littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jun 2, 2016 9:59:31 GMT
If you would like to post your own estimate (to one decimal place) I will donate a Moneything style prize to the closest. Void if 100% is returned. Winner collects.
So after 83 votes 77% think there will be a 100% return of capital, one way or another. This at least explains why so much has been bought on the SM after it went into default. Let's all hope that the optimists are right.
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Jun 2, 2016 10:29:17 GMT
73%
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 2, 2016 10:32:15 GMT
So you don't think the PF will payout then?
|
|
jimbob
Member of DD Central
Posts: 317 
Likes: 74
|
Post by jimbob on Jun 2, 2016 10:39:52 GMT
100% of my penny in. It will provide a good "test" at any rate, I'm not holding out hope for any interest though  For the competition can I go 90.00% returned with the PF making up the shortfall to 100%  ? |
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jun 2, 2016 10:40:56 GMT
So you don't think the PF will payout then? 1) The PF is discretionary. 2) There is some doubt whether or not cash is ring fenced in a separate account or the PF is merely an accounting entry as part of SS's working capital. 3) SS would be justified IMO in not over-depleting the PF so that it was not available for other loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Jun 2, 2016 10:41:44 GMT
So you don't think the PF will payout then? Nope, just picked a number at random (it's how I always choose my investments) ;-)
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 2, 2016 10:55:50 GMT
So you don't think the PF will payout then? 1) The PF is discretionary. 2) There is some doubt whether or not cash is ring fenced in a separate account or the PF is merely an accounting entry as part of SS's working capital. 3) SS would be justified IMO in not over-depleting the PF so that it was not available for other loans. Yes we all know the PF is discretionary. But what would be the point in the PF if it didn't pay out? SS has always said the PF WOULD payout, why all the doubt all of a sudden? I SS blocked the PF from paying out with little reason, then members could take a dim view. If we had several other defaults, then the argument for not depleting the PF would be valid, at the moment the PF looks set to pay out, but in 12 months, the PF may not be in a position to payout. Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 2, 2016 11:10:52 GMT
i've gone for ... 100% of capital because SS use PF.. looking at the latest update from SS , i think they are of a mind to ensure all capital is repaid.  but interest  i doubt very much. |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 2, 2016 11:34:17 GMT
About 75 to 80% with the sale of the asset and then how much do they use the provision funds to top people up.
I have to say I think there would be an outcry if they raided the provision fund to such a big extent that it was left weak and meaningless for all the other investors who weren't invested in that one loan.
To me the purpose of the provisions fund is to ensure that nobody suffers any serious financial losses, it can't be expected to ensure nobody ever suffers any financial loss whatsoever and that's why if a sale can be achieved of this place and it's enough to give people 75% or more of their money back then I think that it should be left at that and the provision fund should be kept intact as a castle of strength for the future because there will be worse defaults than this one with more money involved and where not as much is recoverable you can be sure of that and do we want to deplete the provision fund just to top a few people up.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 2, 2016 11:35:25 GMT
1) The PF is discretionary. 2) There is some doubt whether or not cash is ring fenced in a separate account or the PF is merely an accounting entry as part of SS's working capital. 3) SS would be justified IMO in not over-depleting the PF so that it was not available for other loans. Yes we all know the PF is discretionary. But what would be the point in the PF if it didn't pay out? SS has always said the PF WOULD payout, why all the doubt all of a sudden? I SS blocked the PF from paying out with little reason, then members could take a dim view. If we had several other defaults, then the argument for not depleting the PF would be valid, at the moment the PF looks set to pay out, but in 12 months, the PF may not be in a position to payout. Time will tell. Perhaps timing ought to be a factor in the poll, IMO it is doubtful there will be an early resolution to the Administration
|
|
goopy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 307
Likes: 144
|
Post by goopy on Jun 2, 2016 11:39:23 GMT
100% capital and interest. SS want to keep their good name....
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 2, 2016 11:45:48 GMT
Oh yes with all the specialities and complications in the mix here i can't imagine this will be sorted out in less than a year and it could even take nearer 2 years. It won't be a quick ladies and gentlemen.
I would be very surprised indeed if any of the investors saw any of their money before Christmas. Next Christmas maybe.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jun 2, 2016 11:46:46 GMT
100%
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jun 2, 2016 14:12:42 GMT
About 75 to 80% with the sale of the asset and then how much do they use the provision funds to top people up. I have to say I think there would be an outcry if they raided the provision fund to such a big extent that it was left weak and meaningless for all the other investors who weren't invested in that one loan. To me the purpose of the provisions fund is to ensure that nobody suffers any serious financial losses, it can't be expected to ensure nobody ever suffers any financial loss whatsoever and that's why if a sale can be achieved of this place and it's enough to give people 75% or more of their money back then I think that it should be left at that and the provision fund should be kept intact as a castle of strength for the future because there will be worse defaults than this one with more money involved and where not as much is recoverable you can be sure of that and do we want to deplete the provision fund just to top a few people up. SS have put themselves into an awkward position with the way they're operating the PF. If they had put 2% of every loan in and left it there, the PF balance would build up in the good times and go down when defaults occur. Whenever there was need for PF support, the trustees could look at the balance and their perception of future needs and decide how much support to pay out. I would consider that the 'normal' way to run a PF. Instead, SS have withdrawn from the PF every time a loan was repaid successfully, so that the PF balance always is 2% of the portfolio. So what are they going to do if a PF payout is made? Well, they've said they intend to top the balance back up to the 2% level! If they actually do that, then every PF payout effectively comes from SS/Lendy resources. And since the PF trustees are connected to SS/Lendy rather than being truly independent, it means they have a huge conflict of interest when payout decisions are required. ISTM that approach isn't reasonable or sustainable, but that's JMHO.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jun 4, 2016 15:21:44 GMT
I have to say I think there would be an outcry if they raided the provision fund to such a big extent that it was left weak and meaningless for all the other investors who weren't invested in that one loan. That's inevitable when the typical loan sizes are large compared to the size of the fund. It's a different world from consumer lending where each individual loan will be small compared to fund size. In the big case the fund payouts will be very lumpy with significant chance variation in money flows depending on which loans have trouble. In the consumer side it's less about individual loan probabilities than the whole loan book probability because. One of the tasks of a protection fund in the big loan case is to smooth the risks for investors and shift them closer to the average.
|
|
?
but interest 
i doubt very much.
