|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 9, 2016 11:42:12 GMT
am : It's fine to suggest that potential investors should check the details, but how could we have done that in this particular case? With regards to the status/identity of the borrower, you use the Q&A tab, or you email SS. (I made the other, and conservative, assumption that the borrower was using a incorporated limited liability vehicle.) I have great sympathy with mikes1531 point but in the vast majority of cases if not all the borrower for these types of loans are Limited companies and usually one set up for the purpose , a "SPV" or special purpose vehicle. Therefore unless the particulars specifically state that there is a personal or third party guarantee then it would be unwise to assume the debt will be backed by anything else than the assets it is being used to finance. By number (and possibly value) most P2P loans are to individuals but that is because of the retail nature of RS & Z. Perhaps P2P is a misnomer for sites such SS (and FS AC A etc)
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563 
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Jun 9, 2016 11:58:07 GMT
All you headless chickens and conspiracy theorists... the exit is THAT way -> .. and I went thataway a week ago For those who are still in, it might be useful to know in which loans SS have an equity stake.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jun 9, 2016 12:14:15 GMT
savingstream In which other current loans does Lendy have any ownership of the company which took out the loan? Will Lendy, (as does Broadoak) be subordinating its stake (10% as in the garden centre loan) behind retail lenders in circumstances of default and subsequent <100% recovery of lenders' capital and accrued interest?
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Jun 9, 2016 12:31:19 GMT
savingstream In which other current loans does Lendy have any ownership of the company which took out the loan? Will Lendy, (as does Broadoak) be subordinating its stake (10% as in the garden centre loan) behind retail lenders in circumstances of default and subsequent <100% recovery of lenders' capital and accrued interest?
Isn't equity always behind creditors in these circumstances - or am I missing something in your question?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jun 9, 2016 12:32:45 GMT
Yes, I suppose so. Having a 10% in the equity is not the same as providing 10% of the loan money.
|
|
|
|
Post by lb on Jun 9, 2016 12:33:49 GMT
savingstream In which other current loans does Lendy have any ownership of the company which took out the loan? Will Lendy, (as does Broadoak) be subordinating its stake (10% as in the garden centre loan) behind retail lenders in circumstances of default and subsequent <100% recovery of lenders' capital and accrued interest? 10% ownership of the borrower is totally different to 10% ownership of the loan ... The value of their 10% stake in the borrower is quite obviously worth 0
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Jun 9, 2016 12:45:32 GMT
Yes, I suppose so. Having a 10% in the equity is not the same as providing 10% of the loan money. But it surely affects your viewpoint as to whether to struggle on in hope or to call it in now
|
|
|
|
Post by lb on Jun 9, 2016 12:59:25 GMT
Yes, I suppose so. Having a 10% in the equity is not the same as providing 10% of the loan money. But it surely affects your viewpoint as to whether to struggle on in hope or to call it in now you're surely not suggesting a conflict of interests ....
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Jun 9, 2016 13:06:58 GMT
But it surely affects your viewpoint as to whether to struggle on in hope or to call it in now you're surely not suggesting a conflict of interests .... More stating the bleedin' obvious
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 9, 2016 13:15:30 GMT
But it surely affects your viewpoint as to whether to struggle on in hope or to call it in now you're surely not suggesting a conflict of interests .... You might think that I could not possibly comment 
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jun 9, 2016 14:17:37 GMT
On the poll 60-80% has now caught up with those who think that it will be 100% because it's on the old T&C. Three quarters think it will be 100% one way or another.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jun 9, 2016 22:01:05 GMT
I don't know if I'm allowed to post the link (http://gardencentreretail.com/xxxxxxxxxxx-administration), but the property has been put up for sale Here, you can't post any links that would identify the ultimate borrower nor even include text strings in posts where a trivial web search would get from the string to that borrower. For example, one post originally contained an ID code that at Google had exactly one search result which was to the Companies House information for the firm. Meanwhile in another place that URL to Companies House is entirely fine for posting and has been posted. That other place would also have no issues with things like links to planning documents. You might find that your own post ends up being further redacted because it's pretty trivially easy to get from it to the borrower identity. Catch is that the relevant things have all been mentioned individually before so the same is possible without what your post says. There are only so many properties matching particular details at assorted sites and ultimately if enough details are plugged in the single matching answer comes out at the other end. Which gives moderators a challenge in deciding where to put the redaction line. It's one of the generally thankless judgement calls for moderators and dumping it in their hands and letting them make the call is one approach.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jun 9, 2016 22:21:06 GMT
I don't know if I'm allowed to post the link (http://gardencentreretail.com/xxxxxxxxxxx-administration), but the property has been put up for sale Here, you can't post any links that would identify the ultimate borrower nor even include text strings in posts where a trivial web search would get from the string to that borrower. For example, one post originally contained an ID code that at Google had exactly one search result which was to the Companies House information for the firm. Meanwhile in another place that URL to Companies House is entirely fine for posting and has been posted. That other place would also have no issues with things like links to planning documents. You might find that your own post ends up being further redacted because it's pretty trivially easy to get from it to the borrower identity. Catch is that the relevant things have all been mentioned individually before so the same is possible without what your post says. There are only so many properties matching particular details at assorted sites and ultimately if enough details are plugged in the single matching answer comes out at the other end. Which gives moderators a challenge in deciding where to put the redaction line. It's one of the generally thankless judgement calls for moderators and dumping it in their hands and letting them make the call is one approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 9, 2016 23:09:04 GMT
The forum rules state that we can't name Borrowers unless that information is already publicly accessible and it defines that as saying that means if you can access that information without being a logged in member of a particular website such as saving stream.
That's why it confuses me that we can't name the actual name of the garden centre on here because anyone can access that information consistently without being a member of saving stream. That is because anything that is available to invest in is available to the wider public on the invest page without being logged in to saving stream website.
Given this loan is in default and there is masses available and has been for the last two weeks the name of the garden centre is available freely to anybody and not just saving stream registered users so in accordance with the forum rules I don't understand why we can't even name the garden centre without it being crossed out with a lot of asterixes.
To require the name of the garden centre as shown on the saving stream website to non SS members to be censored is a conflict with the forum rules in my opinion.
I have no intention of naming it on here because we all know it but various people posting here or moderators have gone to the trouble of inserting a lot of asterixes when the forum rules would seem to allow that name to be posted.
I would add that moderating a forum is a thankless unpaid task and sometimes you can't win for losing and I have been in that position myself albeit on a very different forum. Whether we agree with the moderation or not it is a fact that the Internet is a crazy place and without moderators any forum would soon descend into chaos and die and therefore we should be thankful to the moderators whether we agree with their decisions or not
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jun 9, 2016 23:09:37 GMT
in this case I just decided to remove the entire post and the following post that quoted it. You will please some of the people all of the time, and some of the people none of the time, what you won't do is please all of the people all of the time.... Indeed. My view on this particular case is now more aligned with a past UK Supreme Court decision which lifted a ban on publication on the grounds that the information covered by the ban was thoroughly public already, so it served no useful purpose.*1 In a more recent case protection of children caused them to go the other way for a ban in England and Wales even though papers in Scotland and web sites globally had the information readily available.*2 *1: the Giggs case for example, where the person was named in Parliament. *2: the film producer husband of a well known male pianist and singer is reported to have had a three way sexual encounter involving another businessman and in this case the decision was taken to protect the children of the marriage from learning of the encounter other than from the parents. Which I think is likely to be entirely futile given what children normally do at school and provides a highly undesirable incentive to set out to make the children aware to remove the justification for the continuing ban.
|
|
