|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 5, 2017 18:30:23 GMT
@hor1997 and others that are participating in this thread. A reminder to stay respectful to others and generally to keep within the forum rules.
Minimising the USE OF CAPITALS or even ELIMINATING THEM entirely is often a good first step to reducing the apparent noise levels. So is avoiding calling others thinking CRAZY. I think that is generally accepted in any language
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Sept 6, 2017 3:22:17 GMT
@hor1997 You say "Just now the LTV of this loan has already gone up to almost 80% (even allowing the initial valuation was correct, which is NOT the case in most cases within FS). This is NOT a healty proposition and in fact FS themselves don't go that far in any new loan. Why should lenders wait silently as you suggest? I am not sure what your aims are, but CERTAINLY FS IS ACTING AGAINST LAW in not calling this loan a default and take action and certainly is hiding very important news while not telling people this extremly long drag is pushing the LTV to untolerable levels."
There are actually 2 loans for this building and the LTV's were 53% and 69% at drawdown. Considering that the 53% loan was more than twice the size, I would think the LTV for the building has not even reached 70% yet. The other Londonderry loans with this borrower also have low LTV's.
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Sept 6, 2017 6:36:49 GMT
Do you realise what would happen if the HA or BoI retracts? The borrower would not care, as he has our money in the back. FS would not care much as it is not their money. The only ones to loose (and a LOT) would be us lenders. The broker has the duty to minimise the risks and cannot simply bet and wait for something undefined for an unknown period. I imagine the borrower certainly would care as he stands to make more money from the deal going through than if it fails. He has put in a considerable effort to obtain planning permission, his work would have been wasted and he would be facing repossession of his assets. FS would care because they want their fees for arranging the deal, if the loan is not repaid then FS will lose their earnings on the deal. Any lender that loses a LOT should ask their self if they are diversifying their P2P investments enough to mitigate losses on individual loans. The broker has a duty to oversee the best outcome, in this instance whilst the BOI and HA are still indicating their intention of completing the deal the best outcome is that the deal completes. The borrower has set out his apple cart admirably, he has added value to the property by obtaining permission for a niche development that meets the future development needs of the HA, let's not upset his apple cart unless we are told that BOI or HA are not going to honour their pledges.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Sept 6, 2017 6:36:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 6, 2017 8:48:59 GMT
Do you realise what would happen if the HA or BoI retracts? The borrower would not care, as he has our money in the back. FS would not care much as it is not their money. The only ones to loose (and a LOT) would be us lenders. The broker has the duty to minimise the risks and cannot simply bet and wait for something undefined for an unknown period. I imagine the borrower certainly would care as he stands to make more money from the deal going through than if it fails. He has put in a considerable effort to obtain planning permission, his work would have been wasted and he would be facing repossession of his assets. FS would care because they want their fees for arranging the deal, if the loan is not repaid then FS will lose their earnings on the deal.Any lender that loses a LOT should ask their self if they are diversifying their P2P investments enough to mitigate losses on individual loans. The broker has a duty to oversee the best outcome, in this instance whilst the BOI and HA are still indicating their intention of completing the deal the best outcome is that the deal completes. The borrower has set out his apple cart admirably, he has added value to the property by obtaining permission for a niche development that meets the future development needs of the HA, let's not upset his apple cart unless we are told that BOI or HA are not going to honour their pledges. My bold... Not sure about that statement, i would imagine that FS will take their fees up front, as will any brokers who may be involved, i'm sure FS will charge the borrower penalty interest if the loan over-runs, which they will lose, they may well be 'not bothered' about our earnings from a loan, but i'm sure they will not jeopardize their's.
