empirica
Member of DD Central
Posts: 326
Likes: 235
|
Post by empirica on Jul 18, 2018 13:57:08 GMT
Can we refer the DAY 1 example shown in the Options for the vote to the FCA as a (VERY) misleading statement? Might you be so bold? Kidding aside, I doubt it. It is accurate. If they'd omitted the " % capital return pursuant to offer c82-84%" line, then there might be a stronger case. The FCA _ in their infinite wisdom _ might actually argue: "If you don't recognise this as a factually accurate statement, you shouldn't be making investment decisions."
|
|
jwatson
Member of DD Central
Posts: 51
Likes: 39
|
Post by jwatson on Jul 18, 2018 13:57:52 GMT
Option 2 for me. This 'borrower' (for want of a better B word) is trying to steal our money. Are we really going to let him get away with it? Bankrupt the 'b*rr*wer'! I remember looking at the press articles on this development, and how impressed I was. Thinking it was a great advert for P2P. Now I see the truth! I want it all back, Capital, all Interest, plus costs. That's what we should be going for. Make an example of him. I've got other loans on here, many in default. I'd rather fight them all the way than see the 'borrowers' take us for fools & get away with it. If we're going down, he's coming with us!
I'm going for option 2 too. I also don't want to let Lendy off the hook too easily either. Otherwise it all sets a rather bad precedent.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 18, 2018 14:16:23 GMT
Reading the voting information again (to check whether anything further has been added, which it hasn't), I'm left wondering just how stupid the writer believes the average Lendy investor must be to try to pass off Option A as "103-105% total return". No consideration of those who invested much later than Day 1 (why would anyone invest in subsequent DFL tranches after this?). No consideration of tax paid on interest earned. No mention of whether further recovery avenues will be pursued (against the borrower, the valuer, etc.). No mention of any claim against the Provision Fund.
Do they really think the majority of their lenders, each typically investing 4/5/6-figures sums in their loans, are so naive that they'll simply skim-read it, take the claimed 100%+ return at face value and vote to let the borrower walk away from £3m+ of debt with no recourse?
|
|
nsinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 110
|
Post by nsinvestor on Jul 18, 2018 14:35:41 GMT
We need D****** P******* from the Somerset tin shed to take over Lendy collections - his own business practise involved turfing farmers off their land and out of their homes within 1 minute of a loan agreement expiring
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 1,951
|
Post by rocky1 on Jul 18, 2018 14:52:19 GMT
if the lendy team are back from lunch yet could some one come on here and answer a few of the many questions raised. the pauls were quick enough with the FCA good news.there is so much mistrust now between lenders and lendy.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jul 18, 2018 15:05:01 GMT
if the lendy team are back from lunch yet could some one come on here and answer a few of the many questions raised. the pauls were quick enough with the FCA good news.there is so much mistrust now between lenders and lendy. That would be very nice. But if I remember correctly they "aren't able to comment on individual loans". They can seemingly only be bothered to come on here to pat themselves on the back for a job well done once in a while...
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Jul 18, 2018 15:05:42 GMT
3 million quid + interest + bonus interest of our money has disappeared, yet LY sell it to us like it’s a great deal for us. I agree with the logic of those who are favouring Option 2, but I’ve unfortunately stoped thinking logically and I just want out as fast as I can. The catalyst for me was watching that video of them trying to tell us everything’s ok by showing absolutely no sincerity, espically that COO guy who was dressed like a spiv and saying stuff like it’s on the flight plan.
|
|
blink
Member of DD Central
Posts: 94
Likes: 119
|
Post by blink on Jul 18, 2018 15:09:09 GMT
I am voting option 2. I invested cash at the beginning, but also towards the end of 21017 based on updates from Lendy. I feel I have been misled...what do Lendy do for all the vast fees they take upfront? Do your job Lendy get back as much for the investors, not just be happy with you fees. If option 1 really is the best outcome...convince me of this. With figures, costings and hard facts, otherwise I am voting to take it to the bitter end.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jul 18, 2018 15:33:01 GMT
Having been largely absent for some months from P2P I may be missing something plenty but here some thoughts. I agree with the view that it is v likely there is room to improve this offer for lenders. By no means the only reason for my belief is that the 2 charges registered in Nov’17 suggest there might be a serious funder looking to refinance this loan. A serious funder would not be interested in funding this project if there was not some juicy profit to be made. Brief descrip of the happy band of investment bankers in my post below of 5/12/17 (plenty more info on the LinkedIn profiles of the directors just for a feel on how wealthy serious & well-connected they likely are): p2pindependentforum.com/thread/5965/dfl004-resi-devel-wolverhampton-suspended?page=30&scrollTo=232839Slightly surprised to see that some lenders seem to making their cost/benefit analysis solely on the ( perceived, because much crucial info is missing) merits of this loan. Nothing wrong with that ofcourse, aside from it being a quite justifiable judgement call based on the size of their holdings in this loan vs interest already earnt on SS/LY (& their intentions as to whether or not to continue lending on LY/P2P in future). My views on this last point, however, are as follows. 1. I note samford71 has mentioned that he believes LY have recently hired a much more serious team (not having done any dd on this I’ll take that at face value, Samford likely having the resources & nous for this that most of us lack). 