silly questions list (no obligations to answer but would be grateful for any): 1. "A new charge was registered against the borrower in June on behalf of SSSH" - where would you get that kind of information and who/what is SSSH? 2. "which may indicate the loan has migrated to the new T&CS" - ok, I'm not great at reading the small prints but I know I should. However would you mind saying what impact, worry or opportunity are you pointing to here please? 3. "Lendy have a new one too, both are fix & float debentures" - I have a feeling that if I knew what you were referring at, for number two, then I'd understand this bit too. 4. The rest of the message. I regret I don't have the brain cells and the lingo to understand it. I know there's some interesting information but not sure what you are getting at  I have large sums of money in DFL001 and DFL002 (when I say large here, it is to my poor standards, and getting poorer by the looks of it. So it's probably peanuts for most of you guys). So that's why I'm keen on any scrap of information relating to it. Thanks.
|
|
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 Sept 22, 2017 17:00:29 GMT
Hadnt noticed until doing a bit of poking about today. A new charge was registered against the borrower in June on behalf of SSSH which may indicate the loan has migrated to the new T&CS (previous Lendy debenture/mortgage are unsatisfied though) Lendy have a new one too, both are fix & float debentures. Additional charges (mortgage/debenture) have been registered against a further company (same principal director) in respect to the leasehold of the two commercial units in favour of both SSSH and Lendy. All this ties in with additional funding advanced in June referenced in the update at that time My recent naive question here has been met with some good replies, so thanks to all. Now I have more silly questions. I've read ilmoro's message above three times (more really, I just don't want to sound too thick) and I do not comprehend. Silly questions list (no obligations to answer but would be grateful for any): 1. "A new charge was registered against the borrower in June on behalf of SSSH" - where would you get that kind of information and who/what is SSSH? 2. "which may indicate the loan has migrated to the new T&CS" - ok, I'm not great at reading the small prints but I know I should. However would you mind saying what impact, worry or opportunity are you pointing to here please? 3. "Lendy have a new one too, both are fix & float debentures" - I have a feeling that if I knew what you were referring at, for number two, then I'd understand this bit too. 4. The rest of the message. I regret I don't have the brain cells and the lingo to understand it. I know there's some interesting information but not sure what you are getting at I have large sums of money in DFL001 and DFL002 (when I say large here, it is to my poor standards, and getting poorer by the looks of it. So it's probably peanuts for most of you guys). So that's why I'm keen on any scrap of information relating to it. Thanks. 1. Companies House record of the borrowing company. SSSH is Saving Stream Security Holdings the company that holds security on lenders behalf in the new structure loans. 2. New T&Cs/structure mean lenders are lending direct to borrowers, under the old T&Cs/structure Lendy leant the money to the borrower and then refinanced through SS meaning that Lendy was responsible for repayment of loans to SS lenders not the end borrower. In theory, Lendy not being the borrower means that lenders dont have recourse to Lendy for any shortfall whereas previously it could be argued they had. So in the case of DFL020 Lendy covered the interest even after a recovery shortfall as they were the borrower. Downside was that with Lendy liable, major defaults put the platform at risk. 3. Under the new structure charges are in favour of SSSH on lenders behalf, under the old structure in favour of Lendy themselves. The appearance of the new charges in favour of Lendy/SSSH agrees with the recent update saying they had lent additional sums ranking behind lenders. The original loan is secured by the new charge in favour of SSSH, the extra top up by the Lendy cha. The assumption is that the new SSSH charge replaces the old Lendy charges (unconfirmed)rge 4. The further charges against a new company support news that the borrower has leased the commercial units on the ground floor via new company but lender security is still maintained by the creation of the additional charges over this company. If this hadnt been done the creation of the leases would have diluted lender security as they would have been owned by a company that couldnt have been pursued in the event of a recovery. The fact that they are to both SSSH & Lendy is in line with point 3 ... lenders are secured through SSSH charges, Lendy extra loan through their own lower ranking charge. I am making some assumptions here but it all confirms that as far as the security goes it is all present & correct. Whether it will be sufficient in the event it is called upon is another matter
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Sept 22, 2017 21:00:42 GMT
My recent naive question here has been met with some good replies, so thanks to all. Now I have more silly questions. I've read ilmoro's message above three times (more really, I just don't want to sound too thick) and I do not comprehend. Silly questions list (no obligations to answer but would be grateful for any): 1. "A new charge was registered against the borrower in June on behalf of SSSH" - where would you get that kind of information and who/what is SSSH? 2. "which may indicate the loan has migrated to the new T&CS" - ok, I'm not great at reading the small prints but I know I should. However would you mind saying what impact, worry or opportunity are you pointing to here please? 3. "Lendy have a new one too, both are fix & float debentures" - I have a feeling that if I knew what you were referring at, for number two, then I'd understand this bit too. 4. The rest of the message. I regret I don't have the brain cells and the lingo to understand it. I know there's some interesting information but not sure what you are getting at I have large sums of money in DFL001 and DFL002 (when I say large here, it is to my poor standards, and getting poorer by the looks of it. So it's probably peanuts for most of you guys). So that's why I'm keen on any scrap of information relating to it. Thanks. 1. Companies House record of the borrowing company. SSSH is Saving Stream Security Holdings the company that holds security on lenders behalf in the new structure loans. 2. New T&Cs/structure mean lenders are lending direct to borrowers, under the old T&Cs/structure Lendy leant the money to the borrower and then refinanced through SS meaning that Lendy was responsible for repayment of loans to SS lenders not the end borrower. In theory, Lendy not being the borrower means that lenders dont have recourse to Lendy for any shortfall whereas previously it could be argued they had. So in the case of DFL020 Lendy covered the interest even after a recovery shortfall as they were the borrower. Downside was that with Lendy liable, major defaults put the platform at risk. 3. Under the new structure charges are in favour of SSSH on lenders behalf, under the old structure in favour of Lendy themselves. The appearance of the new charges in favour of Lendy/SSSH agrees with the recent update saying they had lent additional sums ranking behind lenders. The original loan is secured by the new charge in favour of SSSH, the extra top up by the Lendy cha. The assumption is that the new SSSH charge replaces the old Lendy charges (unconfirmed)rge 4. The further charges against a new company support news that the borrower has leased the commercial units on the ground floor via new company but lender security is still maintained by the creation of the additional charges over this company. If this hadnt been done the creation of the leases would have diluted lender security as they would have been owned by a company that couldnt have been pursued in the event of a recovery. The fact that they are to both SSSH & Lendy is in line with point 3 ... lenders are secured through SSSH charges, Lendy extra loan through their own lower ranking charge. I am making some assumptions here but it all confirms that as far as the security goes it is all present & correct. Whether it will be sufficient in the event it is called upon is another matter ilmoro, I appreciate the patience, time and effort for your response, thank-you. I've only had to read it twice this time and now I see what you are saying  . Perhaps I should start sleeping again, things may not be as bad as it seems? I suppose for now, the lease money is going to the borrower not SSSH?