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Sept 7, 2017 8:11:53 GMT
I imagine the borrower certainly would care as he stands to make more money from the deal going through than if it fails. He has put in a considerable effort to obtain planning permission, his work would have been wasted and he would be facing repossession of his assets. FS would care because they want their fees for arranging the deal, if the loan is not repaid then FS will lose their earnings on the deal.Any lender that loses a LOT should ask their self if they are diversifying their P2P investments enough to mitigate losses on individual loans. The broker has a duty to oversee the best outcome, in this instance whilst the BOI and HA are still indicating their intention of completing the deal the best outcome is that the deal completes. The borrower has set out his apple cart admirably, he has added value to the property by obtaining permission for a niche development that meets the future development needs of the HA, let's not upset his apple cart unless we are told that BOI or HA are not going to honour their pledges. My bold... Not sure about that statement, i would imagine that FS will take their fees up front, as will any brokers who may be involved, i'm sure FS will charge the borrower penalty interest if the loan over-runs, which they will lose, they may well be 'not bothered' about our earnings from a loan, but i'm sure they will not jeopardize their's. Have some pity on me Martin, I'm already struggling putting hor1997 right FS Terms & Conditions 6.2.5 Net proceeds of sale of Assets shall be used to settle amounts due in the following order: 1} Principal amount of Loan which was funded by, and is repayable to, the Investors (allocated pro rata in accordance with the proportion of the Loan amount which each Investor invested); 2) Direct costs incurred by FundingSecure through the setting up and the administration of the Loan including, but not limited to, storage costs, referral fees and valuation fees up to the date of sale; 3) Interest due to the Investors up to the date of sale (allocated pro rata in accordance with the proportion of the Loan amount which each Investor invested); 4) Administration fees due to FundingSecure not recovered through clause 6.2.5(ii) above; 5) The balance (if any) will be returned to the Borrower.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Sept 7, 2017 8:29:46 GMT
Have some pity on me Martin, I'm already struggling putting hor1997 right It's not often that I quote TV soaps, but .... "Leave it out Phil, he's not worth it!"
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Sept 7, 2017 11:50:08 GMT
Have some pity on me Martin, I'm already struggling putting hor1997 right It's not often that I quote TV soaps, but .... "Leave it out Phil, he's not worth it!" oh, you are awful...but I like you
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Sept 7, 2017 16:59:41 GMT
@hor1997 You say "Just now the LTV of this loan has already gone up to almost 80% (even allowing the initial valuation was correct, which is NOT the case in most cases within FS). This is NOT a healty proposition and in fact FS themselves don't go that far in any new loan. Why should lenders wait silently as you suggest? I am not sure what your aims are, but CERTAINLY FS IS ACTING AGAINST LAW in not calling this loan a default and take action and certainly is hiding very important news while not telling people this extremly long drag is pushing the LTV to untolerable levels."There are actually 2 loans for this building and the LTV's were 53% and 69% at drawdown. Considering that the 53% loan was more than twice the size, I would think the LTV for the building has not even reached 70% yet. The other Londonderry loans with this borrower also have low LTV's. And why wold you mix the two? Do we have clauses of cross-securitasation in these loans? Why would you talk about the ltv of the whole building? Each separate loan has separate securities!!!! I've worked out a theory all by myself but I daresay you can shoot holes in it ... it could be because both loans are intended to be redeemed from the same source, if that source doesn't honour it's pledge then there's a good chance that both loans won't be redeemed in which case the whole building will be actioned against. So the joint LTV is pertinent for people such as your good self who are of the opinion the borrower should be actioned against
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 7, 2017 17:14:59 GMT
@hor1997 English may not be your first language but you do claim to be very fluent in it. Your post www.p2pindependentforum.com/post/213607 uses language which accuses parties of illegal activity. Please amend unless you are prepared to provide evidence to back that up.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 7, 2017 18:35:15 GMT
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Sept 7, 2017 19:35:37 GMT
@hor1997 You say "Just now the LTV of this loan has already gone up to almost 80% (even allowing the initial valuation was correct, which is NOT the case in most cases within FS). This is NOT a healty proposition and in fact FS themselves don't go that far in any new loan. Why should lenders wait silently as you suggest? I am not sure what your aims are, but CERTAINLY FS IS ACTING AGAINST LAW in not calling this loan a default and take action and certainly is hiding very important news while not telling people this extremly long drag is pushing the LTV to untolerable levels."There are actually 2 loans for this building and the LTV's were 53% and 69% at drawdown. Considering that the 53% loan was more than twice the size, I would think the LTV for the building has not even reached 70% yet. The other Londonderry loans with this borrower also have low LTV's. And why wold you mix the two? Do we have clauses of cross-securitasation in these loans? Why would you talk about the ltv of the whole building? Each separate loan has separate securities!!!! Because the borrower bought the ground floor of the building in order to provide better access, and therefore enhance the value of the upper floors.
