sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697 
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jun 6, 2016 13:06:30 GMT
I wonder if a couple of hit hitters have over-ordered on the two recent loans, and now don't have the funds to clear. Hence a dump of their older loans to cover their positions? A planned re-balancing. The two loans on Friday were the first decent sized ones (£1m+) for about 3 weeks. Everything in between had been tiddlers allocated on a bottom up basis.
|
|
johnfleet
Member of DD Central
Posts: 170
Likes: 85
|
Post by johnfleet on Jun 6, 2016 15:08:06 GMT
.. and within 10 hours - there's precisely - nowt! - barring of course the junk bond!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jun 6, 2016 15:20:24 GMT
.. and within 10 hours - there's precisely - nowt! - barring of course the junk bond! The repayment of PBL053 put £375k back into investors' accounts. They had three choices...
- Leave the cash idle until something they wanted to buy appeared on the SM.
- Invest in whatever was available at the time and get out later if something they wanted to buy appears later on the SM.
It looks like enough went for the last option to absorb all the non-defaulted loan parts available.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jun 6, 2016 15:22:16 GMT
Yep, I only had time to cancel 2 of them because some were part sold. : Did you forget that you could have bought up any remainder of your partially sold parts?
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jun 7, 2016 5:46:20 GMT
It might be a good time for a positive announcement about the defaulted loan, in order to restore confidence. Well, it would be good for Lendy to provide a superb announcement which comprehensively addresses at least these issues: 1. the degree to which it was disclosed to prospective lenders that Lendy had 10% ownership of the business being lent to. 2. the degree to which it was disclosed to prospective lenders that the ultimate borrower was not an individual but a limited company of which Lendy had a 10% ownership interest. 3. the degree to which it was disclosed to prospective lenders that Lendy's corporate guarantee of capital and interest would be renounced once it mattered. 4. why the valuation appears to be so much greater than the very recent price paid by the borrower and much closer to the price the property is offered for sale at. 5. why the planning permission was described as in place. 6. whether an independent party has been appointed to investigate other past loans to determine whether there are similar issues with them. Providing satisfactory answers to those things may be quite a challenge, particularly given the cemetery valuation being based on the borrower telling the valuer what the value was and the valuer just using that value. It takes more than two loans to be a trend but it's uninspiring. Platforms are supposed to be trustworthy intermediaries who are doing this sort of due diligence that lenders cannot in general be expected to do. It's my current practice to always recommend against using one platform in part because it was found to have said that it would only lend to those under 25 who were young professionals then proceeded to lend to tellers, fitters and others who didn't even complete high school. SavingStream is heading in the same direction: if I think that a platform has demonstrated that its loan descriptions are not trustworthy I'll recommend against using it.
|
|
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: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Jun 7, 2016 8:48:27 GMT
Yep, I only had time to cancel 2 of them because some were part sold. : Did you forget that you could have bought up any remainder of your partially sold parts? At the time I wouldn't be able to resell for 7 days, and I didn't like that idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Jun 7, 2016 9:11:35 GMT
Someone just had a right old clear out!
|
|
boble
Posts: 150
Likes: 65
|
Post by boble on Jun 7, 2016 11:22:32 GMT
It might be a good time for a positive announcement about the defaulted loan, in order to restore confidence. Well, it would be good for Lendy to provide a superb announcement which comprehensively addresses at least these issues: 1. the degree to which it was disclosed to prospective lenders that Lendy had 10% ownership of the business being lent to. 2. the degree to which it was disclosed to prospective lenders that the ultimate borrower was not an individual but a limited company of which Lendy had a 10% ownership interest. 3. the degree to which it was disclosed to prospective lenders that Lendy's corporate guarantee of capital and interest would be renounced once it mattered. 4. why the valuation appears to be so much greater than the very recent price paid by the borrower and much closer to the price the property is offered for sale at. 5. why the planning permission was described as in place. 6. whether an independent party has been appointed to investigate other past loans to determine whether there are similar issues with them. Providing satisfactory answers to those things may be quite a challenge, particularly given the cemetery valuation being based on the borrower telling the valuer what the value was and the valuer just using that value. It takes more than two loans to be a trend but it's uninspiring. Platforms are supposed to be trustworthy intermediaries who are doing this sort of due diligence that lenders cannot in general be expected to do. It's my current practice to always recommend against using one platform in part because it was found to have said that it would only lend to those under 25 who were young professionals then proceeded to lend to tellers, fitters and others who didn't even complete high school. SavingStream is heading in the same direction: if I think that a platform has demonstrated that its loan descriptions are not trustworthy I'll recommend against using it. James, are your six points fact? Would you point me to the source please. Clearly a conflict of interest is unacceptable!
