sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 10, 2016 21:37:58 GMT
Do you have evidence that SS didn't consider this loan to have been paid for? No, but as my transfers have always been made, to the penny, for what I have bought on that day or the previous day, why would they when no transfer was made for the same amount? Suppose you buy loan A for £100 and loan B for £123. You later decide only to keep loan B, selling loan A, and so transfer in £123. Although it's clear to you that the £123 payment was intended for loan B, this is hardly unambiguous, and SS's systems may well decide that the first £100 was deemed to have "paid for" loan A (with loan B subsequently "paid for" in part by selling loan A). ... I can think of a time when I bought one loan part, then bought a better one the next day before paying for the first one, so I sold the first one. As "the first one" was never paid for, surely you have no right to any interest - so if you check the statement for the last day of that month, you'll be able to see if you did in fact get interest, or whether it was merely accrued but never paid (to you).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 21:51:17 GMT
There are lots of grey areas, if you buy loan part A, but pay by selling loan part B the next day, you will gain extra interest.
There are good reasons to do the above occasionally, like when you buy new loan parts by pre-funding, but constantly churning parts should be easy for SS to pick up on.
|
|
brin
I am trying to stay calm.
Posts: 379
Likes: 69
|
Post by brin on Apr 10, 2016 22:03:44 GMT
does this work...
person A buys 100k and holds for a day.and then lists for sale on day 2
person B buys the 100k and hold for a day and then lists for sale on day 2
person C buys the 100k and hold for a day and then lists for sale on day 2
etc
etc
each day makes £33
persons A.B.C all have 100k existing holdings.
but actually... no one ever parts with any money
|
|
brin
I am trying to stay calm.
Posts: 379
Likes: 69
|
Post by brin on Apr 10, 2016 22:13:49 GMT
does this work... person A buys 100k and holds for a day.and then lists for sale on day 2 person B buys the 100k and hold for a day and then lists for sale on day 2 person C buys the 100k and hold for a day and then lists for sale on day 2 etc etc each day makes £33 persons A.B.C all have 100k existing holdings. Theoretically, yes, but it would be pretty blatant, and spotted from a mile off. Remember, 'person A' would only require 'person B' etc, if the holdings weren't sold within a day or two, which doesn't happen often on SS. fully 100% agree... but my question .. some considerable time ago.. is this happening?.. i somehow think it is.
|
|
brin
I am trying to stay calm.
Posts: 379
Likes: 69
|
Post by brin on Apr 10, 2016 22:34:08 GMT
does this work... person A buys 100k and holds for a day.and then lists for sale on day 2 person B buys the 100k and hold for a day and then lists for sale on day 2 person C buys the 100k and hold for a day and then lists for sale on day 2 etc etc each day makes £33 persons A.B.C all have 100k existing holdings. Theoretically, yes, but it would be pretty blatant, and spotted from a mile off. Remember, 'person A' would only require 'person B' etc, if the holdings weren't sold within a day or two, which doesn't happen often on SS. hi money.. my point is persons A, B AND C are all in on it.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Apr 11, 2016 0:04:53 GMT
Theoretically, yes, but it would be pretty blatant, and spotted from a mile off. Remember, 'person A' would only require 'person B' etc, if the holdings weren't sold within a day or two, which doesn't happen often on SS. hi money.. my point is persons A, B AND C are all in on it. You only need two people let's say a husband and wife where the husband controls both accounts. Let's call them A and B. A buys £100k, on day 1, sells it to B on day 2. Then day 3 A buys it back, day 4, B buys it back, ad infinitum Both accounts would always clear the deficit within 24 hours, and the £100k would always be earning money, despite not being paid for. Again blatantly obvious to spot. And why do it and get banned, and lose £200k x 12% of interest(both accounts would need £100k in them) Brin your imagination is getting the better of you.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Apr 11, 2016 5:06:08 GMT
This has been discussed 'once or twice' before.... If you think you have evidence of what would effectively be fraud, can I suggest bringing it up directly with SS, not on a public forum?
