|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 22, 2016 8:29:04 GMT
savingstream, when I look at a loan on the SM, the column showing my holding seems to include the value of the parts which I have put up for sale already? I think this is wrong, since I no longer have any interest in those. Anyone else confirm or deny?
|
|
|
|
Post by manxfinch on Mar 22, 2016 8:43:40 GMT
deleted
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 22, 2016 8:48:04 GMT
savingstream , when I look at a loan on the SM, the column showing my holding seems to include the value of the parts which I have put up for sale already? I think this is wrong, since I no longer have any interest in those. Anyone else confirm or deny? I'm sure you'd have a lot of interest in what was happening with them if the loan ended with a loss before you'd successfully acheived a sale.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Mar 22, 2016 9:03:29 GMT
This looks like it is working as designed to me. Until they're sold, you still own them.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 22, 2016 9:38:35 GMT
I have a loan part for PBL084 on sale and the whole loan has disappeared from my loan part tab. Note this is the only part I have in this loan. So it is working as I expect it to.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 22, 2016 16:00:14 GMT
Which is different from what happens if you still have other parts left, so at best it is 'inconsistent', and at worst misleading .. If I see I own £100, and there is £100 for sale .. then I buy the £100 for sale, and discover I now own £100, because the "for sale" parts were actually my own. Or maybe not .. no way to tell from the SM display. Maybe it just needs another column (were there space) for your 'selling' parts (but that doesn't address the case where you are selling the last one, and then apparently see nothing).
As for whether I have any interest in them once they are up for sale - well I get no interest, I can't cancel the sale, they are 'out of my hands', so I'd say I have very little interest. If they go bad, it's an interesting question as to who owns them at that time,
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 22, 2016 18:21:10 GMT
If they go bad, it's an interesting question as to who owns them at that time, I would have thought that they must still be yours. What's your logic for thinking that there is any question about it?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 22, 2016 18:45:26 GMT
If they go bad, it's an interesting question as to who owns them at that time, I would have thought that they must still be yours. What's your logic for thinking that there is any question about it? Arguably, the person/platform receiving the interest at a particular time is responsible for defaults of the loan part. This position might be undermined by different scenarios of the particular case.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Mar 22, 2016 19:32:36 GMT
In an entirely unrelated domain my extremely limited experience of the law vs Ts&Cs is that in no way, ever, do Ts&cCs ever trump consumer protection law. Particularly given that the financial beneficiary of a loan part with the status "for sale", at least in terms of accrued interest, is SS. So I'm with GSV3MIaC in that I think were it to be tested (and lets hope it never needs to be) it would be "interesting".
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 22, 2016 19:58:16 GMT
In an entirely unrelated domain my extremely limited experience of the law vs Ts&Cs is that in no way, ever, do Ts&cCs ever trump consumer protection law. Particularly given that the financial beneficiary of a loan part with the status "for sale", at least in terms of accrued interest, is SS. So I'm with GSV3MIaC in that I think were it to be tested (and lets hope it never needs to be) it would be "interesting". If that were true then at the first sign of any trouble with a loan everyone would put their parts up for sale. And if it repaid whilst on the SM who would get the money - that defines the owner IMO.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Mar 22, 2016 21:16:10 GMT
registerme do we know for certain that SS is the beneficiary of any interest while a loan part is for sale? Laws aside, the T&Cs only say that lenders stop accruing/receiving interest on loan parts for sale; they don't say anything about SS being the beneficiary of such interest (although that may in fact be the case). As interest is held be SS at draw down, I assume that they don't return any 'spare'* upon loan completion, so SS must get it. * I am excluding interest for months which were not used, which I assume would be returned or used to reduce the termination fees.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Mar 22, 2016 21:16:38 GMT