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jun 7, 2016 12:49:14 GMT
James, are your six points fact? Would you point me to the source please. Clearly a conflict of interest is unacceptable! - did the research here. The additional funds between the amounts paid and the 12% interest are likely to be the interest margin SS charge. james - reported on the companies share holdings here (presumably having looked them up with companies house).
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jun 7, 2016 16:39:14 GMT
James, are your six points fact? Would you point me to the source please. Clearly a conflict of interest is unacceptable! I looked up the share ownership of the borrowing company at Companies House and the ownership changed from a three way split to four way with Lendy getting 10% around the time that the loan was made. See the links provided by Chris for others doing the purchase price history and the various other things that flow from discussions in that topic except the graves that are from this one. I believe all are factual but naturally I'd welcome any corrections or clarifications that anyone may have.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 7, 2016 16:52:57 GMT
James, are your six points fact? Would you point me to the source please. Clearly a conflict of interest is unacceptable! I looked up the share ownership of the borrowing company at Companies House and the ownership changed from a three way split to four way with Lendy getting 10% around the time that the loan was made. See the links provided by Chris for others doing the purchase price history and the various other things that flow from discussions in that topic except the graves that are from this one. I believe all are factual but naturally I'd welcome any corrections or clarifications that anyone may have. hi james , has anyone come up with a reason/explanation as to why SS took a 10% ownership of the company just prior to this loan, or is it all still guess work?
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jun 7, 2016 17:21:47 GMT
hi james , has anyone come up with a reason/explanation as to why SS took a 10% ownership of the company just prior to this loan, or is it all still guess work? I haven't seen such though I'd very much welcome knowing what happened and why and finding that it is entirely harmless. My own guess is that SavingStream took an interest in the business as part or all of how they were remunerated and had no interest prior to that but this is merely a guess. If so the fact of them taking 10% would be fine but lack of disclosure would not be, at least in my opinion. That is, I think that firms are perfectly entitled to be paid in equity but since that results in them being part owners of the borrower I think it needs to be disclosed. So I wouldn't be critical at all of the taking of the ownership interest as remuneration, just the disclosure aspects. I just replied to SteveT with more detailed timings of the Companies House filings since he wondered about a possible reason and it doesn't look as though the timings support that theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 7, 2016 17:27:20 GMT
hi james , has anyone come up with a reason/explanation as to why SS took a 10% ownership of the company just prior to this loan, or is it all still guess work? I haven't seen such though I'd very much welcome knowing what happened and why and finding that it is entirely harmless. My own guess is that SavingStream took an interest in the business as part or all of how they were remunerated and had no interest prior to that but this is merely a guess. If so the fact of them taking 10% would be fine but lack of disclosure would not be, at least in my opinion. That is, I think that firms are perfectly entitled to be paid in equity but since that results in them being part owners of the borrower I think it needs to be disclosed. So I wouldn't be critical at all of the taking of the ownership interest as remuneration, just the disclosure aspects. I just replied to SteveT with more detailed timings of the Companies House filings since he wondered about a possible reason and it doesn't look as though the timings support that theory. thanks for that, yep just read the 'replied to stevet' thread as well. As you say.. Doesn't appear to be unreasonable, accept for disclosure.
|
|