2. LY have now obtained full FCA authorisation 3. If my email inbox is not lying in recent days/weeks a number of LY loans have repaid (so someone’s doing something) 4. In private discussions over the last 2-3Y some/many investors have expressed serious doubts as to LY’s ability to survive long-term (or even short-term). Pointedly, some/quite a few were of the view that LY’s 2 shareholders had set up the company with the clear intention to make a killing & sell it quickly before the real situation on many of their loans would become apparent. I never subscribed to these views. This was based on the beliefs: a. I did not think it was likely that any company would have bought LY without doing enough (ie v little) dd to work out that the loan book had some serious issues to it (which wouldn’t have justified imv a purchase price anywhere near enough likely to entice LY’s owners) b. I didn’t think LY was a sellable proposition until it had full FCA authorisation c. those doubting LY’s ability to survive (once it had the FCA badge – which was the crucial point for me) had (imv) misjudged the (relatively florid) financial position of LY. d. The harsh reality is that the returns available from SS/LY 1.0 will involve nice earnings for a few offset by large losses (for those heavily invested in the wrong loans), with LY (unless dreadfully mismanaged) likely coming thru ok/okayish whatever happens to us lenders. But that’s not the story of LY, it’s the likely story of P2P (once the credit cycle has gone thru a full swing), not to mention many other asset classes (depending on your time horizon). e. it was always clear to me that in order to attract an enticing selling price for LY, the owners & management of LY would first need to clear out at least some of the troubled loans. How many, of what value & with what timings might depend (at least partially) on the perceived impact this has on existing lender sentiment, LY’s ability to raise new lending money (via platform/bonds/JVs/whatever) & the state of any negotiations/discussions with prospective LY purchasers. In other words it would be a managed process (with some of the worst losses kicked down the road). Rightly or wrongly, I take the recent news on LY (FCA badge, new team, some loans repaying etc) to be evidence that the managed process is well underway & they are genuinely turning a corner, with much more viable prospects now which, as a p2p lender, I might in future like to invest on. So whilst I don’t claim to be uptodate on the state of this particular loan, I don’t think it’s one of their worst, suspect LY are trying to get rid of it at a price they have calculated to not peeve lenders off too much, think it’s improvable & wouldn’t mind even a sliver or two more from the possibly succulent profits others might be making on this deal. Which means it’s return to sender with big Option 2 scrawled all over it. Signed small member of the sometimes daft but not completely shtoopid p2p lending community. Ps. Anyone know the size of the contingency fund (& where it’s held / who by)? 8 units have also been let within Phase 1 on standard Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs) at a rent of £110,000 pa and further lettings of the remaining completed units are imminent. All rental income will be mandated to us and held as a contingency fund in case of need.
Pps. Apologies for the length, not often here now so some wider misc thoughts on LY’s prospects added if of use.
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Jul 18, 2018 15:40:04 GMT
Can we refer the DAY 1 example shown in the Options for the vote to the FCA as a (VERY) misleading statement? LOL. It was the FCA that has just given this shower a licence!
|
|
insideout
Member of DD Central
Posts: 55
Likes: 99
|
Post by insideout on Jul 18, 2018 17:08:48 GMT
Option 1 smells like a very bad cop-out and as jjc says there is surely much value in this project. Option 1 doesn't even admit that the developer walks away from his PG - but that it what it means surely??
I'm thinking here that Lendy want a quick easy solution to one of their big loans to free up money which they think we will be daft enough to invest in their other big DFLs that desperately need cash.
Lendy have been quite firm with a large loan in Liverpool, they need to be here too.
WHY is this project supposedly worth so little now?
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 1,951
|
Post by rocky1 on Jul 19, 2018 5:40:04 GMT
this developments website shows that for the best part it is up and running.it is generating income and is doing exactly what the developer intended its use to be.lendy and the borrower are trying it on here. full repayment+interest is the only option other wise enforce security immediately and let these borrowers know this is how it will be.p2p has become the main vehicle for all these platforms and developers who employ the scheme of OPM. google get rich using other peoples money.
|
|
stokeloans
Member of DD Central
Posts: 402
Likes: 485
|
Post by stokeloans on Jul 19, 2018 7:33:11 GMT
Excuse my French but someone is taking the p*** here. The borrower,Lendy,the valuer ? Maybe all 3
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Jul 19, 2018 8:11:04 GMT
Excuse my French but someone is taking the p**** here. The borrower,Lendy,the valuer ? Maybe all 3 Hence why the press need to get involved. This type of shenanigan will be giving p2p lending a bad name.
|
|
|
Post by douganole on Jul 19, 2018 8:22:14 GMT
First time poster but long time lurker here.
Re FCA authorisation, Aren't Lendy now subject to FCA Principles?
The applicable rules
1.4
FCA
Under the Principles (Note (2)), providers and distributors of products and services have
various responsibilities that have an impact on customers. Detailed rules within the FCA
Handbook further specify what these responsibilities are in certain defined
circumstances.
1.5
FCA
The Principles apply to all authorised firms. This Guide looks particularly to the following
Principles (Note (3)):
Principle 2 ('A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence');
Principle 3 ('A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs
responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems');
Principle 6 ('A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat
them fairly'); and
Principle 7 ('A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients,
and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not
misleading').
They seem to be belatedly getting to grips with 2 and 3, but haven't yet realised that 6 and 7 need addressing. Should we be raising this with the FCA do you think?
|
|