littleoldlady , Please turn me over , both comments are fair, and I simply don't know the answer so thank you for calling me out on it  . EDIT: I have a little more time now so can relate what I was alluding to earlier. But before I start apologies in advance to SS. I'm sure this won't have been the first, and won't be the last time they've stumbled across "wannabee internet lawyers". (For the avoidance of any doubt that's me taking the mickey out of myself ). I'm also sure they taken their own legal advice..... Anyway, there's a US company called Valve that set up and ran the first online store for PC games. There are competitors now, but Valve and its service called Steam, have some ridiculous percentage of the market. For years Valve had Ts&Cs that basically said "we don't give refunds, we don't care, and if you dispute this you risk losing access to your account and all the games you've bought in the past". And they stuck to it, rigidly, for years, even when they'd sold products (games) that simply didn't work. And nobody. Ever. Got a refund. Eventually somebody had the time, the fortitude and the funds to fight it in court (I think it might have been in Australia first?). They won. Then the EU followed suit. And now Valve offer instant refunds just for the asking. The common understanding that, in this particular domain, arose out of this was that you can put whatever you like in Ts&Cs but ultimately they have no bearing on anything where they disagree with extant laws in a particular jurisdiction. Is it the same situation here? Absolutely not. But, assuming that SS are in effect the beneficial owner (because as we've seen we think that they earn any accrued interest whilst a part is up for sale), it could prove "interesting" should the particular circumstance arise whereby a loan defaults with parts for sale on the SM.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 22, 2016 22:07:54 GMT
littleoldlady , Please turn me over , both comments are fair, and I simply don't know the answer so thank you for calling me out on it . EDIT: I have a little more time now so can relate what I was alluding to earlier. But before I start apologies in advance to SS. I'm sure this won't have been the first, and won't be the last time they've stumbled across "wannabee internet lawyers". (For the avoidance of any doubt that's me taking the mickey out of myself ). I'm also sure they taken their own legal advice..... Anyway, there's a US company called Valve that set up and ran the first online store for PC games. There are competitors now, but Valve and its service called Steam, have some ridiculous percentage of the market. For years Valve had Ts&Cs that basically said "we don't give refunds, we don't care, and if you dispute this you risk losing access to your account and all the games you've bought in the past". And they stuck to it, rigidly, for years, even when they'd sold products (games) that simply didn't work. And nobody. Ever. Got a refund. Eventually somebody had the time, the fortitude and the funds to fight it in court (I think it might have been in Australia first?). They won. Then the EU followed suit. And now Valve offer instant refunds just for the asking. The common understanding that, in this particular domain, arose out of this was that you can put whatever you like in Ts&Cs but ultimately they have no bearing on anything where they disagree with extant laws in a particular jurisdiction. Is it the same situation here? Absolutely not. But, assuming that SS are in effect the beneficial owner (because as we've seen we think that they earn any accrued interest whilst a part is up for sale), it could prove "interesting" should the particular circumstance arise whereby a loan defaults with parts for sale on the SM. I take your point about T&Cs, but the fact is that the owner of a loan must be the person who is entitled to the capital when and if it is repaid. The interest is incidental IMO.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 22, 2016 23:41:55 GMT
I've been a lender on SS pretty much from the off, however, I've not been around to constantly monitor this fora in the past 5 or 6 months, so I'm ready to be stood corrected if I have missed something in my absence, but when the SM was introduced, Saving Stream stated that any unpaid interest during a loan parts sale period would be put towards sustaining the Provision Funds coverage of any future losses. JMHO - Personally, my thoughts are that displaying the full value of your investment until any part is sold is how it is, and how it needs to be. : Do you remember where this was said? There might be other information that can be useful.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 23, 2016 0:03:45 GMT
I've been a lender on SS pretty much from the off, however, I've not been around to constantly monitor this fora in the past 5 or 6 months, so I'm ready to be stood corrected if I have missed something in my absence, but when the SM was introduced, Saving Stream stated that any unpaid interest during a loan parts sale period would be put towards sustaining the Provision Funds coverage of any future losses. JMHO - Personally, my thoughts are that displaying the full value of your investment until any part is sold is how it is, and how it needs to be. : Do you remember where this was said? There might be other information that can be useful. Search function is your friend p2pindependentforum.com/post/11131/threadHowever, this was 9 months prior to the provision fund actually being created and there was no mention of it in the announcement p2pindependentforum.com/post/35213/thread
|
|
.
