cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on May 31, 2016 14:21:53 GMT
My vote is; No, not at all. It will be SS business as normal for me'Interestingly', the numbers following the Saving Stream thread on this forum board, at 59 this morning, is more than all the p2p lenders combined. The 'interest' in Saving Stream continues to rise... BTW, it is called compound interest.  Damn it... I clicked on your picture (on my phone) and subsequently spent 5 minutes trying to click on the links!!! 
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 31, 2016 18:30:42 GMT
'Interestingly', the numbers following the Saving Stream thread on this forum board, at 59 this morning, is more than all the p2p lenders combined. I assume you meant 'other' in there somewhere, but yes, this demonstrates that (as PT Barnum was rumoured to have said) there really is no such thing as bad publicity**; or maybe just that headless chickens are an unmissable spectacle. 8>. I think the number of votes in this poll also set some sort of record .. although maybe not all of them are SS investors? ** "except in your obituary", as some wag has since added.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 18:51:08 GMT
Well there is over £ 68,000 on sale right now, and so far today the sales amount to precisely £66.04 . That's a long "week" your're talking about  Well, I think all the investors who put up their share of the loan for sale on the first day sold it and probably also those on the second day. And this was in itself already a good sign. Of course, given the size, the demand will diminuish as people who wanted to buy probably had plenty by now... Some of the sales will also depend on the 'news' from the recovery side (as happened with pbl07).
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jun 2, 2016 2:08:23 GMT
Even under the old terms and conditions I do not think it stated they would be paid back before they had sold the asset just that SS would cover any shortfalls but I do not see mention of interest once it has gone into default. To quote Lendy in relation to their change of conditions to a more P2P structure: " Because of the fact that this will now be a true P2P platform, the onus of repayment lies with the borrower and is no longer covered by Lendy Ltd’s corporate guarantee. However the Provision Fund will continue to provide discretionary reimbursement for any losses.
...
Lenders lent to Lendy Ltd who then lent to the borrower
...
When you invested in a loan, we kept detailed records of this, but an administrator may consider it a pari passu risk (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pari-passu.asp) in the event of Lendy Ltd’s (highly unlikely) bankruptcy. One bad loan, could in theory, undermine the rest.
...
Lendy Ltd was responsible for covering all repayments and shortfalls as it was both the
borrower and the lender
...
Lendy Ltd no longer have any direct responsibility for covering any shortfalls. Lendy Ltd will return to the Lenders whatever comes back in following disposal of the asset.
...
If a loan went into Default, Lendy Ltd continued to pay interest at the normal rate of 1% per month.
...
NEW STRUCTURE
SS Lenders will continue to earn interest, but it will accrue, rather than be paid on a monthly basis out of Lendy Ltd’s working capital." Those statements by Lendy appear to be an accurate statement of the position as Lendy represented it for old loans like this one, correctly identifying the responsibilities to pay, the corporate guarantee and that Lendy will continue to pay the interest. Whatever is in those old Terms and Conditions, it's not what Lendy was telling investors the position was for those loans and lenders are entitled to rely on official statements by a firm. Or in more simple terms: if you say in big print and repeated communication that you're liable and will pay the interest and capital, you can't get out of it by having an out of date set of terms and conditions set up for a different type of loan with a no we don't have to do what we told you we'd do clause. Remember that modifications to terms and conditions for a loan of this age have to comply with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and a change that says the borrower, Lendy, no longer has to stick to its obligations doesn't look like something that would be a fair term - one party can't go around reducing its liabilities to the other party arbitrarily just before the other party is about to benefit from them. It'd also not be something that looks like treating their investors fairly. in a nutshell that's my issue: can I trust this platform to stick to the representations that it made at the time it offered to borrow from investors or not? Defaults by ultimate borrowers are a fact of life but platforms not sticking to the terms of the investments they offer is not. If I think I can't trust a platform to stick to the terms agreed in big print then I won't consider it safe to use the platform.
|
|