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 7, 2017 22:07:52 GMT
My bold... Not sure about that statement, i would imagine that FS will take their fees up front, as will any brokers who may be involved, i'm sure FS will charge the borrower penalty interest if the loan over-runs, which they will lose, they may well be 'not bothered' about our earnings from a loan, but i'm sure they will not jeopardize their's. Have some pity on me Martin, I'm already struggling putting hor1997 right FS Terms & Conditions 6.2.5 Net proceeds of sale of Assets shall be used to settle amounts due in the following order: 1} Principal amount of Loan which was funded by, and is repayable to, the Investors (allocated pro rata in accordance with the proportion of the Loan amount which each Investor invested); 2) Direct costs incurred by FundingSecure through the setting up and the administration of the Loan including, but not limited to, storage costs, referral fees and valuation fees up to the date of sale; 3) Interest due to the Investors up to the date of sale (allocated pro rata in accordance with the proportion of the Loan amount which each Investor invested); 4) Administration fees due to FundingSecure not recovered through clause 6.2.5(ii) above; 5) The balance (if any) will be returned to the Borrower. phil .. fully appreciated edit.... and best of luck.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Sept 8, 2017 7:13:04 GMT
Because the borrower bought the ground floor of the building in order to provide better access, and therefore enhance the value of the upper floors. Unfortunately, there is zero mention of this in any of the official commenting or documents of loan 1205065729, which clearly states that the only security for the loan is the ground floor. You have to be careful not to confuse your hopes with the reality written in a loan. Loan 1205065729 has now an LTV approaching 80%, a security which might not be sufficient to repay the loan and FS is doing absolutely nothing to stop the bomb clock ticking... The clue is in the General Information of loan 2437319925 which states: "Borrower was originally awarded a contract to design and build a total of 16 apartments by a Northern Ireland housing association. This has subsequyently been increased to 24 apartments by purchasing part of the ground floor, allowing additional access."
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Sept 8, 2017 11:24:10 GMT
I've worked out a theory all by myself but I daresay you can shoot holes in it ... it could be because both loans are intended to be redeemed from the same source, if that source doesn't honour it's pledge then there's a good chance that both loans won't be redeemed in which case the whole building will be actioned against. So the joint LTV is pertinent for people such as your good self who are of the opinion the borrower should be actioned against What a nice theory. But.... this is not what the default procedure indicate... In case of default, each set of securities will follow its own independent path with an administrator committed solely to cover the single loan it is secured against that property. In simple terms. Say auction GROUND FLOOR achieves 70k GBP net of fees and auction first floor gets 60k GBP net of fees (i..e lowish results for the auctions), the lenders of 1205065729 will get a loss of 44% of their initial capital (and forget any interest) and the other lenders will get a loss too (even if much smaller). They will NOT share their losses or share the results of the two separate sales. Of course one of the actions that FS can take to strenghten the case of loan 1205065729 is to ask a full cross-securitisation of the building against all loans. But lenders of the loans secured against the top floor might sue them as changing the terms after loan ended (even worst in pre-default procedure) FS made their cases/loans much weaker "sharing" the security with a weaker loan. What a serious company would do instead is to ask the borrower an additional extra securiy to add to both loans or to the weaker loan as a support for the long extension in order to keep the LTV still under control (and default the loan immediately if the borrower refuses/cannot offer anything else). FS has not done this. I wasn't suggesting that lenders in the ground floor receive funds from the upper floors, what I'm suggesting is the combined LTV is pertinent because if the borrower is actioned against he can be sued for the remaining balance of the upper floor should it achieve a selling price higher than the debt. The upper floors were valued at over £500k, 53% LTV, I know FS valuations are sometimes out of whack but quite ridiculous of you to suggest £60k in an auction. It is possible for lenders to place charging orders over debtors property even if that property was never offered as security for the debt. To default these loans if the borrower is unable to offer further security while BOI and HA are still indicating they're going to honour the deal will only increase the risk of loss to FS investors, I can't see the sense in that.
|
|