Beyond that, please consider the potential outcome from public discussion on this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Apr 11, 2016 7:03:39 GMT
Bear in mind SS is small - 7,300 investors - they probably reconcile payments manually - it is inconceivable that SS wouldn't notice anything systematic happening either in terms of transactions or linked lenders
Jack P
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 11, 2016 7:10:07 GMT
Theoretically, yes, but it would be pretty blatant, and spotted from a mile off. Remember, 'person A' would only require 'person B' etc, if the holdings weren't sold within a day or two, which doesn't happen often on SS. fully 100% agree... but my question .. some considerable time ago.. is this happening?.. i somehow think it is. Whether or not it is happening is largely irrelevant - the immediate effect is only to have "accrued" interest appear on the "sold" loan parts. The interest is NOT credited automatically at the end of the month - before crediting the interest on the first working day of the month, SS have some kind of process that they run to check for scenarios where interest shouldn't be credited. It seems that part of this process causes the automated emails telling people to resolve their negative balance, which causes the grumpier members of this forum to complain that they got this "please resolve negative balance" email that would have been completely unnecessary if the interest had been credited first... Undoubtedly another part of the process will do some kind of sanity check that the total interest is within the expected range for the amount of money invested in the account. Any significant cheating can be readily detected if the total interest that appears to be due is larger than 1% of the average balance of the account during the month. Whilst I don't know the exact details of the checks that SS undoubtedly do, they are certainly doing some, and it's hardly any more difficult to detect than to come up with these bright ideas (which someone seems to think they were the first one to think of every single month...!) Edit: You also, from time to time, hear about "housekeeping" activities - where SS are cancelling accounts that have been abusing the system. In such circumstances, all of the loan parts are cancelled and you don't get any interest. We also have the limits that were introduced recently, where new investors can only cheat the system for a maximum of £10k, which limits the systemic damage of such abuse. I'd generally suggest making sure your own account is operated "properly", and letting SS figure out the best way to deal with the abusers... as they're ultimately the ones who'll end up bankrolling the not-paid-for loan parts, and also the ones with the data to indicate who was to blame. I'd suggested before that introducing an explicit "settlement date" (rather than a vague "settle the balances within 48 hours" that can be abused by selling loan parts within 48 hours that themselves only need to be settled within 48 hours, etc...) would improve matters - if you're selling loan parts to pay for "yesterday's" purchases, you'd need to use a shorter settlement time than "normal" (which would be more attractive to those buyers who have spare cash, as they start earning interest earlier).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 7:47:46 GMT
Good thing about a quiet secondary market is that it's easier to spot certain activity.
Notice k*******1 regularly buys the same parts of DFL002, is he selling these to another account then buying them back again ?
14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,481.57
14/04/2016 k*******1 £93.22
14/04/2016 k*******1 £5,000.00
14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,827.60
14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,063.82
14/04/2016 k*******1 £1,289.62
Seen him doing this with other loan parts too.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Apr 14, 2016 7:56:39 GMT
Good thing about a quiet secondary market is that it's easier to spot certain activity. Notice k*******1 regularly buys the same parts of DFL002, is he selling these to another account then buying them back again ? 14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,481.57 14/04/2016 k*******1 £93.22 14/04/2016 k*******1 £5,000.00 14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,827.60 14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,063.82 14/04/2016 k*******1 £1,289.62 Seen him doing this with other loan parts too. Certainly looks like strange buying behaviour.
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922 
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Apr 14, 2016 8:06:31 GMT
Good thing about a quiet secondary market is that it's easier to spot certain activity. Notice k*******1 regularly buys the same parts of DFL002, is he selling these to another account then buying them back again ? 14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,481.57 14/04/2016 k*******1 £93.22 14/04/2016 k*******1 £5,000.00 14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,827.60 14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,063.82 14/04/2016 k*******1 £1,289.62 Seen him doing this with other loan parts too. Maybe I'm not awake enough yet... but why are you saying he's buying the same parts? We can't see what he might be selling. Maybe he wants a LOT of DFL002 and is simply buying it whenever he sees it...and if he's not buying all that's available at any one point maybe he's gradually selling other loans in order to do so? Or maybe I'm not awake enough yet and am missing something else...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 8:13:41 GMT
As well as k*******1, w*******1 and n*******1 have been surprisingly busy when there is nothing on the secondary market.
- on 060
14/04/2016 w*********1 £16,844.80
14/04/2016 n******1 £16,843.40
14/04/2016 n******1 £1.40
14/04/2016 w*********1 £16,844.24
14/04/2016 w*********1 £0.5
-on 059
14/04/2016 w*********1 £4,999.49
-on 064
14/04/2016 w*********1 £2,366.40
14/04/2016 w*********1 £12,335.56
-0n 65
14/04/2016 k*******1 £5,000.00
14/04/2016 k*******1 £5,000.00
-on 066
14/04/2016 k*******1 £1,017.00
14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,000.00
14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,032.29
-on 067
14/04/2016 k*******1 £4,000.00
14/04/2016 k*******1 £4,000.00
14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,000.00
14/04/2016 k*******1 £43.10
14/04/2016 w*********1 £3,292.00
-0n 068
14/04/2016 w*********1 £23,039.41
-On 069
14/04/2016 w*********1 £31,371.86
-On 071
14/04/2016 k*******1 £1,931.01
14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,064.00
14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,145.00
14/04/2016 k*******1 £2,043.00
- On 084
14/04/2016 w*********1 £25,000.00
- On 085
14/04/2016 w*********1 £22,000.84
Not bad for a mornings trading, when there is nothing to trade.
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Apr 14, 2016 8:31:37 GMT
Well obviously there HAS been stuff on the SM for those prepared to look for it....
I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but still possible there's a "reasonable" explanation....and if anyone is trying to shift money around, they're not likely to be very successful when there's not much on the market
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 8:34:39 GMT
Curious activity on a quiet day, Saving Stream could easily see if these accounts are regularly playing the 'easy money' game.
|
|