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 306
Likes: 667
|
Post by copacetic on Sept 26, 2017 12:46:00 GMT
While this loan hasn't been moved to the default column yet (-57 days) trading has been suspended and the sales queue has disappeared.
There doesn't appear to be any explaination what specifically triggered this yet in the loan updates.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 26, 2017 14:28:38 GMT
While this loan hasn't been moved to the default column yet (-57 days) trading has been suspended and the sales queue has disappeared. There doesn't appear to be any explaination what specifically triggered this yet in the loan updates. Is there anyone here who had parts for sale when sales were suspended? Does your account still show them as being for sale -- and thus not accruing interest? Have they been taken off sale -- and thus starting to accrue interest again?
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Sept 26, 2017 15:21:35 GMT
While this loan hasn't been moved to the default column yet (-57 days) trading has been suspended and the sales queue has disappeared. There doesn't appear to be any explaination what specifically triggered this yet in the loan updates. Is there anyone here who had parts for sale when sales were suspended? Does your account still show them as being for sale -- and thus not accruing interest? Have they been taken off sale -- and thus starting to accrue interest again? Mine are still showing as being For Sale under my Selling Loan Parts and showing I'm £X from front of queue. It also still gives me the option to cancel the sales. The parts I hold that were not for sale are still the only parts that show under My Live Loans. Therefore nothing has changed at my end.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 26, 2017 20:42:53 GMT
Yes, they still show as for sale (but nobody can buy them), and you do still have the option to cancel the sales (unless they are part sold? .. I don't have any in that state), although you wouldn't know you ought to, since there has (afaik) been no email telling you that the loans are now suspended (a completely new state for a Ly loan) .. deafening silence, although I see there is a note on the loan page if you login and look.
Amusingly if you open the main loan page, and go to 'my live loan parts' (last tab) there is a 'sell loan part' link (which sadly doesn't actually do what it says on the tin). You can invoke the normal sell-a-part page URL (if you know how to construct it), but you'll get a 404 error.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Sept 26, 2017 21:14:02 GMT
If nobody can buy my loan parts that are for sale then I might as well cancel those sales and start accruing default interest with the possibility that if they are under the old terms I might actually get interest and a bonus at the end of the process.
It's a bit bad to leave people having loan parts for sale but not informing them that they aren't available to purchase and in the meantime denying them any accrued interest on those parts.
The suspension of trading in a loan that has not gone 180 days overdue is a pretty significant change in the terms and conditions and it's a bit disappointing that they can't even spend 5 minutes sending an email to investors in the loan to inform them what is going on.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 26, 2017 22:26:53 GMT
If nobody can buy my loan parts that are for sale then I might as well cancel those sales and start accruing default interest with the possibility that if they are under the old terms I might actually get interest and a bonus at the end of the process. : I'd suggest you try that on at least one part. I suspect there's a significant chance that the system won't actually let you do that despite there being a 'Cancel Sale' link shown. (As GSV3MIaC reported in the post above yours, the existence of a 'sell loan part' link on your list of loan parts doesn't mean the system actually would allow you to do that.)
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Sept 27, 2017 1:27:44 GMT
I've cancelled all the parts for sale and it has gone through without any problems. I just don't see the point of this being being left for sale if no one can buy them. Plus I don't believe this is a loan that will come back as it is.
Lendy has changed beyond recognition. I find myself asking if this really is a platform worth investing through? They should have allowed it to grow organically rather than forcing through the growth that it deserved (the 'past tense' being ominous here). I think the greed of their ambition may have allowed them to naively ignore alarm bells in this loan and DFL001. Despite my irritation, I can only wish them good luck though, as they need it to get back my money. Arrrrghh!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 7:25:11 GMT
So it would appear this along with DFL001 have been suspended.
I guess I should have read the email Lendy sent .... OH NO EMAIL?
I'm sure it'll be in my junk mail .... NO NOTHING!
I should probably log in more regularly, there will be a banner on the site with more info .... THEY DON'T SEEM TO MENTION IT!
Well there is always the loan updates, that'll explain what they're up to .... NOT A PEEP!!
Thank goodness for the forum, clearly Lendy have no intention of keeping me informed about my loan holdings 😡
|
|
. Perhaps I should start sleeping again, things may not be as bad as it seems? I suppose for now, the lease money is going to the borrower not SSSH?
